omd wrote:
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
[Disclaimer: Â I think omd successfully caused eir dictatorship rule
to extend the voting periods, in which case this is ineffective.]
Voting results for Proposals 6941 - 6942:
CoE on the voting results
Yally wrote:
On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 01:37, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 23:27, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com
wrote:
I crown ais523.
I crown Tanner L. Swett.
Who is inactive, thus allowing the following to occur immediately.
Then I crown
omd wrote:
On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 10:15 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
wrote:
CoE: ehird did not submit a valid ballot on the decision to adopt this
proposal.
Denied. E in fact submitted seventy billion of them.
-scshunt
I intend to deputise for the CotC to assign
ais523 wrote:
I'll likely judge CFJ 2939 FALSE. The clearest argument, to me, that the
initiator of a CFJ cannot set its II to 100 is that the initiator of the
CFJ has power 0, and thus cannot override rule 2153, which specifies
legal values for interest indices. (Note that rule 2225 doesn't
Roujo wrote:
I /did/ read it! I read every message since I joined. =P
I read this, which I think is related:
Arguments: On IRC, e agreed with Kelly that due to the Annabel Crisis,
the actual ruleset is probably stuck in the past.
But that doesn't make me understand why that crisis caused
G. wrote:
On Thu, 23 Dec 2010, Elliott Hird wrote:
Amend Rule 2152 (Mother, May I?) by adding definitions for KINDA,
SORTA, ALMOST and NOT QUITE.
Don't forget HELL, YES:
(Reposted from TheDailyWTF)
Re: True and True
2010-06-23 11:41 • by Erasmus Darwin
A Proposed Replacement for
Proto-proto: HalfLANG
(co-author = Dan Curtis Johnson)
Amend Rule 2152 (Mother, May I?) by adding definitions for KINDA,
SORTA, ALMOST and NOT QUITE.
Amend Rule 2196 (Standard Classes of Agoran Decisions) to add the
vote values EH, WHOA, and WE.
Amend Rule 591 (Inquiry Cases) to add the
omd wrote:
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 1:43 AM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
   Upon a win announcement that a rule allows one or more persons
   to cause it by announcement to make arbitrary rule changes that
   it is otherwise able to make,
I don't think this works
scshunt wrote:
On 10-12-22 05:02 PM, omd wrote:
Amend Rule 2140 (Power Controls Mutability) by adding the following item:
(d) cause a rule change.
This would break proposals of power less than 3.
No it wouldn't, the amended R106's It may make rule changes would
conflict with R2140
ehird wrote:
On 23 December 2010 04:07, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
I think that CFJ was NttPF
I don't think so... was it? :/
Yup.
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2010-December/033118.html
G. wrote:
On Sun, 19 Dec 2010, Ed Murphy wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2918a
= Appeal 2918a (Interest Index = 0) ==
REMAND.
Arguments: if this is to hold, please explain why/how it's reasonable to
make
omd wrote:
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
CFJ, disqualifying omd: Â For the purpose of determining the effect of a
rule change on an entity as regulated by Rule 1586, the documents
defining an entity includes (at least) all rules purporting to define
omd wrote:
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
omd wrote:
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
CFJ, disqualifying omd: Ā For the purpose of determining the effect of a
rule change on an entity as regulated by Rule
scshunt wrote:
On 10-12-19 08:53 PM, ais523 wrote:
Err, wasn't scshunt sitting? Also, I'm quoting the entire message as it
seems to make no sense.
err wait. yes I was.
To clarify, scshunt was (I think) sitting when e was assigned to 2924
(due to previously assigning emself to the -1
ais523 wrote:
On Sun, 2010-12-19 at 18:52 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
scshunt wrote:
On 10-12-19 08:53 PM, ais523 wrote:
Err, wasn't scshunt sitting? Also, I'm quoting the entire message as it
seems to make no sense.
err wait. yes I was.
To clarify, scshunt was (I think) sitting when e
I wrote:
ais523 wrote:
On Sun, 2010-12-19 at 18:52 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
scshunt wrote:
On 10-12-19 08:53 PM, ais523 wrote:
Err, wasn't scshunt sitting? Also, I'm quoting the entire message as it
seems to make no sense.
err wait. yes I was.
