Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposals 7125-7134

On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:06 AM, Arkady English wrote: > NttPF Well aware. I sent it to the public forum a minute later. :)

DIS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposals 7125-7134

On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Sean Hunt wrote: > For the duration of this message, I am deputizing for Promotor. > > I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran > Decision of whether to adopt it.  For this decision, the eligible > voters are the active first-class players a

DIS: WTF Guys?

I pay barely any attention to you for a bit, and this is what happens? I hail Eris; this, I think, is the only thing in Agora that is certain.

Re: DIS: Draft ruling in CFJ 2152

On Sunday 21 September 2008 12:41:25 Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Sun, 21 Sep 2008, Elliott Hird wrote: > > 2008/9/21 Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> Please elaborate on how the technical issue makes Discharge appropriate. > >> E had *some* way of communicating with the Agoran community, as

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Humble request

On Saturday 20 September 2008 20:32:06 ihope wrote: > On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 9:16 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I humbly request for a list of those obligations of mine that are public. > > I believe your only obligations are to act in accordance with t

DIS: Re: OFF: [IADOP] Rulekeepor election

On 21:14 Wed 13 Aug , Geoffrey Spear wrote: > This message serves to initiate the Agoran Decision to choose the > holder of the Rulekeepor position. The eligible voters are the active > players and the vote collector is the IADOP. > > The valid options are zefram (who is inactive), Wooble, an

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Inactivity

On 13:54 Mon 11 Aug , Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 8:59 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I go on hold. > > Does anyone want to be Registrar? I'm required to make a nomination > as soon as possible, and I'm fairly likely to just nominate every > single player and

DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2053 assigned to pikhq

On 13:19 Sat 09 Aug , Ed Murphy wrote: > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2053 > > = Criminal Case 2053 = > > ehird violated rule 2149 by lying. > >

Re: DIS: The Agoran Sovereignity Movement

On 23:07 Wed 30 Jul , Jeff Sheets wrote: > Also, the Order of Malta has an extremely long history and tradition > (depending on where you draw the line, from nearly 1000 years to about > 500). The Order of Malta also at one time actually possessed sovereign > territory, which gives precedent t

DIS: The Agoran Sovereignity Movement

I am of the opinion that Agora should now try to move for its sovereignity, taking as inspiration the Sovereign Military Order of Malta. The SMOoA, though sovereign (and recognised by the UN), has absolutely no territory whatsoever. I am of the opinion that Agora should attempt to be recognised

Re: DIS: RE: [CotC] CFJ 1945 assigned to ais523

On 19:48 Mon 12 May , Elliott Hird wrote: > 2008/5/12 Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On 5/12/08, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > If it's a serious problem to the rest of you I may have to come up with > > > a ridiculous solution to it, like a line-wrap script in JavaScrip

DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 1918-19 judged GUILTY (sentence invalid due to ambiguity)

On 08:49 Wed 09 Apr , Ed Murphy wrote: > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1918 > > = Criminal Case 1918 = > > pikhq breached Rule 2135 by misrepresenting Agora on the Nomic > Wiki by failing to include my name

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes for Ambassador and Herald

On 08:09 Sun 11 May , Ed Murphy wrote: > pikhq wrote: > > >When I was Ambassador, I actually posted my report monthly; > >this is something that no Ambassador in recent memory actually > >did. > > You still are Ambassador, and you still haven't addressed the > unfulfil

DIS: Re: BUS: Catching Up

On 12:18 Sun 11 May , Iammars wrote: > Between Shadowmoor and AP Testing, I didn't get to check up on my > stuff I needed. CFJs and Reports should be coming up. > > For all votes in this message, I vote for that proposal in that manner > as many times as I am allowed. > > 5508: FOR > 5509: FO

DIS: Re: BUS: Votes for Ambassador and Herald

On 12:35 Sun 11 May , Alexander Smith wrote: > For Ambassador, I vote COMEX. > For Herald, I vote IAMMARS. > -- > ais523 For both, I don't care, for I intend to run for the positions again. My soon-to-be-campaign speech: Rather than neglect my duties, I went on hold. Rather than

DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 1942-43 assigned to pikhq

On 21:53 Sat 10 May , Ed Murphy wrote: > These are linked assignments. > > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1942 > > = Criminal Case 1942 = > > comex breached Rule 1742 by not acting in accordance with eir > o

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Emergency!

