On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
wrote:
> Admitted.
> (is that all I have to do, or do I actually have to post an updated version?)
R2201 says you have to publish a revision (and in fact gives no legal
status whatsoever to admitting claims), although in practice the
correction is
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> COE: the list omits Lands and WRV.
Admitted (informally; it's not self-ratifying).
I can't believe no one noticed that before now; they've been missing
since October.
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> All those issues were pretty similar and obvious.
2 of them argued for FALSE, you you judged TRUE based on them.
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> comex wrote:
>
>> [! Note: There is considerable ambiguity about the current state of
>> the ruleset; this document is most likely incomplete. !]
>
> Which specific areas are still up in the air at this point?
I believe the text of R2223 is
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:56 PM, Aaron Goldfein
wrote:
> Wooble is only begrudgingly putting up
> with the
> office of Tailor.]
Nonsense. I only nominated ehird for the office because e's accusing
me of doing nothing by filing NoVs. My passive aggressiveness should
not be taken to imply that I
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 4:05 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-04-21 at 01:42 +0200, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
>> (I'm not sure about how weeks are counted: it's a new calendar week
>> since I last published an NoV, but it hasn't been 7 days)
>
> The rule is that officers must publish a high-prior
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> If there are no accepted nominations, doesn't the office just become empty?
No. The outcome of the election is and nothing happens.
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Proposal: Scheduled actions
This should probably explicitly spell out the order that actions occur
in the event multiple actions are scheduled at the same time and the
order is significant.
Granted this might be a problem even without schedule
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 7:23 AM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> I'm still waiting on Wooble to accept his nominations for Tailor and
> Accountor.
I didn't even notice I'd been nominated. If no one else consents, I'll
keep the offices by default.
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 9:34 PM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> Getting Dvorak to do anything but vote? ha!
Your contributions certainly put you in an excellent position to criticize em.
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 11:37 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Clearly you've never rowed crew; not too far off, tho by disciplined
> dropping down to the lower speed, the added power would probably put you
> somewhere in between. -G.
Obviously the time you'd waste instructing the worse rowers in proper
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:39 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> I intend, with the consent of the People, to amend the PBA contract
> by appending this section:
>
> *) Upon the addition of this section, each Eligible Currency's rate
> is set to ^14, then this section is removed.
Doesn't that just make
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:07 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Oi, talk about temporal databases. I think I know how to automate it
> sanely, though (when recording a transaction, first generate all rate
> changes between the last one and the current one; when generating a
> report, assume further rate cha
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 9:40 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Same here, though I suspect this fails because I harvested some
> proposal numbers recently.
No, it fails because you have 6 lands and the subsidy is 4.
I didn't award any points last week; I will do so as soon as I finish
confirming the harves
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> I deposit five 0 crops.
> I deposit five 1 crops.
> I deposit five 3 crops.
> I deposit five 7 crops.
> I deposit five 9 crops.
I nominate Murphy as Coinkeepor. I'd intend to amend the contract,
but I'm not a Comrade anymore.
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 9:23 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> The list of players is from January 2008.
It's mislabeled; coppro and Tiger definitely were not players in January 2008.
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> I haven't seen a PBA report in over 2 months. Am I missing something?
No. My proposal in perlnomic to post a report needs 1 more vote.
http://nomic.info/perlnomic/current-proposals/data.Wooble.pba_rep_041609
is the report it will send if it p
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 11:57 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn
wrote:
> As if the ruleset has ever prevented a nomic...
A bad ruleset keeps certain people, who care about such things, from
joining. In this case, it's keeping Agora from joining.
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> I wish inactives would stop objecting to their inactivation.
>
> Why? Their presence doesn't affect anything. If it does, it's probably a
> bug.
Well, objecting to deactivation affects the quorum. Objecting to
*deregistration* doesn't affec
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> I vote PRESENT. (Disclaimer: I don't know if this succeeds.)
It doesn't; the valid options are the active players who accepted and
didn't refuse their nominations.
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 9:09 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> Protection Racket 01 Feb 09
> Reformed Bank of Agora 01 Feb 09
CoE: the Protection Racket and RBoA aren't Players.
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 10:17 AM, comex wrote:
> By the way, have we actually been taking quorum into account in
> elections? At the moment an election with more than one option is
> subject to all the usual, including voting period extension and
> failing quorum.