To clarify, scshunt was (I think
omd wrote:
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 8:31 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
 S = set of documents defining the entity (whatever that means)
I'm arguing that they still define that entity is equivalent to
S_b is non-empty and S_a is non-empty. Â For new entities
5 ais523
10 ehird
7 scshunt
5 Murphy
5 Yally
0 G.
3 Sgeo
2 Roujo
2 Taral
2 Tiger
2 Ienpw III
2 Keba
2 Flameshadowxeroshin
2 Tanner
2 (omd, Darth Cliche) in some order
scshunt wrote:
I CFJ (II=3) on {
If
A single appeal case (submitted to the CotC) had been
assigned a panel of three players, none of whom is or was the
Justiciar;
and each of them opined for a different judgment within the time
limit;
ais523 wrote:
On Sun, 2010-12-19 at 19:39 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
Most recent emergency session
-
Dates: Wed 15 Dec 10 - Wed 5 Jan 11
Roll call: ais523, ehird, Flameshadowxeroshin, G., Murphy, omd,
scshunt, Sgeo, Tanner L. Swett, Yally
omd wrote:
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 11:46 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
wrote:
On 10-12-19 11:17 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
Arguments: Â an opinion can be reasonably interpreted as exactly one
opinion, leading to a straightforward judgement of TRUE.
It can't really
scshunt wrote:
On 10-12-19 11:17 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
Arguments: an opinion can be reasonably interpreted as exactly one
opinion, leading to a straightforward judgement of TRUE.
It can't really. This interpretation is generally unsupported:
[snip]
an is an existential qualifier. It makes
Proto-Proposal: Little Dutch Boy
(AI = 3, II = 2, co-author = omd)
Amend Rule 2186 (Victory) by replacing this text:
a) For each Winning Condition satisfied by at least one of
those persons, its cleanup procedure (if any) occurs.
with this text:
a) For each Winning
omd wrote:
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 9:44 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
   If the documents defining an entity are amended such that they
   still define that entity but with different properties, then
   that entity and its properties continue to exist to whatever
omd wrote:
- Each Public Forum becomes a Discussion Forum, and vice versa.
I suggesting using a separate set of fora, so that non-contestants
can ignore it if they want. (Yes, they could subject-filter [Ar],
but no such restriction would be placed on Aroga discussion sent
to an Agora PF.)
omd wrote:
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 6:38 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Yally wrote:
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 22:04, omd c.ome...@gmail.com
mailto:c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
  I intend, with Agoran Consent, to cause Rule 2324 to amend itself by
  appending the following
omd wrote:
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
I would personally judge that this is an obvious attempt to get around
a higher-leveled definition through the corruption of implicit parentheses
and that R754 blocks it. Â -G.
I could pretty easily say
omd wrote:
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
wrote:
The jurisprudence is that if the Promotor errs in describing a proposal e
authored, e actually submits an alternate proposal and distributes it. This
is no different.
(not anymore, the rule was
ehird wrote:
Can you make it Nice Job Breaking It Hero? It feels cut-off without it.
I would, but Rule 2231.
omd wrote:
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 8:35 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
CFJ, disqualifying omd: Â For a rule which purports to allow a person
to perform an action without objection, N (as defined by Rule 1728)
is implicitly specified by that rule as 1.
Arguments: The default
scshunt wrote:
I assume Promotor and distribute the following proposal:
Proposal: My Rights (AI=3, II=1, Distributable via fee, Urgent,
authored by scshunt, Ordinary, ID 6943)
{{{
Enact a new Power-3 Rule:
scshunt CAN perform by announcement any action that no
scshunt wrote:
On 10-12-14 09:07 PM, omd wrote:
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 9:00 PM, Ed Murphyemurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Award the Patent Title of Nice Job Breaking It to the players who
were generally known as G. and scshunt when this proposal was
first announced.
