On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> If two players agree privately to a document that includes a clause
> "this is a public contract" (with the honest intent of publishing it
> afterwards), do you have a private contract which later becomes
> public, or no contract (until it is
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 12:38 AM, Benjamin Caplan
wrote:
> I believe that the intent to use Agoran jurisdiction must be
> unambiguous. So, saying "I pledge to ASAP transfer a 7 Crop to you" in
> ##nomic would probably create an Agoran pledge (assuming B doesn't also
> have a version of the AAA), a
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
> {The parties to the Agoran Loan Service SHALL disband the ALS within 28
> days. The parties to the ALS SHOULD wind up the ALS's affairs and resolve
> all outstanding debts under the ALS within that time.}
Proposed settlement: I transfer
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
wrote:
> 2009/5/19 Geoffrey Spear :
>> I submit the following AI-2 proposal entitled "end of NoVs":
>> {{
>> Repeal Rule 2230.
>> }}
>>
> That would cripple the criminal cases rules
They're already crippled. They should be put out of their misery.
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Quazie wrote:
> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> The highest Proposal ID in use is 6323; no Proposal IDs are chaotic.
>>
>> The pool contains the following proposals, and no other proposals:
>
>> I intend
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Benjamin Caplan
wrote:
> I'm not sure that I'm comfortable with the precedent that the rules can
> be overridden by reality. Surely the rules are unlimited in scope, and
> can create legal fictions of nonexistence (CANNOT publish) just as
> easily as they can creat
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 12:47 PM, comex wrote:
> the difference is "accusing that player of violating" versus
> "alleging that that player violated". I'm not sure whether the
> difference is meaningful.
Why do I have the feeling that if Pavitra had remained inactive, the
people who are going to
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> The full text appears between {} below. The opening (which doesn't
> allow me to fill in the missing parts later) plus 1) should lead to
> a trivial FALSE.
>
> {
> If ais523, comex, coppro, and Murphy are all parties to this contract,
> then Mu
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 2009-05-02 at 15:46 +0100, Alex Smith wrote:
>>> 1) For each active player not a party to this contract, ais523
>>> publishes a Notice of Violation accusing that player of
>>> violating the Power=1 Rule 221
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
> I feel generous and give Tom (who has no ranches) a 3, a 4, a 5, and an 8.
I'm treating this as too ambiguous to succeed; was this intended to
transfer ranches or crops?
On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 1:51 PM, comex wrote:
> On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 9:15 PM, Aaron Goldfein
>> wrote:
>>> I resolve the Agoran decision to decide the holder of the IADoP office.
>>
>> CoE: this re
On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 4:56 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
> I submit the following proposal (Title="Active Players Must Do Something
> Useful", II 1, AI 1.7):
Cron job to be the first to burn off your rest ftw!
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> No I think the difference is that "days" as in span from an event
> are 24 hours from the event. -G.
That's the difference between a span and an epoch, though, not between
"days" and "Agoran days". An "Agoran day" is 24 hours, excluding lea
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 10:26 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> You are correct. However, the answer to "Do we need to consider the
> difference between regular and Agoran days?" is yes.
The only difference is that regular days start at midnight local time,
which gives at least 6 different times for the cur
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> While I'm all for a re-election, I don't think that failure to report
> or perhaps notice a conditional circularity (when lack of circularity
> would have made it above quorum) is a sign of malice.
The fact that e retracted eir own vote for em
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Quazie wrote:
> Also
>
> Replace
> The recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity (if any)
> defined as such by, and bound by, its backing document. That
> entity's report includes a list of all instances of that class
> and their owners.
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> I thought the asset rule restricted ownership to persons?
Nope. It doesn't even restrict recordkeepors to persons. I don't
think any other rule uses "entity" more often.
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Quazie wrote:
> Could we restrict it to people? Players? Something?
Players wouldn't solve IB&A's issue. On the other hand, I probably
don't want to have to track what crops some random person transferred
to a small teacup in orbit around the Sun. Hmm.
Player
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 8:12 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2500
>
> == CFJ 2500 ==
>
> A player who does not deregister in the interval becomes a
> Senator exactly 1440 (60 * 24) hour
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 11:16 AM, comex wrote:
>> }}
>> I initiate a Motion to Amend the IBA, with the following amendment:
>> ...
