DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report

On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 13:25, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 9:00 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 14:26, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> AGORAN AGRICULTURAL ASSOCIATION REPORT

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2132a assigned to woggle, comex, BobTHJ

On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 19:12, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 8:41 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> I intend, with the consent of the rest of the panel, to REMAND this >>> case to Sgeo, so that e might judge the case agai

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Repeal Rule 101!

On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 12:08, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> In tusho's proposal, the power 3.1 Rule doesn't actually repeal 101 when >> the rule is created. It enables the Repealing, but it doesn't do it. >> So that s

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Repeal Rule 101!

On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 10:07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 11:59 AM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> [*] Lower-power rules notion of agreement is largely influenced by the >> properties they ascribe to contracts, but i

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Repeal Rule 101!

On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 04:39, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Proposal: Repeal Rule 101! > Adoption index: 3. > Interest index: 1. > > [Before we start, let me please justify this. > > Rule 101 is broken. > > Firstly, we are on a game played via computers. Really, we have no > inherent r

Re: DIS: Proto: partnership enforcement

On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 12:43, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 2:27 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> If the original contract envisioned not devolving the obligation well onto >> the parties (quite likely, in f

Re: DIS: Proto: partnership enforcement

On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 12:08, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Maybe the best way to ensure partnerships live up to obligations may > be to allow equity to work on claims: > > > Proto: Partnership equity, power-2 > > A

Re: DIS: Way to get back some VP?

On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 22:10, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is NOT a pledge, an agreement, a promise, or anything else. > > I'm thinking maybe SELL ticket 10VP, with which, for 1 week, the > filler can act on my behalf except for the actions of transfering VP > or judging a certain way on

DIS: Re: BUS: Evil foodstuffs, minus foods

On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 21:43, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I agree to the following: > > {This is a public contract known as "The Normish Partnership". Any > entity CAN cause TNP to act by causing Normish (a.k.a. rootnomic, > which, as of August 9, 2008, was a server located at 209.20.80.19

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PNP Voting

On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 08:09, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 11:51 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The PerlNomic Partnership wrote: > > > >> The PerlNomic Partnership votes as follows. Each vote is made a > >> number of times equal to the PerlNomic Partnersh

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Nethack.

On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 11:30, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 1:25 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > In an equity case, this sort of word-twisting is not appropriate, if > > the Nethack sense of "ascend" was understood to be the relevant term > > i

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA emergency!

On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 11:16, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 1:04 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It's been over a week since all the other CFJs were created. > > s/created/assigned ID numbers/ > > The CotC is behind; calling more CFJs may or may not be

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements on CFJs 2094 and 2095

On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 08:35, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 2008-08-01 at 10:23 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 8:06 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Unfortunately for you, a judicial finding has still found that it's > > > regulated, regardless of

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements on CFJs 2094 and 2095

On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 09:27, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 12:43 -0600, Charles Reiss wrote: > > I intend to appeal the judgment of CFJ 2094 with 2 support. > > I intend to appeal the judgment of CFJ 2095 with 2 support. > > > >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements on CFJs 2094 and 2095

On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 09:10, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 2008-07-29 at 11:06 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 10:52 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > In my judgement of CFJ 2094, I also find that objecting to a dependent >> > action whilst not being

DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2112 assigned to woggle

On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 16:41, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2112 > > == CFJ 2112 == > >Publishing the message "I object", in response to an attempt to >perform a dep

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2081-85 assigned to OscarMeyr

On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 09:57, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 10:56 AM, Elliott Hird > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 2008/7/27 Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> The action in question clearly could not have been taken through email. As >>> the Defendant has not

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2097 assigned to woggle

On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 05:53, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 10:59 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> For all the current ways the PNP sends message there >> is usually a clear (if tricky to identify) first-class person

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals: Chambers II

On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 15:16, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I submit the following proposals: [snip] > Create a rule titled "Grand Poobah" with Power=2 and the text: > {{ > Create a rule titled "The Grand Poobah" with Power 2 and this text: Oops? -woggle

DIS: Re: BUS: The Winning Team

On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 21:00, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 10:15 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I stop agreeing to the contract called "The Winning Team" > > I hereby initiate a criminal CFJ with Sgeo as the defendant, alleging > e violated Rule 1742

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: It's all the rage these days.