On 19:19 Sat 10 May , Elliott Hird wrote: > 2008/5/10 Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > As a former IRCNomician, I SUPPORT. Let the fun begin. > > 'Former' is questionable, as you are in #ircnomic and have not opted out. > > ehird I don't pay attention much. I've opted out alreay.

DIS: Re: BUS: Emergency!

On 19:47 Thu 08 May , Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 7:40 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Agora is being INVADED by FOREIGNERS from IRCNomic, our rebellious > > once-protectorate! In fact, a rule was proposed to declare war on us! > > Among that game's ranks are ais

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 1917

On 18:58 Thu 03 Apr , Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Thu, 3 Apr 2008, Josiah Worcester wrote: > > On 11:55 Thu 03 Apr , Iammars wrote: > >> I judge CFJ 1917 in the following manner: > >> { > >> The defendant has admitted to being guilty, and in f

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Criminal Cases

On 19:49 Wed 02 Apr , Ed Murphy wrote: > pikhq wrote: > > > I disqualify Agora Nomic from this case. > > > > (Agora Nomic, by rule 2145, is a partnership, and therefore a > > person. I can disqualify any person I damned well want to. Have fun > > judging this one!) > > This fails on multiple

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1907 judged GUILTY / CHOKEY

On 15:12 Sat 08 Mar , comex wrote: > On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 1:43 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I intend to appeal this. CHOKEY is unreasonable. > I support this. A more reasonable judgement would be EXILE or, at the > very least, a long CHOKEY. I

DIS: Re: BUS: Enigma

On 20:23 Mon 03 Mar , Ed Murphy wrote: > The Left Hand and I agree to the following, which thereby becomes a > public contract. I intend, without 3 objections, to make it a contest. > > 1) The name of this public contract is Enigma. > > 2) The purpose of this contract is to be a contest that

DIS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5451-5457

On 12:53 Sat 23 Feb , Zefram wrote: > This distribution of proposals 5451-5457 initiates the Agoran > Decisions on whether to adopt them. The eligible voters for ordinary > proposals are the active players, the eligible voters for democratic > proposals are the active first-class players, and

Re: DIS: Prerogatives for March

On 10:58 Sat 01 Mar , Ed Murphy wrote: > Sorry for being late again; I was badly ill on Wednesday. I'll > take care of it later this morning. > > On the presumption that BobTHJ remains a player, I request that > H. Herald pikhq award em Ministry Without Portfolio, so that e > may take part in

DIS: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Nomic: Acknowedgement of Recognition]

- Forwarded message from Robin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 06:48:59 -0500 From: Robin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Nomic: Acknowedgement of Recognition Dear Mr. Ambassador: As the officially-elected Diplomat of Nomicide, I hereby inform you that we

DIS: Re: BUS: pikhq!

On 16:28 Mon 18 Feb , Ed Murphy wrote: > comex wrote: > > > I initiate a criminal case. > > * Defendant: pikhq > > * Rule violated: 208 > > * Action: failing to resolve eir intent to appeal CFJ 1856 > > pikhq, you are hereby informed of this case and invited to rebut the > argument for your g

DIS: Re: BUS: pikhq!

On 18:18 Sun 17 Feb , comex wrote: > I initiate a criminal case. > * Defendant: pikhq > * Rule violated: 208 > * Action: failing to resolve eir intent to appeal CFJ 1856 > Arguments: > > I think this deserves EXILE. > > Evidence: > On Jan 8, 2008 3:26 PM, Josi

DIS: Re: BUS: Long service awards

On 08:40 Mon 18 Feb , Levi Stephen wrote: > I awared the AFO the Patent Title of Three Months Long Service Leave if e > does not already bear it. > > I awared Levi the Patent Title of Three Months Long Service Leave if e does > not already bear it. > > I awared zefram the Patent Title of Thre

DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1906 assigned to pikhq

On 14:35 Fri 15 Feb , Ed Murphy wrote: > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1906 > > = Criminal Case 1906 = > > comex violated rule 2149 by claiming in message > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > that proposal 5419 passe

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Scorekeepor] Scoreboard

On 08:14 Wed 13 Feb , Roger Hicks wrote: > On Feb 12, 2008 7:14 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ContestContestmaster Awardable Points > > --- > > Fantasy Rules Contest Murph

Re: DIS: [Scorekeepor] Late

On 17:57 Mon 11 Feb , comex wrote: > On Feb 11, 2008 5:49 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The scorekeepor's report will be a bit late; I have spent most of this > > weekend rebuilding my root partition, so have been unable to actually &g

DIS: [Scorekeepor] Late

The scorekeepor's report will be a bit late; I have spent most of this weekend rebuilding my root partition, so have been unable to actually access the mailing lists. You may now take this opportunity to curse at Gentoo. Sincerely, The Honorable Scorekeepor, pikhq

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Proposal

On 20:00 Fri 08 Feb , Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Fri, 8 Feb 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > > >>> This message brought to you by GNU Emacs. > >> > >> http://www.notepad.org/ > >> > > Bah, any editor that can't psychoanalyze a pinhead is completely > > unusable for any purpose. > > http://ars.us

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Proposal

On 17:01 Fri 08 Feb , Roger Hicks wrote: > On Feb 8, 2008 3:08 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Feb 8, 2008 5:04 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Ah, yes. The strange ruleset formatting. I typically write my > > > proposals either in gmail (text-only) or notepad. > >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Criminal CFJ

On 18:12 Thu 07 Feb , Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Thu, 7 Feb 2008, comex wrote: > > Hmm. Here is the rule at the time of CFJ 1314 > > Any communication which has been sent via a Public Forum shall > > be considered to have been made publicly. > > Same wording. The only difference is

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Criminal CFJ

On 17:54 Thu 07 Feb , Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Tu, 7 Feb 2008, Josiah Worcester wrote: > > When comex intended to ratify his Full Logical Ruleset, rule did > > not, at the time, exist. > > > > I recommend EXILE. > > You know, at least once some

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ

On 18:06 Thu 07 Feb , comex wrote: > I initiate an inquiry case on the statement: > * There is a Rule . > > Arguments: > The criminal case deals only with whether I believed a Rule to > exist, not whether it actually /did/. Therefore, I think an > additional CFJ is necessary. Agreed

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Criminal CFJ

On 17:56 Thu 07 Feb , comex wrote: > On Feb 7, 2008 5:53 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I hereby initiate a criminal CFJ: > > Defendant: comex > > Rule violated: Rule 2149/8, Truthfulness > > Action: Falsely claiming that there exi

Re: DIS: senatus consultum ultimum try 2

On 17:43 Thu 07 Feb , comex wrote: > On Feb 7, 2008 5:38 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > However, take this proto: > > I dare you to propose that. Not while you're dictator.

Re: DIS: senatus consultum ultimum try 2

On 17:22 Thu 07 Feb , comex wrote: > On Feb 7, 2008 5:19 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Every player that is not comex has the right to not be bound by this > > new ruleset. Sorry. > CFJ 1772 That precedent is moot for the purposes of rule 101.

Re: DIS: senatus consultum ultimum try 2

On 16:54 Thu 07 Feb , comex wrote: > http://pastebin.ca/895515 > > Was held ironically for moderator approval, on account of its length. > By CFJ 1314, it was nevertheless sent to a public forum. >From Rule 101: v. Every person has the right to not be considered bound by

DIS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5434-5440

On 00:53 Wed 06 Feb , Zefram wrote: > This distribution of proposals 5434-5440 initiates the Agoran > Decisions on whether to adopt them. The eligible voters for ordinary > proposals are the active players, the eligible voters for democratic > proposals are the active first-class players, and

DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Requirement

On 05:30 Wed 06 Feb , Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > I hereby officially notify all Players of their Rule 1750-imposed duty. > > You have been warned. > > -Goethe Poor message. Allow me to do it better: Hear ye, hear ye! Agorans, gather all around, for this week is a special week! In accordance