>> parties. If this contract is ever not a player, any person CAN act on
>> its behalf to intend to register and CAN act on its behalf to register.
>
> AGAINST, I don'
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn
wrote:
> I think it's good, but maybe we should only be able to create one party hat
> each. Some people will have a lot of wins otherwise...
Seems unlikely; it takes 25 notes to play Happy Birthday, and only 4
players have 50 or more. I don't be
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 9:18 AM, Quazie wrote:
> I submit the following proposal entitled "And then there was silence",
> AI=2 please, with the following body:
>
> Repeal rule 2126 the day after agora's birthday.
Unless this is retroactive to the last birthday, that's a no-op
(except, apparently,
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 8:56 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Manuel Lanctot wrote:
>> I register.
>>
>> ~Manu
>
> I award Manu a White Ribbon.
Fails, this is not the first time Manu has registered.
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 6:54 PM, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
> Would there be significant opposition to me handing down a ruling directing
> the ALS to wind up its affairs and disband?
Not from me.
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 20:48 +0200, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
>> 2009/5/13 Alex Smith :
>> > On Tue, 2009-04-28 at 15:35 +0100, Alex Smith wrote (in agora-business):
>> >> I flip my Key to G.
>> >
>> > I CoE against the latest Conductor's Report; my
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Ah, you're right, I was conufsing this with the Assessor election,
> which is regarding a vacant office and thus needs to be completed;
> whereas the resolution of this election is relatively immaterial.
Accountor; Assessor isn't vacant.
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> There are currently at least two or three endorsements of Wooble in
> the Tailor election. I would ask those endorsers to vote conditionally
> if Wooble does not, I would encourage Wooble to vote, and I would
> encourage the Wielder to rubberstam
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Ed Murphy 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 it will generally fail even if adopted, due
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Quazie wrote:
> If they should be limited then so should points 7 and 8 which up voting power.
Voting limit is already capped at 8 by R, and at 1 for democratic
decisions. Raising quorum would make it fairly cheap to kill even an
overwhelmingly popular democ
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 6:50 PM, comex wrote:
> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 5:54 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>>> The highest orderly ID for distributed proposals is 6269; there are no
>>> chaotic ID numbers.
>>
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 6:27 PM, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
> On May 12, 2009, at 6:03 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>
>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2485
>>
>> == Equity Case 2485 ==
>>
>> The Lender has not been keeping track
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 2:12 PM, comex wrote:
> This is a Win Announcement: Wooble has a Medal.
I don't mind winning twice; I just wasn't 100% convinced I actually
have a medal.
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> The above notwithstanding, if the action depends on objections,
> and an objection to it has been withdrawn within the past 24
> hours, then Agora is not Satisfied with the intent.
This makes it possible for a single Objector to
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 9:47 AM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> Hmm. I'm pretty sure I thought of this scam many moons ago; I seem to
> recall discussing it with ais523.
My original objection (and I believe ais523's as well) was actually
intended as a non-scam block of the obvious trivial win. When only
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 6:28 PM, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
> After further thought, I withdraw my vote on Registrar. I'll have to
> reevaluate the candidates.
How much of a bribe do you want to reevaluate and vote for Yally again?
I received 3 attempts; I'm guessing the problem is getting the
messages on your end rather than sending them.
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Rodlen wrote:
> Having recieved no objections, I hereby clean rule 2247 (The Janitor), by
> replacing "one more" in the second sentence with "one or more"
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn
wrote:
> Since not only intentionally misleading but also incorrect information
> is illegal in officers' reports nowadays, I'll get this up here for
> you all to review for a day or so. If there's any information ou care
> about being correct, che
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 8:19 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn
wrote:
> Are those pints to ehird effective, even if e's called Arnold Bros now?
Yes. Nicknames have no official status whatsoever, and everyone knows
who e was talking about.
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 2:09 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I mill 0 - 9 = X.
0-9 = 2; fails.
On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 2:06 AM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> I don't think Wooble's attempt is even valid as it attempts to nominate some
> players for ongoing elections, and thus his whole action should fail. Yours
> fails for the same reason.
