I wrote:
coppro wrote:
Sean Hunt wrote:
Alex Smith wrote:
I CFJ on this; the issue of whether MIME messages containing both
plaintext and HTML are legal is a rather important one, and I think it
should go through the courts.
I favor this case.
I intend, with 2 support, to set the fine
comex wrote:
On May 25, 2009, at 9:49 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
I intend, with Agoran consent, to cause Human Point Two to register.
What Rule says you can act on behalf of HP2 to register emself with
Agoran consent?
If I am a party by then, then I can act on behalf
ais523 wrote:
On Mon, 2009-05-25 at 17:24 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
I revoke all x-points listed above.
I suspect this fails; surely the Cookie Jar's revocation limit isn't
that high? Given that the Cookie Jar is churning out such an insanely
large number of points, this may have quite
Alex Smith wrote:
We really really need legislation in the area of act-on-behalf...
Proto-proto: A claim to act on behalf of another person constitutes
a self-ratifying claim that it is authorized by contract.
ais523 wrote:
On Tue, 2009-05-26 at 13:58 -0400, comex wrote:
No rule specifically allows R1551 (Ratification) to make Rule Changes.
Rule 106 previously read:
A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora,
including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or
Yally wrote:
I CFJ on the following sentence. The IADoP's report includes the date
eir previous report was submitted, not the date eir current report is
being submitted.
Evidence: Rule 2138
The IADoP's report includes the following:
d) The date when that office's reports
coppro wrote:
Aaron Goldfein wrote:
Proposal: IADoP CAN and SHALL (AI = 2, II = 1):
In Rule 2154 (Election Procedure), after the sentence reading:
Any player CAN, with Support, initiate an election for a
specified elected office for which no election is already in
ais523 wrote:
On Tue, 2009-05-26 at 18:14 -0400, Quazie wrote:
On behalf of hp2:
Hp2 intends to register with agoran consent.
I consent.
NttPF. (If you've already TTttPF'ed, then ignore this; I'm just
filing the relevant messages during the four-day waiting period.)
Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
2009/5/27 Quazie quazieno...@gmail.com:
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Benjamin Schultz ke...@verizon.net wrote:
On May 25, 2009, at 9:49 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
I request the consent of OscarMeyr and Quazie to become party to
Human Point Two.
I intend, with Agoran
ehird wrote:
2009/5/27 Jonatan Kilhamn jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com:
-Tiger, who also did away with the Geo. Mean since e didn't know
what it meant.
Oh please... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_mean
Would someone please explain Min. to Win? I'm sure I could work it
out, but I have
ehird wrote:
2009/5/27 Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com:
Would someone please explain Min. to Win? Â I'm sure I could work it
out, but I have enough other things on my plate as it is.
Minimum points to win?
PROTIP: Begin by assuming I am not a complete idiot. Has this been
evaluated
coppro wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
coppro wrote:
Aaron Goldfein wrote:
Proposal: IADoP CAN and SHALL (AI = 2, II = 1):
In Rule 2154 (Election Procedure), after the sentence reading:
Any player CAN, with Support, initiate an election for a
specified elected office for which
woggle wrote:
!05/19:001 17:16 comex Wooble 22038forgery
CoE: This notice was invalid. The crime it named, Forgery, is not
specified by the rules.
The NoV named Endorsing Forgery, which is specified by the rules; it's
only the report that omitted Endorsing.
woggle wrote:
The second NoV (which wasn't on 19 May) named the crime correctly. The
first did not.
Does this invalidate CFJ 2537?
The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
6309 AGAINST
6314 AGAINST
6318 AGAINST
These missed the end of the voting period by about 5.5 hours.
Wooble wrote:
I award myself the patent title Champion for my win by Championship.
I award myself the patent title Champion for my win by High Score.
In the interest of maintaining the Hall of Fame's historical
records (and my not having to hunt through the archives again),
what was the nature
coppro wrote:
Rather than set up a bunch of pledges, wouldn't it be easier to use the
IBA?
tl;dr. I may get around to grokking it one of these months.
coppro wrote:
- Otherwise, the Justiciar (or, failing that, the CotC) shall choose a
judgment such that if every undecided panelist chose that judgment, no
other judgment would have been chosen more often (so in the above
instance, e could pick REMAND or REASSIGN)
Consider the actual recent
Pavitra wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Proposal: Referential votes default to PRESENT
Amend Rule 2127 (Conditional Votes) by replacing each instance of:
that voter's valid votes on that decision.
with:
that voter's valid votes on that decision, or PRESENT otherwise.