DIS: Re: BUS: The Ever-so-Late Herald

On 18:32 Fri 01 Feb , Josiah Worcester wrote: > I nominate myself for Herald. I SUPPORT this. I consent to this > nomination. Could someone else support this? At the moment, I can't install myself as herald due to failed quorum.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Brainfuck Golf] Results of Hole #4

On 21:37 Mon 04 Feb , Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: > > Results of Brainfuck Golf Hole #4: There was only one entry. I hereby > > award 35 points to Goethe. > > Are any folks still trying, or is it pretty much game over here? -Goethe I'm sorry; other projects

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1894 assigned to pikhq

On 16:18 Mon 04 Feb , Ian Kelly wrote: > On Feb 4, 2008 3:09 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > By rule 754, a difference in spelling, grammar, or dialect is > > inconsequential, so long as the difference is nonambiguous. A question > > in th

DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1896a assigned to panel of root, Wooble, pikhq

On 15:47 Sun 03 Feb , Ed Murphy wrote: > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1896a > > Appeal 1896a > > Justice:root > Decision: > > Justice:Wooble >

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1892 assigned to Goethe

On 23:10 Sat 02 Feb , Charles Reiss wrote: > On Saturday 02 February 2008 22:27:05 Kerim Aydin wrote: > > >comex's non-binding agreement 'X' is a contract. > > > > Proto-judgement: FALSE. a "non-binding contract" is a contradiction > > in legal terms, and a meaningless semantic construct.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 5418-5422

On 19:42 Sat 02 Feb , comex wrote: > On Feb 2, 2008 2:24 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Voting results for Proposals 5418-5422: > > x5419 D1 3comex Generalize Game Actions > > CoE: P5419 passed. Well, I think it passed, and I'm not sure a second > CFJ on this is nece

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: An attempt to debunk claims as to the invalidity of my scam

On 17:54 Sat 02 Feb , comex wrote: > On Feb 2, 2008 4:52 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If your agreement is nonbinding, then you cannot change the parties to > > it. > Um, why? Because there are no rules allowing to do so. > > > > Fi

Re: DIS: Protoproposal: Lynching

On 22:00 Sat 02 Feb , Zefram wrote: > Josiah Worcester wrote: > > Without objection, a player may be Lynched. > > Who won't object to eir own lynching? > > > deregistered, and may not register until 30 days after e has > > been lynched.

DIS: Re: BUS: An attempt to debunk claims as to the invalidity of my scam

On 14:21 Sat 02 Feb , comex wrote: > Thirdly, there is the issue that Rule 1742 defines a contract as a > binding agreement. As watcher notes, > > Rule 1742/12 (Power=1.5) > Contracts > > Any group of two or more persons may make an agreement among > themselves with the intention t

DIS: Protoproposal: Lynching

I submit the following proposal, Lynching, with AI=3: Create the following rule, entitled 'Lynching', with power=3: Without objection, a player may be Lynched. A lynched player is deregistered, and may not register until 30 days after e has been lynched. When a player is

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Denouement

On 11:58 Sat 02 Feb , Ben Caplan wrote: > > > We were never supposed to be bound by this > > > contract; it is designed to be fully effective without it. > > > > Then it can't be a contract. > > Oh, interesting. I believe you're right: > > Rule 1742/12 (Power=1.5) > Contracts > > Any g

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Denouement

On 11:38 Sat 02 Feb , Ben Caplan wrote: > > > 1. This contract is non-binding, and so it does not impose any > > > contractual obligations whatsoever. > > > > v. Every person has the right to not be considered bound by an > > agreement, or an amendment to an agreement, which e has

DIS: Re: BUS: bah

On 11:51 Sat 02 Feb , Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On behalf of Comex, I deregister Comex. > > --Wooble I presume that this is via a private contract, made similarly to Comex's contract?

