On 29/07/2013 7:37 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 19:35 -0400, Fool wrote:
Let's ask if you are a player (c). If I de-registered you, you are NOT a
player (b -> ~c).
But (b -> ~c) -> (~~b -> ~c). So if it was NOT IMPOSSIBLE for me to
de-register you, you
On 29/07/2013 7:33 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Fool wrote:
I assume Assessor.
Voting results for Proposals 7530-7547:
COE:
By Rule 1950, the eligible voting entities are set at the _distribution_
of the proposal. I am not sure whether your scam succeeds (well, I doubt
it
On 29/07/2013 6:46 PM, omd wrote:
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Fool wrote:
How's that. Why is it (~(a->b) -> ~a) and not (a -> (a->b)) ?
IMPOSSIBLE except as allowed
~(allowed) -> ~a
It's allowed if a -> b, therefore ~(a -> b) -> ~a.
So, you a
On 29/07/2013 6:59 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 18:44 -0400, Fool wrote:
Uh.. ok. What's the trophy and what's the time limit for getting it?
Anything permanent that sticks around in the gamestate. Typical
dictatorship trophies include my Patent Title of H., the Tow
On 29/07/2013 6:32 PM, omd wrote:
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
How do you define "iff" (in the rules) in the absence of the law of
excluded middle? It may not be the same way that the rules themselves
do.
Ah, yes. That makes sense.
((a -> b)<-> a) -> b holds intuitio
On 29/07/2013 6:27 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
Where does a week or more come from?
It's the length of time to adopt a proposal; most such scams normally
involved preventing everyone else from voting for long enough to pass a
dictatorship proposal.
I passed a rule giving me immediate amendment powe
On 29/07/2013 6:20 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Fool wrote:
The sentences in question are not directly self-referential or even
mutually-referential. This is more of a Curry-flavoured confused
deputy, with rule 2337 as the deputy. It says that the author can
destroy a promise
On 29/07/2013 6:16 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 16:26 -0400, Fool wrote:
I cash the promise titled "!!!" [Text: "!!!". Cashing condition: "This
promise has existed for 2 months." It was created May 21.]
CoE: Which two months has it existed for?
On 29/07/2013 6:15 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
You forgot the Gerontocracy. The "with notice" is modified by the Elder
objections, thus breaking your loop.
I did not. Gerontocracy was lifted by proposal 7519.
Also, Agora generally denies the law of the excluded middle
It's constructive and does n
On 29/07/2013 5:48 PM, omd wrote:
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Fool wrote:
In the name of Davy I, Queen of Agora Nomic, CAT 24, and her other realms, I
cause the new rule created by proposal 7537 to amend itself to read:
Hmm... it is interesting how Rule 101 (iv) might be interpreted in
On 29/07/2013 5:30 PM, omd wrote:
I suppose it's
appropriate to say that paraconsistent logic isn't an appropriate
answer; unless the rules use language that expect us to work
indirectly to determine the possibility of an action, it's necessary
to go all the way to intuitionistic logic.
I am, a
I know some of you here advocate a less logicist and more legalist
approach, and I guess this is the bit where you "watch the logicians
sweat" as Peter Suber would have it. Well, the paradox I present to you
is: how should a legalist rule in a game which has a tradition of
"absurd literalism"?
As I've been told in the context of Gerontocracy (which, BTW, was lifted
by proposal 7519), the normal Agoran approach is to have fun with the
unexpected new rules, rather than complain about them. But, as I
understand, even though dictatorship isn't unprecedented around here, it
tends to be as
Curry's paradox hasn't gotten much attention in Agora. It came up in
discussion a couple of times, and in terms of usage in-game, all I found
was someone CFJing a free-floating sentence "If this sentence is true,
then I win." That was about 10 years ago.
Well, this isn't a free-floating sent
On 28/07/2013 10:52 PM, Jonathan Rouillard wrote:
Naughtiness (Rule 2356)
---
PVN: 1
Unvirtuous: Fool
By the way, naughtiness no longer exists.