Not a mistake on either
Yally wrote:
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 21:18, Jonathan Rouillard
jonathan.rouill...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi! =)
The specifics depend on the Nomic you're playing, but you can find a
general how-to here:
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/nomic.htm#how to play
Other than that, your best bet
omd wrote:
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 12:40 AM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
(whether you
could claim your deregister rather than continue to play right
retroactively, which affected who was Speaker, which had various
knock-on effects).
Why would you be able to do that!?
Okay
omd wrote:
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 12:52 AM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Accepted. Â This message was sent (to a-o) on December 6, eir conditional
was sent on December 1.
Did this affect the results of any of the other proposals?
I don't think so, the only votes that G
Yally wrote:
Given Murphy's most recent judgement, I need to re CFJ this quickly
before it self-ratifys (if that even works). I CFJ on the following
sentence. scshunt did not have enough ergs to pay the above quoted
fees. I bar scshunt.
You didn't need to. An inquiry case remains a doubt
scshunt wrote:
On 10-12-11 11:34 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
There's no possible gamestate where the document was true at the time
it was published and I'm not a player, unless I deregistered since the
publication. Since I can't initiate an appeal however, I'll just walk
away from the game.
omd wrote:
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 6:27 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
== Â Criminal Case 2918 (Interest Index = 0) Â ===
  scshunt violated Rule 2283, committing the Class-2 Crime of
  Assaulting the Batteries, by publishing the above quoted
 Â
scshunt wrote:
6924 O 0 1.0 G. No condition
ENDORSE the first person to vote AGAINST this Decision, AGAINST otherwise.
6925 O 0 1.0 G. Not pointless
ENDORSE myself on 6924.
This fails to cast any votes on 6925.
For my own reference, I believe the list of succession is currently
as follows:
5 omd (Speaker)
10 Taral
7 Tiger
5 Ienpw III
5 Keba
0 ehird
3 Flameshadowxeroshin
2 ai523
2 scshunt
2 Yally
2 Sgeo
2 Tanner
2 G.
2
Wooble wrote:
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 5:37 PM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
On Fri, 2010-12-10 at 17:32 -0500, omd wrote:
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 5:25 PM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk
wrote:
Subject: Re: BUS: I deregister.
CFJ: ais523 deregistered.
(intentionally
omd wrote:
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 7:45 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
Proposal
Proposal: Remove a useless SHOULD (AI=3, II=0)
Amend Rule 1728 by removing:
The actor SHOULD publish a list of supporters if the action
depends on support, and a list of objectors if it
G. wrote:
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010, omd wrote:
Thus, if Murphy submits a
proposal to refactor such-and-such, usually I will just vote FOR it,
assuming that it does indeed refactor something in a sensible way,
True ancient history: Murphy used this reputation to slip something
into a refactor
omd wrote:
On Nov 30, 2010, at 12:52 AM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Proposal: Restore the terrible choice
(disinterested, distributable by announcement)
Terrible?
It's a choice made by an officer called the Fearmongor.
ais523 wrote:
On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 15:42 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 3:33 PM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
It would help if there was a meaningful reward for being an officer, but
at the moment there isn't.
Reduce free ergs?
Ergs would still need
scshunt's votes on 6908-13 evaluate as follows (based on Wooble's and
omd's current votes).
If Wooble's votes were effective (I'm currently assuming they were):
6908: N = 1*2 - 1*2 = 0 - PRESENT
6909: N = 1*2 - 3*2 = -4 - FOR x 4 (only 2 effective)
6910: N = 3*2 - 1*2 = 4 -
Yally wrote:
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 14:25, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
I assume the office of IADoP.
I assume the office of Herald.
I assume the office of Registrar.
I sit up. I flip my judicial rank to 3.
I call for judgement on Wooble is the judge of CFJ 2908., and set
scshunt wrote:
What changes does this make?
