On 25 January 2014 08:01, omd wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 5:03 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn
> wrote:
>> THE SHORT LOGICAL RULESET
>> 20 January 2014
>
> CoE: This ruleset does not reflect the changes of Proposal 7617.
Admitted.
On 11 January 2014 01:37, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>> Rule 2389/11 (Power=2)
>> Ordinary Chamber
>>
>> Ordinary is a Voting Chamber. The voting limit of an entity on
>> an Ordinary Decision is two times the number of Voting Tokens in
>> eir possession, plus three if e is a person.
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> omd wrote:
>
>> On Mar 22, 2012, at 3:34 PM, omd wrote:
>>
>>> THE SHORT LOGICAL RULESET
>>
>>
>> CoE: The implicit list of Notable cases here is incorrect
>
>> because I haven't yet added annotations for the recent
>> batch. Admitted; these ca
omd wrote:
On Mar 22, 2012, at 3:34 PM, omd wrote:
THE SHORT LOGICAL RULESET
CoE: The implicit list of Notable cases here is incorrect
> because I haven't yet added annotations for the recent
> batch. Admitted; these cases are also Notable: 3155, 3126,
> 3106, 3016, 3009, 3002, 2981, 2945
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2012, omd wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > > On Thu, 16 Feb 2012, omd wrote:
> > >> THE SHORT LOGICAL RULESET
> > >
> > > COE: The text of R2130 is incorrect (and 1006 too).
> > >
> > > The ruleset (and o
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012, omd wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Feb 2012, omd wrote:
> >> THE SHORT LOGICAL RULESET
> >
> > COE: The text of R2130 is incorrect (and 1006 too).
> >
> > The ruleset (and omd's rules website) seems to be missing some effects
> >
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2012, omd wrote:
>> THE SHORT LOGICAL RULESET
>
> COE: The text of R2130 is incorrect (and 1006 too).
>
> The ruleset (and omd's rules website) seems to be missing some effects
> of Proposal 6959 (30-Jan-2011, more recent than t
On 2/4/12, com...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> 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
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
On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 8:00 PM, Keba wrote:
> comex wrote (in the section of the Prop rule):
>> At the beginning of each Agoran Week, two props are destroyed in
>> the possession of each player who did not transfer one of their
>> props to another player in the previous week. If
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Benjamin
Caplan wrote:
> I CoE this one too, just in case. (The SLR should be non-empty.)
The rules aren't self-ratifying, and can't even be ratified without objection.
On Thu, 9 Jul 2009, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Thu, 9 Jul 2009, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
>>> At 19:58 Thu 9 July 2009 UTC, comex wrote:
>>>
>>> I CoE this one too, just in case. (The SLR should be non-empty.)
>>>
>>
>> What are you talking about? There's plenty of rules
On Jul 9, 2009, at 6:03 PM, Benjamin Caplan > wrote:
At 19:58 Thu 9 July 2009 UTC, comex wrote:
I CoE this one too, just in case. (The SLR should be non-empty.)
It's not self-ratifying.
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Jul 2009, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
>> At 19:58 Thu 9 July 2009 UTC, comex wrote:
>>>
>>
>> I CoE this one too, just in case. (The SLR should be non-empty.)
>>
>
> What are you talking about? There's plenty of rules there I can
> read them all.
E also sent another,
On Thu, 9 Jul 2009, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
> At 19:58 Thu 9 July 2009 UTC, comex wrote:
>>
>
> I CoE this one too, just in case. (The SLR should be non-empty.)
>
What are you talking about? There's plenty of rules there I can
read them all.
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 13:34, comex wrote:
>>
>
> CoE: The ruleset seems shorter than usual.
Based on the above, I am the winner there are no rules.
No, seriously, sorry about that. agora.qoid.us has been moved to a
new sever and I'm still wor
comex wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:47 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Also, I think I found a dangling reference in the FLR the other day; I
>> can't remember what it was, but it's probably a good idea to scan it
>> for references to repealed rules.
>
> Confirmed that there was a dangling referen
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:47 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Also, I think I found a dangling reference in the FLR the other day; I
> can't remember what it was, but it's probably a good idea to scan it
> for references to repealed rules.
Confirmed that there was a dangling reference to R2193, which has
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 12:50 PM, comex wrote:
> The judgement that ruled that the rule exists was published two days
> ago, before which I thought it probably didn't, and we haven't even
> reached the appeals deadline. I'm kind of conservative with this and
> I don't believe Zefram ever recorded
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> I intend, with Support, to publish an NoV accusing H. Rulekeepor comex
> of violating Rule 2215, a Power 1 Rule, by publishing a copy of the
> ruleset which doesn't include the rule created by P6072, in an attempt
> to mislead the other play
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 12:03 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Given that if e'd put the rule in, we would have accused em of trying
>> to ratify a scam or something, I'd say all these fall into "dammed if
>> e does, dammed if e doesn't", in other words, R150
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 12:03 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Given that if e'd put the rule in, we would have accused em of trying
> to ratify a scam or something, I'd say all these fall into "dammed if
> e does, dammed if e doesn't", in other words, R1504(e). -G.
