On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> Promotor's Proposal Pool Report
>
> CoE: R2140 might also be a proposal in the pool.
No, it's definitely not.
On Sat, 2010-10-09 at 01:09 -0400, omd wrote:
> Oops. I pay fees to make the following distributable:
> > title: The Robot
> > title: Distributed Proposal 6830
This one was Distributable anyway, despite the former Promotor's claims
to the contrary.
> > title: A Perpetuum mobile is possible
--
a
omd wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> title: Erratification
>> ai: 1.0
>> interest: 1
>> proposer: omd
>> submit_date: 2010-09-19
>> submit_mid:
>> distributability: undistributable
>>
>> Ratify the following incorrect document: { 1 + 1 = 3 }
>
> I withdraw this
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 7:23 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> I have no problem with missing a proposal. Announcing that it's
> inconsequential because you think the proposal is stupid isn't
> something I think we expect from our Promotor, though.
Noted. I will be more civil in the future.
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Warrigal wrote:
>>> malice. Besides, the proposal is undistributable (to my knowledge) and
>>> stupid, and thus my failure to mention it is essentially
>>> inconsequential.
>>
>> I initiate an election for Promotor.
>
> I note that I've had a particularly busy wee
Keba wrote:
> > URGENT PROPOSAL
> > title: Demarcation
> > chamber: Purple
> > ai: 2.0
> > interest: 1
> > proposer: omd
> > submit_date: 2010-09-04
> > submit_mid:
> > distributability: undistributable
> > distributability flipped: 2010-09-04 00:00:00
> >
> > Make all players Unmarked.
>
> I in
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 12:35, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 1:29 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> CoE: The above proposal is distributable (it was submitted as part of
>> my Anarchist duties).
>
> Admitted; for some reason I thought you had to explicitly make it
> distributable for free.
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 8:22 PM,
C-walker wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>
>> chamber: ordinary
>> ai: 1.0
>> interest: 1
>> proposer: C-walker
>> coauthors: Wooble
>> title: Livenomic Recognition
>> submit_date: 2009-07-28
>> submit_mid:
>> distributability: undis
comex wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> We decided a while back that "X SHALL Y" implies "X CAN Y". Probably
>> should be legislated explicitly, though.
>
> Only when a mechanism is specified.
>
Publishing is a mechanism.
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> We decided a while back that "X SHALL Y" implies "X CAN Y". Probably
> should be legislated explicitly, though.
Only when a mechanism is specified.
--
-c.
c-walker wrote:
> I CFJ {{ The Conductor CAN publish a self-ratifying report. }}
>
> Evidence:
>
> R2126 states:
>
> The Conductor is an office. As soon as possible after this text
> becomes a part of this rule, the Conductor SHALL publish a
> self-ratifying report containing
On Fri, 10 Jul 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 2:56 PM, ais523 wrote:
>> e CAN certainly publish a report; but I don't see how R101 makes it a
>> self-ratifying report.
>
> Precedent says that if you SHALL perform an action by some mechanism,
> you CAN do it by that mechanism
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 2:56 PM, ais523 wrote:
> e CAN certainly publish a report; but I don't see how R101 makes it a
> self-ratifying report.
Precedent says that if you SHALL perform an action by some mechanism,
you CAN do it by that mechanism. Is being required to "publish"
something specifyin
On Fri, 2009-07-10 at 12:44 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
> C-walker wrote:
> > I CFJ {{ The Conductor CAN publish a self-ratifying report. }}
> >
> > Evidence:
> >
> > R2126 states:
> >
> > The Conductor is an office. As soon as possible after this text
> > becomes a part of this rule, t
C-walker wrote:
> I CFJ {{ The Conductor CAN publish a self-ratifying report. }}
>
> Evidence:
>
> R2126 states:
>
> The Conductor is an office. As soon as possible after this text
> becomes a part of this rule, the Conductor SHALL publish a
> self-ratifying report containing
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 3:04 AM, comex wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 12:43 PM,
> C-walker wrote:
>> This has been reported as undistributable in the past two proposal
>> pool reports, when I remember spending D to make it Distributable on
>> Fri, Jun 12, at 5:31 PM, to be exact. I CoE that this
2009/6/29 C-walker :
> A player CAN flip a specified Interested proposal to
> Distributable without a number of objections equal to -II + 4
> (where II is the Interest Index of the specified proposal). A
> player CAN flip a specified Disinterested proposal to
> Distributabl
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 12:43 PM,
C-walker wrote:
> This has been reported as undistributable in the past two proposal
> pool reports, when I remember spending D to make it Distributable on
> Fri, Jun 12, at 5:31 PM, to be exact. I CoE that this proposal should
> be listed as distributable.
You ha
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Geoffrey Spear
> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 11:07 AM, Geoffrey Spear
>> wrote:
>> > Denied. You made the proposal with the same title submitted in the
>> > message with ID
>> >
>> > distributab
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 10:07 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Aaron Goldfein
> wrote:
> >>
> >> chamber: democratic
> >> ai: 2.0
> >> interest: 1
> >> proposer: Yally
> >> coauthors: Murphy
> >> title: IADoP CAN and SHALL
> >> submit_date: 2009-05-27
> >> submit_mid: <
Y-- thr--t-n-d t- w-th th- c-b-l -nd n-t-ry.