Clarifies which of the first two random selections is tied to which
part of the duty, requires noting the titles of those rules, and
rewords the is responsible for part. (And changes MUST NOT to
SHALL NOT at the end, because it sounds more natural to
To the best of my knowledge, the list of succession currently
looks like this:
5 G. Speaker
10 TaralKitchen Staff Supervisor
7 TigerChief Justice
5 Ienpw IIIGrand Vizier
5 Keba Head Gardener
0
omd wrote:
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 4:55 AM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Oh, this judgement definitely failed, by the way-- it's almost exactly
parallel to CFJ 1631.
Not really; CFJ 1361 had a blank body so there was not obviously an
action taking place, my message clearly was
omd wrote:
*6882 O0 1.0 G. Other documents
*6883 O1 1.0 omd Read Requirement
I swear I read a message asking the Assessor to resolve these in reverse
order (to allow them both to take effect), but I can't find it. If such a
message was sent, I'd like to transfer a
I wrote:
[Disclaimer: this assumes that Wooble's recent purported
deregistration was ineffective.]
Actually, the time limit on panel opinions ran out before the
purported deregistration.
scshunt wrote:
On 10-11-21 10:50 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
History:
Called by scshunt: 09 Nov 2010 01:24:37 GMT
Assigned to ais523: 15 Nov 2010 00:17:03 GMT
Judged TRUE by ais523: 20 Nov 2010 22:25:03 GMT
Assigned to ais523
scshunt wrote:
On 10-11-15 01:28 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
Hmm. There's almost no point in initiating a criminal CFJ, because
clearly Wooble is innocent on account of not being reasonably aware.
Thus, I CFJ on the following sentence. The Registrar's most recent
report should have included
Sgeo wrote:
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 8:26 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Here's some temporary tracking info related to Proposals 6877-94.
Rests pre-Rebellion:
14 Tanner L. Swett
1 Wooble
6 Keba
Base voting limits if ehird was not a Rebel (CFJ 2897), thus the
Rebellion
Here's some temporary tracking info related to Proposals 6877-94.
Rests pre-Rebellion:
14 Tanner L. Swett
1 Wooble
6 Keba
Base voting limits if ehird was not a Rebel (CFJ 2897), thus the
Rebellion failed:
5 Murphy
10 G.
7 scshunt
5 ais523 (but see below)
5 Yally (but see
ehird wrote:
Hillary Rodham Clinton has called a CFJ
No e hasn't:
http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/list.php?caller=Hillary+Rodham+Clinton
but I think CFJ 2180 was attributed to em for a while.
CFJ 2003 is relevant.
G. wrote:
On Fri, 12 Nov 2010, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
It would also promote the first rebel (omd) such that Yally would
have promoted emself to Grand Vizier for a cost of 5 ergs, and eir
rubbberstamps/vetos would have
omd wrote:
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com
wrote:
I intend, without objection, to make Ienpew III inactive.
I object.
NttPF
omd wrote:
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 2:24 PM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
I transfer a prop from Ienpew III (for not doing much of anything,
really) to Yally (for finally using these powers in an unabashed
Wooble wrote:
The submitter of a proposal SHALL set its interest index to 0 if
and only if the proposal's effects are limited to correcting
errors and/or ambiguities, or if e is required by another rule
to submit a disinterested proposal.
Should be ...or if e is
ais523 wrote:
On Sun, 2010-11-07 at 16:57 -0500, Sean Hunt wrote:
TtTTPF with a bottom-post
Is this a plausible synonym for TTttPF? The capitalisation there makes
no sense.
The message itself was ttPF, and I can't think of any other
reasonable interpretation, so I say yes.
Bucky wrote:
It appears that omd's judgment on CfJ 2878 has self-ratified. Rule 2201
(Self-ratification) does not consider an appeal to be a challenge to a
judicial declaration. (The CfJ itself is 'suspended', but that isn't
relevent)
Also, note that the definition of tortoise
Wooble wrote:
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 3:25 AM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
I believe omd's announcement of shelling the palace had no effect,
as e was no longer Crown Prince at the time due to my becoming
Speaker a few days earlier. omd then moved the player above em
(Yally) down
coppro wrote:
On 10-10-31 01:34 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
This distribution of proposals 6870-6876
initiates the Agoran Decisions on whether to adopt them. The eligible
voters are the active players at the time of this distribution, and
the vote collector is the Assessor. The valid options
coppro wrote:
On 10-11-07 10:00 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2891
== Criminal Case 2891 (Interest Index = 0) ===
Warrigal violated committed the Class-2 Crime of Restricted
Behavior by violating rule 2125
The Big Work Project has eased off. Expect CotC catchup over the
weekend, and hopefully Assessor as well (H. Herald Wooble, can I
please get an updated history of the List of Succession?).
