On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
I apologize if this is so. When you denied and posted the 'did not',
'did too', I assumed you were acknowledging that the statement
Rule 2238 is a Power=3 rule to BUS was meant to be a self-ratifying
statement from the
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 7:20 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Oh, it was a scam and you broke it, just for the wrong reason: I was
going to declare it self-ratifying a few minutes before seven days
after it was published. :) Ah well, we'll see how the other CFJ goes.
I'm blind
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 7:44 PM, Charles Reiss woggl...@gmail.com wrote:
Amend Rule 2138 (The International Associate Director of Personnel) by
removing:
The portion of a public message purporting to be an IADoP's
report that lists the holder of each office is self-ratifying.
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 8:09 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009, comex wrote:
However, if everyone was deregistered, even though the same rule would
be defining Citizenship, the Power 2-defined 'player' would no longer
match the ordinary-language meaning
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 5:29 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
I have been browsing the FLR and do not seems to fully understand the
adoption indexes of proposals. Aside from maintenance proposals (which have
an AI of 1), are adoption indexes arbitrary?
Power=N rules can only
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 7:05 PM, Warrigal ihope12...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 6:48 PM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote:
Test, test, test, test, test, test.
I support.
Sorry, that's the last test. Cron's been acting up.
messages:
one was sent from comex com...@gmail.com and shows up as comex
while the one from just com...@gmail.com shows up as agora-discussion.
(http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2009-February/date.html)
Umm... that's odd. I sent that message with gmail, albeit
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 7:03 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Fri 13 Feb 18:15:40 comex +2 02/09:001 (if uncontested)
02/09:001 18:15:40 comex Murphy 18682CFJ 2339
Hmm?
On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2009 08:38:44 -0500
From: Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com
To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org
Subject: DIS: Re: BUS: Registration
Reply-To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org
Welcome.
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 2:27 PM, com...@gmail.com wrote:
This is a test notification
This is a test notification
This is a test notification
This is a test notification
This is a test notification
This is a test notification
This is a test notification
So, anyone want an automated
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Benjamin Caplan
celestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd suggest trying to delay the notifications to send them in batch,
combining several in a single message. This would require the timeout
to be defined as a range, a wider range causing fewer automatic messages
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 4:56 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
I don't think it is possible to implicitly be a Win Announcement, they
have to be 'clearly labeled'. (I generally use the phrasing The
following sentence is a Win Announcement, and this sentence serves to
clearly label it as
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 10:07 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
I submit the following proposal (AI=2, II=1, Title=FAQ):
Insert the following paragraph after the third paragraph of rule 2186:
{{{
When used as a period of time, a game is the period of time between
one instant at
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
(h) Eagle-eyed, to be awarded to any player who noticed a scam,
thought up a way to stop it, warned everyone clearly, and yet
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
(h) Cassandra, to be awarded to any player who noticed a scam,
thought up a way to stop it, warned everyone clearly, and yet
You need another 'and' in there.
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 7:11 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
First, I must point out that the caller's argument that the same
precedent would apply to Canti Cygnei (sorry about the dubious plural,
but the grammar of the original phrase is dubious in the first place)
What's wrong with
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
What's wrong with it? Although the standard Latin term for swan
song is, according to words, 'vox cycneus', there's no grammatical
reason why 'cantus' couldn't substitute. However, the plural would be
'cantus cygnei'.
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 5:35 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
otw, pretty apathetic on everyone else's part eh what, not like there was
no warning, even a specific warning...
Yeah, seriously. You'd think that after the last scam people would be
more willing to democratize.
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Ah, fourth declension nominative is same in single and plural (cantus)
and cygneus is an adjective. My cantus cygneus + your cantus cygneus
= our cantus cygneus.
Cycneus is second declension however, so Cantus Cygnei.