On 20/07/2013 3:30 PM, omd wrote:
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Fool wrote:
Create a Power-2 Rule titled "Auctions":
Don't we already have an auction rule? Can we fix it or get rid of it?
It was repealed.
Just looked, R2393 is in the SLR posted 12 hours ago.
Do we wa
Create a Power-2 Rule titled "Auctions":
Don't we already have an auction rule? Can we fix it or get rid of it?
When in effect, unless
a fine for that case has already been satisfied, the ninny
SHALL pay a cost of that amount of currency to satisfy the
fine
On 20/07/2013 1:21 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
In theory, you can still, also, publish a body of text and say " I agree
to this text, the first person to vote FOR proposal 5000 thereby consents
to join and make this an agreement".
I don't get it. Without R101 iii, the above would do what?
My sense
On 19/07/2013 10:47 PM, James Beirne wrote:
>If the rules were to change to allow players to be bound to a
constitution they did not agree to, why would that be considered an
"agreement"?
If two people agreed to that party's constitution it would be an
agreement, just not one that all bound pla
On 20/07/2013 12:56 PM, omd wrote:
When a sentence of TIME OUT has been in effect continuously for
one week, the ninny becomes inactive, and eir stasis timer
increases by the specified amount.
I think we could also be clearer about when a sentence is in effect. At
the mome
On 19/07/2013 12:29 PM, Tanner Swett wrote:
Most people are capable of playing pickleball, eating paczkis, taking
pictures of Venus, making lasagna, tearing newspapers into tiny
pieces, and shoplifting, but these things are not essential parts of
human life. If you were prohibited from doing one
On 19/07/2013 9:01 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jul 2013, Fool wrote:
I don't even see the point of iii. I realise there's history here, but the
rules don't define "agreements" anymore, so what does this do?
As there is no official definition, we use a commo
On 18/07/2013 12:04 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Amend Rule 2395 (Government Waste) by appending the following text:
This office becomes Assumed whenever it is held by the holder of
another elected office.
--
Rev
On 18/07/2013 12:17 AM, omd wrote:
Proposal: Down with bromides (AI=3)
Amend Rule 101 to read:
Please treat Agora right good forever.
[ i. is meaningless.
ii. was only considered to have an effect once, and it probably
shouldn't have been judged that way. It is unlikely to ever be
On 09/07/2013 4:34 PM, omd wrote:
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Lindar Greenwood
wrote:
I announce a CFJ on the following text:
{ Announcing in Agora-Business the creation of a promise that, upon
being cashed, causes the player cashing said promise to break a rule,
does not cause the creato
On 09/07/2013 4:30 PM, omd wrote:
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 4:22 PM, omd wrote:
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
I vote for omd.
I vote for myself.
Campaign Speech:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxBW4mPzv6E
Look at this link, around 3:43. You'll see that the Best Party pro
On 09/07/2013 5:46 AM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, Fool wrote:
Generally I don't think it's true the "meta-agreement" is subject to
amendment
by even "true" nomic. There are still limits. What if we made Agora
On 08/07/2013 4:06 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
I submit the following promise:
Text { I taunt the Police, specifying 5. }
Conditions for cashing {
- I previously voted on an Agoran Decision as a direct result of a
promise being cashed.
- The voting period ended and my vote was not the same (after
e
On 08/07/2013 8:41 PM, omd wrote:
x7493 10 O D FoolComplete Rubbish
And it's fair that this rejected. It was:
{{
Fool CAN satisfy the Victory Condition of Complete Rubbish by
announcement, if he has not already done so.
Fool CAN cause this rule to repeal itself by announc
On 04/07/2013 8:12 PM, Charles Walker wrote:
On 5 July 2013 01:09, Jonathan Rouillard wrote:
I support, although I'd rather use Over/Finished, whichever was passed
by proposal.
