Elysion wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Nov 2008 19:49:16 +
> Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On 8 Nov 2008, at 19:14, Sgeo wrote:
>>
>>> Might I point out that if they were to invade us with a sufficiently
>>> large invasion force, Agora would lose, badly, in weeks?
>>
>> You serious? I doub
On 9 Nov 2008, at 13:54, Joshua Boehme wrote:
If their capabilities are so questionable (as has been suggested by
multiple emails now), why are we so concerned with their
recognition? Is Agora really so insecure as to require validation
at every available opportunity?
Exactly my point. A
On Sat, 8 Nov 2008 19:49:16 +
Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8 Nov 2008, at 19:14, Sgeo wrote:
>
> > Might I point out that if they were to invade us with a sufficiently
> > large invasion force, Agora would lose, badly, in weeks?
>
>
> You serious? I doubt half of them could
Sgeo wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 11:59 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
>>> On Nov 6, 2008, at 11:34 AM, Ian Kelly wrote:
I suggest flipping the Aerican Empire's recognition to Hostile.
>>>
>>> I agree. Refuse us recogn
Pavitra wrote:
> On Saturday 08 November 2008 09:32:33 pm Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Hopefully an invasion would become clear early enough to start an
>> emergency session before the invaders could grab any offices
>> (minimum 4 days for nomination + 7 days for voting + 7 days before
>> an invader could
On Saturday 08 November 2008 09:32:33 pm Ed Murphy wrote:
> Hopefully an invasion would become clear early enough to start an
> emergency session before the invaders could grab any offices
> (minimum 4 days for nomination + 7 days for voting + 7 days before
> an invader could deputise for the IADoP
On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 10:32 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I suppose we could copy a tweaked pre-invasion ruleset to a contract
> that we all agreed to, then detach it from the invaded Agora. But I'd
> prefer to try defeating the invasion via scam (e.g. another round of
> burying inte
Warrigal wrote:
> Blocking all power-3 proposals would be sufficient to cause Agora to
> no longer be a nomic. We'd pretty much have to shed the old gamestate
> and unofficially deregister people.
I suppose we could copy a tweaked pre-invasion ruleset to a contract
that we all agreed to, then det
On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 10:02 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Or we could just say something like "if there is an Emergency Session
> and more than 2/3 of all entities that have been players for the last
> 60 days are Senators, a power-3 proposal passes if it has more than
> 3/4 of the vot
On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 6:33 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> We exile all the invaders.
>>
>> Worst-case scenario: We enter an Emergency Session. The CotC position
>> is taken by invaders. Criminal CFJs are called against all the
>> invaders.
>
> For violating Rule 101's "Please treat Ag
On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 8:25 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But the cases can then be appealed, with a CotC under our control.
Not if the gap occurs while the CotC is waiting to assign an appeal: e
can then assign it to three invaders who judge an unappealable AFFIRM.
On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 8:14 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 3:27 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> More generally, if a large group of people clearly intend to ruin
>> Agora, then the emergency session procedure gives us enough time
>> to erect stronger defen
On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 8:13 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 5:13 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Time required: 7 days for the CotC to be delinquent, 7 days for the
>> invaders to delay the appeal as soon as possible, 7 days for the CotC
>> to again be delin
On Nov 8, 2008, at 8:14 PM, comex wrote:
On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 3:27 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
More generally, if a large group of people clearly intend to ruin
Agora, then the emergency session procedure gives us enough time
to erect stronger defenses, e.g.
I submit the follo
On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 5:13 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Time required: 7 days for the CotC to be delinquent, 7 days for the
> invaders to delay the appeal as soon as possible, 7 days for the CotC
> to again be delinquent, and another 7 days for the EXILE judgement to
> go into go into
On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 5:13 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [war plan]
This does not mean that we should not enact the proposed stronger defenses now.
Sgeo wrote:
> Wouldn't it only require players> to block all proposals?
That could also be addressed via mass exile.
On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 6:33 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Warrigal wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 3:45 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 8 Nov 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
More generally, if a large group of people clearly intend to ruin
Agora, then the eme
Warrigal wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 3:45 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sat, 8 Nov 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> More generally, if a large group of people clearly intend to ruin
>>> Agora, then the emergency session procedure gives us enough time
>>> to erect stronger defenses
> Since 1/4 of all first-class players can prevent a proposal from
> passing, keeping all proposals from passing forever would require ten
> times as many as 1/3 of the number of existing first-class players,
> somewhere around 75 invaders.
