sibly used as a basis for a thesis:
http://codepad.org/GSBJPlPg
--
C-walker (Charles Walker)
mocratic
>> proposals are the active first-class players, and the vote collector
>> is the Assessor. The valid options on each decision are FOR, AGAINST,
>> and PRESENT.
>>
>> NUM C I AI SUBMITTER TITLE
>> 6450 D 1 3.0 C-walker Without Obj
1 or II+2? II+1 would cause
> disinterested proposals to break even after a delay in which the
> proposer was down a card, which sounds about right to me.
>
II + 1 sounds right. Want to propose that?
--
C-walker (Charles Walker)
BobTHJ for the comments in this thread, they have been
taken into account and the bugs fixed.
Just to clarify, the proposal does allow for ex-players to retain
their Senator status, but not affect Quorum due to a new paragraph in
the revised proposal.
--
C-walker (Charles Walker)
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 2:55 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> No, that's everything. I seem to have been dealt only one of the above
>> draws, though.
>>
> Here's the records that correspond to those earned draws:
>
> Tue, 11 Aug 2009 17:25 - C-Walker is dealt
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 03:08, C-walker
> wrote:
>> I believe I am owed two more Justice cards, one for the case which was
>> recently remanded to woggle, and one for the inquiry case which I just
>> judged.
>>
>
> Sun, 16 Aug 2009 22:12 - C-Walker is dealt the following card from the
> deck of Justice: Absolv-o-Matic
I believe I am owed two more Justice cards, one for the case which was
recently remanded to woggle, and one for the inquiry case which I just
judged.
--
C-walker (Charles Walker)
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 9:20 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> c-walker wrote:
>
>> CFJ, II 3: When a Rule is repealed, its Power is set to 0.
>
> Gratuitous: No, the rule simply ceases to exist.
I doesn't matter, I retracted the CFJ. They may be some upcoming scams
related to this,
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 8:22 PM,
C-walker wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>
>> chamber: ordinary
>> ai: 1.0
>> interest: 1
>> proposer: C-walker
>> coauthors: Wooble
>> title: Livenomic Recognition
>> submit_date
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 5:49 PM, C-walker wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 5:34 PM, comex wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 5:31 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>>> C-walker wrote:
>>>> On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>>>>> C-walker wrote:
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 5:34 PM, comex wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 5:31 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> C-walker wrote:
>>> On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>>>> C-walker wrote:
>>>>> I change my salary to 'Change, Change, Government, G
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> C-walker wrote:
>> I change my salary to 'Change, Change, Government, Government'.
>>
>> Is anyone willing to trade any of my Justice cards for Change or
>> Government cards? My Justice card holdings
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> C-walker wrote:
>> I become active.
>>
>> It looks like I missed an interesting week!
>>
>> Can someone tell me how the Absolv-o-matic thing ended? Do I still have a
>> rest?
>
> I believe so, but yo
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Pavitra wrote:
> I submit the following proposal, II=1, AI=4, "Sleeping Cthulhu":
> {
> Create a new rule, entitled "Great Cthulhu", with the following text:
This doesn't set the power of the new rule, so it defaults to 1.
--
C-walker
ase.
> * The player wins an election
This is worth two draws under the current system, although whether it
should be worth any is debatable.
--
C-walker
you have presented. Maybe
you should include this and your Losing Condition idea?
--
C-walker
change that vote to against.
--
C-walker
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 11:51 PM, ais523 wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-07-25 at 13:14 +0100, C-walker wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 2:47 PM,
>> C-walker wrote:
>> > I intend, without party objection, to terminate "the Pledge which has
>> > no name". (Th
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 7:27 AM,
> C-walker wrote:
>> Also, I submit the following arguments of my own:
>>
>> I feel it is unfair that this case has been initiated in the
>> President's absence; perhaps
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 8:52 PM, ais523 wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-07-25 at 20:47 +0100, C-walker wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 8:43 PM, ais523 wrote:
>> > On Fri, 2009-07-24 at 15:22 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> >> No one submitted a guess within the required timeframe.
ant links at http://www.agoranomic.org/
--
C-walker
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 8:43 PM, BobTHJ wrote:
> rough proto to solicit comments:
>
> Deck of Business
>
> Thoughts?