Neither has passed yet; ask me again when one has.
-- Walker
Just passed. I prefer Over, because it's not like we
On 08/07/2013 9:21 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
And when you think about it, no Nomic compels its own rule following. All
Nomics are implicitly mediated by something, and this is not subject to
amendment. Usually this is by its players directly, but there are other
possibilities.
But they *are* subj
On 07/07/2013 8:46 PM, Jonathan Rouillard wrote:
On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 8:44 PM, Steven Gardner
wrote:
Class-3 Hazing, Roujo?
Not usually. Class-1 is already a bit much for me.
~ Roujo
Besides pantyhose are so uncomfortable in the summer.
On 03/07/2013 10:07 PM, Charles Walker wrote:
On 4 July 2013 03:01, omd wrote:
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Charles Walker
wrote:
Amend Rule 2410 (Parties) by replacing "Party members SHALL obey their
party's constitution." with "Party members SHALL obey their party's
constitution, except
On 01/07/2013 4:55 PM, Charles Walker wrote:
RETURNING OFFICOR'S PARTY REPORT
There are no parties; all players are Independent.
-- Walker
This intent is not stale yet...
http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg25052.html
Support my motion to found the Serious party!
On 01/07/2013 2:54 AM, Chuck Carroll wrote:
I also have an idea or two about how a group of players could get around the
requirement of unanimity for making a rule mutable against a single player
determined to prevent all such transmutations.
The majority can kick the minority out of the game,
On 01/07/2013 12:35 AM, Chuck Carroll wrote:
Like others have mentioned, I like the idea of a Nomic with a defined
endpoint (being well aware, of course, that there is no guarantee
that the endpoint will remain unchanged) in which I can most likely
play for just a few weeks.
But there was a gua
On 30/06/2013 5:41 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Of course, Blob's version of "innocuous" wasn't... so we sure didn't have a
commanding lead going into the last vote. At the end we knew if everyone in the
game voted and spent their points on voting we'd not get through, but just
shrugged, decided not t
On 30/06/2013 4:35 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
Also, the history does not reflect Toy Nomic
Same as Ambassador Abuse, only more so. Never existed.
On 30/06/2013 3:47 PM, Charles Walker wrote:
Well, I don't particularly care about Win by Paradox (it depends if
the game ends when someone wins as to whether I would repeal it)
I realise a "win" is mostly cosmetic in Agora, but ordinarily it would
end the game. Win by paradox would have ende
On 29/06/2013 4:15 PM, omd wrote:
Amend Rule 2337 (Promises) by appending:
A persistent promise is one whose conditions for destruction on
cashing is {false}. A revocable promise is one whose set of
conditions for author destruction is {true}.
The rest of that rule is phr
he game started, and likely are minority opinions.
Credit to Aaron Goldfein not only for rounding up the old-timers, but
also for coming up with the idea for the game in the first place, about
two months ago. Charles Walker posted a wake-up two weeks ago, reminding
us that time was ticking. I was
On 29/06/2013 5:02 PM, omd wrote:
Okay, the big question, 364. It affects more than the final scores, it
affects whether the surviving player with the most points won, or whether
the old-timers jointly won. (_Surviving_ player, if that's where you're
going with this... proposal 363 failed. No mat
On 29/06/2013 1:16 PM, com...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 29, 2013, at 8:37 AM, Fool wrote:
Good day Agorans,
Ah... one thing. Didn't we have a ruling that proposals do not take effect
until the voting results are announced? Since, unless I'm mixing up time zones
on my phone, thi
On 29/06/2013 9:18 AM, Elliott Hird wrote:
On 29 June 2013 13:37, Fool wrote:
Alex Hunt
what
SMITH! I MEANT SMITH! ARGH!
sorry Alex. :(
Good day Agorans,
A minor correction to the previous report: "woggle" (Alex Hunt,
ais523 in Agora, who chose someone else's nickname here as part of a
counter-scam unrelated to this game) actually got 120 points by Goethe's
proposals 358-360.
