On 24 April 2011 16:45, Elliott Hird wrote:
> On 24 April 2011 16:08, Charles Walker wrote:
>> I wonder who the current Baby of the House is? I am also younger than Agora.
>
> Unless you were born later than August 1995, it's almost certainly me.
>
Yes, it's you.
--
Charles Walker
On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 10:23 AM, ais523 wrote:
>> Gratuitous silliness: If ehird is a rule, then thanks to Rule 105, e
>> has not changed since 2007 in any way that affects eir operation.
>> Luckily, eir mother narrowly escaped violating the rules by creating
>> em, because rules were not explici
On 24 April 2011 16:08, Charles Walker wrote:
> I wonder who the current Baby of the House is? I am also younger than Agora.
Unless you were born later than August 1995, it's almost certainly me.
On 24 April 2011 15:23, ais523 wrote:
> Gratuitous: Agora is actually older than ehird is. However, I don't
> think anything in the ruleset at the moment ehird was born would be
> likely to imply e was a rule. (I don't think anything in the current
> ruleset does either.)
I wonder who the current
On Sat, 2011-04-23 at 20:23 -0400, omd wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 8:07 PM, Eric Stucky wrote:
> > Gratuitous: Ratifications, by definition in 1551, make minimal
> possible changes to the game state. In particular it "cannot include a
> rule change unless the ratified document purports to inc
On Sat, 2011-04-23 at 21:55 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Apr 2011, Eric Stucky wrote:
> > I declare my name to be Turiski. [since if I am a player my name might
> > see Aydin's CFJ in "Newbie." (Is he G.? I'm still getting used to
> > everyone's names)]
>
> Yes, the person whose email
On Sat, 23 Apr 2011, Eric Stucky wrote:
> I declare my name to be Turiski. [since if I am a player my name might
> see Aydin's CFJ in "Newbie." (Is he G.? I'm still getting used to
> everyone's names)]
Yes, the person whose email name shows up as "Kerim Aydin" currently
goes by the Agoran nic
On 24 April 2011 01:26, Eric Stucky wrote:
> Also, how do I control where in the thread I respond? I'm using mail-archive
> because the easiest for me to read, and omd's responses are deeper in the
> thread than mine are; not really sure how to control that.
Erm, you receive the messages in you
On 24 April 2011 01:23, omd wrote:
> Gratuitous silliness: If ehird is a rule, then thanks to Rule 105, e
> has not changed since 2007 in any way that affects eir operation.
> Luckily, eir mother narrowly escaped violating the rules by creating
> em, because rules were not explicitly defined at th
All quotes are from omd:
> Eh. That's stretching the definition of "content".
I concede that's possible.
> Well, that's actually a pretty good argument against your
> interpretation: how do you know whether some random entity can govern
> the state of the game, in order to know whether it's a r
On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 8:07 PM, Eric Stucky wrote:
> Gratuitous: Ratifications, by definition in 1551, make minimal possible
> changes to the game state. In particular it "cannot include a rule change
> unless the ratified document purports to include the text, title, and/or
> power of the rul
On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 4:31 PM, omd wrote:
> Most of these "restrictions" are intended to explicitly empower rules
> to do things, not to restrict what might be a rule.
(And yes, this is a chicken and egg scenario.)
On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Eric Stucky wrote:
> First, I agree that ehird's content -is- a large bundle of cells and water,
> but I argue that it -takes the form- of text in the context of Agora, which
> is all that is required.
Eh. That's stretching the definition of "content".
> Secon
Turiski wrote:
> I CFJ: The FLR published on 12 April 2011 is incomplete.
Gratuitous: This hinges on interpreting Rule 2150 as
"A person is an entity (defined as such by rules) with power of at
least 2."
rather than the intended
"A person is an entity defined as such by (rules with pow
@ Walker: It may not have. I just chose that date because that was the last
time http://agora.qoid.us/current_flr.html was updated. I assumed that date was
when the ruleset was published, but I could be mistaken.
@ comexk: I think the case fails on the instrument aspect. I see now that 2150
sho
Oh my god I'm scared.
On 23 April 2011 06:50, Eric Stucky wrote:
> E may not have a title, but "If a rule ever does not have a title" is very
> strong evidence that this is not a requirement for rule-ness. Alternatively,
> e may have the title "ehird" or "Elliot Herd"
"Elliott Hird"
On Apr 23, 2011, at 1:50 AM, Eric Stucky wrote:
> quite extensive argument
Nice job on that, but:
- Persons don't have power 2; only the rules that define them as persons do.
- If anything, ehird's "content" takes the form of a large bundle of cells and
water; eir written communication is a s
On 23 April 2011 06:50, Eric Stucky wrote:
> This one's a little long :)
>
> I CFJ: The FLR published on 12 April 2011 is incomplete.
The FLR wasn't published on 12 April 2011, as far as I can see.
--
Charles Walker
18 matches
Mail list logo
