Though I don't see any evidence of that, it stands that I don't have the power
to make a 3.9... power rule. I'd need at least 3.
On Jan 9, 24 Heisei, at 2:01 PM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> On 9 January 2012 17:02, FSX wrote:
>> Proposal: No deben bailar
>>
>> Create a new rule titled "Dance Pro
This person did not indicate that they wanted to register *when they sent the
message*, so e did not register then. However, as there is no accommodation for
delaying registration, e did not register at all. Thus, e will need to submit a
registration when they actually want to register.
On Jan
On 01/08/2012 11:51 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 00:49, Pavitra wrote:
>
>> On 01/08/2012 11:30 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 00:28, Craig Daniel wrote:
>>>
I intend to become a player in four weeks' time.
- teucer
>>> Too bad. Welcome
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 00:49, Pavitra wrote:
> On 01/08/2012 11:30 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 00:28, Craig Daniel wrote:
> >
> >> I intend to become a player in four weeks' time.
> >>
> >> - teucer
> >>
> >>
> > Too bad. Welcome to Agora.
>
> Nope.
>
> A first-class pe
On 01/08/2012 11:30 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 00:28, Craig Daniel wrote:
>
>> I intend to become a player in four weeks' time.
>>
>> - teucer
>>
>>
> Too bad. Welcome to Agora.
Nope.
A first-class person CAN (unless explicitly forbidden or
prevented by the rules
On Sun, 8 Jan 2012, Craig Daniel wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > The "might reasonably" makes this so squishy as to be trivially true;
> > all we have to show is that there is at least one cfj that might be
> > interpreted this way, and I think we've got at le
On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> The "might reasonably" makes this so squishy as to be trivially true;
> all we have to show is that there is at least one cfj that might be
> interpreted this way, and I think we've got at least one in the
> database. -G.
>
So it does. It's
Wooble wrote:
I CFJ on: {{Wooble is a player.}}
Arguments: Wooble unambiguously failed to deregister conditionally, and
failed to unambiguously deregister by announcement.
Wooble wrote:
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 9:30 PM, omd wrote:
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Mister Snuggles wrote:
i support this proposal wholeheartedly.
If I am Mister Snuggles, I intend, with Agoran Consent, to deregister.
I support and do so.
Definitely ineffective; it hasn't been 4 d
On 12/09/2011 01:29 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 9:30 PM, omd wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Mister Snuggles wrote:
>>> i support this proposal wholeheartedly.
>>
>> If I am Mister Snuggles, I intend, with Agoran Consent, to deregister.
>
> I support and do so.
On Thu, 2011-09-29 at 15:34 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote:
> On 28 September 2011 22:10, Sean Hunt wrote:
> > Conditions: ais523 has performed the services as agreed upon in the
> > discussion forum
>
> I object. I don't think that discussion forum is even logged; this is
> unreasonable.
Should make
On 7 July 2011 23:50, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> It was pointed out to me that Rule 0 says that events with absolute
> deadlines don't occur at all, and "the third midnight UTC" is an
> absolute deadline.
Is it? It's relative to the start of the emergency.
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> On 7 July 2011 06:16, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> WHEREAS B Nomic was in fact recently discovered to have been
>> locked in perpetual Emergency since 2002, such that its game can
>> never advance; and
>
> Have you got any pointers? Thre
On 11-07-07 07:21 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:16 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
WHEREAS B Nomic, a well-played Nomic, did claim to pass a
proposal directing a player to end the game,
Your definition of "well-played" may be off a bit; that was a
particularly bad piece
On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 10:21 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:16 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> > WHEREAS B Nomic, a well-played Nomic, did claim to pass a
> > proposal directing a player to end the game,
>
> Your definition of "well-played" may be off a bit; that was a
>
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:23 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, 6 Jul 2011, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> Award B Nomic the Patent Title "Imaginationland"
>
> Official pedantry: Not a person.