On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
The whole reason we made Rests transfer to first-class members of
partnerships was so that we could make first-class members take
responsibility for their partnerships' actions. This was a deliberate
repair to a broken
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
When one became a zombie, an auction was held. The winning bidder
would gain complete power of attorney over the zombie, and would
traditionally Loot the Body of currency, then keep possession of the
zombie; zombies
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 7:17 AM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
It seems incredibly unlikely that when entering into a contract with
someone who's breached as many contracts as ehird has ais523
reasonably expected em to abide by the terms of the contract. Affairs
proceded exactly
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 6:34 AM, Elliott Hird
penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
I did it, as getting my server running again is one of my least
priorities out-of-game ATM. I would implore an Agoran court not to
obligate me to take out of game actions such as putting up a server.
I would
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 6:50 AM, Elliott Hird
penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
I would stop comex doing such things, but I'd have to have his consent
to act on behalf of Bayes.
You consented to cause Bayes to accept the nomination. I don't
believe you have any outstanding intents to act
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 11:35 PM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
I published NoVs accusing players of violating rules in the past week,
none of which were made for personal reasons. comex responded by
digging up violations that occurred months ago, including violations
by panels
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
comex wrote:
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com
wrote:
I intend, without objection, to make The Normish Partnership 2 inactive.
I object. (This doesn't have any practical impact
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
1) Spambots
Well, accounts given to any requesting player would suffice, I suppose.
2) Players making incorrect edits, whether through malice or accident
I think we can avoid malice on the honor system. As for accident,
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
So you just mean it doesn't matter because TNP2 never votes on
anything in practice, even though it could in theory?
I just meant that it's not doing any harm by failing to vote and thus
diluting the power of the
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 7:26 PM, Charles Reiss woggl...@gmail.com wrote:
Anyone CAN cause this rule to amend itself by announcement.
NoV: The PNP violated Rule 1607 by distributing this proposal (a
mangled copy of P6069).
I contest this. It's not clear to me that actually violates R1607
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 10:10 PM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 10:01 PM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote:
I contest these and initiate criminal cases regarding the
above-contested NoVs. You could have easily reminded either me or the
CotC to achieve
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Elliott Hird
penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
CoE: Not all of these are Comrades, so some of this distribution failed.
So did it all fail or just those...?
Those coins are still held by the RBoA.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
So it is. I spend A C# E to increase my caste to Beta.
Fails. To increase your own caste, you must spend five notes.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
I become a party to the RBoA. (I may have already been a party. The
Notary website says I am but it also says BobTHJ is.)
Hmm... since when has Bankership not been restricted to aristocrats?
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 8:22 PM, Benjamin Schultz ke...@verizon.net wrote:
I publish the following conditional action:
If Wooble's motion of 22 Jan 2009 is approved, then immediately after the
change in exchange rates but before any other actions involving the RBoA
happen, I withdraw as much
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
Ah, clever. Most partnerships aren't sufficiently unilateral to be able
to manage that, and arguably the ones that do are sufficient to land
people in enough trouble as it is. (For instance, you could get the
partnership to
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 7:15 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
(One argument was that
their version of R101 was sufficiently garbled that it was not only
possible to bind other people to contracts against their will, but that
being bound to a contract against your will was illegal!)
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 11:52 AM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote:
That's not very nice-- e clearly was unaware of the situation.
I don't think it's unreasonable to expect officers to read the rules.
Officers can
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 10:41 PM, bd_ b...@fushizen.net wrote:
I request listing as a Watcher.
ehird: no.
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 11:31 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1882
http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2343
The first of these was legitimately ambiguous on multiple points, the
second wasn't.
Not to mention,
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 10:59 PM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
I contest this. The Notary wiki page contains the text and parties of all
current contracts, as required of my monthly report. I don't believe it is
necessary for me to send it to the mailing list.
Agora is not B.
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 3:32 AM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Judge: OscarMeyr
ehird SHALL deregister.
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 4:07 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
It's pretty rare for them to actually work; even the Gnarly Contract
(the only recent one I can remember working) needed two tries. Also, can
we please fix that loophole, now? (I submitted a proposal to fix it, but
IIRC it
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 4:10 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
Might be good to get the Rulekeepor to clean the rule, though.