I certainly wasn't; I missed th
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> With two support I intend to appeal this judgment.
If the judgement is incorrect, nttpf :P
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> While performing weekly or monthly duties or publishing weekly
>> or monthly reports, officers SHALL NOT publish information that
>> is inaccurate or misleading.
>
> Classic!
The People have spoken; clearly officers now SHALL pub
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I mill 9 - 5 = 4.
>
> If I have another 5 crop, I mill 5 - 3 = 2.
I don't believe you had any 5 crops at all when this was published;
your 5 ranch was created at the start of the week after crops were
produced, and I see no other transactions f
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 10:49 PM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> I'm not sure you're cut out for Registrar just yet.
Yet e's winning the election. But hey, let's complain instead of
doing something about it. That always works.
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> All persons are encouraged to submit a CFJ to the Justiciar only
> when there is a good reason not to submit it to the Clerk of the
> Courts.
So we should always submit our CFJs to the Justiciar since submitting
them to the CotC do
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-04-07 at 12:35 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 12:18 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
>> > There was one Enigma puzzle this week, "Scales" by Tiger:
>> >> A puzzle named "Scales".
>> >> You have a balance scale and want to be
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> Wikidot is just a bad VCS (does it even handle non-linear edits? I
> doubt it.) operating on a bad document format with an awful interface
> that requires javascript and that has no way to get non-HTML out of
> it; even scraping is prohibited b
On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 9:24 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I request subsidy.
nttpf
On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 8:50 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> As Taral's report contradicts itself, I'm unsure of the status of the
> following second-class persons:
>
> People's Bank of Agora
> Protection Racket
> Reformed Bank of Agora
>
> Does anyone know whether these are active players, inactive pl
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Thus, even if Goethe succeeded in multiple
>> caste flips (which I don't believe e did, but that's a matter for the
>> appeal in the revelant CFJ), coppro would not be responsible for
>> fixing them through other caste flips.
>
> I tried to hav
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 11:15 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> As I have just taken office, all the data listed may not be correct. Please
> inform me if there are any missing or incorrect details in this report.
You're missing my recent going on (Tue, 31 Mar 2009 21:57:37) and
coming off (Wed, 1 Apr 2
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Ian Kelly wrote:
> I CFJ on the statement "A non-player who is a party to a contest is a
> contestant in that contest."
I'd argue for TRUE, although it may be technically IRRELEVANT; both
R2234 (directly) and R2199 (indirectly, because you can't award points
to a n
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 12:33 PM, Schrodinger's Cat
wrote:
> Has anyone ever used a blackberry to play agora?
> If yes, then would you recommend that I use mine?
> (I have unlimited data plan)
I don't see how the email client you use would really be relevant at
all, as long as it's as functional
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
wrote:
> I wish to purchase a Digit Ranch. (Can I do that with those y-points I
> got from Enigma?)
I've been interpreting "3 Points" to mean x-axis points, as y-axis
ones would usually be called "3i Points" I think. However, that
portion of the
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Also, perhaps we should allow the Assessor to end a voting period early
> if there is a certain amount of positive votes (say, VI twice the AI and
> at least half of all active players voting).
Tweaks? (Allow arbitrary changes to the gamestate w
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 11:52 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Now, I have added all proposals I could find to the PNP's proposal pool
> (including this one). However, I'm not sure if it is accurate, so if
> someone could please corroborate this by counting the number of
> Proposals to be distributed, that
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 1:33 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> and judge a case to get Blue) to the tough (Yellow). As far as I can
> tell, no one has won by Renaissance in the year of its existence.
No, but ais523 and I are both fairly likely to do it in June, if we
get around to writing our theses.
And i
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 5:06 PM, comex wrote:
> Hello! This may be incorrect, and I'll check it over again when I get
> the chance but this is a preliminary report of what I think Note
> holdings are at present.
I spent 3 notes to increase the PNP's caste a day or two ago, I think.
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 10:14 PM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> Base64 is ridiculously well known.
You'd probably assert that any given esolang is also ridiculously well
known. I, for one, can't recognize a bunch of random hex digits as
having a meaning in base64. I assumed you were trying to take an
a
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 9:00 PM, Taral wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 12:35 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> AAA, the only contest for which I was the Contestmaster for at least
>> 16 days in February.