You should
comex wrote:
Proto: Rests CANNOT be created in a Minister Without Portfolio's
possession, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.
A license to break the rules at will? Thank you, no.
Proto: Rests CANNOT be created in a Minister Without Portfolio's
possession to penalize eir inaction, rules to
Wooble wrote:
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 8:23 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2480a
Appeal 2480a
I opine AFFIRM. The incorrect information in the NoVs
Rodlen wrote:
AFFIRM, per Wooble.
NttPF.
comex wrote:
WHEREAS Rule 101 i., as far as I can tell, has no effect whatsoever;
ii., the right to a judicial process, can be
satisfied trivially (BUS: Formality; 2/17/09);
Formality lacks the Power to effectively re-define such things as
resolve
coppro wrote:
A player holds an office if e is that office's holder.
IMO this is sufficiently covered by R754(2).
If an office incurs and obligation, then the officer SHOULD act to
ensure that the office meets those obligations. If an office
incurs a penalty as a
ais523 wrote:
On Sun, 2009-05-17 at 20:06 +0100, Charles Walker wrote:
On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com
wrote:
coppro wrote:
Alex Smith wrote:
On Sat, 2009-05-16 at 23:55 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
6310 D
Wooble wrote:
I revoke 3 points from Murphy.
I create a mill with an operator of / in Murphy's possession.
I bought a Digit Ranch this week, not a Mill. (I bought a Mill last
week, and already got it.)
coppro wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2528
== CFJ 2528 ==
On or about Sat, 16 May 2009 20:15:44 -0500, Yally resolved the
Agoran decision to decide the holder of the IADoP
Taral wrote:
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com
wrote:
Or we could just... you know... change the quorum rules.
Or the activity rules. In B nomic, one is only active in a sense if
one has voted in the previous week.
Not any more; their latest
coppro wrote:
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
CoE: ais523 is not the author of this proposal; e retracted eir
version shortly before I distributed. I believe the precedent is that
it was distributed with no author, although my reading of the current
rules makes it look to me that I'm the author. In
Yally wrote:
I initiate an Agoran decision to decide the holder of the Promotor
office. The eligible voters are the active players, the vote collector
is the IADoP, and the candidates are coppro and Wooble (incumbent).
I endorse Wooble. I vote for Wooble (this is effective iff the previous
Quazie wrote:
I submit a new proposal entitled And then there was silence. ai=2
with the following body:
proposal
Append the following to R2126:
The day after agora's birthday 2009 this rule repeal's itself.
/proposal
Rules 2228 and 2229 also need to be updated.
Quazie wrote:
I submit a proposal AI=2 entitled Why are these two office rules?
I submit a proposal AI=2 entitled Can't we all win in one place with
I submit an AI = 2 proposal entitled One less game rule with the
Because the rules you would eliminate don't need to be protected at
Power=2.
Pavitra wrote:
I guess 20 proposals and 30 CFJs.
You already did, about 2 days earlier.
Quazie wrote:
I perform the following actions on behalf of hp2:
hp2
I submit the following linked CFJs on behalf of Hp2:
Human Point Two is the caller of this CFJ
OscarMeyr is a caller of this CFJ
Quazie is a caller of this CFJ
/hp2
All ineffective. An inquiry case CAN be initiated by
Quazie wrote:
I CFJ on the following statement In a message sent on may 14th, in
which Quazie acted on behalf of Human Point Two, CFJs were initiated
Evidence: CFJ 2050
Gratuitous evidence: The message in question: {
I perform the following actions on behalf of hp2:
hp2
I submit the
Quazie wrote:
6294 IADoP Must Announce FAILED QUORUM O 1.0 1 Yally
6295 Enough already D 2.0 1 comex
PRESENT
Please don't do this (throw in a no vote comment instead). Due to my
quote-collapse add-on for Thunderbird, I almost recorded this as a
Quazie wrote:
a) Default Officehater. If the Default Officehater is the
holder of an office, then that office is considered vacant. The
Default Officehater can not perform the duties of any office.
Meaning anyone can deputise for it by announcement.
b) Justiciarless. If the
Wooble wrote:
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
c) Wielder of Un-Veto. The Wielder of Un-Veto CAN un-veto an ordinary
decision in its voting period by announcement; this decreases
its Adoption Index by 1.