omd wrote:
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
I announce my intent
I announce my object
I announce my subject
Now we see the violence inherent in the system!
omd wrote:
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
NUM Â C I AI Â SUBMITTER Â Â Â Â Â TITLE
6863 O 1 2.0 coppro        Be Exact
AGAINST
6864 O 1 3.0 coppro        Urgency simplified
FOR
6865 O 1 2.0 G. Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
omd wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 12:30 AM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
wrote:
=== CFJ 2890 (Interest Index = 0)
It is generally POSSIBLE for me to make a proposal
Undistributable for a fee.
G. wrote:
I sit up.
You were standing, so by CFJ 2607 this is ineffective.
I make myself Supreme (if I'm not already).
You were already.
coppro wrote:
I set the II of this case to 1, judge it TRUE, and create a capacitor in
my possession for the judgment.
NttPF
Tanner L. Swett wrote:
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
=== Â CFJ 2888 (Interest Index = 0) Â
Judge: Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Tanner L. Swett
CoE, accepted: Â this was ineffective, Tanner
coppro wrote:
=== CFJ 2890 (Interest Index = 0)
TRUE. Not being permitted to perform something is different than being
NttPF
coppro wrote:
I vote FOR the Decisions to adopt proposals 6858, 6861 and 6862 and
AGAINST the Decisions to adopt any other proposals that I can vote on.
These were ineffective, you still have 21 Rests.
Taral wrote:
6858 O 1 1.0 G. The Robot
6859 O 1 2.0 ais523 Distributed Proposal 6830
6860 O 2 2.0 KebaA Perpetuum mobile is possible
6861 O 1 1.0 omd Make anarchy more interesting
6862 O 0 1.0 Wooble Refugitivize
G. wrote:
On Sun, 17 Oct 2010, Ed Murphy wrote:
G. wrote:
Therefore, in light of this complete silence, I use the powers granted
me by R217, and state that it is (a) for the good of the game; (b) in
keeping with game custom; and (c) in keeping with the primacy of R754(2)
definitional
coppro wrote:
The Promotor CAN distribute an Urgent Proposal as soon as
possible, unless it ceases to be Urgent in the mean time. Failure
to do so is the Class 1 Crime of Lack of Urgency.
The Promotor CAN distribute an Urgent Proposal, and SHALL do so as soon
as possible
coppro wrote:
On 10/11/2010 12:34 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
- A player CAN move an indicated player an indicated number of
positions P on the list in an indicated direction (up or down)
for a charge equal to the sum of the Influence Levels of all
the positions
omd wrote:
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 11:49 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Alternatively, they could have been given chaotic numbers like 1401
through 1401, so that the orderly numbers would still roughly
reflect the number of distinct statements.
That's roughly what you
omd wrote:
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
title: Erratification
ai: 1.0
interest: 1
proposer: omd
submit_date: 2010-09-19
submit_mid: aanlkti=uoeruenrio7hcd8fvtxpjrajfvstz1kphn...@mail.gmail.com
distributability: undistributable
Ratify the
omd wrote:
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 2:44 PM, Warrigal ihope12...@gmail.com wrote:
I resign from all offices and become supine. I describe my becoming
supine just now as earning me 2*3^35,000 farads; for this action, I
award myself 3^35,000 ergs. I pay fees to destroy all my rests, then
pay
omd wrote:
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Actually, they all fail, by the precedent of CFJ 1774.
