I hereby attempt to make the contract known as Agoran Twister a
contest; this must be done without 3 objections.
On 10/03/2008, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree to this. (Why Keith, though?)
I have a friend named Keith who once played a guy named Oliver in a
play. I don't know anyt
TTPF: I hereby attempt to make the contract known as Agoran Twister a
contest; this must be done without 3 objections.
On 10/03/2008, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree to this, although I'm not sure that my agreement is effective,
> since I've just noticed that the contract lacks a cl
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 10:58 AM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I hereby attempt to make the contract known as Agoran Twister a
> contest; this must be done without 3 objections.
NttPF.
-root
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 3:57 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ihope wrote:
> >I hereby attempt to make the contract known as Agoran Twister a
> >contest; this must be done without 3 objections.
>
> I object. The contract is too easily modified. I think any modification
> to a contest s
Ian Kelly wrote:
>The mechanism is almost identical to the one used by the Agoran
>Agricultural Society...
Yes. I didn't notice the problem with that one at the time.
-zefram
On 11/03/2008, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh well. I intend to amend the Agoran Twister contract, with the
> support of a majority of Keiths, by replacing the text "Any Keith may
> amend this contract with the consent of a majority of Keiths." with
> "Any Keith may amend this contr
I agree to this change. -Goethe
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008, ihope wrote:
> On 11/03/2008, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Oh well. I intend to amend the Agoran Twister contract, with the
>> support of a majority of Keiths, by replacing the text "Any Keith may
>> amend this contract with t
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 1:18 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/03/2008, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Oh well. I intend to amend the Agoran Twister contract, with the
> > support of a majority of Keiths, by replacing the text "Any Keith may
> > amend this contract with
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 3:05 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I object! Without 3 objections is probably, in practice, easier to
> get than the support of a majority.
Without 3 objections is the same level of support that would be needed
to just ditch the contest and form a brand new one.
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 4:12 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also, note that the objections can come from anybody, not just Keiths,
> which is an important aspect to avoid abuse.
Anybody? Including me?
>
> -root
>
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 3:25 PM, Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 4:12 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Also, note that the objections can come from anybody, not just Keiths,
> > which is an important aspect to avoid abuse.
>
> Anybody? Including
On 11/03/2008, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We've now got 4 consenting Keiths (myself, Ivan Hope, Wooble, and
> Goethe), but the cardinality of the contract has risen to 9, so 5
> consenting Keiths are now required. Any other takers?
9? I have myself, comex, the AFO, Murphy, root, Goe
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 5:10 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 9? I have myself, comex, the AFO, Murphy, root, Goethe, BobTHJ, and
> Wooble. Who am I missing? (5 people are still required, and root got 5
> people, so that's all good.)
Hmm, I thought I saw somebody else join, but I must hav
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 7:10 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 9? I have myself, comex, the AFO, Murphy, root, Goethe, BobTHJ, and
> Wooble. Who am I missing? (5 people are still required, and root got 5
> people, so that's all good.)
The AFO arguably does not exist at the moment..
On 15/03/2008, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Spot: Initiate at least one judicial case per week.
If someone Opined NO WAY on this, how would they Break it?
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 3:14 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 15/03/2008, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Spot: Initiate at least one judicial case per week.
>
> If someone Opined NO WAY on this, how would they Break it?
By initiating a judicial case?
-root
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 3:20 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 3:14 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 15/03/2008, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Spot: Initiate at least one judicial case per week.
> >
> > If someone Opined NO WAY on this, how
root wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 3:20 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 3:14 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > On 15/03/2008, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > Spot: Initiate at least one judicial case per week.
>> >
>> > If someone Opined
On 15/03/2008, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Someone should write up an amendment to the effect of "if the spot
> refers to a recurring type of time period, then each instance of that
> type of time period is evaluated separately for violations".
"Every millisecond, post a message to a
Ivan Hope wrote:
> On 15/03/2008, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Someone should write up an amendment to the effect of "if the spot
>> refers to a recurring type of time period, then each instance of that
>> type of time period is evaluated separately for violations".
>
> "Every millis
> On 15/03/2008, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Spot: Initiate at least one judicial case per week.
NO WAY (same comments others have made on this). -Goethe
On Sat, 15 Mar 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> How about a minimum period of one week and a prohibition on Spots to
> perform impossible or illegal acts?
We have to be careful in the phrasing of prohibitions like this. This
game strikes me as FRC-like, progressively painting participants in a corner
s
On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 1:31 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 15 Mar 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> > How about a minimum period of one week and a prohibition on Spots to
> > perform impossible or illegal acts?
>
> We have to be careful in the phrasing of prohibitions like thi
On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My thoughts, as a watcher (and not a player in either Agora or Agoran
> Twister) is that a necessary condition to the validity of a Spot
> should be that it is possible for any Innie to legally satisfy the
> obligations
On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 1:29 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 5:12 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Spot: Initiate at least one judicial case per week.
>
> NO WAY
I don't think you're required to opine on your own spot...
-root
On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 2:49 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > My thoughts, as a watcher (and not a player in either Agora or Agoran
> > Twister) is that a necessary condition to the validity of a Spot
> > s
On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Another example: The spot {If you are the accessor, do X} cannot,
> using standard meanings of first order predicate logic, be opined NO
> WAY by anyone other than the accessor -- as a non-accessor trivially
> fulfils t
On 16/03/2008, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think you're required to opine on your own spot...
>
> -root
I'm not sure whether I intended to say "every other Innie should
Opine" or not. As it is, you are indeed not required to Opine on your
own Spot. Should this be changed to jus
On Sun, 16 Mar 2008, comex wrote:
> I opine OKAY on that spot, considering that being forced to vote
> PRESENT on at least one proposal per distribution if I otherwise
> wouldn't vote is not a problem, compared to being forced to not vote
> at all on any proposal in a certain distribution!
I'm
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 8:44 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Spot: Vote on at least one proposal from every batch of distributions.
As far as I can tell, the AFO, BobTHJ and Wooble have not opined on
this first spot, so they're all out.
-root
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 1:03 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 8:44 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Spot: Vote on at least one proposal from every batch of distributions.
>
> As far as I can tell, the AFO, BobTHJ and Wooble have not opined on
> this
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 3:03 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 8:44 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Spot: Vote on at least one proposal from every batch of distributions.
>
> As far as I can tell, the AFO, BobTHJ and Wooble have not opined on
> this
32 matches
Mail list logo