I'm not sure that counts as a spelling and/or grammar correction.
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 3:57 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
(Otherwise it could be interpreted as giving the judge the choice of
true or false in the case of negative judgements. And we wouldn't
want that, now would we?)
We may as well do, although a judge submitting a proposal that
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 10:58 PM, Siege thesi...@gmail.com wrote:
I object to my own deactivation (Siege). I'm here, just biding my time.
NttPF
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Repeal Rule 2218 (Win by Not Losing). [Redundant and underpowered.]
It was already repealed by Proposal 6031; I just haven't updated the
ruleset yet.
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 4:06 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
A copy is located at http://www.agoranomic.org/coat_of_arms.png
and a backup copy is located at
http://zenith.homelinux.net/awj/image/coat_of_arms.png
Updated to use this link.
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
IANAJ, but I do have an opinion on this too actually. There was sufficient
(intentionally-created) unclarity in an action attempt that could be mapped
onto either deregistration (R754i) or UNDAD (per contract you had
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Charles Schaefer
chuckles11...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry for clogging the Judicial system. I wasn't aware that this had already
been addressed. TWICE.
Three times now, and if I am ever elected CotC, I will make certain to
assign Michael Norrish CFJs as soon as
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 8:45 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Judge OscarMeyr's Arguments:
I do not see any Conductor's reports in my archives for the month
between 17 November and 14 December. I uphold the first three NoVs;
I reject the fourth one, as it applies to the week
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 10:02 PM, Taral tar...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:29 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
As the act in question is noncompliance with a CFJ ruling, I intend
with 2 support to fine the ninny 3.4 Rests. If this support is not
met, I will fine the
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
I transfer a prop from comex to Goethe for using the joust test server
to reverse engineer scripts by flooding the server with test programs.
I love side-channel attacks.
wooble_231208_2:
Minimum runtime before win: 429
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Elliott Hird
penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 7 Jan 2009, at 17:00, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
I formally request that the Servant write a judgment for this CFJ.
My judgment: I accept the caller's arguments. TRUE.
This is an awful judgement. Then again, I
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 3:16 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
This is an awful judgement. Then again, I don't think your Servant
Coin was ever removed, so...
Why? I'm biased, and one can always go into excessive detail in a judgement,
but the caller's arguments were generally
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 12:44 AM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
As CotC, I inform the following players of the following criminal
cases naming them as the defendant, and invite them to rebut the
argument for their guilt.
j
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Elliott Hird
penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
and SHOULD be used when a rule includes a term otherwise. -- MMI
Has this specific aspect of the First Speaker rule been thought about
before?
CFJ: { Michael Norrish is obligated to be Michael Norrish }
This
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 9:05 PM, Charles Schaefer
chuckles11...@gmail.com wrote:
Inquiry CFJ: {The current Speaker is Michael Norrish.}
See CFJs 2155 and 1534.
On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 8:07 PM, Pavitra celestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote:
6046 D 1 2.0 comex Cruft
AGAINST. remove ... all text under it arguably does not stop at the
beginning of (c), and might even delete all sufficiently low-powered
rules listed after 1023 in the Logical
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Elliott Hird
penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
[Don't worry, I should have something more reliable to things like
this soon. Be patient...]
git please
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
This is in keeping with the generally permissive
Agoran attitude of what constitutes an entity.
Such as offices?
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 9:56 PM, Sgeo sgeos...@gmail.com wrote:
On January 6th, 2009, 2:52:53 AM, B Nomic has died. May it rest in peace.
Actually, it did not die because Tweaks can't be submitted. A few
minutes ago I attempted to ratify into existence a rule that forbids
the game from ending;
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 10:28 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
It's because the Intent is, in fact, in the words of R1769, simply
required before the dependent action attempt. The fact that it is
required 4 days before means that it's also required 3 days before,
2 days before,
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 10:44 AM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote:
I disagree... if you require that an action be done four days earlier
than X, you are not requiring that it be done prior to X, but prior
to (four days before X). If I advise you, new to the Agoran ruleset,
that you have
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Mine is semantically and logically 100% accurate, in that the CFJ
statement a Notice of Intent is required to be posted before the time
a matching w/o Objection action is performed would be judged TRUE based
on R1728.