Counterargument: Â the disparity of effort between Tanner announcing
I perform asset-related action $BIGNUM times and the relevant
officer recording
Wooble wrote:
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 9:07 AM, Elliott Hird
penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 7 October 2010 13:46, Elliott Hird penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com
wrote:
If I'm not active, I become active. I intend, with 1 support, and
conditional on this condition not being met, to
Wooble wrote:
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 9:57 AM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
CoE: The office of Notary does not exist, thus the document in question
is not a Notary's report. (CoE because it appears to purport to be an
asset report.)
I'm not sure how to respond to this, because
ais523 wrote:
the truth of the condition, the only conclusion is that it's undecidable
whether or not alise managed to become inactive; unlike, say,
registration where there's a requirement to be reasonably unambiguous,
Who's alise?
G. wrote:
On Thu, 7 Oct 2010, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 15:12, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu
wrote:
I raise Taral's position on the list by 1, for a fee.
I lower Wooble's
ehird wrote:
I rebel! yaaar! What does rebellion do again?
Rule 2270, summary: when a player begins a coup:
a) The initiator is a rebel, the Speaker isn't, everyone else has
four days to become one (non-retractable)
b) The more rebels, the more likely the rebellion is to succeed
omd wrote:
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 8:42 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
No they aren't, the report is as of the last PSM's report which
pre-dated omd's attempts.
E's still required to publish an up-to-date list of Allegiances, just
not Fan holdings.
Well, the message is still
coppro wrote:
On 10/03/2010 06:44 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
[Note, this report is a week (almost two weeks) out of date due to the
lack of a recent PSM's report, and thus is basically useless. I doubt I
have time to figure out what the PSM's report should have said before
the end of the week,
coppro wrote:
On 09/30/2010 07:28 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
I CFJ on the statement At some time in the past, Keba was the Speaker,
barring Wooble.
Arguments: Rule 2315 only allows initialisation the List of Succession
as soon as possible after this proposal takes effect; unfortunately,
rule
G. wrote:
On Sun, 26 Sep 2010, omd wrote:
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 6:10 PM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
I intend, without objection from 2 members of Imperial and without
objection from 2 members of Team 4, to move Tiger to Team 4.
For each team T, for each team U other than
On another note, making the Rests come back at the end of the week
rather than instantly leaves a window for a Rest-destroying scam to get
down to 0 before the Rests are recreated.
This doesn't help toward Cleanliness, which requires you stay at 0
for a whole week. It could help toward Win by
coppro wrote:
It's already meaningless. Voting limits are locked at the end of the
voting period.
Not for ordinary decisions (the only ones where voting limits
routinely change). Rule 2156, excerpt:
The voting limit
of a player on
Tanner L. Swett wrote:
I submit a proposal, titled Spelling reform begins with Agora, with
AI = 1.0 and II = 1, and make it distributable by fee:
{In all rules, replace all instances of the string judge (and the
string judg where it is not followed by an e) with the string
juj.}
Would
Proto-Proposal: All pariahs are equally dirty
Amend Rule 2312 (The Pariah) by replacing this text:
that player is awarded 23 Rests.
with this text:
if e has a number of Rests (R) less than 23, then e gains
23-R Rests.
Proto-Proposal: Clarify re-dirtying
Amend Rule 2312
Taral wrote:
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
At the end of each week, if the number of Rests (R) in the current
Pariah's possession that were destroyed during that week [and
while e was Pariah] [and since e most recently became Pariah
G. wrote:
[most appeals cases end up remanded, the first time at least]
Proto: auto-remand
Create the following rule: Remand for Clarification
If a judicial case:
1) has a judgement, that has been in effect for less than seven days,
that has not been appealed; and
Taral wrote:
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Taral tar...@gmail.com wrote:
REMAND.
Hm, this doesn't work.
Yes it does, I noticed this problem a while back and got this
added to Rule 911:
If prejudice is not
explicitly specified, then an
Proto-Proposal: Clean up eligibility and limits
(AI = 3, II = 1, please)
Amend Rule 683 (Voting on Agoran Decisions) by prepending this text:
Except as specified by other rules with Power at least 2:
(1) The eligible voters on an Agoran decision are the active
players.
401 - 500 of 3133 matches
Mail list logo