On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 10:22, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2008/7/22 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> tusho wrote: >> >>> The following action will fail: I initiate a criminal CFJ against tusho for >>> violating rule 2149 by stating that the initiation of this criminal CFJ will >>> f

Re: DIS: proto: stop silly self-prosecutions

On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 11:03, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hey, it's a good way to sort out weirdness in the rules. While I don't think the proposal is a good idea [*], inquiry cases are perfectly serviceable for that. Heck, you can even inquire about whether GUILTY would be appropri

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Let officers disambiguate

On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 19:30, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Proposal: Let officers disambiguate > (AI = 3, please) > > Amend Rule 2208 (Clarity of Announcements) to read: > > An ambiguous attempt to perform an action by announcement is > disambiguated according to the good-fait

DIS: Re: BUS: Objecting and supporting

On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 10:15, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I object to every dependent action I can object to. I support every > dependent action I can support. So you don't want to leave the Protection Racket? -woggle

DIS: Re: BUS: Vote Market proposal: Facebook (ii)

On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 8:53 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I OBJECT to my previous attempt to add a section to the Vote Market > contract. (The proposed typo fix stands.) > > Without 3 objections I intend to amend the Vote Market contract by > adding the following sections: > {{ > 13. Pok

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2097 assigned to woggle

On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 3:58 AM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2008/7/21 Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> Your argument that the PNP is its own executor wouldn't work even if >> you removed "first-class" from the definition. The PNP

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2097 assigned to woggle

On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 9:05 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hmm, then I think that Executor can/should be modified to take into > account the PNP and other partnerships of that nature, as I've always > (until now) seen the PNP as its own executor. Your argument that the PNP is its own exe

DIS: Re: BUS: Awful proposal

On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 8:35 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Proposal: Awful proposal (AI=2) > { > > Amend Rule 649 by replacing "person" with "entity" and by replacing > the entire second paragraph with: > Awarding or revoking a Patent Title is a secured change. > > Amend Rule 2162 by

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2097 assigned to woggle

On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 8:25 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip] > In the PNP i believe that the PNP is indeed the Executor of its own > messages, as it has an e-mail address set up specifically for it, and > it sends its own messages. I see no reason that partnerships be Read the defini

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2088 assigned to OscarMeyr

On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 4:48 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jul 20, 2008, at 6:43 PM, Charles Reiss wrote: >> >> Are you trying to imply that it is not possible for non-players to >> violate the rules? > > How could a non-player be bound by

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2088 assigned to OscarMeyr

On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 4:32 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> = Criminal Case 2088 = >> >>tusho violated Rule 2029 by changing eir posture to sitting. >> >> ===

DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2097 assigned to woggle

On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 12:25 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 1:13 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2097 >> >> ===

DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2097 assigned to woggle

On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 1:13 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2097 > > == CFJ 2097 == > >The Executor of a message that contains a CFJ is also the >Initiator of that

DIS: Re: BUS: Perpetual Violation Machine

On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 9:32 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree to the following: {This is a pledge. Ivan Hope is always in > violation of this pledge. Ivan Hope can leave this pledge by > announcement.} > > Now, assuming that "Ivan Hope is always in violation of this pledge" > works,

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2065 assigned to woggle

On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 8:31 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 9:46 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The first issue is whether the statement of intent "unambiguously > > descri[s] both the action and the method"

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in CFJ 2027, and a proposal to fix something

On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 7:09 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 2:55 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Therefore, there is no recordkeepor of > > public contracts (the phrase itself is an oxymoron), and therefore I > > judge FALSE. > > I intend to appeal this ju

Re: DIS: Werewolves status update

On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 5:17 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:41 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I still need 3 more votes on whether to lynch Pavitra. > > I recommend amending the contract to require votes to be cast as soon > as possible, with

DIS: Re: BUS: Reformed Bank of Agora report

On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 4:06 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip] > Assuming I'm a Banker Without 3 proto-objections I proto-change the > RBOA contract as follows: > --- > Add the following to the end for the RBOA conract: > > 9. Whenever a Player transfers a Mill to the Bank of Agora, and

Re: DIS: Proto: Truth of speech acts

On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 10:47 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sat, 12 Jul 2008, Charles Reiss wrote: >> People will need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you did not >> believe the action would be successful if you don't include a >&g

Re: DIS: Proto: Truth of speech acts

On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 10:33 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Sat, 12 Jul 2008, Ed Murphy wrote: >>a) An attempted speech act is equivalent to a claim that the >> person will perform the action by sending the message. > > Why on earth are we codifying this? Fo

