Nothing to see here, move along.
test
Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email.
I can also judge, if there's old stuff sitting in the queue.
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 2, 2014, at 1:03 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
metaphorical hands (or chairs) up if you are interested enough
in judging and are also around this/next week to judge a case
on
Is it still broken, or is everyone just really quiet?
Switches are self-ratifying in general.
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 10, 2013, at 12:59 PM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote:
I vote:
7548 10 O Ienpw IIIStandardized election days
FOR
7549 2 25 O Walker Recruitment Sanity
PRESENT
7550 30 O omd
This danger doesn't even sound plausible to me. Everyone's confused and goes
home, and never comes back? I doubt it.
I won't have a keyboard for a few hours but in short,
Do you have a plan to return your version of Agora to normalcy reasonably soon?
If so, that would be reassuring, modulo
The main problem is that you have actively worked to prevent the controversy
from being settled, e.g. by attempting to judge the case yourself.
Sent from my iPhone
I even asked about this. Alex Smith suggested that I had until the
controversy was settled to dispose of my dictatorship. Is
Many of us value that continuity highly, and would consider an attempt to
restart the game with different rules unacceptable (this was a large factor in
the death of B). Although the ratification bug is very unfortunate, it is
almost certain that my emergency proposal will paper over it, so
On Jun 29, 2013, at 8:37 AM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
Good day Agorans,
Ah... one thing. Didn't we have a ruling that proposals do not take effect
until the voting results are announced? Since, unless I'm mixing up time zones
on my phone, this was sent after 12:04 UTC, the game ended
On Jun 3, 2013, at 10:44 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 1:28 AM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
7467 370 O scshunt New Precedents
AGAINST, I think the clause about definitions and structures is too
vaguely worded; while it's probably not
It's worth noting that if G.'s vague CoE managed to adequately target all the
recent purported resolutions, none of them have self-ratified.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 3, 2013, at 10:45 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
Yes. I withdraw that proposal and submit one identical to
NttPF.
Sent from my iPhone
On May 26, 2013, at 6:51 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
I spend 2 VCs to increase omd's VVLOP by 2.
I cash two copies of that promise.
-scshunt
Oh, and please specify what you're paying the cost for, while we wait for the
relevant CFJ.
Sent from my iPhone
FWIW, although I prefer not to have disinterested proposals (because when we
had them players seemed to more often mark good proposals as disinterested than
the other way around, and even simple proposals stimulate the game), I do think
these should be merged into one proposal.
omd
Sent from
This is, for the record, exactly the scam that prompted me to make my recent
proposal regarding Messy Statements. I believe that under the current version,
it's impossible to get a win with a scam like this that relies on infinite
recursion.
However, I believe you messed it up anyway, first
This one also falls under true and determinate.
omd
Sent from my iPhone
On May 19, 2013, at 4:17 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
I create the following 5 promises for each of [N] below equal to
1,2,3,4,5. (specifying this as a single action is an administrative
The transfer is conditional on Wes being able to do something in the future
(cash the promise, with a condition of 'false') that will be impossible whether
the transfer succeeds or not (if it succeeds, the condition is false; if it
fails, e can't cash it because e doesn't own it), so it
Well, I thought the sentence was pretty minor (more so than APOLOGY), but
that's subjective. Feel free to appeal.
Sent from my iPhone
On May 12, 2013, at 9:26 PM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote:
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 8:13 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
I assume the defendant
I'm arguing that if it's nonsensical and meaningless, it's not truly about
anything, like in the nkep CFJ.
I don't see any reason to a priori prefer otherwise unreasonable
interpretations because they don't cause paradoxes. It's somewhat in the best
interests of the game to avoid them, but
NttPF
Sent from my iPhone
On May 13, 2013, at 3:55 PM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote:
I vote:
7428 1 omd, etc. Agoran arms in a rule
FOR
7429 1 omd, etc. Protection Racket
AGAINST
7431 2 Walker (untitled)
AGAINST
7432 1 Walker Downsizing
FOR
Arguments: That clause was intended to allow scshunt to cause a high-AI
proposal that had previously been adopted (so high-Power) to take effect again.
It was ruled in CFJ 3277 that this constitutes a substantive change to the
proposal and so fails.
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 10, 2013, at
As you can see in past threads, players typically reply to the Promotor's
distributions of proposals with FOR, AGAINST, or PRESENT (no vote but prevents
a proposal from failing due to a lack of quorum of voters) for each proposal.
Then the Assessor collects votes in a voting results message
VVLOP is pretty simple at present - read Rules 2389 and 2390.