Meaning
Taral wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 9:51 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Oh bribery proposals are cute. It's a good test every so often to see
if the current players are a group of voters you want to be playing a game
with. And deregistration is good test to use as, whichever
Quazie wrote:
If we are bringing back distributability, i'm going to try to bring
back cards. The issue is that cards need to be a core part of the
rules or they can't have the power to change things like these
switches. Is there any way that a contest could currently flip a
switch like
Goethe wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009, Quazie wrote:
Care to re-proto that? Or send the proto just to me and I'll help you
deal (HA pun) with the card rules?
If I can find it I will. -G.
By the way, I really, really, really, really don't think that
Tiger wrote:
Does this give em 4 rests or 4*20 rests?
It was intended to limit eir potential sentence to 4 (and to block
separate NoVs due to double jeopardy). Rule 2230 and/or 1504 should
probably be patched to deal with this.
coppro wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote:
According to the rules, the Insulator SHALL announce whether an NoV is
valid or not. Does e do this? I don't think I've seen em do it.
--
-Tiger
Murphy recently resigned the position; BobTHJ
coppro wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 4:06 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
On Tue, 2009-05-12 at 00:20 -0700, Taral wrote:
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 12:20 AM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
= Criminal Case 2480 =
ais523
coppro wrote:
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 5:02 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2516
== CFJ 2516 ==
Flipping the contestmaster of a contract to Human Point Two
root wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 3:58 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Goethe moves to AFFIRM: 05 May 2009 00:38:55 GMT
Pavitra moves to AFFIRM:05 May 2009 04:35:03 GMT
Wooble moves to REASSIGN: 05 May 2009 12:41:41 GMT
coppro moves
Yally wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com
mailto:aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
I guess 15 proposals and 15 CFJs.
Because OscarMeyr stepped on my guess... I retract my previous guess and
guess 13 proposals and 17 CFJs.
Can't, it's only
Yally wrote:
Proposal: Legislative Dominance (AI = 2)
Conditional: {
if the proposal would not be adopted if I voted AGAINST,
then AGAINST,
otherwise if the proposal would not be adopted if I didn't vote,
then no vote,
otherwise FOR
}
woggle wrote:
Ratify the following document: {
At AI 2?
The relevant rules are Power = 2.
root wrote:
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Ian Kelly ian.g.ke...@gmail.com wrote:
Proto: Canon
Add the following text to some rule or another:
Canon is a player switch tracked by the Conductor. The possible
values of Canon are the set of all finite-length sequences of
comex wrote:
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 8:12 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
2517: FALSE
Counterexample: Resolving a proposal decision, where the proposal is
adopted but only partly effective due to insufficient power.
The caller's example is not actually a single action
coppro wrote:
H. Scorekeepor, when sorting out the madness, please note that R2136(b)
still applies, meaning that a lot of the things that have been
purportedly done wrt the new contests are patently INVALID.
Except that R2198 takes precedence over it.
coppro wrote:
Number: 6275
Title: Privelege of the Champion
Ineffective, you already assigned 6275 (when you apparently meant to
assign 6273). I suggest assigning 6273 to this proposal instead.
ehird wrote:
I intend to appeal this judgement.
One word: archives.
Gratuitous:
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2009-April/019041.html
The attachment purportedly used to initiate this case is readable with
no special effort - unlike, say,
Goethe wrote:
On Thu, 7 May 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
Are we certain that interpreting R1482p2s1 as any other
[general-purpose] means of determining precedence between
[any two] Rules of unequal Power isn't broken (other than
allowing scams that were never actually attempted, and will
soon
Yally wrote:
I resolve the election for Insulator as BobTHJ is the only candidate.
E is installed.
To the best of my knowledge, the only changes since the last Insulator's
report were as follows:
Mon 4 May 20:18:48 root -1 comex G# G#
Mon 4 May 20:48:43 root +1 voluntary
Mon
Yally wrote:
These elections are failing quorum and will soon have to have their
voting periods extended if enough votes are not cast:
CotC(Arnold Bros (est. 1905), Murphy, Wooble), fails by one vote.
I rubberstamp this decision.
Anarchist(coppro, Quazie, Tiger), fails by one vote.
I
Yally wrote:
What if elections are just monthly or so instead of being whenever
someone wants one?
Then an officer has up to a month to abuse eir office with impunity,
whereas now they can be sacked in as little as four days.
Yally wrote:
You can't rubberstamp elections.