>
> Oh, right. Sorry, I saw 15 points and got confused.
I believe 15 pl
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 7:47 PM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> The recent Spanish/Unicode incidents, IMO, provide strong evidence
> that this precedent no longer exists.
The unicode was sent in a format that any modern mail program would
display in a readable manner. The Spanish was probably reasonably
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> Fails; the AAA wasn't a contest.
Damn, I suppose the recordkeepors of rules-defined assets no longer
CAN generally create them (except by self-ratification, of course).
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Taral wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> I deputise for the Scorekeepor to award myself 15 + 15i points.
>
> For which contest?
AAA, the only contest for which I was the Contestmaster for at least
16 days in February.
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 9:45 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Sean Hunt wrote:
>> I CFJ {Warrigal has, at the time of this message, voted on proposal 6164}.
>
> I FAIL.
That's probably not sufficiently clear to initiate a CFJ.
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
wrote:
> As I understand it, it still will be. The paragraph "The Anarchist's
> weekly duties include the performance of the
> following tasks(...)" will remain, so the only things actually
> changing are that it won't have to be replaced as qu
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 11:51 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> 6155 O 1 1.0 comex Refactor falsity
> 8xAGAINST. Isn't this duplicated in "misleading"? (Open to voting FOR
> if I'm missing something).
This would criminalize even accidentally incorrect information if
published a
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
> In other words, your harvesting of 2401 fails because its ID number was
> assigned more than a week ago. I haven't checked the other CFJs in your
> list, but suspect many of the others have similar problems. This means
> that the rest of your ac
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 10:39 PM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> You don't have to track it if he doesn't accept.
Actually, at the moment e's required to initiate Agoran Decisions for
elections even if there are no candidates, and 4 days after your
nominations, no other nominations can be made until thes
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 7:13 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 6:17 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 17 Mar 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> Office Holder Since Election
> The Anarchist is a low-priority office; its holder is responsible for
> proposing the repeal of rules.
Leaves weekly duties, so making it low-priority would have no
appreciable effect.
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 12:27 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I issue the Brokor's monthly and weekly reports:
>
> VP: coppro: 50
>
> Average VP over the last 90 days: All players: 0.
>
> Open Tickets: None.
>
pseudoCoE: the Vote Market is not a contract (it has only 1 party, and
doesn't identify itself a
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Taral wrote:
> I withdraw as many 9 crops as I can.
This should be 5 for 10 coins
> I transfer all my coins to Wooble.
2, I believe.
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 3:15 PM, comex wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> Note: the text e published is a private contract whose parties are the
>> players of B Nomic, but we certainly haven't unanimously agreed to
>> make it a public
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Warrigal wrote:
> I believe precedent is that flipping a certain Agoran switch (namely,
> Citizenship) is not the same as an explicit, willful agreement to be
> bound by the rules. I see no reason the same shouldn't be true of
> becoming a player of B.
Rule 1-4: "
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 11:16 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I intend, with support of the People, to amend the PBA as follows in
> four days:
> {{
> Change section 12 to read {The Coinkeepor is coppro.}
>
> Add a new section, reading
> {Each Comrade should endeavour to assist the Coinkeepor in producing
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
> It seems to me that having an election period for one candidate is an
> unnecessary burden on the IADoP and Agora. So:
>
> AI = 2, II = 1, title = "Single Candidate election"
> Amend R2154 by inserting the following paragraph before the
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Even with multiple contestants capable of gaming it? I considered
> withdrawing my agreement and re-posting with a AAA-style "contestants
> SHALL NOT submit spam proposals / cases", but let's see how it plays
> out as is.
How about "contestant
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 7:10 PM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> 2009/3/10 Ed Murphy :
>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2402
>>
>> = Criminal Case 2402 =
>>
>> Taral violated R2234, a power-2 rule, by not awarding me points
>>
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 1:46 AM, Sgeo wrote:
> I remember someone saying that if this went through, e'd NoV
> inactives.. What happened to that?
It would be almost impossible to convict them, as there's a reasonable
doubt about whether they read the ruleset and it's impossible to prove
a player di
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> 2009/3/7 coppro :
>> I, coppro, am registering.
>>
>
>
> Probably doesn't work. Odd phrasing. Try "I register as coppro".