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2048 assigned to Taral

On Sun, Jul 6, 2008 at 12:01 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 6, 2008 at 6:31 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> = Criminal Case 2048 = >> >>ehird violated Rule 2149 by saying that e joins. > > As much as I appreciate

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report

On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 10:31 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 10:26 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> On Fri, 4 Jul 2008, Taral wrote: >>> On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 6:48 AM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: That depends on the value of 4.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5577-5584

On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 11:14 PM, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >5583 O1 1ais523 Right to Vanish >> AGAINST*10 (shouldn't be such an easy way out of contracts; if you really >> want a get-out like that it should have a longer auto-exile) > > In particular, it should be at leas

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2028 assigned to root ais523

On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 8:54 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You're half right. I initiate an appeal on the question of sentence in > this case. I'm pretty sure that's unsuccessful unless I'm missing something big... Are you trying to argue R101(iii)? -woggle

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2028 assigned to root ais523

On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 8:40 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip] >> > I appeal this case. I think you mean that you intend to appeal either the sentence or the judgment on culpability with 2 support. -woggle

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2028 assigned to root ais523

On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 2:27 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 9:50 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Tue, 2008-07-01 at 14:36 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: >>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2028 >>> >>> = Crimi

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2032 judged FALSE by woggle

On 7/2/08, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip] > > I'm obligating myself to give everyone who has not participated in the > fora since April 29 a D note. This is equivalent to giving everyone a > D note and then penalizing people D notes for participating in the > fora. However, by rule 101,

DIS: Re: BUS: Does anyone else want to trade these assets?

On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 6:11 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I submit the following proposal AI = 2 ii = 1 entitled "Time to trade notes" > --- > Remove the word 'fixed' from the first paragraph of R2126 > --- If you're going to do this, you should also get rid of a note spending method. -

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on "excess" CFJs

On 7/2/08, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I call a inquiry CFJ on the following statement: "The CotC MAY NOT > refuse cases based on cases being excess as defined by Rule 2175" > > Evidence: > Rule 101(iii) gives all persons the "right to initiate a formal > process to resolve matters of con

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2032 judged FALSE by woggle

On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 8:50 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 5:15 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> == CFJ 2032 == >> >>The hypothetical contract in the evidence section, if made a >>contest, wo

Re: DIS: Proto: Mandatory proxy voting

On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 11:59 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 1:44 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Not really. You make the contract a partnership, have all the parties >> sponsor it, and require it to cast the exact number of votes you'd >> have cast

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Hello, world

On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 4:08 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I would suggest taking this opportunity to terminate the equation of CFJ >> 1915. >> > > With the majori

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Hello, world

On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 2:45 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 4:22 PM, Elliott Hird > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 2008/6/28 comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> My VP is now 50 or above. >>> >>> I give Pavrita 20 Vote Points. >> >> You know, ais523 stole VP from me and gav

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2032 assigned to woggle

On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 9:25 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 12:57 AM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Comments please? >> >> Proto-judgment: > > It's a good proto-judgement. > > Too bad it doesn't

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report

On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 11:15 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I might be wrong, but don't reports traditionally go in OFF? It is equally effective to send a report to agora-business as to agora-official, and it's not conventional to send reports that aren't directly required by the rules to

DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2032 assigned to woggle

On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 2:20 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2032 > > == CFJ 2032 == > >The hypothetical contract in the evidence section, if made a >contest, would

DIS: Re: BUS: meh

On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Elliott Hird < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I leave the pledge that talks about things being able to perform > actions on my behalf. How?

Re: DIS: Proto: Scam Busting (with Fruit)

On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 1:53 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is just a rough proto so far. The idea is to prevent scams that > involve repeating the same set of actions over and over again within a > short period of time. > > A game action is liberal iff the rules explicitly indic

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2018 judged by Goethe

On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 9:01 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 9:57 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2018 > > > > == Equity Case 2018 == > > > >c

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: trustees

On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 11:53 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 10:48 PM, Chester Mealer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I'm about to be busy and ehird gave me an idea. >> > [...] > >> >> 8. A

DIS: Re: BUS: Defendant notification

On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 8:09 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ivan Hope, I inform you of > http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2009 > and invite you to rebut the argument for your guilt. > Some gratuitous arguments: The R101(iii) right may take precedence here (even if Iv

DIS: Re: BUS: [IADoP] Assessor election

On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 9:39 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This (very late and overlooked; my apologies) message initiates the > Agoran Decision to choose the holder of the Assessor office. The > valid options are ROOT and MURPHY, the eligible voters are the active > players, and

