Re: DIS: BUS: Re: yin & yang

root wrote: On 5/22/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Zefram wrote: > * of Yin Corp: Yin Corp, Yang Corp > * of Yang Corp: Yin Corp, Yang Corp Brilliant! You know, I'm amazed that three folks didn't appeal the original (self-interested) judgements that said partnerships could be pla

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements of CFJs 1678-83

root wrote: On 5/25/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Human Point Two judges CFJs 1682 and 1683 FALSE. Arguments: The first paragraph of Rule 1742 consistently uses plurals. I interpret this as requiring such agreements to be made among a set of two or more players. I call f

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements of CFJs 1678-83

Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: at the times in question, neither Yin Corp nor Yang Corp were tied to any natural persons whatsoever. In the three minutes before Mon, 21 May 2007 20:19:27 -0500, Quazie was a partner in Yin Corp, so Yin Corp could be a person under existing legal

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 4984-4996

Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: 4986 FOR ... Your VLOP is still somewhat greater than 1. The reset doesn't take effect until the end of the week. Oh, I think I know what it was: I was mis-remembering R1950's provision that the voting limit at the start of the voting period is wh

DIS: Re: BUS: Motion on CFJ 1661 (more CotC actions)

comex wrote: I assign the appeal of CFJ 1621 to Murphy, OscarMeyr, and Zefram. Unaffected by the "turned when it was called" bug, which only disqualifies players from being a Trial Judge. I assign the appeal of CFJ 1623 to Murphy, OscarMeyr, and Maud. CFJ 1623 is not appealed until/unless

Re: DIS: proto: square root quorum

Zefram wrote: The quorum for an Agoran decision is ceil(sqrt(NEV)), where NEV is the number of eligible voters on that decision. I recommend specifying when NEV is measured. (The latest fix specifies beginning-of-voting-period.)

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Motion on CFJ 1661 (more CotC actions)

comex wrote: On 5/31/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Unaffected by the "turned when it was called" bug, which only disqualifies players from being a Trial Judge. I believe it is affected: (R911) A Player is ineligible for selection if any of the follow

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Motion on CFJ 1661 (more CotC actions)

Goethe wrote: Murphy wrote: R1871 makes turned players ineligible to be a Trial Judge of a given CFJ, but neither R1871 nor R911 makes them ineligible to be either a Judge in general or an Appellate Judge in particular. Y'know, I didn't buy this when I was assigning judges last month, but I d

DIS: VC salaries

Quazie, as primary controller of HP2 wrt its IADoP duties, can you please confirm or correct the following VC salaries? Assessor - Murphy (held the office all month) CotC - no one (comex only held the office since May 20, previous holder Goethe has deregistered) Heral

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Knuts!

Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: When a player registers, e receives a random number of Knuts from 1679 to 1974 (inclusive). Upon the adoption of this proposal, each player receives a random number of Knuts from 1679 to 1974 (inclusive). These should specify who makes the random

Re: DIS: phew!

Maud Lynn wrote: Ultimately, a plurality of Agorans decided to Pretend It Hadn't Happened to avoid a tedious recalculation of the gamestate. More precisely, they adopted a proposal to the effect of "the entire gamestate is hereby set to what it would have been if Annabel had been a separate pe

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: power law quorum

BobTHJ wrote: I honestly don't feel that quorum serves much of a purpose other than to slow the pace of the game now and then and make it difficult to pass anything during periods of low activity. What is the benefit? It makes it difficult to adopt a proposal that only a few people bothered t

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5002-5004

Goethe wrote: Zefram wrote: Only because you lot made such a mess of the ruleset last year. Tell you one thing, I'm with Kelly here: I'm not returning until you lot stop re-introducing the useless dross we cut out. And what useless dross would that be, then, specifically?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5002-5004

Goethe wrote: Murphy wrote: And what useless dross would that be, then, specifically? Doing the quickest possible scan, Rules 2137, 2138, parts of 2141, 2143, the expansion of R789, and a pointless definition of the term "paragraph" are all signs of an overly-formalizing bureaucracy running a

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Primo Share transfers

BobTHJ wrote: Hey, you're the CFO. You're the one that has to keep track of it :) More to the point, there are now two players who possess Shares without having agreed to the Primo charter. Thoughts?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Primo Share transfers

BobTHJ wrote: Just to attack this from another angle, I call for civil judgment (per R1742) on the following statement: root has violated the agreement titled "Primo Corporation Charter" I submit as evidence the Primo Corporation Charter (found at http://groups.google.com/group/primo-corpora