On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Elliott Hird
penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
CoE: I have an outstanding objection to everything, maybe
You retracted it.
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 7:54 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
If some Rule requires that an action be done prior to a given
time, and that given time falls during a Holiday, or within the
72-hour period immediately following that Holiday, then that
action need
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 6:13 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
H. Rulekeepor, can you please advise how OscarMeyr's vote was in fact
resolved, so that I can update the Assessor DB accordingly?
CFJ 2277 determined that Proposal 5961 (which would have repealed Rule
2140) was not
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 6:46 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
*6022 D1 3.0 Murphy Cleanup of Power=3 definitions
*6023 D1 2.0 Murphy Cleanup of Power=2 definitions
*6024 D1 2.0 Murphy Cleanup of judicial definitions
*6025 D1 2.0 Murphy Cleanup of
Y'know, that wasn't actually an answer.
-- Forwarded message --
From: The Internet Oracle ora...@cs.indiana.edu
Date: Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 5:52 PM
Subject: The Oracle replies!
To: comexk+o...@gmail.com
The Internet Oracle has pondered your question deeply.
Your question was:
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 5:51 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
This is a [PROTO-] public contract and (if permitted by the Rules) a
Contest. Goethe is the contestmaster; members and Agoran courts SHOULD
generally defer to eir adjudication of disputes if the need arises.
Goethe CAN
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 10:10 AM, Elliott Hird
penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
seems very easy
[129 +s, then a large, large amount of s]
That's an easy way to lose, yes, since you'd be zeroing your own flag.
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 10:45 AM, Elliott Hird
penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 19 Dec 2008, at 15:33, comex wrote:
That's an easy way to lose, yes, since you'd be zeroing your own flag.
put the first
Then you run off the edge of the array, since you don't know what size it is.
I
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 7:34 AM, Bayes ba...@eso-std.org wrote:
Bayes submits the following proposal, titled Repeal 'Foreign communications'
(AI=1, II=0): {
Repeal Rule 2184 (Foreign communications).
}
I'll vote for this one. After all, what if a foreign nomic says that
an appropriate
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 6:05 PM, Joshua Boehme boehm...@msu.edu wrote:
are of similar plausability to make the I make Proposal X democratic
ambiguous? (Note that I completely disagree with that, but I am trying to
make sense of where you're coming from.)
I use a mechanism that no longer
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
I've been toying with an idea for a combined brainfuck (er sorry BobTHJ)/
corewars match... by which I mean BF language and array but two programs
fighting for the array space. I think if done right it would be a bit
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 5:18 PM, Charles Schaefer
chuckles11...@gmail.com wrote:
Unsuccessful, source not specified.
I transfer one prop FROM MYSELF to Murphy.
Fails, reason not specified. :D
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 6:37 PM, Benjamin Schultz ke...@verizon.net wrote:
Does there exist a decent Perl to Brainfuck parser / compiler? (There
probably does, as nobody in their right mind writes their code directly in
Brainfuck.)
Doesn't compiling into Brainfuck sort of defeat the purpose?
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 8:18 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008, comex wrote:
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 6:37 PM, Benjamin Schultz ke...@verizon.net wrote:
Does there exist a decent Perl to Brainfuck parser / compiler? (There
probably does, as nobody
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 3:15 PM, Bayes ba...@eso-std.org wrote:
Bayes votes as follows:
6030 O 0 1.0 Murphy Undo the rest of 5956
SELL(10 coins - FOR*8) (93% sure)
6031 O 0 1.0 Murphy Undo the aftermath of 5956
SELL(10 coins - FOR*8) (93% sure)
Here's the first
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 6:59 PM, The PerlNomic Partnership
perlno...@nomictools.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 7:16 PM, Elliott Hird
penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 17 Dec 2008, at 23:59, The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 10:49 AM, Elliott Hird
penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
I never said permanent; I was under the assumption that the appeals
processes were still going and it could summarily be finished off
with a win and then repealed after them.