DIS: Re: BUS: Denouement

On 07:52 Sat 02 Feb , [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > This message has been sent from a cron job. > > My contract with the AFO (created in my message dated Fri, 18 Jan 2008 > 11:29:20 -0500 and amended in my message dated Tue, 22 Jan 2008 18:25:55 > -0500) has not been amended, terminated, or tou

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Late to the Party as Always

On 20:53 Fri 01 Feb , comex wrote: > On Feb 1, 2008 8:34 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Feb 1, 2008 6:30 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Denied: OscarMeyr discussed making me a Scamster if my win attempt > > > succee

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Late to the Party as Always

On 18:34 Fri 01 Feb , Ian Kelly wrote: > On Feb 1, 2008 6:30 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Denied: OscarMeyr discussed making me a Scamster if my win attempt > > succeeded; it did not, so I am not a scamster. > > comex, however, was awarded

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Late to the Party as Always

On 18:27 Fri 01 Feb , Josiah Worcester wrote: > On 15:48 Fri 01 Feb , Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > HERALD'S REPORT for Feb 1, 2008 > > > > [I think there's still some long-service awards missing that Zefram made a >

DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Late to the Party as Always

On 15:48 Fri 01 Feb , Kerim Aydin wrote: > > HERALD'S REPORT for Feb 1, 2008 > > [I think there's still some long-service awards missing that Zefram made a > long time ago, but I can't find them]. >--- >OTHER DEFINED PATENT TIT

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1888 assigned to OscarMeyr

On 21:28 Wed 30 Jan , Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Gratuitous evidence: I often don't have ag-dis delivery turned on, so such > messages are frequently not "sent" to me (I do, obviously, read them from > the archives). -Goethe Do you understand and have you carefully weighed the full implication

Re: DIS: Re: A CFJ

On 17:20 Wed 30 Jan , Ed Murphy wrote: > pikhq wrote: > >> On 18:17 Wed 30 Jan , Josiah Worcester wrote: >>> THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED TO BE PUBLIC >>> - >>> The AFO joins the Vote Market. >>> I transfer 1

DIS: Re: A CFJ

On 18:17 Wed 30 Jan , Josiah Worcester wrote: > THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED TO BE PUBLIC > - > The AFO joins the Vote Market. > I transfer 1 VP to the AFO. > The AFO transfers 1 VP to me. > The AFO leaves the Vote Market > I CFJ on the

DIS: A CFJ

THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED TO BE PUBLIC - The AFO joins the Vote Market. I transfer 1 VP to the AFO. The AFO transfers 1 VP to me. The AFO leaves the Vote Market

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Corporate judges

On Tuesday 29 January 2008 17:04:08 Ben Caplan wrote: > > > R2144 only applies to partnerships with identical bases. I'm also > > > concerned about overlapping non-identical bases. > > > > Aha, so e.g. 3 players could create and register 4 partnerships > > (AB, AC, BC, ABC), and it gets worse as t

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1879: assign Goddess Eris

On Tuesday 29 January 2008 15:56:20 Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Tue, 29 Jan 2008, Josiah Worcester wrote: > >> Why? If we passed a Power-4 Rule "This rule can't be changed or > >> repealed, and the creation of any system which can overrule this Rule is > >&g

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1879: assign Goddess Eris

On Tuesday 29 January 2008 09:51:33 Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Tue, 29 Jan 2008, Zefram wrote: > > comex wrote: > >> Nevertheless, a standard Nomic game that made one rule completely > >> unamendable still deserves to be called a nomic. > > > > I'm not sure that it does. I think that's violating the

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1886 assigned to Zefram

On Tuesday 29 January 2008 04:58:57 Zefram wrote: > H. parties to the Vote Market: I hereby inform you of equity case 1886 > and invite you to submit arguments regarding the equitability of the > situation described therein. > > >== CFJ 1886 ===

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1879: assign Goddess Eris

On Monday 28 January 2008 21:36:12 comex wrote: > On Jan 28, 2008 10:48 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Statement: Canada is a nomic. > > > > I judge CFJ 1879 FALSE. This has been endlessly debated, but in the > > end it is a matter of definitions. I believe that nomics are first and > >

Re: DIS: Proto: Quorum Busting

On Monday 28 January 2008 19:20:21 Charles Reiss wrote: > On Monday 28 January 2008 21:02:55 Jeremy Koo wrote: > > With the following I hope to eliminate situations where a vote of > > OBJECT would result in a given vote achieving quorum, making the > > objector's vote that allows the vote to be ac

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Anyone want this sinecure?