The Ruleset doesn't self-ratify and c
ais523 wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 08:47 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> I support both of these. I, for one, think that any alleged ambiguity
>> in the state of the rules should be reported prominently (possibly by
>> adding a separate include-file directive to the top of the code that
>> auto-gen
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:34 PM, comex wrote:
>> THE SHORT LOGICAL RULESET
>
> I publish an NoV accusing comex of violating R2223, a Power-2 Rule, by
> failing to amend the rule created by P6072 as soon as possible after
> it was enacted to remove eir
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 08:47 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Wooble wrote:
>
> > I intend, with Support, to publish an NoV accusing H. Rulekeepor comex
> > of violating Rule 2215, a Power 1 Rule, by publishing a copy of the
> > ruleset which doesn't include the rule created by P6072, in an attempt
> > to
Wooble wrote:
> I intend, with Support, to publish an NoV accusing H. Rulekeepor comex
> of violating Rule 2215, a Power 1 Rule, by publishing a copy of the
> ruleset which doesn't include the rule created by P6072, in an attempt
> to mislead the other players as to its existence. It's extremely
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 14:44 +, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 09:41 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:34 PM, comex wrote:
> > > THE SHORT LOGICAL RULESET
> >
> > I publish an NoV accusing comex of violating R2223, a Power-2 Rule, by
> > failing to amend th
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 09:41 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:34 PM, comex wrote:
> > THE SHORT LOGICAL RULESET
>
> I publish an NoV accusing comex of violating R2223, a Power-2 Rule, by
> failing to amend the rule created by P6072 as soon as possible after
> it was enacte
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009, comex wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Officers have a duty that they freely choose to undertake.
>
> I nominate Goethe for Rulekeepor.
>
Or that they freely choose not to undertake.
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Gratuitous response:
> Officers have a duty that they freely choose to undertake. It's not the
> responsibility of others to tell them what their duty is, so UNAWARE
> should be a hard(er) defense for an Officer who was elected to a position
>
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> If leniency is warranted,
>> the right mechanism would be to say that an Officer should have been
>> aware of the abuse (so UNAWARE is not an option in the culpability) but
>> not aware of the seri
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> If leniency is warranted,
> the right mechanism would be to say that an Officer should have been
> aware of the abuse (so UNAWARE is not an option in the culpability) but
> not aware of the seriousness, and that this lack of awareness was
> rea
comex wrote:
> Nevertheless, point taken, and I
> plead GUILTY as the text was misleading regardless of whether anyone
> is actually misled.
Gratuitous: I would advocate UNAWARE here, as e needed it pointed out to
em before e realized it was potentially misleading.
... oh wait, that's been restru
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009, comex wrote:
> Defendant's arguments: Barring some controversy over regulated actions
> this week (Rule 2125 has not been amended in two months and there are
> no current proposals to amend it), a future observer specifically
> selecting this week's email SLR, missing Wooble's
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008, comex wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 2:46 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> No, I just mean what's your metric of "most people",
>
> Everyone in the discussion of ais523's judgement of CFJ 2213 concluded
> that it is reasonable, or at least nobody's clearly posted
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 2:46 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, I just mean what's your metric of "most people",
Everyone in the discussion of ais523's judgement of CFJ 2213 concluded
that it is reasonable, or at least nobody's clearly posted why it
isn't; besides, nobody's asked ais5
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008, comex wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Uh, how precisely did you measure that?
>
> I think it's reasonable that if most people think a scam worked, the
> results of the scam should be included in the Ruleset with a note that
> t
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Uh, how precisely did you measure that?
I think it's reasonable that if most people think a scam worked, the
results of the scam should be included in the Ruleset with a note that
the scam may have failed. If CFJ 2213 is aff
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008, comex wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 12:43 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 11:34 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> THE SHORT LOGICAL RULESET
>> CoE: This is missing the "Scams to fix Scams[ters]" rule I scammed into
>> the ruleset earlier this
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 12:43 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 11:34 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> THE SHORT LOGICAL RULESET
> CoE: This is missing the "Scams to fix Scams[ters]" rule I scammed into
> the ruleset earlier this week.
Admitted. Public support for the
40 matches
Mail list logo
