testing
On Fri, 2011-06-03 at 22:10 -0700, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On 06/03/11 22:01, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
> > Is it infinitely divisible? If not, how many units are there? Is the
> > total quantity fixed, or is the ratio of coins to players fixed? If the
> > latter, what happens if som
On Fri, 2011-06-03 at 21:37 -0700, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I kind of want to experiment with a zero-sum currency. Some actions,
> such as raising the AI for a proposal, would be paid to the person
> maligned (the author of the proposal). Other actions would be paid into
> some system of roughly equal
Just getting back in, reading about timers and CFJ 1807 in particular.
Has anyone ratified an exhaustive list of timed events pending as of
some particular instant, in case some long-dead rule had left something
over?
On Tue, 2011-05-31 at 23:40 -0400, omd wrote:
> > 7068 2 Walker Spending Points
> AGAINST; I think I can perform multiple spending actions with a single
> destruction (but a general-purpose definition of "cost" that was
> careful about this could also be used by promises and would be pre
Roger Hicks wrote:
> Shrink Potion - Specify a player. That player's Hand Limit is
> decreased by 5% (rounded up).
I think this should be "decreased by 1".
Roger Hicks wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> NOV ID Numbers
> AI: 2
> II: 1
> {
> Append the following to R2230:
> {{
> Valid NOVs have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Insulator.
> }}
> }
>
> BobTHJ
I don't think NOVs should have ID numbers separate from the CFJs they
become. Unle
Roger Hicks wrote:
> A new bank-like entity that I've been working on. Attempts to avoid
> some of the problems that previous banks have faced by not directly
> owning currency, but instead allowing the market to set rates. I'm
> soliciting comments, and will likely have the automation in place to
C-walker wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 7:27 PM, G. wrote:
>> 6. �Some punishments can move you down ranks (but rests still
>> � �exist, otherwise people on bottom of list can break rules
>> � �with impunity).
>
> Why not just allow lower places on the list than there are players?
> After a cert
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jul 2009, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> FYI, I've modified future card draws made by dealors through the web
>> interface to be pragmatic. However, any draws which have already been
>> earned as of this point will be sent platonically if sent from the web
>> interface (such
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> (If you accidentally put in a falsehood in a
> message, you shouldn't be punished; if you put one in on purpose, the
> generic disclaimer wouldn't save you).
Doesn't that imply that the disclaimer has no effect whatsoever, and
therefore doesn't nullify any actions?
Sean Hunt wrote:
> Benjamin Caplan wrote:
>> Sean Hunt wrote:
>>> My specific complaints are as follows:
>>>
>>> - The IBA does not have a functioning offer system as it cannot
>>> platonically act on behalf of a player.
>>>
Elliott Hird wrote:
> 14:53 ehird: fungot: Punish comex.
> 14:54 fungot: ehird: there is an order. it shall be its judge by
> announcement. quorum for an appelate judge is recused, and an
> indication is a contract
> Pastiching, inferring and general munging left as an exercise to the reader.
Cle
Sean Hunt wrote:
> My specific complaints are as follows:
>
> - The IBA does not have a functioning offer system as it cannot
> platonically act on behalf of a player.
> - The Rates of assets have not been kept updated.
> - The President has not recently published a report.
The
I'd like to see the EUDI (http://eudi.forumotion.net/) flipped to
Neutral. They're not *primarily* a nomic -- they're a player guild in an
online game I play -- but they have a formal charter that provides for
self-amendment, and I think it would be cool (and help spread awareness
of Agora and of N
comex wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 12:25 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> I agree with c. here; rule changes have a special standard and absolute
>> and precise specification is required. �I screwed up. �-G.
>
> On my part, I apologize that I have to leave in the middle of what
> looks like some cont
Elliott Hird wrote:
> 2009/7/16 Taral :
>> In an Equitable sense, I believe it actually does. If you both entered
>> into the contract without any intention that it have any effect on
>> you, it may not even be a contract.
>
> Oh, we knew it'd have effects; we just didn't care because we were
> bu
Sean Hunt wrote:
> NANA is an indication that this message is being sent by comex via Ice
> Climbers.