What ehird said. We've just been
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 10:36 AM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Proposal: Allow conversion of sentences
(AI = 3, please)
To be fair, CHOKEY for an Epsilon is sort of a slap on the wrist-- the
only effect is that the ninny's caste can't usefully be increased.
For me, the new
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 1:25 PM, Elliott Hird
penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 15 Dec 2008, at 18:00, Alex Smith wrote:
(Assuming you can't somehow leverage your dictatorship to stop it
passing in the first place...)
of course we can.
How do you suppose? It's been judged that
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
I nominate myself as Rulekeepor.
Sorry I'm behind; I'm very busy IRL.
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 12:28 PM, Elliott Hird
penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
Well, I've been thrown to the wolves. Who wants to do the honor?
You know you can avoid this by spending some coins.
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 6:11 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Proposal: Undo the rest of 5956
Amend Rule 2143 (Official Reports and Duties) by replacing each instance
of role with office.
This omits Rule 2218.
RFC: If Murphy submitted a long proposal titled Cleanup of Power=1.5
definitions that would cause a rule to contain the text {Murphy CAN
cause this rule to amend itself by announcement}, that proposal would
pass.
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 7:23 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
2282 may still be affirmed on appeal. But yes, for completeness:
What does CFJ 2282 have to do with Rule 2218?
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 9:00 PM, Ian Kelly ian.g.ke...@gmail.com wrote:
With criminal charges on
top of it, I'll probably just drop the whole thing and deregister.
Just testing the new system :p
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 9:48 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
If a rule other than 2218 defines the Winning Condition of Solitude,
then repeal Rule 2218. Otherwise, amend it to read:
Note that Rule 2218 cannot define Winning Conditions anyway, since its
Power is only 1. (The
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 10:34 AM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Here's an idea to encourage more votes to be bought, will turn it over
to the economic automation mavens for possible implementation:
Create a Bayes-type partnership that, if a vote is put on sale within
the first three
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 5:15 PM, Joshua Boehme boehm...@msu.edu wrote:
This judge sees no reason why the statement in question (I make Proposal X
democratic) should be considered ambiguous when similar statements about
other aspects of proposals and their decisions have not been considered
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 12:41 AM, Bayes ba...@eso-std.org wrote:
6026 O 1 1.0 Murphy Cleanup of Power=1 definitions
FOR*8 (98% sure)
S'pose I should have left Bayes broken. :/
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 1:56 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
So, if the phrase is part of a contract, is it more like a Rule or
a player's statement? It is in fact somewhere in between. In
particular, while the text of a contract is judicable as a logical
and legal construct,
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 2:55 AM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
a) X is/are Y
b) Y is/are known as X
Any biological organism that is generally capable ... is a person
might fall under this. Probably doesn't, but there are other
situations where phrasing clearly
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 4:46 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
The script assumes that ehird's PBA report is up to date. That has
proven an incorrect assumption recently, such that we'll have to do some
actions by hand to get its random-crops-obtained-by-mistake count down
and its coin
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 2:01 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Basically, it's because I agree with your premise that I disagree with
your conclusions. If contracts are primordial entities, then their
interaction with agora is not as an intrinsic extension of Agoran Rules,
but in
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 5:35 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
With support from Elysion and Murphy, I send the following message on
behalf of the judicial panel in CFJ 2276a:
{{{
There is only one interpretation of rule 2126, 2156, 683
and 754 that does not lead to a contradiction,
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Warrigal ihope12...@gmail.com wrote:
Active would be X wins the game; passive would be the game is won
[by X]. To win the game is an infinitive which has no subject and
is therefore neither active nor passive.
To win the game is an active infinitive. A passive
801 - 900 of 1846 matches
Mail list logo