Proto: first create a rule making B Nomic a third-class person.
On Wed, 6 Jul 2011, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On 11-07-06 10:23 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On Wed, 6 Jul 2011, Sean Hunt wrote:
> > > Award B Nomic the Patent Title "Imaginationland"
> >
> > Official pedantry: Not a person.
>
> Irrelevant, but relevant is power. I retract the proposal "B is Dead! Lon
Crap... I thought the 4th Amendment had predecence... =S
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2011, omd wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 9:41 PM, Sean Hunt
>> wrote:
>> > I sell my soul to the Lord Demon of UNDEAD
>>
>> CoE: You don't have sufficient ergs to
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 11:17 PM, omd wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 11:06 PM, Sean Hunt
>> wrote:
>>> I CFJ (II=3)
>>
>> Proposal (AI=1.5, Distributable via fee): Amend Rule 2225 (Interest
>> Index of Judicial Cases) by replacing "whic
scshunt wrote:
> On 10-12-19 11:17 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Arguments: "an opinion" can be reasonably interpreted as "exactly one
>> opinion", leading to a straightforward judgement of TRUE.
>
> It can't really. This interpretation is generally unsupported:
[snip]
> "an" is an existential qualifi
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 12:16 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Oh. Of course.
>>
>> Well, just for fun I pay a fee to move G. up one position on the List
>> of Succession.
>
> I thought all ergs were destroyed?
I have a very short memory.
On Mon, 20 Dec 2010, omd wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 12:01 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >> why your voting limit is 0,
> > See said unofficial list.
>
> Oh. Of course.
>
> Well, just for fun I pay a fee to move G. up one position on the List
> of Succession.
I thought all ergs were destroye
omd wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 11:46 PM, Sean Hunt
> wrote:
>> On 10-12-19 11:17 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>>
>>> Arguments: Â "an opinion" can be reasonably interpreted as "exactly one
>>> opinion", leading to a straightforward judgement of TRUE.
>>
>> It can't really. This interpretation is
On 10-12-19 11:17 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
Arguments: "an opinion" can be reasonably interpreted as "exactly one
opinion", leading to a straightforward judgement of TRUE.
It can't really. This interpretation is generally unsupported:
The Power of exactly one entity is a non-negative rationa
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 11:32 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> > I withdraw my previous votes on all agoran decisions in their voting
>> > period and vote PRESENT. (my apologies, I was going to do something
>> > very very different, but with a voting limit of 0 I cannot). -G.
>>
>> Huh?
>
> By what are
On Sun, 19 Dec 2010, omd wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 11:08 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > I withdraw my previous votes on all agoran decisions in their voting
> > period and vote PRESENT. (my apologies, I was going to do something
> > very very different, but with a voting limit of 0 I cannot)
On 10-12-15 02:23 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010, omd wrote:
Well, it's not like there's any other kind of Session.
proto: During an Emergency Session, players SHOULD use a style of debate
combining
Robert's Rules of Order, Parliamentary Question Time, and Latin Rhetoric.
Poi
On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 17:25 -0500, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On 10-11-22 05:08 PM, omd wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Sean Hunt
> > wrote:
> >>> I object to both and favor this CFJ.
> >>
> >> Why do you object? I am not trying to raise the II for personal gain.
> >
> > Because I honestly do
On 10-11-22 05:08 PM, omd wrote:
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
I object to both and favor this CFJ.
Why do you object? I am not trying to raise the II for personal gain.
Because I honestly don't think it's a very complicated case. But if
there's a reason that I'm missin
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> I object to both and favor this CFJ.
>
> Why do you object? I am not trying to raise the II for personal gain.
Because I honestly don't think it's a very complicated case. But if
there's a reason that I'm missing why it is, tell me and I'll re
On 10-11-22 05:03 PM, omd wrote:
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 4:53 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
I favor this CFJ and also set its II to 1. I intend, without 3
objections, to set its II to 2, and I intend, without 2 objections, to
set its II to 3.