There are three CFJs pending. By rules 213 and
On 29/06/2013 8:05 AM, Elliott Hird wrote:
I also spend as many points as I can to purchase extra votes against
364. And cast those votes.
I believe you're at least a minute too late.
-Dan
On 28/06/2013 8:40 PM, Sgeo wrote:
I just noticed a contradiction in Ambassador Abuse's original rules,
between 3 and 7.
(Rule 7 is more specific, supercedes.)
Ambassador Abuse does not, and never has had, a CfJ mechanism.
Players of AA must resolve their differences by consensus.
So, if
On 28/06/2013 7:43 PM, Steven Gardner wrote:
Firstly, I think you're missing the point about injustice, Dan.
I could be, but am I really? The right protects the accused against
unjust attaint by the gov't. In the case before us, legislator and
victim are the same. He was hoist by his own pet
not in effect when Blob proposed P346.
--
Steve Gardner
via mobile
Precedent was used for rule 304. Previous CFJ:
Original Message
Subject: Re: BUS: Agora XX: 1st report: Vigintennial Blitz game begins
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 06:53:55 -0400
From: Fool
To: agora-discussion
On 28/06/2013 1:07 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
I call for judgement on the following: what is above described as
proposal 364 is actually a proposal.
Argument: I find the notion of this proposal to be extremely
humiliating. It unfairly awards the game to old-timers, despite the
hard work of the mo
On 28/06/2013 9:58 AM, Alexander Smith wrote:
It looks like I was too early with my last attempts to vote, so I again attempt
to vote:
363 FOR
364 FOR
It was not too early, voting started when I distributed, not when I
posted the report. And, you voted against before.
H. Speaker Fool, I
On 28/06/2013 9:42 AM, Steven Gardner wrote:
The point of a ban on retroactive application of a rule, especially one
which, like R345, criminalises a certain action, is to avoid a
particularly galling kind of injustice: namely, that people do things
which they rightly believe at the time are leg
On 28/06/2013 10:55 AM, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
Gratuitous argument: A-D is Not A Public Forum, and is not subject to
the strictness of a PF. As long as someone makes it clear *each time*
that their potentially confusing nickname is not going to confuse Agora
play, it's okay.
(cough cough)
Here are the two proposals for what could be this final distribution.
You can still submit proposals, and if 363 passes and 364 fails, I'll
make another distribution before we go to ludicrous speed.
Voting on 348-362 is still open for another hour and a half. Full report
then.
-Dan
363 (omd)
On 27/06/2013 9:38 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
I call for judgement on the statement "a player can change eir vote."
Nothing in the rules support the notion that this is possible, or
allow for removing of votes. Instead, the rules claim each player gets
a single vote. Walker's initial vote should
On 27/06/2013 9:38 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
I call for judgement on the statement "a player can change eir
vote."
My 8-sided virtual die comes up omd
You have 24 hours.
-Dan
Nothing in the rules support the notion that this is possible, or
allow for removing of votes. Instead, the rule
On 27/06/2013 9:27 PM, Malcolm Ryan wrote:
Aand we return to the old Platonic vs Pragmatic debate.
Blob (staying low)
Yeah, Platonic, you lose. Pragmatic, I read you some of my poetry first.
RESISTANCE IS USELESS.
-Dan
On 27/06/2013 9:45 AM, omd wrote:
The cycle length is initially 24 hours. On 30 June 2013, 00:00:00
+1200, and thereafter once the cycle length has passed since the last
reduction, the cycle length is reduced to half of its previous value.
On 31 June 2013, 00:00:00 +1200, the game ends.
Maybe
omd's Agora Infinity is the only proposal so far for the next round.
And unless that proposal passes, next round is the last one. Even if it
does pass, next round is the last round at this ridiculous speed. The
rounds after that go to ludicruous speed...