>
> I CFJ {comex is the Executor of this message.}
>
> -coppro
This fails to clearly identify the desired legal author. See CFJ 1903.
C-walker wrote:
> The idea of this proto is to introduce a "Hard Mode" Renaissance, with
> Medals instead of Ribbons and a Win by "Industrial Revolution" for
> collecting them all.
>
> Here are some proto medals:
>
> * Judge II 3 Case.
> * Judge II 3 Criminal Case.
These should require that the
Sean Hunt wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Benjamin
> Caplan wrote:
>> Sean Hunt wrote:
>>> I believe e is aware of one contract to which I am a party.
>> Oh well.
>>
>>> I intend, with consent of its members, to terminate it, by the way.
>&g
Sean Hunt wrote:
> I believe e is aware of one contract to which I am a party.
Oh well.
> I intend, with consent of its members, to terminate it, by the way.
NttPF.
ais523 wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-07-10 at 03:56 -0500, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
>> I hereby request any and all persons to submit evidence and arguments,
>> either publicly or by private email to me, that may be relevant to this
>> case. In particular, I would be interested in hea
> === CFJ 2619 (Interest Index = 0)
>
> Wooble is party to at least one private contract containing the
> word "inferences".
>
>
By the power vested in me by the Crown of Bone,
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Jul 2009, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
>> At 19:58 Thu 9 July 2009 UTC, comex wrote:
>>>
>>
>> I CoE this one too, just in case. (The SLR should be non-empty.)
>>
>
> What are you talking about? There's plenty of rules ther
Sean Hunt wrote:
> Benjamin Caplan wrote:
>> Sean Hunt wrote:
>>>> Proposal 6397 (Democratic, AI=2.0, Interest=0) by Pavitra
>>>> Support Diplomacy
>>> AGAINST, this defeats the purpose of the rule in the first place.
>> Not really. The purp
comex wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 7:56 PM, Benjamin
> Caplan wrote:
>> comex wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
>>>> Does it have to be exactly one /natural person/? Or can the vote
>>>> collector be "the
comex wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
>> Does it have to be exactly one /natural person/? Or can the vote
>> collector be "the IADoP"?
>
> The IADoP is a natural person (or undefined)-- the vote collector
> could, I suppose, theo
comex wrote:
> I intend, without objection, to ratify the following incorrect document:
> { The office of Grand Poobah is empty. There are no ongoing elections
> for the office of Grand Poobah or decisions to determine a new
> officeholder for that office. }
>
> The document is incorrect because
Charles Reiss wrote:
>> 6397 D 0 2.0 Pavitra Support Diplomacy
> AGAINST (should not be disinterested)
Um, what? "Should be disinterested" is a sensible enough reason to vote
AGAINST a proposal, because the author of a passing interested proposal
gets paid for it, but... /what/? Is ther
Sean Hunt wrote:
> For the purposes of this message, an encoding is any manner of
> interpreting text, including the base character encoding and any
> encodings layered on top of that.
I think that "any manner of interpreting text" is too broad. It includes
things like the Englis
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, ais523 wrote:
>> On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 15:15 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> I think what happens is that in R208, "exactly one collector...defaulting
>>> to the initiator" forces the latter part of the paragraph to not work when
>>> the office is vacant (some
Sean Hunt wrote:
> I spend a Note of the most common among Notes I own, with the lower
> Note breaking a tie, to make Your Presence is Requested Distributed.
Presumably you mean Distributable.
Elliott Hird wrote:
> 2009/7/5 Benjamin Caplan :
>> Applying the R217 standard, common sense and the good of Bdi ta
>> Askatasuna suggest the former interpretation.
>
> WTF? That's not common-sense at all, that's weird.
I reworded it awkwardly. A better phrasi
Charles Reiss wrote:
> On 7/5/09 12:42 PM, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
>> Having received the necessary consent, I cause the LPRS to intend with
>> Agoran Consent to register.
>>
>> I support.
>
> You CANNOT.
Yes I can. The LPRS is the initiator of the intent, not me.
Benjamin Caplan wrote:
> I intend, with the majority consent of {coppro, C-walker, BobTHJ} to
> amend the LPRS by appending the following paragraph to section I.
