On Sun, 21 Oct 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
Any player who consents to be bound by this contract CAN become a party
by announcement.
Every day at 0:00 UTC, this contract acts on behalf of all its parties to
object to each intent to declare apathy.
This won't work, as only persons can act on
I sent this 8 hours ago. My email is not functioning normally today.
On Sun, Oct 21, 2018, 18:50 Reuben Staley wrote:
> I consent to the following document with the intiention that it become a
> contract:
>
> {
>
> Any player who consents to be bound by this contract CAN become a party
> by
I just barely got it too. I wanted to make sure I wasn't the only one who
didn't get it. I assumed it just got delayed.
On Sun, Oct 21, 2018, 18:16 Alex Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-10-22 at 01:10 +0100, Alex Smith wrote:
> > On Sun, 2018-10-21 at 18:03 -0600, Reuben Staley wrote:
> > > I sent
On Mon, 2018-10-22 at 01:10 +0100, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Sun, 2018-10-21 at 18:03 -0600, Reuben Staley wrote:
> > I sent this 45 minutes ago, did anyone get it? Also, my commits
> > aren't showing up on the repository; can anyone tell me why that
> > is?
>
> I didn't get it.
I just received it.
On Sun, 2018-10-21 at 18:03 -0600, Reuben Staley wrote:
> I sent this 45 minutes ago, did anyone get it? Also, my commits
> aren't showing up on the repository; can anyone tell me why that is?
I didn't get it.
The Rulesets sometimes hit message length limits. I thought we'd
globally increased
On Sun, 2018-10-21 at 19:55 -0400, D. Margaux wrote:
> Argh. I think I forgot to give a number to the Left/Right CFJ. Is
> the standard practice to renumber all of the CFJs so that they are in
> chronological order, or is it OK to give it the next available
> number? Any thoughts about what the
I sent this 45 minutes ago, did anyone get it? Also, my commits aren't
showing up on the repository; can anyone tell me why that is?
On 10/21/2018 05:15 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
THE SHORT LOGICAL RULESET
These rulesets are also online at http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/
Date of last report: 14
> On Oct 20, 2018, at 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.
Argh. I think I forgot to give a number to the Left/Right CFJ. Is the standard
practice to renumber all of the CFJs so
On Sun, 21 Oct 2018, D. Margaux wrote:
I think that’s what must have happened, because in my email sent folder,
it’s not quoted. Does it come out quoted in your inboxes (as
distinguished from the website)? If not, interesting question which one
is authoritative—the website or our inboxes.
I
I think that’s what must have happened, because in my email sent folder, it’s
not quoted. Does it come out quoted in your inboxes (as distinguished from the
website)? If not, interesting question which one is authoritative—the website
or our inboxes.
> On Oct 21, 2018, at 11:49 AM, Ørjan
On Sun, 21 Oct 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
Ah, darn it. (This message best viewed in a fixed-width font.) I don't
know whether this would have worked anyway but it would have been
amusing.
That looked quoted, so I'm pretty sure would be excluded by the principles
in G.s recent (although
On Sat, 20 Oct 2018, D. Margaux wrote:
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.
I've often seen messages with a first new line after quoted content
accidentally quoted like that. I've
twg wrote:
> The CFJ is something that I'd been toying with for a while as a potential scam
> idea. I hadn't tried using it properly because I'm actually pretty sure it
> doesn't work. ''I intend to Declare Apathy Without Objection, specifying
> myself." is found in a message and then someone else
13 matches
Mail list logo