I object to both and favor this CFJ.
Why do you object? I
On 14 August 2010 03:56, Ed Murphy wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
>
>> On the other hand, I don't really understand why Space Alert exists at
>> all...
>
> It has to exist! Where would all the fragments go?
>
The proposal had to be submitted, because where would all the
fragments go? It didn't have to be
ais523 wrote:
> On the other hand, I don't really understand why Space Alert exists at
> all...
It has to exist! Where would all the fragments go?
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 4:05 PM, ais523 wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 15:32 -0400, comex wrote:
>> I intend, with 3 support, to start a new journey.
>
> Why is that not "3 support and notice?"
I was wondering if anyone would support and let me start a new journey
before y'all's notice timeouts e
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 1:56 AM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 16:58, Alex Smith wrote:
>>
>> I publish the following thesis, intending to qualify for a degree
>> (perhaps D.N.Hist?):
>> {
>> A History of Agoran Wins, 2009-present
>> by ais52
>
> First, I thought comex's win
On 04/14/2010 09:29 AM, comex wrote:
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 3:45 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
- if at least two other players done so so e last did so, or
s/done/have done
A player CAN, without objection from the Proposal's author, add a
Fragment to a Defragmentation Proposal's I
On 04/14/2010 02:56 PM, Charles Reiss wrote:
If
- e has not already done so, or
- if at least two other players done so so e last did so, or
- three days have passed since e last did so,
a player may publish a Fragment. A Fragment SHOULD be a short
"CAN p
comex wrote:
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Sep 19, 2009, at 12:54 PM, Charles Walker > wrote:
>
>> I change my nickname to Walker.
>
> So, you subtracted me?
Strictly speaking, e subtracted emself from you; eir previous nickname
wasn't C+walker.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital
c wrote:
> Charles Walker wrote:
>> I change my nickname to Walker.
>
> So, you subtracted me?
Yeah, sorry.
--
Charles Walker
2009/8/17 Ed Murphy :
> What's the point of playing Debate-o-Matic before it gets
> distributed? E may as well retract and resubmit.
To exploit a bug, obviously.
G. wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Aug 2009, comex wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 2:32 PM, comex wrote:
>>> I play Distrib-u-Matic to make it distributable.
>> I play Committee to make it undistributable.
>> I play Debate-o-Matic to make it democratic.
>
> Oh. Clever.
>
> [gets popcorn and sits
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 13:59, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 13:57, comex wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 12:44, comex wrote:
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 2:32 PM, comex wrote:
> I play Distrib-u-Matic to make it distribut
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 13:57, comex wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 12:44, comex wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 2:32 PM, comex wrote:
I play Distrib-u-Matic to make it distributable.
>>>
>>> I play Committee to make it undistributabl
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 12:44, comex wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 2:32 PM, comex wrote:
>>> I play Distrib-u-Matic to make it distributable.
>>
>> I play Committee to make it undistributable.
>> I play Debate-o-Matic to make it democratic.
2009/6/17 Charles Reiss
> I don't think your attempt to define 'Marvy' does anything. (The judge,
> after carefully considering the implications of using it as guidance,
> will probably decide not to in the best interest of the game.) And,
> well, "you who are marvellous" probably isn't a bad 'ord
On 6/16/09 6:55 PM, Paul VanKoughnett wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 4:49 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>
>> Paul VanKoughnett wrote:
>>
>>> I agree to the following:
>>> {
>>> This is a Public Legalistic contract and a pledge, called Three Coins.
>>> Parties to Three Coins are called Marvy. For
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 4:49 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Paul VanKoughnett wrote:
>> I agree to the following:
>> {
>> This is a Public Legalistic contract and a pledge, called Three Coins.
>> Parties to Three Coins are called Marvy. For the purposes of Three
>> Coins, to Dance means to cast exactly on
On Tue, 2009-06-09 at 09:09 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Alex Smith wrote:
> > Test Subject's Sentiment to Equitable on creation. The important part of
> > this CFJ is that it was flipped; therefore, I judge CFJ 2559 FALSE.