("What's the matter Colonel Sanders? Ch
On 27/06/2013 8:55 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Of course, this raises the age old question of whether, if e does an
"illegal" thing, whether it actually fails (since we haven't differentiated
IMPOSSIBLE from ILLEGAL here at all...)
Okay, for the sake of argument: then that also applies to all play
On 27/06/2013 8:37 PM, Steven Gardner wrote:
The argument (setting aside the retroactivity claim) is that Blob was
immediately required to forfeit. Not doing so would to be sure be
violation of the Rules, but it still can't happen unless Blob sends a
message say that e forfeits.
Okay, for the s
On 27/06/2013 8:43 PM, Steven Gardner wrote:
On 28 June 2013 10:36, Fool mailto:fool1...@gmail.com>> wrote:
In this case, the effect was your forfeiture (or requirement to
forfeit). It was based on events that occurred prior, but the effect
was not retroactive.
I disagree
On 27/06/2013 8:15 PM, Malcolm Ryan wrote:
I call for judgement on the following statement.
"Blob does not have to forfeit under rule 345."
Reasoning:
Rule 345 says "If a player proposes a rule change that is not adopted..."
I made proposal 346 BEFORE this rule came into effect. Rule 108 forb
On 27/06/2013 8:19 PM, Malcolm Ryan wrote:
I call for judgment on the following statement:
"At the 12:16am GMT on June 28 2013, Blob had not forfeited."
Reasoning: The rules make it clear that forfeiting is a voluntary player action. Rule 345 says a
player "must" forfeit. It does not say that
On 27/06/2013 2:22 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
The emphasis is: A JUDGEMENT HAS NO FORCE TO ACTUALLY COMPEL A RESULT.
Unless it comes up UNDECIDABLE. Then you win!
On 27/06/2013 5:24 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
On 27 June 2013 23:23, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
On 26 June 2013 05:33, Malcolm Ryan wrote:
Let's make this interesting.
I propose that a rule be enacted reading:
"If a player proposes a rule change which is not adopted at the end of its
voting pe
Goethe:
>
> CFJ: Blob has forfeited.
>
331 makes me assign it randomly to me or one of the people who voted on
the last proposal, excluding the caller.
The last proposal was 347, on which 9 players voted. Goethe was one of
them. So was Blob. (hmm)
I'll go ahead and roll a virtual 8-sided d
Argh **
Yes, Chuck did privately vote against 344. And no, Walker did vote
against, he changed his public for to a private against about 9 hours
later.
So it's actually 4:4, fail, we're back to rule 343. Yally did not get 10
points for proposing 344. Walker, Goethe, and omd did not
Good day Agorans,
A correction from last report brought to my attention by Yally. It
does involve the disputed interpretation of the order of events when the
voting on multiple proposals closes "simultaneously". I am going with
the interpretation that they pass sequentially in order I number
Okay, so there's a proposal pending (345) which, if it passes, means
that if a proposal fails, the proposer forfeits.
And suddenly there are no proposals for me to distribute!
Hey, if you're not in the lead, and the rules don't change, you're going
to lose the game anyway. (And maybe Chuck has
--
From: agora-discussion [mailto:agora-discussion-boun...@agoranomic.org] On
Behalf Of Fool
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 9:10 PM
To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org
Subject: DIS: Agora XX: CFJ assigned to Walker
On 26/06/2013 10:09 AM, games...@chuckcarroll.org wrote:
I invoke judgement on the
On 26/06/2013 9:16 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
Shouldn't I have some points, at the very least from voting against a
passing proposal here?
The thing is, that rule (302) was amended (332), and then rule 305
prevents it from assigning points based on votes.
Still, it depends on what "at the sam
On 26/06/2013 6:42 PM, Flameshadowxeroshin wrote:
For.