I'm not quite sure I follow that..
On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 3:15 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 2:14 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
To War! To War! To war we're going to go!
>>> Might I point out that if they were to invade us w
On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 13:06, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, the real question in a democracy: what's the difference between
> invasion and immigration? -Goethe
>
Western Europe should know the answer to this question soon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Europe (see the pr
On Sat, 8 Nov 2008, Sgeo wrote:
> Takeover of important positions, such as CotC and Promotor and
> Assessor, and generally breaking Agoran laws and getting away with it
> due to control of the courts.
One reasonable precaution would be "during an emergency session, no
non-Senator may be nominated
On Sat, 8 Nov 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> More generally, if a large group of people clearly intend to ruin
> Agora, then the emergency session procedure gives us enough time
> to erect stronger defenses, e.g.
How do we pass such a thing at high enough AI to protect when the
invaders will be standar
On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 3:27 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sgeo wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 11:59 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
On Nov 6, 2008, at 11:34 AM, Ian Kelly wrote:
> I suggest flipping the Aerican Emp
On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 3:15 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 2:14 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> To War! To War! To war we're going to go!
>> Might I point out that if they were to invade us with a sufficiently
>> large invasion force, Agora would lose, badly,
Sgeo wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 11:59 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
>>> On Nov 6, 2008, at 11:34 AM, Ian Kelly wrote:
I suggest flipping the Aerican Empire's recognition to Hostile.
>>> I agree. Refuse us recognition? Thi
On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 2:14 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> To War! To War! To war we're going to go!
> Might I point out that if they were to invade us with a sufficiently
> large invasion force, Agora would lose, badly, in weeks?
Not in emergency session.
Kerim Aydin wrote:
Well, the real question in a democracy: what's the difference between
invasion and immigration? -Goethe
Intent.
--
--
0x44;
On Sat, 8 Nov 2008, Sgeo wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 11:59 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
>>> On Nov 6, 2008, at 11:34 AM, Ian Kelly wrote:
>
I suggest flipping the Aerican Empire's recognition to Hostile.
>>>
>>> I agree
On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 2:49 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8 Nov 2008, at 19:14, Sgeo wrote:
>
>> Might I point out that if they were to invade us with a sufficiently
>> large invasion force, Agora would lose, badly, in weeks?
>
>
> You serious? I doubt half of them could even mak
On 8 Nov 2008, at 19:14, Sgeo wrote:
Might I point out that if they were to invade us with a sufficiently
large invasion force, Agora would lose, badly, in weeks?
You serious? I doubt half of them could even make a working proposal...
--
ehird
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 11:59 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
>> On Nov 6, 2008, at 11:34 AM, Ian Kelly wrote:
>>> I suggest flipping the Aerican Empire's recognition to Hostile.
>>>
>>
>> I agree. Refuse us recognition? This means WA
On Friday 07 November 2008 05:37:29 pm Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 5:11 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Elliott Hird
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> True. Although they still invest in this thing.
> >
> > They have a Wikipedia arti
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 5:11 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> True. Although they still invest in this thing.
>
> They have a Wikipedia article and have been mentioned in real-world
> newspapers.
Let's establish dip
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> True. Although they still invest in this thing.
They have a Wikipedia article and have been mentioned in real-world newspapers.
Wooble wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 10:26 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I think we should just ignore these losers.
>> We're the ones who approached them diplomatically in the first place.
>
> The Ambassador had nothing to do with the approach. We should ignore
> Murphy too :P
No.
On 7 Nov 2008, at 20:23, Ian Kelly wrote:
But there is no explicit list of what these laws actually are. So do
they actually have a bunch of laws that are just unpublished, or do
they just claim a fuzzy general set of laws (in which case one might
argue that they're not really laws)?
http:/
On 7 Nov 2008, at 20:55, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 3:53 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Why are we taking this stupid invention of a bunch of 5 year olds
seriously?
to be fair, their founder is no longer 5.
True. Although they still invest in this thing.