>
> Hmm... it was flipped yet you judged FALSE? Am I missing something here?
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 15:19 -0400, comex wrote:
>> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Rodlen wrote:
>> > I CfJ on the following statement:
>>
>> CFJ :p
>
> Hey, I often write it with a lowercase f. I agree that the capital is
> more common, though.
On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 15:19 -0400, comex wrote:
> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Rodlen wrote:
> > I CfJ on the following statement:
>
> CFJ :p
Hey, I often write it with a lowercase f. I agree that the capital is
more common, though.
--
ais523
2009/4/17 comex :
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
>> This is a test.
>
> Evidence: Gmail's preview line shows the message as:
>
> BUS: A test - This is a test. I call for judgement on the statement
> "Actions can be taken in plain-text …
It doesn't for me.
Gratuitous: This
Alex Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 10:07 -0600, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
>> > Pavitra wrote:
>> >> I CFJ on the statement: "Warrigal CAN deregister."
>>
> I think the CFJ is a pretty clear TRUE, because I think Warrigal didn't
> cause emself to fail to be a player when e attempted to deregist
On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 10:07 -0600, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
> Alexander Smith wrote:
> > Pavitra wrote:
> >> In fact, I think I can get a Win by Paradox out of this. I CFJ on the
> >> statement: "Warrigal CAN deregister." I believe that eir citizenship
> >> cannot be determined, and so (since players
Alexander Smith wrote:
> Pavitra wrote:
>> In fact, I think I can get a Win by Paradox out of this. I CFJ on the
>> statement: "Warrigal CAN deregister." I believe that eir citizenship
>> cannot be determined, and so (since players unambiguously CAN
>> deregister, while non-players clearly CANNOT)
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 4:07 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
> It's pretty rare for them to actually work; even the Gnarly Contract
> (the only recent one I can remember working) needed two tries. Also, can
> we please fix that loophole, now? (I submitted a proposal to fix it, but
> IIRC it was voted down.)
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 13:17 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> > I call for judgement on the statement {{{If a rule were created with the
> > text {{Wooble SHALL NOT Dance a Powerful Dance. Neither sentence of this
> > rule has an effect.}}, then it would be ILLEGAL
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 3:53 PM, Charles Schaefer
wrote:
> He just can't Dance a Powerful Dance to the business list. It's kind of hard
> to dance to (on) a public forum anyway.
Agora's scope is not limited to its fora.
Anyone who's ever seen me dance will vote FOR this proposal, and
immediately
On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 10:00 PM, Sgeo wrote:
> I'm pretty sure only rules can define offices.
Yes, but only rules can define dependent actions.
--Warrigal
On Fri, 26 Dec 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-12-26 at 10:27 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Dec 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
>>> Any person CAN agree to this contract. The agreement need not be done by
>>> announcement; any action, in any nomic, which has the effect of agreeing
>>> to
On Fri, 2008-12-26 at 10:27 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Dec 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
> > Any person CAN agree to this contract. The agreement need not be done by
> > announcement; any action, in any nomic, which has the effect of agreeing
> > to this contract is sufficient to constitute a
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 5:18 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7 Nov 2008, at 21:58, Warrigal wrote:
>
>> Well, that was fun.
>
>
> Oh great, you're back to making completely useless contracts.
But the Notary doesn't have to track this one.
--Warrigal of Escher
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 2:15 PM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think Warrigal's argument is similar to this:
>
> Define Buckingham Palace to be a Frobozz Magic Exculpator if and only if
> it is not owned by the Queen of England.