A first-class person CAN (unless explicitly forbidden or
prevented by the rules) register by announcing that
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 12:27 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Um, didn't I just propose this well enough (Proposal 6127)? Perhaps
> a preferred way here is to limit it to vacant offices (Proposal 6127)
> but state that "inactive or deregistered players CAN be removed from
> office by announcement".
Thi
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 6:46 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
> The maximum FINE amount for each pitch of note is 5.
We did away with FINEs when Rests were adopted; this sentence's
predecessor should have been removed then.
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> 2009/3/4 Alex Smith :
>> I submit the following proposal (AI 3, Title="Open It Up",
>> coauthor=Goethe):
>> --
>>
>> Create a Rule with the following text and a power of 3:
>>
>>
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> The relevant question here isn't whether she can communicate, but whether
> she can understand well enough to be her own legal person (e.g. it might
> rely on being able to communicate consent, etc.). Something of the sort
> came up around CFJ
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 1:34 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2 Mar 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Has the requirement for the IADoP to hold periodic elections been removed?
>
> Sorry, I may be blind, but where is the clause which allows an IADoP to end
> an election early if there's only one nomine
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Er, I'm lost now. How/when was r2241 created again? -G.
P6072 created it, since R2238 had already repealed itself earlier.
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> That's a good point. I could probably generalize to "N days Advanced
> Notice" where N is between 4-13, defaulting to 4. Then put it in for
> deputisation etc. -G.
Between 2-13 you mean? Or even 1-13, although I can't think of
anything I'd
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 12:50 PM, comex wrote:
> The judgement that ruled that the rule exists was published two days
> ago, before which I thought it probably didn't, and we haven't even
> reached the appeals deadline. I'm kind of conservative with this and
> I don't believe Zefram ever recorded
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 12:03 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Given that if e'd put the rule in, we would have accused em of trying
> to ratify a scam or something, I'd say all these fall into "dammed if
> e does, dammed if e doesn't", in other words, R1504(e). -G.
The Ruleset doesn't self-ratify and c
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 09:51 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 9:49 AM, Aaron Goldfein
>> wrote:
>> > A player CAN, with 2 support, change an ordinary decision to be democratic
>> > prov
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 9:49 AM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> A player CAN, with 2 support, change an ordinary decision to be democratic
> provided the voting of the people has not already commenced
The voting of the people commences when the decision is created.
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 9:40 AM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> Except couldn't there be some weird loop where some decide to change a
> decision to ordinary and then others decide to change it back.
Yes, but once the voting period ends the pro-Ordinary faction would
win once P6116 passes.
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Wed, 25 Feb 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> It was not; the AI of the proposal itself was
>> increased to 3, but the AI of the decision to adopt it was never
>> increased.
>
> Is this a bug or a feature? -
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 9:09 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> CFJ2376 established that the text of Proposal 6072 was changed to a
> form that would insert the required language in R2238; the only
Looking back over the history, it appears that the reference to R2238
might be a factual error; as
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> 2386 is really the crux of it. Wooble, do you want it now that I've
> delivered CFJ 2376, or should I?
I'll judge it, but I suspect that it's going to be appealed no matter
what conclusion I reach.
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> I consent to transfer CFJs 2384-86 to Goethe, as they largely hinge on
> the results of CFJ 2376.
>
> (If Goethe doesn't want them, I'll most likely wait for a ruling in
> CFJ 2376 before ruling on them; I'
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> j insists B Nomic has a consistent gamestate in the fifth era.
> It objectively hasn't. He meanwhile continues trying to play it
> on the same forum as the rest of us, where we are reviving
> A Nomic.
To quote a wise player of B: "Suggestion:
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 3:25 PM, comex wrote:
> I spend GG# G#G# G#G# G#G# to destroy four of my rests.
The last one fails; you only had 5 G# notes
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> I hereby invoke my rule 101 right to not participate in the game.
I request that the Distributor take steps to make sure the game stops
intruding on H. Fugitive ehird's mailbox.