> GENERAL CONTRACTY STUFF:
> {
> This contract contains the string "inferences".
> }
Err, just ignore that.
C-walker wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 8:15 PM,
> C-walker wrote:
>> {{ This is a Public Contract and a Pledge which has no name. Parties
>> to this Pledge SHALL NOT change their nicknames or names by which they
>> are referred to in a nomic except during the Birthday of that nomic.
>> }}
>
> I
Sean Hunt wrote:
> illegal messages are not
> considered public messages.
You might also want to exile Bards while you're at it.
Ed Murphy wrote:
> * Other, please specify
Basketball.
Gabriel Vistica wrote:
>>Gabriel Vistica wrote:
>>> comex wrote:
Just a heads up: it's good form to use plain text rather than HTML
mil on the list.
>>>
>>> Got it. Shouldn't be a problem anyway, since my HTML is mostly
>>> limited to newlines, links, and basic text formatting, and it's
Gabriel Vistica wrote:
> comex wrote:
>> Just a heads up: it's good form to use plain text rather than HTML
>> mil on the list.
>
> Got it. Shouldn't be a problem anyway, since my HTML is mostly
> limited to newlines, links, and basic text formatting, and it's a
> little rusty.
I don't know whet
Benjamin Caplan wrote:
> Gabriel Vistica wrote:
>>> Proposal 6380, if it passes, should make the whole thing
>>> irrelevant.
>>
>> Irrelevant as in stopping the contract's attempt and preventing
>> transfers, or as in making the contract redundant by
Gabriel Vistica wrote:
>> Proposal 6380, if it passes, should make the whole thing
>> irrelevant.
>
> Irrelevant as in stopping the contract's attempt and preventing
> transfers, or as in making the contract redundant by allowing
> transfers?
> (I haven't really had a chance to get a feel for t
Gabriel Vistica wrote:
>>Roger Hicks wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 15:12, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
>>>> Unless someone else joins, the LPRS will only be a person for the next
>>>> week, so I won't bother re-intending intending registration.
>&
C-walker wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 6:26 AM, Benjamin
> Caplan wrote:
>> [I forgot about the LPRS because it hasn't been used. You can NoV me for
>> slacking off if you care, but I'm guessing you don't.]
>>
>> Parties to the LPRS:
>> Pavit
Sean Hunt wrote:
> Benjamin Caplan wrote:
>> Sean Hunt wrote to the discussion forum:
>>> I consent publicly.
>> No, you don't.
> Doesn't need to be to a public forum. I'd consented in ##nomic but
> decided I'd better do it somewhere where people
Sean Hunt wrote to the discussion forum:
> I consent publicly.
No, you don't.
Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
> This is a public contract named the Charity Foundation. Parties to
> this contract are known as Helpful.
Intriguing. I've never seen a contract demonym that was an adjective
rather than a noun.
> Departement to the Charity Foundation, if possible. Helpful players
Departmen
Sean Hunt wrote:
> Benjamin Caplan wrote:
>> This feels wrong somehow. The first two paragraphs appear to be arguing
>> for TRUE, but then the last one contradicts their conclusions without
>> refuting their arguments.
>>
>> In light of the reasoning presente
Alex Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 14:18 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> We should bring back Boons: "a Boon for meritorious action of [N notes or
>> new currency] may be given to a player by a judge finding that the action
>> is deserving, with Agoran Consent". [This can be done by proposa
Alex Smith wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-06-28 at 11:51 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> > On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 10:28 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> >> I deregister the PNP.
>> >
>> > Fails; the PNP is a person.
>> >
>>
>> Err, nevermind, Ranier isn't
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
>
>>> On an unrelated note, I would like to see this incorporated into more
>>> offices. I think campaign speeches are a good idea and a much better
>>> way to decide than "this guy messed up
Paul VanKoughnett wrote:
>> * if the deck's dealer is part of an Officer's duty, then,
>>during an election for that office but before the last
>>four days of the election's voting period, a candidate for
>>that office CAN make and publish a pledge expli
Sean Hunt wrote:
> Sorry for the BlackBerry reply; I know it'll look hideous, so no quoted text.