How are the cards supposed to be earned?
--
C-walker
edge at the time of a Notary
>> report).
>>
> CoE or whatever: The NotaryWiki doesn't list me as a party to the FRC.
You can correct it yourself if you have an account on the site. You
might need a password though; I think this is in the Notary report.
--
C-walker
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 8:32 PM, G. wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jul 2009, C-walker wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 7:27 PM, G. wrote:
>>> 3. Some form of monthly rotation.
>>
>> Again, this is not much different from the current system. Have you
>> any specific i
ybe non-Champions could be placed
higher in the initial list for other patent titles, number of cards
and other things that represent a contribution to Agora such as
offices?
--
C-walker
forget every intent I make. :/
--
C-walker
G. wrote:
> I submit the following proposal, "fix ancient cards", AI-2, II-0.
>
> Rule 2260 (The Deck of Government) by replacing "Vote Power" with
> "voting limit" where it appears in the rule.
You might need an 'Amend' there.
--
C-walker
riday why things were so quite, but
> the error message wasn't showing up then). Any one of you scammers used
> to work for the Nixon administration by any chance? :)
If it wasn't the scammers, it was probably loggic (the ##nomic logbot)
crashing. Ais523 emself admits to its random crashes.
--
C-walker
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Elliott
Hird wrote:
> 2009/7/20 C-walker :
>> Luckily for you, ehird, you won't have to recordkeep any of this.
>
> Gee, I apologise for pointing it out.
>
I didn't mind that, it was the "the recordkeeping required to untangle
THIS
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 1:45 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I intend, without 3 objections, to distribute 'Office IIs with Agoran
> Consent'. (allows office II changes w/ 2 support
Should be 'without 2 objections'. Otherwise, thanks for the intent.
--
C-walker
Statements made
t and it is unlikely to be made
Distributable before the Ambassador attempts to recognise the EUDI, if
e does so.
--
C-walker
or a different name?
--
C-walker
the harder ribbons and
add some in their place to balance things out.
Any comments? Is this a good idea? Have I outlined good ideas for
Medals? Should there be one for amending R101- R107? Especially R104.
In fact, there should probably be a win for doing that without a scam.
Anyway... comments?
--
C-walker
ir to ais523 ehird as they both have a lot more
> credits than markers.)
I suggest a proposal which creates and destroys cards as appropriate
using the conversion rate the cards proposal used, or creating a Card
Exchange in which ais523 and ehird already have some card credits.
--
C-walker
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 6:44 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On Sunday, July 5, 2009, C-walker wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Charles Reiss wrote:
>>> I would prefer the contracts to be terminated to be explicitly
>>> enumerated in any contract cleanup proposa
s terminated by proposal to ones where there is
> a little bit of controversy on deadness).
I guess. H. Notary, are you planning to do something like this soon? I
mean, it's your problem mostly.
--
C-walker
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Charles Reiss wrote:
>
> On 7/5/09 6:54 AM, C-walker wrote:
> [snip]
> > I submit the following proposal:
> >
> > {{
> >
> > Contract Cleanup (AI = 2, II = 0)
> >
> > Terminate each non-pledge Public contrac
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 4:37 PM, comex wrote:
>
> On Jul 5, 2009, at 9:54 AM, C-walker
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Contract Cleanup (AI = 2, II = 0)
>>
>> Terminate each non-pledge Public contract which does not contain the
>> string "inferences".
>&g
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 9:12 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, C-walker wrote:
>> Also gains of most ribbons and some Notes would go to me.
>
> *sigh* see CFJ 1520, last two paragraphs of judge's arguments, please.
>
> -G.
I said /would/, not really thin
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 8:55 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-06-29 at 12:42 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, C-walker wrote:
>> > I change my name to "2.71828183..." or "e" for short.
>>
>> I'll accept 2.71828..., b
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Craig Daniel wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 3:55 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
>> On Mon, 2009-06-29 at 12:42 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, C-walker wrote:
>>> > I change my name to "2.71828183..." or &q
us.
>
> and/or make the recordkeepor miss your action, causing em to violate
> the rules when publishing eir report, for which they'll take revenge
> by keeping your caste at Savage forever.
>
Am I supposed to be laughing or crying now?