Meh? I thought that proposal had gone through. Maybe it's in
the 6238-56 batch that I need to resolve.
coppro wrote:
But the existing situation is broken; I have already noticed one paradox
but am awaiting a ruleset ratification before I initiate it to make sure
it works. In fact my model presented above doesn't work. Designing a
model that does work will take some effort, and will likely need
Tiger wrote:
I vote FORx2 on both of these.
Your caste is 3 now.
c-walker wrote:
I endorse Tiger.
NttPF
Rodlen wrote:
What I'm doing is getting confused by the equity case rules (I was not
expecting this case...). This was an attempt to make a judgment,
leaving it to the parties involved to agree to it...
An ineffective attempt. The parties have had plenty of time to have
their say; give them
Arnold Bros (est. 1905) wrote:
2009/5/6 Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com:
No. It's a joke between us (possibly e doesn't get it either).
I may get it if it's to do with my name.
I don't get it.
In which case, let me stretch it even further: I endorse coppro on all
Agoran Decisions I can.
I was curious to quantify the seeming recent upswing of elections, and
compiled this list from a-o messages with election in the subject,
plus the latest IADoP's report:
Jan 7 Accountor Wooble
Jan 7 Anarchist Wooble
Jan 12-20 Anarchist Bayes 3, Goethe 2, Wooble 1
Okay, the second attempt failed because clause 12 restricts each
Farmer to one purchase a week, and the third failed because the
AFO has no points.
Blah. Must remember to buy a Digit Ranch next week.
Yally wrote:
I don't quite get what you're trying to say here.
Wow, that really is a lot of elections?
ais523 wrote:
On Thu, 2009-05-07 at 00:10 +0200, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
2009/5/7 comex com...@gmail.com:
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Sgeo sgeos...@gmail.com wrote:
Does that rule have a title, because it looks like the title you gave
is for the proposal.
Also, I think this is just a
Yally wrote:
I initiate an Agoran decision to choose the holder of the Tailor
office. The eligible voters are the active players, the vote collector
is the IADoP, and the candidates are coppro and Yally.
I endorse Wooble.
coppro wrote:
I spend A C D to decrease Dvorak Herring's caste.
And what chord would that be, then?
ais523 wrote:
Incidentally, if you deregister / are deregistered during a proposal's
voting period, can you still vote on it? I'm not sure offhand.
Yes, Rules 1950 and 2156 both specify entities that were ... players
at the start of its voting period.
Pavitra wrote:
I disagree, and I not-support the intent. Judge comex assigned judgement
on time, thus making the judgement an on-time judgement; Murphy then
published that on-time judgement by (re)posting it to a public forum.
The judgement does not become late simply by Murphy's quoting it.
BobTHJ wrote:
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 14:13, Jonatan Kilhamn jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com
wrote:
I agree to Nomic Wars III.
I flip the contestmaster of Nomic Wars III to BobTHJ.
I don't think this works; the condition was written along the lines of
If this contract is a contest and its
Yally wrote:
Does not include reports or duties. I nominate myself, Wooble, and
Goethe as IaDoP.
Do you really need me to list that? It's already in the rules. It's not
like any officer is going to look at my report for how to do his job anyway.
The list of reports used to
Sgeo wrote:
On 5/5/09, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Proposal: Second-class judges
(AI = 2, please)
[Now that second-class registration is restricted, other restrictions
can be loosened up.]
Amend Rule 1868 (Judge Assignment Generally) by removing first-class
from
Dvorak Herring wrote:
6271 Fixing contestmaster flipping O 1.0 1 Tiger
FOR
6272 Revert contest bug O 1.0 1 coppro
FOR
Ineffective, your caste was recently decreased to Savage.
Pavitra wrote:
I transfer a prop from coppro to the PNP for breaking various automated
tools that used to parse proposal distributions.
Ineffective, ownership of props is restricted to first-class players.
Dvorak Herring wrote:
6226 Lock Alphas In D 2.0 1 comex
PRESENT
All these proposals are apparently a bit short of quorum, so these
votes do count.
Dvorak Herring wrote:
6237 Fix veto D 3.0 1 comex
FOR
This one was also short of quorum.
coppro wrote:
6261 An ambiguous proposal O 1.0 1 Quazie
AGAINST x 5, this will fail utterly as it doesn't specify the powers of
the new rules
So? They'll default to Power = 1.
coppro wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Dvorak Herring wrote:
6226 Lock Alphas In D 2.0 1 comex
PRESENT
All these proposals are apparently a bit short of quorum, so these
votes do count.