>
> 2599 has the same judgment as 2598 as R101 says that no contract is
> formed without explicit, willful consent. Therefore if inmibis (sp?)
> agreed to the contract, e had no way out.
>
> In the ci
Paul VanKoughnett wrote:
>> I like this idea, but I'm not so sure that it's what the Anarchist's
>> duties embody.
>>
>
> Just because we don't like government doesn't mean we can't be a
> vector for positive change!
Repealing rules can be a vector for positive change. Replacing a rule
with large
Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> Plus, if anything, it would be a
> better interpretation to use the previous report as message> provides no useful information.
The main purpose of listing the dates of the most recent reports is to
determine when the next report is due, which implies "".
It would be even
Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> Proposal: An Election Issue (AI = 2, II = 1)
>
> In Rule 2154 (Election Procedure), immediately after the sentence reading:
>
> The set of candidates can change after the decision is
> initiated.
>
> add the following sentence:
>
> If the number
Sean Hunt wrote:
> Benjamin Caplan wrote:
>> Sean Hunt wrote:
>>> For each Agoran Decision to adopt a proposal on which Pavitra has not
>>> yet voted, I act on eir behalf to have em endorse me in that decision.
>>
>> I think I've voted on a
Sean Hunt wrote:
> For each Agoran Decision to adopt a proposal on which Pavitra has not
> yet voted, I act on eir behalf to have em endorse me in that decision.
I think I've voted on all such decisions already. Also, how are you
authorized to do that?
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> We should bring back Boons: "a Boon for meritorious action of [N notes or
> new currency] may be given to a player by a judge finding that the action
> is deserving, with Agoran Consent". [This can be done by proposal now, this
> makes it a formal process so more likely to
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> 6355 D 1 2.0 Yally Eliminate Annoying Judge Requirements
> AGAINST. Platonism bad.
I don't think this has the usual problems of platonism. For reference:
> Proposal 6355 (Democratic, AI=2.0, Interest=1) by Yally
> Eliminate Annoying Judge Requirements
>
> Amend
Ed Murphy wrote:
> Unofficial list of significant ambiguities in the gamestate
>
>
> Date of this not-report: Sun 21 Jun 09
> Date of last not-report: Sat 6 Jun 09
This is useful enough, and presumably enough effort, to warrant making
into an official, paid office.
C-walker wrote:
> Murphy wrote:
>> Endorsement and denouncement were amended to carry an implicit
>> "PRESENT if it would otherwise fail to evaluate to a valid option",
>> but this does not apply to conditional votes in general, nor to
>> ordered lists of election candidates in particular.
>
> Any
Sean Hunt wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 8:39 PM, Benjamin
> Caplan wrote:
>> I intend, without objection, to add spoon-disc...@nomic.net as a
>> send-only address to agora-busin...@agoranomic.org.
>
>
> I object. If you explain why, I won't.
If I explain why, someone will certainly object.
Rodlen wrote:
>> Tue 9 Jun 05:22:38 Pavitra : Pavitra > "Rolden" (spelling)
>>
>
> I'm sorry, but I just have to do this:
>
> I CFJ on the following statement: Rodlen and Rolden are different players.
>
Gratuitous arguments: see CFJs 2575-6.
Craig Daniel wrote:
> Having received no objections, I implement both of these changes. The
> contract now reads:
>
> {
> The name of this Partnership is the Bdi ta Askatasuna. Parties to this
[...]
> CAN cause the Bdi ta Askatasuna to nominate itself for that title.
> }
NttPF.
Craig Daniel wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Benjamin
> Caplan wrote:
>>
>> The intent was for the same action (null string) both times. The
>> ambiguity shouldn't invalidate the action any more than the ambiguity of
>> attempting to transfer an
Craig Daniel wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 7:24 PM, Benjamin
> Caplan wrote:
>> Elliott Hird wrote:
>>> 2009/6/18 C-walker :
>>>> On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 2:21 PM,
>>>> C-walker wrote:
>>>>> --
>>>>> C-walker, who intend
Warrigal wrote:
> For the next second, I continuously CFJ on this statement.