--
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 1:53 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 7 Nov 2008, at 20:23, Ian Kelly wrote:
>
>> But there is no explicit list of what these laws actually are. So do
>> they actually have a bunch of laws that are just unpublished, or do
>> they just claim a fuzzy general
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 3:53 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why are we taking this stupid invention of a bunch of 5 year olds seriously?
to be fair, their founder is no longer 5.
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 8:24 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It is also confusing how one can become a citizen of one of the
> colonies: although there is a prominently listed Citizenship Form
> which purports to submit to "our immigration officials and the
> Emperor", I do not see any law th
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 1:02 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> From the bottom of http://aericanempire.com/faq.html :
>>
>> 4: The Empire refused to recognise me. Can I appeal in any way? How
>> about I just declare war on you until you change your mind?
>>
>> If you are unsatisfied wit
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 7:20 AM, Pavitra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 06 November 2008 11:07:04 pm Benjamin Schultz wrote:
>> On Thursday 06 November 2008 10:59:21 pm Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
>>> > On Nov 6, 2008, at 11:34 AM, Ian Kelly wrote:
>>
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Or alternatively nominate Murphy for Ambassador...
But this would only make it more likely that in the future we'd
attempt to establish diplomatic relations with "nations" founded by
5-year-olds.
On Fri, 2008-11-07 at 11:26 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 10:26 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I think we should just ignore these losers.
> >
> > We're the ones who approached them diplomatically in the first place.
>
> The Ambassador had nothing to do with the
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 10:26 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I think we should just ignore these losers.
>
> We're the ones who approached them diplomatically in the first place.
The Ambassador had nothing to do with the approach. We should ignore
Murphy too :P
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 10:24 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think we should just ignore these losers.
We're the ones who approached them diplomatically in the first place.
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 9:20 AM, Pavitra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 4: The Empire refused to recognise me. Can I appeal in any way? How
> about I just declare war on you until you change your mind?
>
> If you are unsatisfied with the outcome of speaking with minister
> Glark, you can always ap
On 7 Nov 2008, at 14:20, Pavitra wrote:
*sigh*
I think we should just ignore these losers.
--
ehird
On Thursday 06 November 2008 11:07:04 pm Benjamin Schultz wrote:
> On Thursday 06 November 2008 10:59:21 pm Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
>> > On Nov 6, 2008, at 11:34 AM, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> >> I suggest flipping the Aerican Empire's recognition to Hostile.
>> >
From the Aerican War Law:
It is the goal of the Aerican Empire to avoid conflict. War can and
must be avoided, if possible.
How far can we push the envelope on this to achieve some measure of
recognition between AE and Agora?
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr
On Nov 6, 2008, at 11:59 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
On Nov 6, 2008, at 11:34 AM, Ian Kelly wrote:
I suggest flipping the Aerican Empire's recognition to Hostile.
I agree. Refuse us recognition? This means WAR!
To War! To War! To war we're going
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
> On Nov 6, 2008, at 11:34 AM, Ian Kelly wrote:
>>>
>> I suggest flipping the Aerican Empire's recognition to Hostile.
>>
>
> I agree. Refuse us recognition? This means WAR!
To War! To War! To war we're going to go!
On Nov 6, 2008, at 11:34 AM, Ian Kelly wrote:
I suggest flipping the Aerican Empire's recognition to Hostile.
I agree. Refuse us recognition? This means WAR!
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr
Wondering how we could possibly invade them
On Thursday 06 November 2008 07:16:36 pm Pavitra wrote:
> On Thursday 06 November 2008 10:23:26 am Ed Murphy wrote:
> > 1) You state quite clearly on your site that you are a game which
> > acts like a nation. The Empire, not being a game, does not see
> > how we could recognise you as an equivalen
On Thursday 06 November 2008 10:23:26 am Ed Murphy wrote:
> 1) You state quite clearly on your site that you are a game which
> acts like a nation. The Empire, not being a game, does not see how
> we could recognise you as an equivalent state or nation.
Proto-rebuttal:
The distinction between a
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 8:23 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1) You state quite clearly on your site that you are a game which acts
> like a nation. The Empire, not being a game, does not see how we could
> recognise you as an equivalent state or nation.
Not a game? Could have fooled me.
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 9:23 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Original Message
> From: Tristan Glark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject:RE: Proposal: Expanded foreign relations
> Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 12:29:44 +
>
>
>
> Thank y
59 matches
Mail list logo