On Saturday 26 January 2008 12:11:31 Ed Murphy wrote: > pikhq wrote: > > On Saturday 26 January 2008 11:46:17 comex wrote: > >> On Jan 26, 2008 10:08 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> I nominate comex, Eris, OscarMeyr, and Wooble for Accountor. > >> > >> I consent. I nominate the AFO

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Vote Market change

On Saturday 26 January 2008 10:37:07 Ian Kelly wrote: > On Jan 26, 2008 10:29 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I CFJ on the following statements (requesting linked assignments): > > > > Where the above referenced decision on amending the Vote Market > > agreement able to be validly re

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Watcher

On Thursday 24 January 2008 20:51:39 Ian Kelly wrote: > On Jan 24, 2008 8:47 PM, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I request to be registered as a "watcher". > > If the above causes me to be registered as a player, then I switch my > > posture to Leaning. > > R869 is pretty clear on the def

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract

On Thursday 24 January 2008 20:45:08 comex wrote: > On Jan 24, 2008 10:39 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You may as well have said: > > 1. Any party may leave this contract by announcement. > > Binding: > 3. Imposing or commanding adherence

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract

On Thursday 24 January 2008 20:36:08 comex wrote: > On Jan 24, 2008 10:32 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > By making it non-binding, one makes it so that any party may leave the > > contract. ;p > > Leaving contracts is regulated, and can only be done

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1881 assigned to comex

On Thursday 24 January 2008 20:33:51 comex wrote: > On Jan 24, 2008 9:57 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1881 > > > > == CFJ 1881 == > > > > rule 2029 requires Agora

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal

On Thursday 24 January 2008 20:28:56 comex wrote: > On Jan 24, 2008 10:25 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Your proposed rule is power 4. R101 is power 3. So, your proposed rule > > takes precedence over R101. > > Only by virtue of R1482, which R101

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract

On Thursday 24 January 2008 20:28:10 comex wrote: > On Jan 24, 2008 10:10 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As pikhq notes, contracts are binding. So one might interpret your > > change to the contract to make it non-binding as an act of > > dissolution. > > Nonsense. They merely have

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal

On Thursday 24 January 2008 20:05:13 comex wrote: > On Jan 24, 2008 9:41 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "This rule takes precedence over all other rules." is needlessly > > redundant; the only other Power 4 rule is the Fountain. CFJs have > &

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal

On Wednesday 23 January 2008 16:04:47 comex wrote: > Proposal: Generalize Game Actions (AI=3) > > Create a new Rule, at Power=4, titled "Dictator", with the text: > comex CAN and may at any time by announcement make any explicit > change whatsoever to the gamestate, including but not li

DIS: Re: OFF: Resolving CotC election

On Wednesday 23 January 2008 15:56:54 Levi Stephen wrote: > This notice resolves the Agoran Decision for the holder of the Clerk of > the Courts office. > > Votes: > ZEFRAM: Zefram, root, Eris > COMEX: Iammars > MURPHY: Goethe, Murphy, OscarMeyr, Wooble, avpx, BobTHJ, comex > > The option selected

Re: DIS: Proto: Generalize ratification

On Monday 21 January 2008 20:16:28 Ian Kelly wrote: > On Jan 21, 2008 8:11 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "Without objection". Good luck getting that scammed. ;) > > It's easy if nobody else is aware that there's something to object to

Re: DIS: Proto: Generalize ratification

On Monday 21 January 2008 20:08:03 Ian Kelly wrote: > On Jan 21, 2008 8:02 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Any player CAN, without objection, ratify a specified public > >document. > > I bet the distributor could come up with nice scams based on this. > > -root "Without

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Ratification

On Monday 21 January 2008 19:54:45 Ed Murphy wrote: > woggle wrote: > > They would self-ratify. Quoth R2034: > > A public document purporting to resolve an Agoran decision is > > self-ratifying. > > No they wouldn't, because messages purporting to resolve Agoran > decisions generally ar