DIS: Re: BAK: Hello, B

On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 7:58 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 7:57 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 7:14 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 7:56 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: My guess

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJs on "Refactor Regulation"

On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I CFJ on the statement: All actions are regulated. > > Arguments: R2125 reads, in part: > > An action is regulated if: > > [...] > >d) The rules explicitly state that it MAY be performed while > cert

DIS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5541-5545

I vote as follows: On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 6:53 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > NUM FL AI SUBMITTER TITLE > 5541 O0 1ais523 Motto of the Monster FOR x 6 > 5542 O1 1.7 Wooble equation as amendment FOR x 6 > 5543 D1 2Murphy Faster support FOR > 5544 D1 2

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: An elephant sometimes forgets

On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 6:22 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Proposal: An elephant sometimes forgets (AI=1.7, II=0) I don't think this should be disinterested. It's a rather more than a bug fix. -woggle

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1935a assigned to Murphy, OscarMeyr, BobTHJ

On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 2:51 PM, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sunday 1 June 2008 3:41:29 comex wrote: >> Except that pledges can't do things automatically. So really, he's out of >> luck. > > Why not? Acting on behalf authority is pretty poorly defined already (being now primarily a

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Rules as Contract

On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 9:03 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ed Murphy wrote: >>Proto-Proposal: Rules as Contract >>(AI = 3, II = 2, please) > ... >> A rule is a type of instrument with the capacity to govern >> the game generally. > > This is essentially the current equivalent of

DIS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5528-5531

I vote as follows: On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 6:53 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > NUM FL AI SUBMITTER TITLE > 5528 D1 3ais523 AGAINST > 5529 D0 3ais523 AGAINST > 5530 O1 1comex AGAINST x 5, FOR x 1 > 5531 D2 3Murphy Rules as Binding Agre

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Make recordkeepors keep records

On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 2:04 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I submit a proposal, titled "Recordkeepors must recordkeep", with an > adoption index of 2: [snip] > "The recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity defined as such > by its backing document. If the recordkeepor is an office,

DIS: Re: BUS: I win

On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Elliott Hird > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 2008/5/14 Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > I win the game. > > &g

DIS: Re: BUS: I win

On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2008/5/14 Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > I win the game. > > > > ehird > > > > I initiate an inquiry CFJ on the statement: "In the message archived > at the URL >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Ducks & platypuses

On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 11:18 AM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > (I will hereby rebut the argument which is against my guilt and, > therefore, for my innocence.) > > These arguments relate to CFJ 1943. > > The Argument: > > I should not be found GUILTY because the contract obligated > its

DIS: Re: BUS: Ducks & platypuses

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 8:27 PM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I intend to make the following contract with comex: > > { > Parties to this contract cannot leave this contract. > Parties to this contract are obligated not to consent to making a > Contract Change. > Parties to this co

Re: DIS: Proto-Judgement of CFJ 1927

On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 12:21 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 10:08 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 5/1/08, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 3. After this equation has been binding for 30 days or after all > > > eligible parties h

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Economic overview

On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 2:56 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip] > [Current list: > Crops (0 through 9)AAA BobTHJ > Mills (+ - * /)AAA BobTHJ > Notes (C through B)Rule 2126 Conductor > Pens Ba

Re: DIS: RE: Re: BUS: Re: CFJ

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 5:41 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am an Agoran, and also a player of IRCnomic. However, I have not (from an > Agoran point of view) knowingly joined comex's contract, if it is one. Many > IRCnomic rules conflict with Agoran rules anyway. (Doesn't Agor

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: An unconventional way to create a rule

On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 8:03 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 5:30 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 5:22 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I agree to the following: "All players SHALL act as if this paragraph > >

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1927 assigned to Wooble

On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 7:24 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 7:53 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > == Equity Case 1927 == > > > > > Judge: Wooble > > > > A

DIS: Re: BUS: Behold: Half Pledge, Half Location

On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 12:06 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree to the following, making it a contract: > > {The name of this contract is Bumblebee. This contract is a pledge. > This contract is a location. Any party to this contract can leave it > by announcement.} > > I leave the

Re: DIS: Proto: Contract Cleanup, take two

On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > root wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 12:06 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> [Zefram, root, you voted against the previous version of this; would > >> you support this revision?] > > > > What's the diffe

Re: DIS: Proto-Pledge: The Note Exchange

On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 10:57 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 4:37 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > ? Consider allowing acting on behalf for the purpose of fulfilling > > > marker-holder's obligations? > > > > Good idea. Could this be automatic?

