G. wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jul 2017, grok (caleb vines) wrote:
Internet messaging standards (RFC 2822) allow up to 998 characters in
a subject line. Gmail and other web clients usually truncate around
255. Considering that, is allowing report or announcement text in the
subject line a precedent we're
Cuddle Beam wrote:
I also believe that its entirely possible for the rules to be faulty and
be acted upon via those flaws, as per ais523's withdrawal scam, where
the intent was clear, but the result was a mini dictatorship. I doubt
becoming a dictator would be "Treating Agora Right Good Forever"
I just started playing again, so I can't really judge CuddleBeam's
attitude or whatever. But as someone who's a fan of scams and has
perpetrated many in the past:
Scams are a balance. On one hand, by pulling a scam you're inherently
taking a toll on other players. A practical toll, because you'
Curiously, rule 2201 §2.1 doesn't use either "publish" or
"announce(ment)", so I'm not sure you actually need to do that in the PF.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
On Mon, 10 Jul 2017, V.J Rada wrote:
Tttpf
On Monday, July 10, 2017, V.J Rada wrote:
I reject your CoE. The name of the newspaper is clearly
On Mon, 10 Jul 2017, grok (caleb vines) wrote:
> Internet messaging standards (RFC 2822) allow up to 998 characters in
> a subject line. Gmail and other web clients usually truncate around
> 255. Considering that, is allowing report or announcement text in the
> subject line a precedent we're ok
In your defense, I figured you were.
In PSS's defense, I wasn't 100% sure.
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:34 PM, V.J Rada wrote:
> I was joking don't worry pss
>
>
> On Monday, July 10, 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> wrote:
>>
>> Calm down! I don’t think he was the questioning the name, but
I was joking don't worry pss
On Monday, July 10, 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Calm down! I don’t think he was the questioning the name, but rather if it
> had a name.
>
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...
Calm down! I don’t think he was the questioning the name, but rather if it had
a name.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Jul 10, 2017, at 4:16 PM, V.J Rada wrote:
>
> I reject your CoE. The name of the newspaper is clearly News of Agora.
> Failing
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:29 PM, V.J Rada wrote:
>
> Title: Vij's hip blog, because that's where people get their news from
> man. It's the internet age, man.
>
i am a fan of this
I reject your CoE. The name of the newspaper is clearly News of Agora.
Failing that, the name of the newspaper is the first heading, CuddleBeam
condemned. This is totally discretionary. Dont question my name, dude.
On Monday, July 10, 2017, grok (caleb vines) wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 12:
On Mon, 10 Jul 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-07-10 at 11:42 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > [Keep in mind I meant well...]
> >
> > Default is a Switch switch tracked by the tracker of that switch
> > with possible values 'default' (default) and any rules-specified
> >
On Mon, 2017-07-10 at 11:42 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> [Keep in mind I meant well...]
>
> Default is a Switch switch tracked by the tracker of that switch
> with possible values 'default' (default) and any rules-specified
> default for that switch. If the rules specify a de
[Keep in mind I meant well...]
Default is a Switch switch tracked by the tracker of that switch
with possible values 'default' (default) and any rules-specified
default for that switch. If the rules specify a default for a
switch, that switch's default switch value is s
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-07-10 at 12:43 -0500, grok (caleb vines) wrote:
>> For a moment of levity in these trying times:
>>
>> CoE: The Reportor did not give a suitable name for the newspaper eir
>> report.
>
> Gratuitous: the email's subject line contain
On Mon, 2017-07-10 at 12:43 -0500, grok (caleb vines) wrote:
> For a moment of levity in these trying times:
>
> CoE: The Reportor did not give a suitable name for the newspaper eir
> report.
Gratuitous: the email's subject line contains a pretty reasonable name
for a newspaper. Can that be consi
For a moment of levity in these trying times:
CoE: The Reportor did not give a suitable name for the newspaper eir report.
