Oh crud. That wasn’t supposed to be in quotes. Looks like I only unquoted the
second line of the intent, not both lines. That’s very annoying.
> On Oct 20, 2018, at 9:27 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> [Forgive me, H. Prime Minister].
>
>
> Ok, that one *is* actually buried in quotes.
>
>
So, here’s a description of the most recent wins/attempted wins:
The most recent attempted win was this message, where I tried to win by apathy:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2018-October/039320.html
I think that that buried intent maybe worked—the
As soon as the information is determined, the PM's office would greatly
appreciate being aprised of which players are currently laureled. There
have been so many wins lately that is inforfmation is difficult to figure
out.
Sincerely,
The Office of the Prime Minister
oh duh, ok
On 10/20/2018 8:47 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
The last Arbitor report has a list of relevant messages
On Sat, Oct 20, 2018, 18:46 ATMunn wrote:
Where do I need to look for the related messages for my CFJs?
On 10/20/2018 9:05 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
I think I got all of the
The last Arbitor report has a list of relevant messages
On Sat, Oct 20, 2018, 18:46 ATMunn wrote:
> Where do I need to look for the related messages for my CFJs?
>
> On 10/20/2018 9:05 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
> > I think I got all of the unassigned CFJs here. Hope I am doing this
> right;
> >
Where do I need to look for the related messages for my CFJs?
On 10/20/2018 9:05 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
I think I got all of the unassigned CFJs here. Hope I am doing this right;
please let me know if I made a mistake.
First, per my previously announced intent, I deputise for Arbitor to assign
Two quibbles:
First, the correct link for “my email” where I stated the intent is this one:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2018-September/039218.html
In that email, the intent actually is not preceded by “>” marks. It’s
freestanding. The text around it is
Does anyone know how to force the Github Pages server to default
to html content-type when serving filenames WITHOUT extensions?
In other words, assuming 3651 is an HTML file, I want:
agoranomic.org/cfj/3651
to show as html.
I *really* don't want the ugliness of having to do:
This decision seems sound to me.
Under the reasoning of this decision (if it is adopted), I think my October
9 declaration of apathy was successful, because it hid in a lengthy
document a new message that was clearly labeled as a new intent.
So I would suggest that if this verdict is issued and
Please inform me of any mistakes. As this is my first CFJ, I probably
made some. Also I'm not sure I understood this case as well as I really
should have to be given the responsibility of judging it.
CFJ 3670 JUDGEMENT
On Sat, 20 Oct 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Oct 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 20 Oct 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> > > On Sat, 20 Oct 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > >
> > > > You can still use ratification, just be specific on date/time, e.g.
> > > >
> > > > The following
On Sat, 20 Oct 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
You can still use ratification, just be specific on date/time, e.g.
The following document is hereby ratified:
{
On 18-Oct-2018, HH:MM:SS [time of Treasuror's Report],
The Politics system is not yet implemented, so you'd have to convince
Aris, the person writing the proposal, to integrate a currency in with it.
In all likelihood, we'll just end up with a reskin of coins. It's the
easiest, and there are already proposals in place to make new ways of
gaining
On Sat, 20 Oct 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Oct 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> > You can still use ratification, just be specific on date/time, e.g.
> >
> > The following document is hereby ratified:
> > {
> > On 18-Oct-2018, HH:MM:SS [time of Treasuror's Report],
> > G. had 42
On Sat, 20 Oct 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
You can still use ratification, just be specific on date/time, e.g.
The following document is hereby ratified:
{
On 18-Oct-2018, HH:MM:SS [time of Treasuror's Report],
G. had 42 coins and D. Margaux had 62 coins.
}
Um, that's precisely the kind of
On Sat, 20 Oct 2018, D. Margaux wrote:
> > Murphy for being late to reassign those CFJs.
> >
>
> I fine Murphy 2 blots for eir lateness in assigning CFJs 3652, 3665, and 3666.
I'm not going to complain on BUS, but "being late to assign 3 CFJs" is not
a violation of the rules. Each one
I think everything in this report can be safely ratified. I did this for
you, twg.
On 10/20/2018 10:55 AM, Reuben Staley wrote:
THE MAP OF ARCADIA
Previous: Sep 30, 2018
Revision 0: Oct 20, 2018
View this report
That works too. Much simpler. Thanks!
On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 12:55 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> You can still use ratification, just be specific on date/time, e.g.
>
> The following document is hereby ratified:
> {
> On 18-Oct-2018, HH:MM:SS [time of Treasuror's Report],
> G. had 42 coins
You can still use ratification, just be specific on date/time, e.g.
The following document is hereby ratified:
{
On 18-Oct-2018, HH:MM:SS [time of Treasuror's Report],
G. had 42 coins and D. Margaux had 62 coins.
}
On Sat, 20 Oct 2018, D. Margaux wrote:
> In light of this confusion about
In light of this confusion about the nature of ratification, what if
the proposal were instead to say something like this:
1. D. Margaux's and G.'s respective coin holdings are changed to
whatever amounts they would have had at the time this proposal is
ADOPTED, if at the time of the
On Sat, 20 Oct 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
How is this different than self-ratification - when it self-ratifies a week
after publication, it ratifies the past condition as being true as of that
past date, correct? If not, we're really messed up.
I think it works fine as long as the published
On Sat, 20 Oct 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> > This is very weird phrasing to me. You can backdate ratification, so
> > possibly
> > better phrasing: "The following list is Ratified as being an accurate list
> > of
> > coin holdings for 18 Oct
On Sat, 20 Oct 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> Ratify the following documents:
> - The Treasuror report that was the most recent at the time this
> proposal was submitted.
> - The Cartographor report that was the most recent at this time this
> proposal was submitted.
We really shouldn't
I like option 3 best of those presented, and suggest the currency be
named Solons, after the ancient Athenian statesman.
On 2018-10-18 18:17, ATMunn wrote:
I realized something during the recent discussion regarding my space
proposal - since PAoaM is likely going to be repealed soon, Agora
24 matches
Mail list logo