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 2:32 PM, comex wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
>> I NoV against cmealerjr for violating the power-2 rule 2158 by failing
>> to assign a judgement to CFJ 2363 as soon as possible. (E's over 4 days
>> late, now, and appears to have disappeared fro
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 4:15 PM, comex wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>The judge CAN, with 2 Support, set the fine at a
>>different integral level between one half and double that
>>amount,
>
> Aren't 1 and 2 times the only such integ
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> If leniency is warranted,
> the right mechanism would be to say that an Officer should have been
> aware of the abuse (so UNAWARE is not an option in the culpability) but
> not aware of the seriousness, and that this lack of awareness was
> rea
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn
wrote:
> I read through the AAA contract, and as I understand it it's just for
> me to join and request subsidization, and I will have a couple of
> lands to start with? Anything tricky I should think about?
Not really, unless you consider mod 11
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> 2009/2/20 Geoffrey Spear :
>> Remove Clause 17, and renumber the following clauses sequentially.
>
> Erm, I believe you want the RBoA.
No, auto rate changes based on transactions would remain, just the
midnight auto c
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
SAVAGE (Voting Limit: 0)
>>> (All others not yet listed, as well as:)
>>> Warrigal
>>
>> Are you sure?
>>
>> --Warrigal
>
>
> Partially. I've been flooded with emails each time I log in, so I may have
> missed something. What did I m
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> I move to REMAND 2356a. It should be overturned based on the Defendant's
> arguments (to which the Judge agrees) but it's unfair to punish the
> judge when the Defendant did not provide eir argument in a timely
> manner. -Goethe
I made th
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 12:54 AM, Taral wrote:
> I PBA-withdraw as many 2 crops as I can.
all 6 for ^279
> I PBA-withdraw as many X crops as I can.
6 for ^237, leaving you with ^12
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 8:37 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> [Disclaimer: Some of the following may fail due to lack of funds.]
> I PBA-withdraw a 5 crop.
> I PBA-withdraw a 5 crop.
> I PBA-withdraw a 5 crop.
> I PBA-withdraw a 5 crop.
> I PBA-withdraw a 5 crop.
> I PBA-withdraw a 5 crop.
> I PBA-withdraw
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 1:51 AM, Benjamin Caplan
wrote:
>> Not a sufficient formal retraction.
>
> ...although it might constitute an effective disclaimer of any
> subsequent version of the proposal e tries to submit.
AFAICT, no other version was proposed to the PF anyway.
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I intend to appeal this judgement with 2 support. One thing missing
> from this argument is the second paragraph of R106, which strongly
> implies that a body of text with the right properties has to go
> through a process to "become" a legal
On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 6:18 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>> Thus, I hereby consent this CFJ to transfer this CFJ to H. Judge of
>> CFJ 2380 Goethe (per R2164).
>
> I consent to the transfer. -Goethe
This is ineffective, although you CAN transfer the case your yourself
if you assign a judgment in th
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 7:02 PM, comex wrote:
> As the existence of the contestmaster attribute does not depend on the
> contract, dependent actions whose effects would include changing a
> contest's contestmaster are not possible.
Contestmaster is a contract switch. Of course its existence depe
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 10:12 PM, Warrigal wrote:
> I cease to play by invoking Rule 101(vii). I register.
>
> I CFJ on the statement "I am a player". Dubious arguments: I
> deregistered, but not by announcement; therefore, the 30-day time
> limit does not apply. I CFJ on the statement "I am a par
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 6:55 PM, comex wrote:
> I transfer one coin to the entity formerly known as Rule 2184. :P
Fails; the entity formerly known as Rule 2184 is not a Comrade.
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> The AFO spends E E to remove one of my Rests.
> The AFO spends E E to remove one of my Rests.
One of these probably failed, pending the outcome of CFJ 2366 (which
I'm fairly likely to judge FALSE since as far as I can tell neither
comex nor ais52
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 2:49 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn
wrote:
> The following proposals are made as a part of the Anarchist's weekly
> duties. Said duties have not been performed within the tme limit, so I
> hereby deputise for the office regarding this duty.
>
> Proposal: Repeal R2147
>> Repeal Rule 214
H. Insulator, I believe this is the current status of Rests; I'm
removing the non-note-related parts from the Conductor's report:
Rests
-
comex - 6
ehird - 5
Murphy - 12
pikhq - 2
Quazie - 2
root - 1
Sgeo - 2
Taral - 2
w1n5t0n - 2
All other persons have no Rests.
History
---
Fri 9 Jan 0
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 7:53 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> I would like to register to play Agora.
Welcome. Is there any nickname you'd like to use?
601 - 700 of 1430 matches
Mail list logo