The voting period had ended before eir votes (do they count if you
coppro wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
coppro wrote:
6261 An ambiguous proposal O 1.0 1 Quazie
AGAINST x 5, this will fail utterly as it doesn't specify the powers of
the new rules
So? They'll default to Power = 1.
Power defaults to 0, but a rule cannot have power less
Tiger wrote:
2009/5/4 Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com:
[This notice resolves the Agoran decisions of whether to adopt the
following proposals. For each decision, the options available to
Agora are ADOPTED (*), REJECTED (x), and FAILED QUORUM (!).]
(...)
6231 O0 1.0 Tiger
Wooble wrote:
On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 14:02 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
I judge this TRUE; rule 101 has higher Power, so by rule 1482 it does
indeed take precedence.
I intend, with 2 support, to appeal this ruling. R1482
root wrote:
At the end of the voting period, if no votes were cast FOR an insane
proposal, its proposer would win and gain the patent title of Maniac.
CoE: The rule awarded either a win, or points, or the Patent Title,
but never more than one at once. Consulting comex's rule history, the
comex wrote:
2009/5/4 Ian Kelly ian.g.ke...@gmail.com:
I'm actually mildly curious as to why you haven't done the Win
Announcement yet.
I'm hoping to save it until a time when I don't already have MwoP.
This is a win announcement: root owns a Medal.
But does not win, because e has a Rest.
Pavitra wrote:
[Presumably this should read Guesses for May 11-17.]
Yes, copy+paste error, corrected in draft.
coppro wrote:
I support and do so.
H. Justiciar root, any preference on this one?
root wrote:
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
[This is what happens when you forget to disqualify.]
Yeah, I'm bad about that. But why didn't you just assign it to Yally
(or somebody else who was standing at the time)? At this point,
either comex
root wrote:
TTttPF.
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 4:36 PM, Ian Kelly ian.g.ke...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
coppro wrote:
I support and do so.
H. Justiciar root, any preference on this one?
Sure, I make CFJ 2482a hot.
There should
Rodlen wrote:
Does giving your judgment in time on an appeals panel get you a note?
No, the panel gives judgement, and there's no Note reward for giving an
opinion. (This prevents leaning players from making spurious appeals in
hopes of being rewarded for trivial AFFIRMs.)
Quazie wrote:
I stand.
Ineffective, you can't stand except by sitting and getting rotated.
I increase my rank to at least 2.
Ineffective, not specific enough.
coppro wrote:
I intend, without objection, to ratify the most recently-published
CotC's report (as of this intent) in its full scope.
I object. The report in question was missing Pavitra's posture (it
was supine at the time).
Yally wrote:
What do you mean it doesn't line up correctly?
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2009-May/006244.html
Pavitra wrote:
More practicably, I'd really like to see the missing logs from the
beginning of the game filled in.
Blob's thesis archive includes some old summaries:
ftp://ftp.cse.unsw.edu.au/pub/users/malcolmr/nomic/articles/agora-theses/lib-vlad.html
Pavitra wrote:
Murphy, you said a while back that you haven't entered all the old cases
into the database largely because it would be necessary to do so for
each case individually, by hand. Is that inconvenience because of the
lack of batch-mode tools to process the CFJs, or because the cases
Goethe wrote:
R101 says you can publish text. It doesn't say anything about what the
legal effect of doing so can or can't be. For example, you can publish
all the text of a Proposal Distribution, but it's not a Proposal
Distribution unless you're the Promotor. Similarly, R101 says you
Goethe wrote:
By the way ais523, what do you think of the other question, on whether
MAY with N Support in general invokes dependent actions thus turning
a MAY into a CAN?
Rule 1728 includes this:
A dependent action CAN be performed non-dependently as otherwise
permitted by the
ais523 wrote:
Well, one potentially worrying problem here; if a rule's text has a
lower power than the rule itself (say 0), then the text cannot affect
any aspect of the rule's operation. So how on earth does the rule know
what it's enforcing?
Arguably, the text is part of the rule, thus
Pavitra wrote:
I transfer a prop from coppro to the PNP for breaking various automated
tools that used to parse proposal distributions.
How many such tools are there? Revising the admin interface for the
Assessor DB wasn't too much trouble.
1101 - 1200 of 3133 matches
Mail list logo