Rule 2446:
{The Reportor's weekly report includes:
1. A suitable name for a newspaper, at the Reportor's discretion.}
I interpret this to mean that the name of the newspaper
Or just like not at all ever.
On Tuesday, July 11, 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> I have to agree tbh, and I regret a degree what I've done, given that I'm
> aware that there was a better way to do it. I should've sent that message
> as a hypothetical case to a-d an claim the would-be merit through
I have to agree tbh, and I regret a degree what I've done, given that I'm
aware that there was a better way to do it. I should've sent that message
as a hypothetical case to a-d an claim the would-be merit through there
rather than a-b.
But oh well, next time.
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 6:55 PM, Jos
While I haven't been paying attention to your scams of late due to real
life drama and bad timing (family issues; I'm flying to go be with them for
a month starting Thursday), I feel that your welcome with such tactics has
worn thin.
天火狐
On 10 July 2017 at 12:17, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Yes, they
Yeah the deregistrations and all that CB has caused is not worth it.
I did like his 2.99 super CFJS though. I wonder if we could get criminal
justice done by having people pledge to arbitrate.
On Tuesday, July 11, 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Yes, they are definitely contradictory at times. I've
Yes, they are definitely contradictory at times. I've mentioned before that
I don't have any objective measure to decide what interpretation is best,
so I just use one which does the most interesting thing for me in hopes
that a enough audience agrees with it or a CFJ about it is judged in my
favor
They also seem to contradict each other at times.
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 09:55 Nicholas Evans wrote:
> The argument 'I wouldn't do all that work in order to fake' is fallacious.
> Of course you would if you thought you could get away with it.
>
> I think you constantly violate no faking by purpo
The argument 'I wouldn't do all that work in order to fake' is fallacious.
Of course you would if you thought you could get away with it.
I think you constantly violate no faking by purposely misconstruing the
rules to have meanings favorable to you, even when those meanings are
nonesense. Then yo
On Mon, 2017-07-10 at 10:42 +0200, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> ..I totally understand why it could be be appropriate to card me for
> trying the stick-up, but @grok, I don't understand the card part of if I
> *fail* to deputize for Surveyor just yet. If the argument is that using a
> loophole to try to ge
On Mon, 2017-07-10 at 08:07 -0500, grok (caleb vines) wrote:
> Trying to use a loophole that pretty patently does not exist or relies
> on misinterpretation of common definitions of words pretty clearly
> falls in foul of "No Faking" to me.
>
> But even if it doesn't, if the CFJ is ruled against y
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:42 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> ...I totally understand why it could be be appropriate to card me for trying
> the stick-up, but @grok, I don't understand the card part of if I *fail* to
> deputize for Surveyor just yet. If the argument is that using a loophole to
> try to ge
Yeah, that was a drafting error.
I intend, with 24 hours' notice, to create the following agency:
Title: grok, Personal Attorney (gPA)
Agents: All players except grok
Director: grok
Powers: Any agent may pay grok 5 shinies to activate gPA. If a player
does, e may make the following pldege on gro
"gAL" doesn't exist I believe (Nowhere in the Superintendent report:
https://agoranomic.org/Superintendent/reports/week/next.txt , not in a-b
either aside from here). Perhaps a leftover from editting it?
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:43 AM, grok (caleb vines)
wrote:
> I'm not going to let all this n
I agree but while it would be true that it would "exist in some form"; it
wouldn't exist as an "asset", and the rule refers to the existence of
assets themselves, not abstract items in general.
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 6:46 AM, omd wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 4:56 AM, CuddleBeam
> wrote:
> >
...I totally understand why it could be be appropriate to card me for
trying the stick-up, but @grok, I don't understand the card part of if I
*fail* to deputize for Surveyor just yet. If the argument is that using a
loophole to try to get the office is "bad", shouldn't I be carded
*regardless* of
30 matches
Mail list logo