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 9:31 AM, Jonathan Rouillard
wrote:
FOR. =)
~ Roujo
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 7:36 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
I propose the following rule:
At 12:00 July 1 2013 UTC+1200, Agora XX ends and the player with the most
poin
On 26/06/2013 4:30 PM, omd wrote:
On Wednesday, June 26, 2013, wrote:
As for any ordering of actions occuring in the same message, that's
tradition (possibly law?) in Agora itself, but I don't know whether
Agoran
tradition carries over to Agora XX.
By the way, I'm not saying
On 26/06/2013 3:14 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
CFJ: a player who forfeits the game can still vote and/or transfer points.
("Forfeiture" isn't strictly defined. Does it mean completely drop out,
points zeroed, cease to be defined as a player? Or just give up on a
chance to win but remain a player,
On 26/06/2013 12:09 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I vote for 345-347 (think I already voted on 345)
344 I'll defer to speaker's opinion on ongoing-ness in future.
-Goethe
:VETO:
On 26/06/2013 3:14 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
CFJ: a player who forfeits the game can still vote and/or transfer points.
By 331, I must randomly select either myself or a voter on 341 (Goethe
was not one of them). My virtual 9-sided die comes up
omd
You have 24 hours.
-Dan
("Forfeit
Why not! I call for judgement on:
"Roujo has cast valid votes on proposals by means of the message
quoted below."
On 26/06/2013 10:12 AM, Jonathan Rouillard wrote:
I also vote FOR all current proposals, except those who currently have
a majority of AGAINST votes - I vote AGAINST on those.
On 26/06/2013 10:09 AM, games...@chuckcarroll.org wrote:
I invoke judgement on the following statement: The selection of a Judge
for this statement is a move whose legality cannot be determined with
finality.
By rule 331, I must randomly select from myself or those who voted on
the last propos
On 26/06/2013 12:07 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I was blocking on the term "logician", that's a better choice. (Just had a
flashback to the day in grad school when I became a committed Bayesian,
maybe I was channeling).
Yeah man, you can get flashbacks from that sort of thing. Or so I've
heard, I
On 26/06/2013 8:20 AM, omd wrote:
Although there are no appeals, I do strenuously object to this
judgement. The default assumption is the default because it is usually
accurate. Unless you believe that my brother and I are not in control of
the theagoranundead Gmail account, something which I c
As required by the new rule 340.
-Dan
Speaker:
Fool (Daniel Méhkeri )
Voters in order of registration:
June 18:
1. omd ()
2. FSX ()
3. Walker (Charles Walker )
4. Chuck (Chuck Carroll )
5. ehird (Elliott Hird )
June 20:
6. Yally (Aaron Goldfein )
June 21:
7. Michael (Michael
Good day Agorans,
Since last report, voting on proposals 331-341 closed.
Proposal 331 (omd) passed 5:1 (Walker, Chuck, omd, Yally, and ehird FOR;
Steve AGAINST). This amends rule 214 so that Judges are selected
randomly from among the Speaker and active players. omd receives 10
points and S
[Missed one...]
Here I'll just number and repeat the four new proposals that were made.
You can vote by replying to this message, privately if you like.
I'll send out a full report shortly.
-Dan
344 (Yally):
Amend Rule 326 to read:
Each year on June 30th at 00:04:30 UTC +1200 , the game shal
Here I'll just number and repeat the three new proposals that were made.
You can vote by replying to this message, privately if you like.
I'll send out a full report shortly.
-Dan
344 (Yally):
Amend Rule 326 to read:
Each year on June 30th at 00:04:30 UTC +1200 , the game shall end,
and the V
On 25/06/2013 8:07 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
The fact that it was known to exist, but secretive, generated a surprising
amount of paranoia in some non-member Agorans. There were a couple genuine
witch hunts looking for members, for a short time Agora was genuinely like
a game of werewolf.
You mea
sort of Bayesian reasoning. But let me put my Bayesian hat on
anyway. For this to work I would have to put 100% credence in omd's
statement and then think that there was nothing to epistemically
distinguish the two branches. This is far from the case.