>
> Then, Buckingham Palace is an asset if the Queen doesn
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 2:09 PM, warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 11:52 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 4:56 AM, warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> But if the Terre Haute is "the Terre Haute", then it is a string,
>>> which exist
On Fri, 2008-10-31 at 16:09 -0400, warrigal wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 11:52 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 4:56 AM, warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> But if the Terre Haute is "the Terre Haute", then it is a string,
> >> which exists independently
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 11:52 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 4:56 AM, warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> But if the Terre Haute is "the Terre Haute", then it is a string,
>> which exists independently of the contract, so the contract cannot
>> make it an asse
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 4:56 AM, warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But if the Terre Haute is "the Terre Haute", then it is a string,
> which exists independently of the contract, so the contract cannot
> make it an asset.
Wait, that doesn't follow. "The Terre Haute" was defined to be the
*nam
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 4:56 AM, warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 1:10 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 8:01 PM, warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I award the Terre Haute to Rochelle O'Shea.
>>
>> I think this bit fails since, as
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 1:10 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 8:01 PM, warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I award the Terre Haute to Rochelle O'Shea.
>
> I think this bit fails since, as previously noted, Rochelle O'Shea
> does not exist.
By CFJ 2176, fictiona
root wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 8:01 PM, warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I award the Terre Haute to Rochelle O'Shea.
>
> I think this bit fails since, as previously noted, Rochelle O'Shea
> does not exist.
Gratuituous arguments:
At least one real person named Rochelle O'Shea appear
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 4:16 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Correction: the rules allow you to create a new VOIDED section.
Nomic Wars does not say that I can create a new Voided Section by
announcement, which might become a Section. Rather, it says that I
can create a Section, and
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 2:16 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Would anyone take it seriously if the US Congress passed a law stating
> that their legislation took precedence over the US Constitution, which
> was now void?
Possibly these people:
http://www.buildfreedom.com/language/del
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 13:31, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We have a set of things called Rules, but they could be renamed to
> Regulations without ceasing to be in effect; yet if I make a set of
> things known to
> Agora as Regulations, through a contract, they cannot govern the
> gamestate
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 2:09 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you want to, say "I can do anything by announcement; this sentence
> takes precedence over the laws of physics." and see what happens.
Hmm.
When we agree to the rules of a nomic, what are we really agreeing
to-- what thing def
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 12:19 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 17:56, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I join Nomic Wars I.
>>
>> I add the following section to Nomic Wars I:
>> {
>> Sections with lower Ratings take precedence over sections with higher
>> Rati
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 11:01 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 10:48 AM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Even without that, the arguments against things spontaneously coming
>> into power like that are unbreakably strong.
>
> How strong? Presently there are two se
On Fri, 17 Oct 2008, comex wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 10:48 AM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Even without that, the arguments against things spontaneously coming
>> into power like that are unbreakably strong.
>
> How strong? Presently there are two self-consistent interpretations
>
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 10:48 AM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Even without that, the arguments against things spontaneously coming
> into power like that are unbreakably strong.
How strong? Presently there are two self-consistent interpretations
of the Nomic Wars contract-- the original Se
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 8:17 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 6:13 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 17:08, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 17:56, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I join
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 6:13 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 17:08, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 17:56, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I join Nomic Wars I.
>>>
>>> I add the following section to Nomic Wars I:
>>> {
>>
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 17:08, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 17:56, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I join Nomic Wars I.
>>
>> I add the following section to Nomic Wars I:
>> {
>> Sections with lower Ratings take precedence over sections with higher
>> Ratings
On 3 Oct 2008, at 23:00, Charles Reiss wrote:
I don't see how either proposal would be effective under R1698
(especially if the recently proposed amendment to R101 passes). Even
if it is, I am strongly opposed to attempting to read into "game
custom" entire mechanisms for changing the rules.
-
On Fri, 3 Oct 2008, ehird wrote:
> On 3 Oct 2008, at 22:45, ihope wrote:
>
>> I submit the following proposal, titled "A Great Relief", with
>> adoption index 3: Repeal all rules except Rules 101, 104, 217, and
>> 2029.