On 2009-05-28, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-05-28 at 09:10 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> You raise a good point though: if you can avoid a "forced" crime by
>> resigning, are you required to resign rather than choose the lesser
>> crime? That's tru
On Thu, 28 May 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> If the error is wholly unknown, it's not a crime.
>
> Not necessarily; if it's reasonable for them to know, then it's still a
> crime. If they miss a proposal made last week, it's probably a crime. A
> proposal made last year, notsomuch
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> If the error is wholly unknown, it's not a crime.
Not necessarily; if it's reasonable for them to know, then it's still a
crime. If they miss a proposal made last week, it's probably a crime. A
proposal made last year, notsomuch.
On Thu, 2009-05-28 at 09:10 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> You raise a good point though: if you can avoid a "forced" crime by
> resigning, are you required to resign rather than choose the lesser
> crime? That's true in the real world (the "honorable resignation")
> If interpreted that here way it's
Not to mention that an equivalent proprosal would probably limit it to
1-2 weeks.
Sent from my iPhone
On May 28, 2009, at 12:10 PM, Kerim Aydin
wrote:
On Thu, 28 May 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 7:08 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
Gratuitous: Publishing an erroneous repo
On Thu, 28 May 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 7:08 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> Gratuitous: Publishing an erroneous report (power-1 Rule) is less
>> serious than ratifying one (Class-8 Crime).
>
> Yes, but if the report is incorrect I'm obligated to publish an
> incorrect report
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 7:08 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Gratuitous: Publishing an erroneous report (power-1 Rule) is less
> serious than ratifying one (Class-8 Crime).
Yes, but if the report is incorrect I'm obligated to publish an
incorrect report weekly, making the cumulative violation potentially
On Tue, 26 May 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-05-25 at 23:00 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> In any case, if I'm GUILTY I believe 8 rests would be an excessive
>> punishment.
> Agreed, and I would ask people to please stop putting large punishments
> on things they fear would be scammed wh
On Mon, 2009-05-25 at 23:00 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> In any case, if I'm GUILTY I believe 8 rests would be an excessive
> punishment.
Agreed, and I would ask people to please stop putting large punishments
on things they fear would be scammed when they're far more likely to
affect legitimate
On Mon, 2009-05-25 at 18:57 -0400, comex wrote:
> On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 6:45 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > Gratuitous: As judge didn't notice the ratification attempt; if I
> > had noticed it I would have delayed the judgement to avoid the issue.
> > Since the judgement found that, to the best of
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 6:57 PM, comex wrote:
> E could avoid breaching the rules by making a proposal to remove stale
> proposals from the pool.
I did in fact do just that, assuming that I'd get an objection.
However, when I didn't, I figured trying to get an AI-3 proposal
passed was a lot harde
On 5/25/09 5:52 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
[snip]
> ps. court cases raised about a document should block ratification,
> not just self-ratificatation; generalization of R2201 in order here?
I don't think that's a good idea unless CFJs raised about a document can
be more clearly/objectively identified.
comex wrote:
> That made me look something up, though-- how exactly does ratification
> of the ruleset work again? The Rule Changes involved are generally
> not clearly specified, no rule allows Rule 1551 (Ratification) to make
> Rule Changes specifically, and Rule 105 (Rule Changes) takes
> prece
On Mon, 25 May 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> -Goethe
See, I forget too. I'll get it eventually. -G.
On Mon, 25 May 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Gratuitous: Publishing an erroneous report (power-1 Rule) is less
> serious than ratifying one (Class-8 Crime).
Mitigating argument:
Ratifying a report that everyone understands to be erroneous for the
good of the game (or what the officer reasonably perc
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 8:38 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 6:57 PM, comex wrote:
>> E could avoid breaching the rules by making a proposal to remove stale
>> proposals from the pool.
>
> And since I don't know what they all are, someone would claim that the
> proposal didn't
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 6:57 PM, comex wrote:
> E could avoid breaching the rules by making a proposal to remove stale
> proposals from the pool.
And since I don't know what they all are, someone would claim that the
proposal didn't specify which proposals clearly enough.
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 6:45 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Gratuitous: As judge didn't notice the ratification attempt; if I
> had noticed it I would have delayed the judgement to avoid the issue.
> Since the judgement found that, to the best of available evidence,
> there had been no ratifications in
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> Arguments in my defense:
>
> While ais523 was able to find one proposal that was in the pool that
> was not in the published report, simply adding that proposal to the
> report would not have guaranteed the accuracy of the report, any more
>
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 4:54 PM, comex wrote:
>>> I initiate a criminal CFJ, noting that the Accused had plenty of
>>> warning and the opportunity to avoid violating the rule.
>
> Arguments in my defense:
>
> While ais523 was able to find one proposal that was in the pool
On Mon, 2009-05-25 at 17:41 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> While ais523 was able to find one proposal that was in the pool that
> was not in the published report, simply adding that proposal to the
> report would not have guaranteed the accuracy of the report, any more
> than my looking through the
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 1:17 PM, Taral wrote:
> On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 7:44 AM, comex wrote:
>> This was sent two hours after Goethe's judgement that a certain other
>> proposal existed in the pool. Accordingly, NoV: Wooble violated R2202
>> and committed the Class-8 Crime of Endorsing Forgery
42 matches
Mail list logo