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Ratification

On Monday 21 January 2008 19:45:09 Levi Stephen wrote: > Josiah Worcester wrote: > > On Monday 21 January 2008 19:37:28 Ian Kelly wrote: > >> On Jan 21, 2008 7:21 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>> I intend to ratify my message alleging t

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Ratification

On Monday 21 January 2008 19:37:28 Ian Kelly wrote: > On Jan 21, 2008 7:21 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I intend to ratify my message alleging to announce the voting results > > > of proposals 5390-5404. > > > > Support: me (implicitly) > > Object: none > > > > I hereby ratify t

Re: DIS: Canada

On Monday 21 January 2008 19:28:47 Ian Kelly wrote: > On Jan 21, 2008 7:23 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jan 21, 2008 7:21 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > game. (n) A pursuit or activity with rules performed either alone or >

Re: DIS: Canada

On Monday 21 January 2008 19:18:06 Iammars wrote: > On Jan 21, 2008 8:57 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Monday 21 January 2008 18:54:41 Iammars wrote: > > > The mathematics of game theory would like to have a word with you. > > > > I th

Re: DIS: Canada

On Monday 21 January 2008 18:54:41 Iammars wrote: > The mathematics of game theory would like to have a word with you. I thought the normal-language usage took precedence over the mathematical usage?

Re: DIS: Canada

On Monday 21 January 2008 18:44:46 Iammars wrote: > On Jan 21, 2008 3:45 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Monday 21 January 2008 13:42:50 Ian Kelly wrote: > > > On Jan 21, 2008 1:32 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Wel

DIS: Re: BUS: Assessor Election

On Monday 21 January 2008 15:15:08 Levi Stephen wrote: > I initiate an Agoran Decision to resolve the holder of the Assessor office. > > The valid options are BOBTHJ, ROOT and MURPHY. > > The eligible voters are the active players. > > The vote collector is the IADoP > > Levi I vote MURPHY, unless

Re: DIS: Canada

On Monday 21 January 2008 13:42:50 Ian Kelly wrote: > On Jan 21, 2008 1:32 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Well, that settles that. Canada is not a game either, by the definitions > > cited. > > Are you suggesting that Canadian politics is not a competitive activity? > > -root The Left Ha

Re: DIS: Canada

On Monday 21 January 2008 13:32:14 Taral wrote: > Well, that settles that. Canada is not a game either, by the definitions > cited. Then judge that way, please, so I don't have to notify Canada.

DIS: Election, please

If Murphy's initial attempt to resolve the voting period for those proposals was correct, you are now obligated to initiate a few elections. (Mad Scientist and Tailor)

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1864: assign Goddess Eris

On Sunday 20 January 2008 20:59:22 Taral wrote: > On 1/14/08, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I hereby assign Goddess Eris as judge of CFJ 1864. > > I judge TRUE. One of the members of the Left Hand has stated that the > Right Hand agreement provides for one or another of the partners to > sa

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1831: remanded to Goddess Eris

On Sunday 20 January 2008 20:34:54 Taral wrote: > On 1/20/08, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Initiated by pikhq: 10 Dec 2007 01:25:39 GMT > > Judge Goethe assigned: 10 Dec 2007 10:24:26 GMT > > Judged TRUE by Goethe: 10 Dec 2007 18:22:07

DIS: Re: BUS: [Brainfuck Golf] Hole #3

On Sunday 20 January 2008 19:51:47 Ian Kelly wrote: > I think the mathematical tasks may be tiring to some, so I'm going to > try something else this time. The third task for Brainfuck Golf is to > implement Unix sort. The input is to be read as a sequence of ASCII > lines, each terminated with a

DIS: Alerting root or Zefram: Consent to judgement in 1849a!

Goethe and I have agreed to affirm 1849a. We need consent to actually judge, and you managed to screw up our chances of judging on time. Please, let us judge.

DIS: Proto-notification 2

The Office of Ambassador of Agora Nomic presents its compliments to the Canadian Embassy in Denver and directs the attention of the latter to the following: This message is being sent to you in order to inform you of an occurrence in a game of Nomic called Ago

  1   2   3   4   5   >