It wasn't my attempt, it was Arnold Bros'
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 11:46 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> There is no alternate fix proposed that would actually function.
Oddly, that's up to the voters, not the Promotor, to decide. Agora is
not an Imperial nomic.
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> I resolve the Agoran decision to decide the holder of the Registrar office.
>
> The votes are as follows:
>
> Wooble: Murphy, comex, root, Taral, Tiger
> Yally: None
>
> Note: Arnold Bros (est. 1905)'s and coppro's votes do not count due to
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> ps. If you say this R1482 allows very specific precedence rules
> to be adopted (e.g. "this rule has precedence over rests") how
> about this very specific one: "this rule has precedence over
> all rules that specify precedence"?
Then the te
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> Helping hand:
>
> I nominate Wooble for every office.
Fails; it's IMPOSSIBLE to nominate me for at least a couple of offices.
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Charles Walker
wrote:
>> I create a White ribbon in gwen's possession.
>
> Can I have one of those?
You gained one when you registered; it was 2 days before ribbons were
pragmatized.
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Another problem. The exact wording of 1482/2 says that rule changes
> that cause the ruleset as a whole to specify *any other means* of
> precedence between rules of unequal power are blocked.
It may be relevant that it says "stipulate" rather
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> The issue doesn't manifest itself in a Nomic until a rule is passed
> that states "this rule claims precedence over..." so the solution for
> Suber would be "don't pass a rule that says that."
Such a rule already exists in the Suber ruleset; R2
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I see what you're saying, and that this is generally what R1482
> intends, but I have a hard time saying that a claim "This rule takes
> precedence over matters of X" is not a direct specification of
> a means of determining precedence. It lit
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Benjamin Caplan
wrote:
> Because it has a lot of citizens, to whom we could spread the gospel of
> nomic by making Aerica a protectorate.
But then they'll join Agora, and we'll have a bunch of players who
think becoming 'citizens' of a fake country invented by a p
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 9:11 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I CFJ on the following: The phrase "This takes precedence over any other
> rule" in Rule 2229/1 attempts to specify a means of determining precedence
> between rules of unequal as well as equal power for a particular matter
> of spending rests.
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Oh ffs were you just waiting for a completely boring one for me.
>
> Judgement
>
> By CFJ1945 UNDETERMINED (i.e. false except that "under certain
> circumstances, with very clear aggravating circumstances, it is
> just about possible to breach r
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
wrote:
> I believe my millings happened even if the subsequent harvesting
> failed, but to make things clear:
> If I have no 2 crops, I mill 3/7=2
> If I have no 4 crops, I mill 7-3=4
> (or maybe this was a corrected report of the crop holdings of t
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 11:19 AM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> FYI, it appears I can click on anyone's nickname to edit their crop
> and ranch holdings.
I'm not sure if that's a bug or a feature but I guess I should fix it...
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 09:02, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> I went through everyone's holdings from the last report and reapplied
>> all of the transactions, and these are the current holdings.
>> Obviously my transitio
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 7:57 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> The fact that this does nothing to actual lurkers is understood and
> intended; it's just a way to prune Agora of people messing with quorum
> more efficiently than the w/o objection method.
I think a 7 day voting period on which everyone has to
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 2:09 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 14:00 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
>> > All the time oklopol was registered, e didn't specify what eir email
>> > address was (making my
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> All the time oklopol was registered, e didn't specify what eir email
> address was (making my attempt to report on em as then-Registrar rather
> special-cased). We already have one precedent of a player without an
> independent email. (Also, the
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> 2009/5/5 Sam Benner :
>> I vote for this proposal.
>
> Fails for a few reasons:
>
> * You're not a player
Yes e is.
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Sam Benner wrote:
> I vote for this proposal.
nttpf. Also, it hasn't been distributed yet. Also, there's no reason
for any lurkers to vote for it, since they can just make themselves
active by announcement right after it passes if it does with the same
effect.
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Benjamin Caplan
wrote:
> * since precedence is not explicitly defined where there is no
> conflict, R217 defines it in that case.
The text is silent, but if there's no conflict then there's no need
for precedence to be defined and I'd rather see a judge assign
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 12:34 PM, comex wrote:
> * the AFO
Fails, not first-class
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn
wrote:
> I harvest 2477 for Water Rights Vouchers.