>
> Do you think I just called an uncountably infinite number of CFJs?
No, I think you only called one, or possibly zero. There's a precedent
somewhere about the use of "I do X N times" where N > a lot.
Ed Murphy wrote:
> I spend Ab to make this proposal distributable.
>
> Proposal: Fix switches
> (AI = 2, please)
>
> Amend Rule 869 (How to Join and Leave Agora) by inserting this text
> immediately after the paragraph beginning "A second-class person CAN":
>
> A non-person CANNOT be regi
Sean Hunt wrote:
> Benjamin Caplan wrote:
>> Sean Hunt wrote:
>>> Benjamin Caplan wrote:
>>>> I agree to the {}-delimited contract below.
>>>>
>>>> With the majority consent of the set of myself, I cause the LPRS to
>>>> intend with
comex wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:40 PM, Benjamin
> Caplan wrote:
>> The subject line is not necessary to determine that this creates a pledge.
>>
>>
>> A message that purports to grant act-on-behalf powers without joining a
>> multi-party agreement
Elliott Hird wrote:
> 2009/6/18 C-walker :
>> On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 2:21 PM,
>> C-walker wrote:
>>> --
>>> C-walker, who intends, without objection
>>>
>>
>> Having received no objections, I do so.
>>
>> --
>> C-walker
>>
>
> It was not to the public forum.
I found at least two public messages
Sean Hunt wrote:
> Benjamin Caplan wrote:
>> I agree to the {}-delimited contract below.
>>
>> With the majority consent of the set of myself, I cause the LPRS to
>> intend with Agoran Consent to register.
>
> Fails, the LPRS is not a contract.
I'm not su
Sean Hunt wrote:
> For the duration of this message, I continually deregister Tiger Jr.
Probably you want "continuously".
Paul VanKoughnett wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 11:53 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>>> tiyaeotkoisidtidthpalalt.
>> or it collides with yasacisaisidtid is left as an exercise. I, for one,
>
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Pavit
Ed Murphy wrote:
> Pavitra wrote:
>
>> tiyaeotpocawethpafalt.
>
> TPOCAWE? (And nathoeusnat, for that matter?)
>
The practice of cryptic acronyms without explanation.
nathoeusnat was just banging randomly on my (Dvorak) keyboard.
What are tiyaeotkoisidtidthpalalt and yasacisaisidtid? In part
Ed Murphy wrote:
> Proposal: Clarify conditional votes
>
> Amend Rule 2127 (Conditional Votes) by replacing the first two
> paragraphs with this text:
>
> If a vote on an Agoran decision is submitted conditionally
> (e.g. "FOR if is true, otherwise AGAINST"), then the
> select
Sean Hunt wrote:
> I CFJ {The proposal entitled It's the Thought That Counts, if adopted,
> would successfully cause the first Rule Change described in its text.}
> I CFJ {The proposal entitled It's the Thought That Counts, if adopted,
> would successfully cause the second Rule Change described in
comex wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:13 PM, Benjamin
> Caplan wrote:
>> Interesting.
>>
>> We really need a more explicitly well-ordered ruleset if things like
>> this need to be spelled out. Rule says "rules to the contrary
>> notwithstanding&quo
Ed Murphy wrote:
> coppro wrote:
>
>>> 6357 O 1 1.0 comex 3 support is boring
>> FOR x 12
>
> Rule 2019 takes precedence over Rule (both Power=2, both claim
> precedence, 2019 has lower rule number) so this works.
Interesting.
We really need a more explicitly well-ordered rul
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, comex wrote:
>> It is reasonable to expect a small modicum of effort by the judge,
>> such as reading messages sent to the discussion forum on the same day.
>
> You have to understand: when I joined this game (you can see this when
> you look back at the
comex wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Aaron Goldfein
> wrote:
>> I CFJ on the following sentence. I cast a vote in the recent Promotor
>> election.
>
> Trivially TRUE, you cast an invalid vote.
> I sit up. I become Hanging.