Re: DIS: Proto-Pledge: The Note Exchange

On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 6:37 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 12/04/2008, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip] > > ? Consider allowing acting on behalf for the purpose of fulfilling > > marker-holder's obligations? > > Good idea. Co

Re: DIS: Proto-Pledge: The Note Exchange

On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 5:34 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > {This is a public contract and a pledge by the name of "The Note Exchange". > > For each pitch of Note, the corresponding Credit is a currency, and > the corresponding Marker is a fixed currency. Ivan Hope CXXVII is the > record

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Notary Report, Take 1

On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 8:41 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 8:23 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Claim of error: This fails to list comex's pledge and public contract > > which purports to make persons assets. &g

DIS: Re: BUS: Asset testing

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 9:40 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree to this: > > 1) This public contract is named Universe 1. > 2) Beans are a class of assets. > 3) The recordkeepor of beans is Murphy. > 4) Beans are restricted to the class of players whose nickname >is M

DIS: Re: BUS: Criminal Cases

On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 9:24 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 15:24 Sun 30 Mar , Ed Murphy wrote: > > Iammars wrote: > > > > > I initiate a criminal case on pihkq for misrepresenting Agora on the > > > Nomic Wiki by failing to include my name in the players list. > > >

DIS: Re: BUS: [Mad Scientist] It's Alive!

On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 6:38 PM, Nick Vanderweit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I come off hold (Guatemala was amazing, thanks for asking). > > I submit the following proposal, titled, "Grarrgghh!", with AI=2 and II=3: Uh, that's not very disinterested, H. Mad Scientist. -woggle

DIS: Re: BUS: Correct assignment of 1897a

On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 6:10 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ed Murphy wrote: > >I assign 1897a to the panel of woggle, Zefram, and Iammars. > > I intend to cause the panel in CFJ 1897a to judge OVERRULE to TRUE. > Arguments: > > The judge in CFJ 1899 determined, with good arguments, th

DIS: Re: BUS: 1903a

On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 8:17 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Regarding 1903, I intend to cause the panel to judge AFFIRM with the > following concurring opinion: > > Goethe's original judgement of CFJ 1903 alludes to the following > interpretation: > >Questions are not statements.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 1908 + 1909

On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 4:12 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 7:25 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 a

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 1908 + 1909

On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 7:25 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 8:32 AM, Iammars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > comex hasn't agreed to anything in panel 1903a, so it can't be judged and a > > concurring opinion hasn't been published. I judge FALSE on both 1908

DIS: Re: BUS: Deputization kickstart

On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I intend to deputise the delivering of a judgement by the judicial panel of > Appeal 1897a. Note that no judicial panel has been assigned in CFJ 1897a because the assignment of a panel including inactive player OscarMe

DIS: Re: BUS: Shall we people-ify our fellow nomics?

On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 9:05 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Proposal: Empersonation of Nomics (AI=1, aye?) > > [Amend Rule 2200 by adding the following sentence at the end of its > third paragraph: "A foreign nomic is a person."] Try again. Power 1 rules can't make things persons. -wogg

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Correct assignment of CFJs 1911-13

On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 4:34 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 4:18 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'd missed updating the database to reflect that OscarMeyr had > > gone on hold. The alleged assignments were

DIS: Re: BUS: Correct assignment of CFJs 1911-13

On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 4:18 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd missed updating the database to reflect that OscarMeyr had > gone on hold. The alleged assignments were ineffective. > > I hereby assign CFJs 1911-13 to BobTHJ. These are linked assignments. > Since I'm not likely to g

Attn OscarMeyr, Iammars (was Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1897 judged FALSE; appeal assigned to woggle, OscarMeyr, Iammars)

OscarMeyr, Iammars: Do you consent to the judgement I propose below? Have any opinions on the case? [Since OscarMeyr has not agreed to this judgement, Iammars past blanket consent won't apply.] - woggle On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 5:42 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: 1903a

On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 6:55 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 12:26 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Arguments: > > The arguments given in Wooble's purported causing the panel to judge > > CFJ 1903a are n

DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1897 judged FALSE; appeal assigned to woggle, OscarMeyr, Iammars

On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 2:01 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1897 > > == CFJ 1897 == > > BobTHJ is a player > > ===

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: 1903a

On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sunday 02 March 2008 1:26 Charles Reiss wrote: > > The prior judge was improperly relied on a newer version of the rule > > that included a bugfix for precisely this reason. > > > > T

<    1   2   3   >