Props exist, but nobody uses them anymore (or has at all in this iteration
really - R2376 is a copy of an earlier rule that saw more use), and the only
thing that depends on them, Aerocratic Proposals, will probably be repealed.
E just submitted a proposal, which is one such action; there are others.
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 2, 2013, at 2:55 PM, Wes Contreras w...@antitribu.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
Also, because of Bucky, our resident participating
Dammit, I never thought of that.
The problem that it solves is that I rewrapped all text before adding to the
FLR - it would get pretty messy otherwise.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 28, 2013, at 4:40 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
Right, that part does do something.
However, it
On Oct 16, 2012, at 6:59 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
'person' hereafter refers to first-class persons only.
Boo :p
. A Working program is a BF
program solves the problem for the (possible unannounced)
*possibly. If you do announce the test cases, it would be a bit
This is a huge hack. ;p
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 15, 2012, at 9:49 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
I submit the following Proposal, Breaking Promise Circles, AI-3:
--
If Rule 1023 (Common Definitions)
On Jul 15, 2012, at 9:54 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
7267 1 G. Still Crazy after all these Years
AGAINST
7268 3 G. allow secret votes
AGAINST
Why :(
Sent from my iPhone
Rule 2367.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 6, 2012, at 7:00 AM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
3240: UNDECIDABLE
I accept the caller's arguments. Ozymandias has not won the game, so
neither TRUE nor FALSE is appropriate.
CFJ: It would be ILLEGAL for a player to publish a message
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 6, 2012, at 4:46 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
I think ais523 was right on the money in 2906.
It basically reduces to 'This statement is UNDECIDABLE' is incorrect.
(If it is TRUE that it is undecidable, then Rule 2367 makes it incorrect.
But
You hippies with your non-Mac computers.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 4, 2012, at 11:48 PM, Elliott Hird penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com
wrote:
On 5 July 2012 05:19, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
CFJ: omd initiated a CFJ in the above-quoted message.
Arguments: If this is judged
If a judgement is incorrect, it's just incorrect: there's no reason why a case
should end up with an inappropriate judgement, unless a judicial panel is too
hasty with AFFIRM/OVERRULE, but if it does, and it's widely accepted the
judgement was incorrect, it's not the end of the world (the
See also CFJ 1346, although that case didn't preclude the possibility of
incorrect judgements affecting things, as game custom has since. Or Lindrum
World. Rule 217 actually does give force to past judgements, but only as one
factor in cases of inclarity.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 28,
Only Victory Announcements. Calling CFJs prevents self-ratification, but
judging them doesn't restart it.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 28, 2012, at 11:49 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jun 2012, com...@gmail.com wrote:
If a judgement is incorrect, it's just
Thanks, I meant the latter. I'll repropose (, distribute, etc.) tomorrow.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 18, 2012, at 9:12 PM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:12 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
Casting a vote for PRESENT is equivalent to endorsing the
You will nod you, indeed!
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 18, 2012, at 9:43 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
I transfer a ruble to Nuas Te.
-scshunt
Would, even.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 18, 2012, at 11:36 PM, com...@gmail.com wrote:
You will nod you, indeed!
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 18, 2012, at 9:43 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
I transfer a ruble to Nuas Te.
-scshunt
Maybe I should just submit yearly ruleset ratification proposals. Also,
tomorrow I'll go search for proposals that showed up in voting results but not
current_flr.txt,v and make sure that they're all AI fails or other issues.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 9, 2012, at 7:50 PM, Elliott Hird
N.b. this introduces slight breakage, because if some player hypothetically
decides to obtain a Slave Golem and then continually have it break the rules, e
can continue to do so after being exiled, and the golem itself cannot be
exiled.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 8, 2012, at 10:03 AM, Kerim
I already submitted proposal 7246, which is roughly equivalent.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 4, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Proposal: Kick out the Jams, er, Platonists
(AI = 3; this may have a 1-ruble cost, in which case I pay it)
Amend Rule 208 (Resolving
So was I!
But I've been sitting in the aerican Yahoo group ever since then, and it's
basically a random discussion forum. Good luck invading that...
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 1, 2012, at 9:20 AM, Benjamin Schultz ben.dov.schu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 7:26 AM, Pavitra
I don't get it. What does Initial Posture do?
Sent from my iPhone
On May 26, 2012, at 12:21 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Proto-Proposal: Opting Out, or Return of the Justiciar
(AI = 1.5)
Amend Rule 1871 (The Standing Court) by replacing (default) with
(default if the
n.b. you should retract these.