--Dan the non-Bayesian Fool.
Here I'll just number and repeat the two new proposals. Voting closes
in 24 hours. Voting on 331-341 closes in about 11 hours.
-Dan
342 (Chuck):
I propose that rule 311 be amended by changing the text which reads “the
Voter with the most points shall win. In case of a tie, all such Voters
shall
On 24/06/2013 4:36 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 1:44 PM, omd wrote:
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 2:03 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
Amend Rule 2409 (Star Chamber) inserting "- publish the list of codes
(but not the corresponding options)" as the second item in the
bulleted list.
[Allows the
On 25/06/2013 8:15 AM, Steven Gardner wrote:
Either 'Flameshadowxeroshin' or 'FSX' will serve as a name, IMO.
Ah. Well in that case...
Speaker:
Fool (Daniel Méhkeri )
Voters in order of registration:
June 18:
1. omd ()
2. FSX ()
3. Walker (Charles Walker )
4.
Good day Agorans,
Since last report, voting closed on proposals 326-330 closed.
Proposal 326 (Chuck) passed 5:0 with Walker, Michael, Chuck, omd, and
Steve voting FOR. This amends 311, formerly 112, removing "there is no
other way to win". Chuck gets 10 points by rule 302.
Proposal 327 (Wa
Hi FSX,
Well, since you're voting for, would it be fair to ask for your name?
-Dan
On 25/06/2013 1:24 AM, Flameshadowxeroshin wrote:
I vote for this proposal.
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Steven Gardner
wrote:
I vote for this Proposal.
On 25 June 2013 00:10, Steven Gardner wrote:
Yeah, same idea. It's not valid to propose to amend something that isn't
a mutable rule. (Even if it might become mutable by enactment or
transmutation by the time the proposal is adopted).
-Dan
On 25/06/2013 7:36 AM, Chuck Carroll wrote:
By the same logic by which one cannot propose to amend
Voting on 326-329 has closed and voting on 330 closes in half an hour.
Full report at that time. Here I just number and repeat 11 new proposals.
-Dan
331 (omd):
> I propose that Rule 214 be amended to read:
>
> The Speaker shall choose Judges randomly from the set of qualified
> players. Th
Good day Agorans,
Since last report, voting closed on proposals 324 and 325.
Proposal 324 (Chuck) passed 4:0 with Walker, Chuck, scshunt, and Roujo
voting FOR. This transmutes 110. Chuck gets 10 points by rule 302.
Proposal 325 (Chuck) fails 2:2 with Chuck and Roujo FOR; scshunt and
Walker
Here I just number and repeat the one new proposal. Report shortly.
-Dan
330 (Walker):
I propose to amend Rule 324 by deleting the first sentence.
###
Quantity: 1
Title: !!!
Text: !!!
Destruction by author condition: I [omd] CANNOT destroy this promise.
Cashing condition: This promise has existed for at least two months.
Author: omd
Owner: Tree
##
Just re-sending with the "Agora XX" prefix. Sorry about that.
--
Here I just number and repeat four new proposals that were made. Voting
on these closes in 24 hours.
-Dan
326 (Chuck):
I propose that rule 311 be amended by deleting the text “There is no
other way to win.”
327 (Wa
I raised a CFJ which FSX was to rule on:
I call for judgement on the validity of proposal 322. See rule 105. 322
contains a conditional:
322 (Walker):
- If the Rule initially numbered 106 is mutable, amend Rule 210 to
read ...
This isn't like "the rule formerly numbered 211" which isn't a con
Here I just number and repeat four new proposals that were made. Voting
on these closes in 24 hours.
-Dan
326 (Chuck):
I propose that rule 311 be amended by deleting the text “There is no
other way to win.”
327 (Walker):
I propose to amend Rule 310 by replacing "inpermissible" with
"impermi
101 - 200 of 248 matches
Mail list logo