Fails, CFJ2477 was assigned its ID over a week ago (you're about 12 hours late)
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2488
>
> === CFJ 2488 (Interest Index = 2)
>
> The prohibition on excessive Notices of Violation in rule 2230
> is ineffective due to rule 101
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 11:52 AM, Quazie wrote:
>> 6260 Ease the rush D 2.0 1 ais523
> FOR - i think I have to do this... even though it looks like this
> isn't doing anything.
I don't think your pledge covers proposals that don't actually make it
possible for mor
On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 12:48 AM, Sgeo wrote:
> Any thoughts on testing any plans? Either for real, by telling /b/
> about Agora, or simulation (let several players control 1,000
> first-class players, and a way to guard against the fallout when the
> simulation ends).
Considering there's no way A
On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 6:04 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> I don't see how those players not listed can be considered watchers.
> They didn't even respond to an email I sent asking if they are
> watching the game.
Proposal 5211, to remove people not paying attention from the Watchers
list, failed ho
On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> --
> SpeakerMurphy ??? 1
since 6 April, I believe.
On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> Incomplete watchers list :(
Well, it's based on the last Registrar's Report. I'd be happy to
reconstruct the list from the old one.
Were I the registrar, I would publish the following:
Registrar's Census
Date of last report: Wed 29 Apr 09
Date of this report: Fru 1 May 09
Date of last ratification: Fri 4 Jul 08
Date of report last ratified: Sun 29 Jun 08
(All times are UTC)
Recent events
-
Wed 22 Apr 10:34-
On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 10:39 AM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> Or better yet, let potential judges select the cases they wish to
> judge through some suitable system and eliminate most all recusals. I
> proposed this at one point but it was shot down.
It seems to me that the best judicial system is one wh
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Given the obvious-in-context nature of the typo, it'd be hard to argue
> that it was unclear which proposals people intended to vote on.
possibly. but then if the ID numbers on the quoted line before your
vote don't matter but the title and aut
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 1:27 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 11:22, comex wrote:
>> I hereby explicitly, willfully refuse to become party to the PerlNomic
>> Partnership agreement until such time as I may activate myself in
>> PerlNomic or perform another action clearly intended
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 12:50 PM, comex wrote:
> This is the first time coppro has made such an error as promotor, and I'm
> sure he will avoid repeats; you made repeated and systemic such errors.
Two proposals were distributed in an earlier batch where the proposal
numbers in the header didn't m
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> You, sir, have the brains and manners of a sheep.
That means a lot coming from someone who accused me of being
"criminally sloppy" in adding proposals to PNP, quit the game in a
crying fit when I nominated someone to replace you after your ow
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Proposal: Generalize equity
> (AI = 1.7, please)
>
> Amend Rule 2169 (Equity Cases) by appending this text:
>
> An equity case CAN be initiated identifying the ruleset in place
> of a contract. For the purpose of such a case, the rule
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 1:40 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I spend C D E to flip j's caste to Alpha.
That's a lot to spend to ensure that a player who's abandoned the game
gets to be Epsilon in a couple of days.
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> The Anarchist's proposals are rarely accepted. This proposal proposes two
> changes, both of which serve the purpose of having the Anarchist's proposals
> actually be accepted. First, the Anarchist is given the power to select the
> rules e
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Aaron Goldfein
wrote:
> Note: I'm not really sure who the Speaker is right now; I'm waiting for some
> information from the Herald.
31 March 2009 Herald report:
MINISTERS WITHOUT PORTFOLIO
Pavitra 3-Dec-08 <- Speaker
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> There was a recent proposal to create a separate clause like "officers
> SHALL NOT knowingly publish false information in the course of eir
> duties", but I'm not sure what happened to it.
It passed, then got accidentally clobbered by a later pr
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 12:33 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> FWIW, maybe we should up the frequency of the IADoP by proposal.
P6230. You haven't voted yet. :P
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 12:20 PM, comex wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> I resign as Accountor. I nominate coppro and Tom as Accountor.
>
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 8:24 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> The Dungeon Master is the recordkeepor f
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 9:45 AM, comex wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 12:29 AM, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> Admitted. coppro has 1+ 4i points.