>>
>> Note that Rule 101 implies that CFJs still exist, implying that the
>>
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 4:38 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-09-23 at 18:36 -0400, comex wrote:
>> Erg, I withdraw the above proposal, and submit the following one:
>>
>> Proposal: Secured self-ratification (AI=3)
>> {
>> - Show quoted text -
>> }
> You seem to have messed it u
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 3:15 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 4:55 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> UNDETERMINED. Who is to say that this anonymous poster is the same as
>> the previous one?
>
> Presumably only one person owns "[EMAIL PROTECTED]".
E could
On Tuesday 16 September 2008 03:55:31 pm Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 2:16 PM, invalid invalid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > I call for judgement on the following issue:
> > {
> > I submitted a proposal in my recent post
> > }
> >
> > -- Anonymous
>
> UNDETERMINED. Who is to say th
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 4:55 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> UNDETERMINED. Who is to say that this anonymous poster is the same as
> the previous one?
Presumably only one person owns "[EMAIL PROTECTED]".
2008/8/29 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Trivially FALSE. A player can join one but not the other.
Err, you mean trivially true.
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 10:49 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think it would. That's why I worded it "who becomes" instead
> of "who is". Becoming inactive or deregistered triggers the Slave
> status on, there is no continuing requirement to remain that way.
You worded it "who
On Sunday 13 July 2008 10:22:27 am comex wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 11:16 AM, Ben Caplan
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Saturday 12 July 2008 10:05:36 pm Ben Caplan wrote:
> >> [More rotation.]
> >
> > Comments?
>
> Seems like a lot of work for the Disc Jockey.
Probably.
Note, though
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 11:16 AM, Ben Caplan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 12 July 2008 10:05:36 pm Ben Caplan wrote:
>> [More rotation.]
>
> Comments?
Seems like a lot of work for the Disc Jockey.
On Saturday 12 July 2008 10:05:36 pm Ben Caplan wrote:
> [More rotation.]
Comments?
On Sunday 13 July 2008 10:00:48 am Benjamin Schultz wrote:
> The Airstrip One contract is giving contract-defined props to
> players who are not parties to the contract. Is this a good idea?
> Is this permissible?
I don't see that it's fundamentally different from pens or chits.
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 1:29 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Most programming languages' numeric data types are really crap at storing
> arbitrary numbers. They tend to be machine registers wearing wigs,
> not the mathematical abstractions that we naively imagine.
<3 Haskell.
Prelude> 10
Elliott Hird wrote:
>This is where you switch to a language that does bignums ;)
Fortunately I already store it as a string.
We had similar shenanigans last year. Proposal 4909 had
AI=1.01337, to find out whether there was any
floating-point rounding in the promotor's aut
root wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 4:07 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There's really no reason to have a proposal with adoption index above
3, as power 3 is enough to grant omnipotence. (Its Royal Majesty
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 4:07 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> There's really no reason to have a proposal with adoption index above
>>> 3, as power 3 is enough to grant omnipotence. (Its Royal Majesty Rule
>>> 2140 says
ihope wrote:
> It's a little bit like saying that a proposal that repeals a rule also
> has a property called "Food" which has no effect whatsoever. 9.9 is an
> arbitrary limit; 3 is not.
Like Tidbits in B?
--
ais523
<>
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> There's really no reason to have a proposal with adoption index above
>> 3, as power 3 is enough to grant omnipotence. (Its Royal Majesty Rule
>> 2140 says, "No entity with power below the power of this rule can . .
>> .")
>
>
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 3:56 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> root wrote:
>> There's really no reason to disallow it, either.
> Apart from proposals whose AI appears to be deliberately set
> high so they database can't handle them?
I meant in relation to Murphy's proposal. Unless
2008/6/23 Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Apart from proposals whose AI appears to be deliberately set
> high so they database can't handle them?
> --
> ais523
>
It's just a good thing that we all wouldn't stoop to that level.
ehird
101 - 200 of 219 matches
Mail list logo