Sent from my iPhone
On May 27, 2012, at 9:14 AM, FKA441344 441...@gmail.com wrote:
I CFJ, linked(both inquiry):
*Rule 2350 contains the text
which places the proposal in the Proposal Pool.
*Rule 2350 contains the text A proposal is a type of entity
fwiw, I recommend either top posting or trimming your quotes.
Sent from my iPhone
On May 18, 2012, at 11:36 AM, Schrodinger's Cat ag...@lesidhetree.com wrote:
Benjamin Schultz ben.dov.schu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Schrodinger's Cat
ag...@lesidhetree.com
how did i not see this
i am getting bad at scams
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 31, 2012, at 10:25 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Please see my proto suggestion: a certain class of golem only; cost
for making that type of golem; don't count towards quorum.
This is similar to what scshunt suggested... on second thought, I suppose it
might be more
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 3, 2012, at 6:45 PM, The Person Formerly Known As 441344
441...@gmail.com wrote:
I intend to deputise for the Promotor to distribute the proposals in
the proposal pool that were in there at the beginning of Mon. 23.
I intend to deputise for the Promotor to
Gratuitous: Long precedent and Agoran tradition holds that explicitly is
defined as .
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 24, 2011, at 10:56 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Tanner L. Swett wrote:
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Ed Murphyemurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Detail:
In general I think a better question is whether you can evaluate complex
expressions with promises without requiring complicated naming schemes or
complicated individual messages that could be thrown out as unclear, relying
instead on emergent behavior from a series of individually simple
Invadors?
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 20, 2011, at 12:42 PM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
On Thu, 2011-10-20 at 12:14 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2011, ais523 wrote:
On Thu, 2011-10-20 at 09:28 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On 20 October 2011 11:48, Alex Smith
Long custom (arguably contradicted by long precedent) is that it can.
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 11, 2011, at 12:29 AM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 23:25 -0500, Pavitra wrote:
On 08/10/2011 11:23 PM, ais523 wrote:
On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 23:16 -0500,
Gratuitous: It's possible (if unlikely) that a shorter document has the same
sum.
Sent from my iPad
On Jun 20, 2011, at 10:19 PM, Pavitra celestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote:
I hereby take the action described in the shortest document that has the
following SHA512 sum:
Incidentally, apathy is the only thing turning the points+promises economy from
a combination of well-tested and innovative gameplay into degeneracy. Do we
really have to toss it out already?
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 4, 2011, at 8:58 PM, Elliott Hird penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com
wrote:
On Jun 3, 2011, at 1:44 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED,
then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it
from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and
its
It's part of the reason I held on to Promotor.
Sent from my iPhone
On May 19, 2011, at 1:48 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Thu, 19 May 2011, Charles Walker wrote:
G.83 167
Murphy 224 26
Walker 226 24
I
If you were inactive, how could you be an eligible voter?
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 25, 2011, at 1:50 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2011, John Smith wrote:
In the interest of maintaining everyone's right to resolve matters of
controversy,
If and only if
On Jan 19, 2011, at 1:38 PM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
In fact: I intend (with notice) to set the power of R2324 to 1.
You mean, to cause it to set its own power to 1?
You didn't warn *me* like that!
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 17, 2011, at 1:34 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
scshunt is arguing that there is no existing authorization
in which case your proposed text would not authorize it, since it's not
permitted by other rules.
Actually, let's just leave the rules alone.
No ,v?
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 11, 2011, at 3:24 PM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
I put some of my reports on the web. These ones are generated
entirely from the web app, and are thus are at any moment are as
up-to-date as I'm able to keep them:
Proposal 6915 (Ordinary, AI=2.0, Interest=0) by omd
Psychohistorical accuracy
Amend Rule 2255 (The Court) by replacing Head Gardener with Chief
Gardener.
No, it didn't.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 9, 2011, at 1:05 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Yally wrote:
If possible, I
The ability to submit 10,000 CFJs is not guaranteed by R101; neither should be
the ability to take hundreds of actions in a single message.
For reports, you could just ask...
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 31, 2010, at 7:38 AM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
WHEREAS, the
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 31, 2010, at 2:45 PM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 5:37 AM, com...@gmail.com wrote:
The ability to submit 10,000 CFJs is not guaranteed by R101;
Well, that's the interpretation of several players. Too bad no
interpretation
By the way, I have a rebuttal in progress. I'd have published it sooner, but
I've been pretty busy.
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 12, 2010, at 5:47 PM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
On Sun, 2010-12-12 at 17:39 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Ed Murphy
On Dec 9, 2010, at 10:42 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
But I should state that I think that 3/4 of
scams tried here are a trivial attempt at misunderstanding legal
procedures as mathematical logic, which would be laughed out of court
but maintain a credence here.