>
> NoV (and I admit this one's a bit iffy): Murphy violated R2215
ITYM "root"
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 9:21 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> The original intent of props was similar to that of Patent Titles,
> i.e. useless beyond bragging rights. That said, with the RBoA gone,
> you could try amending the PBA to offer Pilots a similar advantage.
The PBA is anti-elitist, so this woul
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 8:43 PM, comex wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 7:57 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> 23 ais523
>> 23+ = Pilot (highest = Captain)
>
> Nice.
It'd be even nicer if props were at all useful anymore.
I've imported the proposal archives from Zefram's site and PerlNomic
to nomictools, and I'm adding new proposals as they're distributed.
A list of proposals distributed in the past week can be found at
http://www.nomictools.com/agora/proposals/current and a view of any
given proposal (going back t
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> I request subsidy.
Fails; the subsidy is 3 and you have 3 lands.
(I'm interpreting the 8 x-axis points and 2 y-axis points I awarded to
Murphy last week to be "at least 10 points." I believe R2179's usage
implies this, although 8+2i is not i
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Quazie wrote:
> There should be a place where all old assets go. We need a 'Dusty old
> closet' where all assets are tracked once they stop being useful.
Your old assets (at least, the AAA ones) are currently owned by the
Lost and Found Department. The ones with
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Quazie wrote:
> I wish that I could cryogenically freeze my state every time i leave
> agora. I always come back, but I have to start from scratch each
> time.
You should form a contract with someone requiring them to object to
any attempts to deregister you and
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Quazie wrote:
>> Having received no objections, I cause 0x44, Elysion, Quazie, and Sir
>> Toby to cease to be Farmers.
>>
>
> I frown at this,
I wouldn't object to an amendment restoring your crops, considering the timing.
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 11:57 AM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> 2009/4/27 Geoffrey Spear :
>> It's a paradox. Of course it's not "sensical".
>
> It is not a paradox - merely something unexpected caused by the
> allowance of self-reference.
The Stanford Encyclo
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> 2009/4/27 Geoffrey Spear :
>> I intend, with 2 support, to appeal this judgement. The statement of
>> the CFJ is nonsensical, and thus UNDETERMINED is the only appropriate
>> judgement.
>
> Please do not clutch
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 8:35 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I retract my proposal with the title {Binding Inquiries} (I'll resubmit
> the corrected version along with the Proposal Pool to reduce spam).
Can we please keep personal actions out of official messages?
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 7:03 PM, comex wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 6:54 PM, comex wrote:
>> [! Note: There is considerable ambiguity about the current state of
>> the ruleset; this document is most likely incomplete. !]
>
> CoE: No there isn't: the CFJ about mechanisms that has just been
>
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 4:36 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> I transfer all Coins I own to Wooble.
Fails; I'm not a Comrade.
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 4:05 PM, comex wrote:
> AGAINST, this breaks reorganization.
Rules can be reorganized by proposal.
> How do you know I didn't secretly move rules into different categories
> after the last SLR publication (before I resigned...)?
We don't, although the fact that they didn
Proto-Proposal, AI 2.1, "Committees 2.0":
In Rule 1681, replace:
Rules are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between
categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty
categories removed, as the Rulekeepor sees fit.
with:
Rules are assigned to or ordered within cat
On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> (which many will
> likely
> not receive because nobody pays attention to the reserve fora)
Anyone who's not subscribed to them is ignoring R478 and gets what they deserve.
On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
> I thought I'd burnt off this Marker, but I'm not sure. I'll look through
> the archives and tell you later.
It was based on the last one you published. If you destroyed the
marker since then, the message didn't contain the word "marker".
Unles
Having this missing from the Registrar's Report made it annoying to
determine, as Tailor, whether c-walker had previously been a Player
and thus whether e gained a White Ribbon upon registering. So I
decided to just maintain it myself.
REGISTRATION HISTORY (a)bandoned This section is
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 10:59 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> I think this is a pretty clear UNDECIDABLE. It's paradoxical whether
> Einos fulfils the conditions to still be a protectorate (it was once),
> and therefore whether it is currently a protectorate. The rules-defined
> action in the CFJ subject
501 - 600 of 1430 matches
Mail list logo