--
C-walker
who won't be trying that again
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 6:44 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-06-29 at 18:42 +0100, C-walker wrote:
>> >>>> On Mon, Jun 29, <<<<< Wooble wrote:
>> > Happy Birthday, Agora!
>>
>> I thought we went by UTC time? Anyway, Happy Birthday,
Murphy wrote:
> Guesses for June 22-28 Proposals CFJs
> ---
> Tue 16 Jun 16:35:58 c. 15 15
> Sun 21 Jun 08:50:09 c-walker 16 9
> Sun 21 Jun 08:54:13 Yally 8 12
> * 4 x-points to
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 3:04 AM, comex wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 12:43 PM,
> C-walker wrote:
>> This has been reported as undistributable in the past two proposal
>> pool reports, when I remember spending D to make it Distributable on
>> Fri, Jun 12, at 5:31 PM, to b
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 12:10 AM, Jonatan
Kilhamn wrote:
> But is it a good idea?
As one of several players with effectively no assets, it sounds like a
great idea ;).
--
C-walker
Just a note to all interested parties: A proposal passed in InterNomic
recently that makes it eligible to be an Agoran Protectorate, Ais523
can now make it one without 3 objections.
--
C-walker
H. Herald, please direct me to your last report. I am looking in
relation to a proposal I am writing for B. Thanks in advance.
--
C-walker
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> Replace the text of rule 2126 with the following, and rename it "Cards":
I suggest repealing 2126 and creating a new rule in its place.
Otherwise I like it.
--
C-walker
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 7:33 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 16:39 +0100, C-walker wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 4:31 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:24 AM,
>> > C-walker wrote:
>> >> With the consent of
comex wrote:
>C-walker wrote:
>>
>> When a player (the attorney) acts on behalf of another player to
>> perform an action, that action is performed as if the attorney is the
>> player e is acting on behalf of.
>>
> Bad idea-- see CFJ 1895.
I guess I agree, and
t on behalf of the attornor to vote in Agoran decisions
regarding proposals.
A contract that grants an attorney Specific Powers of Attorney allows
the attorney to act on behalf of the attornor to perform any actions
that the contract allows.
}}
}
--
C-walker
Murphy wrote:
> c-walker wrote:
>
>> Would anyone with an existing
>> Agora-related site be interested in hosting this if I took it up
>> permanently?
>
> I'll host whatever is published along these lines. I do have
> a bunch of old messages saved up with
es new criminal justice system.
G. protos the return of CFJ dismissal.
Ais523 supposedly acts on behalf of myndzi to register em.
Yally tries to make Siege inactive, Siege objects and says e is
planning to vote.
Allispaul submits CFJ regarding contract definitions.
17th:
Murphy wrote:
> c-walker wrote:
>
>> I am supine as of 17th June.
>
> Ah, must have mistakenly filed it as fully processed after
> recording the prop transfer in the same message. Will fix.
Please note that I have changed my posture since the 17th of June, but
after t
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
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 2:21 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> Promotor's Pool Report
There seems to be two identical proposals submitted by me in there. Did I
submit it twice or is it a mistake?
--
C-walker
09:09:45 GMT
> Assigned to c-walker: (as of this message)
>
I am supine as of 17th June.
--
C-walker
ayer.}
>> {myndzi is not a player.}
>>
>> Either document may be ratified at a later date, this allows any
>> ambiguity that arises to be dealt with retroactively.
{myndzi has registered.}
{myndzi has not registered.}
--
C-walker
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 6:32 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> c-walker wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 8:44 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> I recuse c-walker from CFJ 2547.
>>
>> When was I assigned to this? I can't seem to find it.
>
> June 6.
Ah, I've found it now. Third Judge lucky?
--
C-walker
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 8:44 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> I recuse c-walker from CFJ 2547.
When was I assigned to this? I can't seem to find it.
--
C-walker, who intends, without objection
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 9:04 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> It can. Power-3 and higher entities are not restricted in actions.
>
> I intend, without objection, to make the change described in c-walker's
> proposal.
You have a few days left to do this.
--
C-walker, who intends, without objection
the price of making it distributable as a
reward for submitting it to review.
}
--
C-walker, who intends, without objection
message to be the
title then? In future I will add titles in the body of the message.
--
C-walker
64 matches
Mail list logo