It's not
On Nov 30, 2010, at 12:52 AM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Proposal: Restore the terrible choice
(disinterested, distributable by announcement)
Terrible?
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 20, 2010, at 5:46 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
*6882 O0 1.0 G. Other documents
*6883 O1 1.0 omd Read Requirement
I swear I read a message asking the Assessor to resolve these in reverse order
(to allow them both to take
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 11, 2010, at 5:56 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
6893 O 1 1.0 Flameshadowxeroshin Clarification of the Replacement of the
Pope
AGAINST
Why?
That statement still depends on its own truth value, just indirectly.
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 11, 2010, at 3:15 PM, Warrigal ihope12...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 8:22 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe all recursive statements should just be considered
indeterminate,
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 11, 2010, at 12:34 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
- A player CAN move an indicated player an indicated number of
positions P on the list in an indicated direction (up or down)
for a charge equal to the sum of the Influence Levels of
This needs to be a CoE.
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 22, 2010, at 8:43 AM, Keba ag...@kebay.org wrote:
Warrigal wrpte:
I believe I have 10 ergs and 21 rests. As many times as possible, I
spend 3 ergs to destroy a rest in my possession.
I'm sorry for not reporting yesterday or the day before
On Sep 22, 2010, at 12:27 PM, Keba ag...@kebay.org wrote:
omd worte:
This needs to be a CoE.
Hm, which error should I claim? I'm relatively sure e believed e had
that amount of ergs and rests. And doing something as many times as
possible is not an error of course.
Nevermind, I had a
Gratuitous: In that case, the clause about ambiguity of the List of Succession
is useless.
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 17, 2010, at 11:47 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
I CFJ on the following statement: A document purporting to be a judicial
declaration
is only a
Gratuitous: The interpretation suggested by the caller is absurd.
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 17, 2010, at 12:21 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
I publish an NoV alleging that Keba violated Rule 2143 and committed the
Class-2 Crime of Tardiness by failing to publish the List
On Sep 17, 2010, at 2:54 PM, Warrigal ihope12...@gmail.com wrote:
Conclusion: List-of-Succession-like things are a huge headache. Let's
go back to VLOPs.
FAILING GRADE
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 10, 2010, at 1:22 PM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
Instruments generally, nowhere. Proposals in particular, the first
paragraph of R106:
When a proposal that includes
such explicit changes takes effect, it applies those changes to
the
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 10, 2010, at 6:27 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
Judicial declarations are only self-ratifying if their publication is
required, and these certainly were not.
I'm trying to use the found by judicial declaration to be unknown or
ambiguous clause,
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 10, 2010, at 6:24 PM, Keba ag...@kebay.org wrote:
Proposal Trade Capacitors (AI=1, II=0)
{{{
Amend Rule Capacitors by replacing
Capacitors are a class of fixed assets
with:
Capacitors are a class of assets
}}}
Dupe.
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 8, 2010, at 11:22 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
I believe the first move would cost 10 ergs (jump over ais523 and Wooble)
so would fail (I don't think you have 10 ergs?).
Oops, I got confused and used Keba's second (failed) crowning order.
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 8, 2010, at 1:12 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
No, the operative phrase in currency is class.
Ribbons are a class of fixed assets.
- Rule 2199
So a particular Ribbon is actually in two distinct classes of asset...
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 5, 2010, at 8:36 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Now that the week is turned
CRAP
I forgot to bump myself up the List.
I hate ergs.
AGAINST unless it's labour
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 29, 2010, at 8:28 PM, Warrigal ihope12...@gmail.com wrote:
Labour still means work, not worker. May I suggest Undergrad
or Intern?
—Tanner L. Swett
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 26, 2010, at 1:11 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
I submit that this is the first entity within Agora that fits any
reasonable extent a common definition of a robot.
Hey ehird, do you still have the source to Bayes?
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 25, 2010, at 9:03 PM, Keba ag...@kebay.org wrote:
Perpepuum mobile is Latin for perpetual mobile machine
Perpetuum actually, though I like Lab Labour
How many ergs do I have left?
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 15, 2010, at 5:00 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 12:31, comex com...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
Proposal: Super Robot Powers (AI=1,
On 2/9/09, Jonatan Kilhamn jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote:
I realised that after posting. Is there anything I could do officially
to fix this? Post another message adding to that one, posting a new
one declaring that one void, or nothing at all?
I believe you can validly retract those
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
test4
87 matches
Mail list logo