I thought it was trivially FALSE at first, but I see what yo
Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 15:41, Taral wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
>>> No. When a win by points occurs it schedules an event one week in the
>>> future. When it comes time for that event the game checks if a skunk
>>> has been declared in the pas
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> c-walker wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
I agree to the below contract. I intend without three objections to
flip the contestmaster of the below contract to BobTHJ.
>>>
>>> I object. What exact
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Elliott Hird
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I Dance a Powerful Dance.
>>
>> tiyaeotkoisidtidthpalalt.
>
> At the time of the Town Fountain, "to dance" had a cultural significance
> of public by-announcement per
Roger Hicks wrote:
> I agree to the below contract. I intend without three objections to
> flip the contestmaster of the below contract to BobTHJ.
> {
> The name of this public contract is the Points Relay Service II. Any
> person CAN join or leave this contract. Any party CAN amend this
> contract
comex wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
>> By this definition, I make the current list of those who are marvy:
>> {C-walker, Pavitra, Taral, ehird}. Note that allispaul is not on this
>> list. Therefore, FALSE.
>
> NoV: Taral violated the Power=4 Rule 2029 by failing to D
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 11:38 AM,
> C-walker wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 9:07 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> == CFJ 2586 ==
>>>
>>>Myndzi is a player.
>>
>> I judge UNDETERMINED due to complete lack of evidence. T
Paul VanKoughnett wrote:
>> I disagree. Switching to REASSIGN doesn't deny salary, it just prevents
>> excess salary from being earned. The judge still gets salary for
>> judgments like "TRUE because pigs were on an airplane" or "FALSE
>> because". Heck, you still get salary for "UNDETERMINED becau
Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
> (Sorry about posting this here, but I couldn't find any active nomic forum.)
>
> I'm going to a gaming con in Sweden later this summer, and the theme
> of the con is that it's going to declare itself a republic. There will
> be some kind of LARP going on throughout the wee
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
>>> I'll amend that; If elected, I pledge not to let material bribes made to
>>> myself (or persons I specify) while I hold office (e.g. assets, votes on
>>> proposals, props, or promises of same) affect whom I promote; I can
>>> terminate
Alex Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-06-11 at 20:04 +0200, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
>> 2009/6/11 Rodlen :
>> > I CFJ on the following:
>> > "What is forced by rule 2029 to Dance a Powerful Dance?"
>> Ye Marvy, of course.
>
> I call for judgement on the statement "A Powerful Dance is an
> instrument.".
>
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Result: strategy, more cards can be defined with probabilities a mix of
> choice and random.
>
> What do you think, worth the complication with it getting as cross-matrixed
> as notes but associated with specialties? A better way to do committees?
> Yes/no/maybe?
Interestin
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> 1. Cards are dealt from an infinite deck (with set probabilities) and
> destroyed when played. Reason: the reason cards broke so often in the
> past version was because with a finite deck, everyone's play stopped
> every time there was controversy about where even a single
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Charles
> Walker wrote:
>> I submit the following proposal and intend to make it Distributable
>> without objection:
>
> I agree to the following:
>
> {{
> This is a public contract governed by the rules of Agora and a pledge.
> Any playe
Rodlen wrote:
> I CFJ on the following:
> "What is forced by rule 2029 to Dance a Powerful Dance?"
>
Trivially FALSE.
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Quazie's probably chomping at the bit, so I'll say I planned to have the
>> next draft of Cards circulating round about the 15th. �(remember idea is
>> to not have them go through until after the Birthday). �-G.
>
> We
Kyle Marek-Spartz wrote:
> I join this contract. If at any point in the future distributability
> is modified with a proposal whose II > 1, I leave this pledge.
The second sentence of this won't work unless Time Travel passes before
the hypothetical proposal.
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
>> I act on behalf of coppro to support this. I act on behalf of Pavitra
>> to support this. I act on behalf of zeckalpha to support this. Having
>> received sufficient support, I make this proposal distributable.
>
> You should come u
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> Any player CAN act on behalf of any party to this pledge to support an
>> intent to make a proposal Distributable.
>
> Yes, I had wondered how long it would take to ZOOP the Support into
> meaningless. Ah, present-day agora... every tim
1 - 100 of 236 matches
Mail list logo
