Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Public Review for new Rule

On Mon, 2009-07-20 at 12:25 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Mon, 20 Jul 2009, ais523 wrote: > > And done: . It's split by day UTC, the > > split version should update every hour (the original version still > > exists and is updated instantaneously). > > Er, it looks

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Public Review for new Rule

On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 8:25 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Mon, 20 Jul 2009, ais523 wrote: >> And done: . It's split by day UTC, the >> split version should update every hour (the original version still >> exists and is updated instantaneously). > > Er, it looks lik

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Public Review for new Rule

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009, ais523 wrote: > And done: . It's split by day UTC, the > split version should update every hour (the original version still > exists and is updated instantaneously). Er, it looks like there is a mysterious gap in the records (not so mysteriou

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Public Review for new Rule

coppro wrote: > Note, however, that there is actually another possibility here: that the > rule actuall restricts all communications and thus failed due to AIAN > (see ##nomic logs for in-depth discussion; it's a DF so I shouldn't have > to repeat what was said there). I don't think this defense

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Public Review for new Rule

On Mon, 2009-07-20 at 00:43 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Mon, 20 Jul 2009, ais523 wrote: > > No, it's me who 'maintains' the logs (actually, I just let a very simple > > logbot run and only mess with it when people yell at me). I'll look into > > doing that. > > thx. Even a manual "chop it ever

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Public Review for new Rule

Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Mon, 20 Jul 2009, ais523 wrote: >> No, it's me who 'maintains' the logs (actually, I just let a very simple >> logbot run and only mess with it when people yell at me). I'll look into >> doing that. > > thx. Even a manual "chop it every so often when you get around to it"

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Public Review for new Rule

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009, ais523 wrote: > No, it's me who 'maintains' the logs (actually, I just let a very simple > logbot run and only mess with it when people yell at me). I'll look into > doing that. thx. Even a manual "chop it every so often when you get around to it" would be helpful; it wasn't

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Public Review for new Rule

Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Mon, 20 Jul 2009, Sean Hunt wrote: >> Kerim Aydin wrote: >>> It's interesting to sort through though, so just call the CFJ, please. >> The CFJ should wait until it's unambiguous that it actually exists. The >> scam doesn't affect the game until the ratification period ends,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Public Review for new Rule

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009, Sean Hunt wrote: > Kerim Aydin wrote: >> It's interesting to sort through though, so just call the CFJ, please. > > The CFJ should wait until it's unambiguous that it actually exists. The > scam doesn't affect the game until the ratification period ends, so if > it's successfu

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Public Review for new Rule

On Mon, 2009-07-20 at 00:33 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Mon, 20 Jul 2009, Sean Hunt wrote: > > Note, however, that there is actually another possibility here: that the > > rule actuall restricts all communications and thus failed due to AIAN > > (see ##nomic logs for in-depth discussion; it's a

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Public Review for new Rule

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009, Sean Hunt wrote: > Note, however, that there is actually another possibility here: that the > rule actuall restricts all communications and thus failed due to AIAN > (see ##nomic logs for in-depth discussion; it's a DF so I shouldn't have > to repeat what was said there). Tha

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Public Review for new Rule

Kerim Aydin wrote: > It's interesting to sort through though, so just call the CFJ, please. The CFJ should wait until it's unambiguous that it actually exists. The scam doesn't affect the game until the ratification period ends, so if it's successful, then calling a CFJ right now is ineffective. I

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Public Review for new Rule

On Sun, 19 Jul 2009, ais523 wrote: > On Sun, 2009-07-19 at 14:45 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: >> ais523 wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 2009-07-19 at 16:34 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 4:23 PM, ais523 wrote: > Ineffective, CoEs have to be done publically, which is secured a

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Public Review for new Rule

On Sun, 2009-07-19 at 14:45 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: > ais523 wrote: > > > On Sun, 2009-07-19 at 16:34 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > >> On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 4:23 PM, ais523 > >> wrote: > >>> Ineffective, CoEs have to be done publically, which is secured at power > >>> 3, and no sufficiently po

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Public Review for new Rule

ais523 wrote: > On Sun, 2009-07-19 at 16:34 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: >> On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 4:23 PM, ais523 wrote: >>> Ineffective, CoEs have to be done publically, which is secured at power >>> 3, and no sufficiently powerful rule lets you do that. >> I Say This Is The Correct Interpretat

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Public Review for new Rule

On Sun, 2009-07-19 at 16:34 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 4:23 PM, ais523 wrote: > > Ineffective, CoEs have to be done publically, which is secured at power > > 3, and no sufficiently powerful rule lets you do that. > > I Say This Is The Correct Interpretation And Therefor

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Public Review for new Rule

On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 4:23 PM, ais523 wrote: > Ineffective, CoEs have to be done publically, which is secured at power > 3, and no sufficiently powerful rule lets you do that. I Say This Is The Correct Interpretation And Therefore It Is The Correct Interpretation?

DIS: Re: BUS: Public Review for new Rule

On Sun, 2009-07-19 at 13:14 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: > coppro wrote: > > > I hereby resolve the Agoran Decision on the Adoption of the following > > Proposal: > > (Dictatorship, AI=3, II=0) > > Oh yes, and CoE: there was no such decision. Ineffective, CoEs have to be done publically, which is se

DIS: Re: BUS: Public Review for new Rule

coppro wrote: > Explanation: Distributed Proposal 6402 enacts a new Rule "Acting on > Behalf" that says "Acting on behalf of (syn. send messages on behalf of) > a person (the grantor) with a specified message is equivalent to sending > a public message authored by the grantor." Equivalence, as use