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Combined nomic protection

Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: (d) the action would, as part of its effect, make it impossible to make arbitrary modifications to the rules by any combinations of actions by players, and/or impossible to adopt proposals within a four-week period; or I'

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Reinstate the Justiciar

Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: The Justiciar is an office; its holder is responsible for receiving and distributing Civil CFJs and Appeals. I don't see the justification for separating these from General CFJs. CotC is a fairly busy office. This splits it up a bit - not all

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Limited Partnerships, take fifteen

Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: A partnership's basis is the set containing its natural-person members, plus each member of the basis of each of its non-natural-person members. Yay. This is the right way to do it. The reason your original "Limited Partnerships

DIS: Re: BUS: posture

comex wrote: I hereby change myself from lying down to sitting. As Clerk of the Courts, you were initialized to standing.

DIS: Re: BUS: Judicial catch-up

comex wrote: Technically the first Timing Orders are invalid as I am not required to recuse... You are if the Overtime Period has expired (Rule 408), which I believe it has for all of the CFJs in that list. I issue a Notice of Rotation. CFJs not eligible to be assigned: CFJ 1676, CFJ 1685, C

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Reinstate the Justiciar

comex wrote: Or just modify Rule 591 to require judgements be published, so I can continue letting Murphy do the latter. :) Has anyone ever submitted a CFJ privately to the CotC?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Two judgements, five punts, one proto-judgement

Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: I intend to judge CFJ 1677 TRUE on behalf of Human Point Two, as a direct consequence of Judge BobTHJ's judgement of CFJ 1676. Surely that would be FALSE? BobTHJ's judgement implies that "this" in this kind of statement refers to the CFJ. Yes, that's right.

Re: DIS: proposal 4939 crisis

Zefram wrote: As I interpret it, the judgement of CFJ 1669 means that proposal 4939, which we thought was a legal distribution of Murphy's "Re-divide some offices" proposal, was actually not a legal distribution. Murphy's proposal is presumably still in the proposal pool. What about the purpor

Re: DIS: On partnerships

Goethe wrote: root wrote: This seems to indicate that a partnership's obligations are only enforceable to the extent that the partnership's members desire them to be enforced. Any thoughts? There are two distinct sets of obligations here. The first are the set of obligations that the partne

Re: DIS: proposal 4939 crisis

Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: The only difference was the spurious line break in Rule 2139, right? Line break in the middle of a word, yes. I just went back and checked my local message store; neither the submission nor the purported distribution contained the spurious line break

Re: DIS: proto: CFJ by announcement

quazie wrote: Zefram wrote: proto-proposal: CFJ by announcement AI: 2 {{{ Amend rule 991 by replacing "by submitting a Call for Judgement (CFJ) to the Clerk of the Courts" with "by publishing a Call for Judgement (CFJ)". Amend rule 897 by deleting the paragraph that begins "The Clerk of the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Hanging Judge

Maud wrote: On 6/9/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The final paragraph of rule 869. The Hanging Judge is clearly no longer a person, according to recent jurisprudence and rule 2145. My copy of the ruleset only has effects of proposals up to 4975. Would you mind quoting the text you hav

Re: DIS: proto: CFJ by announcement

Maud wrote: The database is a pain to use. In particular, magnifying text to a readable size (in my browser, anyway) causes the text to spill over into a part of the background with the same colour as the text. If there were a way to go straight to the ``Format for email'' option without the e

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Herbology

Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: Mature herbs may be sold by announcement, upon which the seller receives the listed selling price. Boring. Everyone will buy Ginger and nothing else, growing capital at 0.37 Np / week. Not only is it the highest yield over the long term, it makes

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Knuts!

Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: The Gnome is responsible for keeping track of Wheezes. The Gnome's report includes Wheeze holdings. Frequency of report? As root pointed out, Rule 2143 has a default clause, I'm using it. In fact, as one would expect, the only offices th

DIS: OscarMeyr, is this you?

http://www.ggl.com/news.php?NewsId=3086

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals

root wrote: As somebody else pointed out recently, one of the original purpose for Agoran Contracts IIRC was to house the list of cards, which had grown long enough that it was just taking up too much space in the ruleset. If a future rule gets similarly long, we could just amend Rule 1681 to

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgment of CFJS 1655 and 1656

Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: Unlike Proposal 4963 (see CFJ 1655), the only difference between what I submitted and what the Promotor distributed is that some whitespace slipped into the middle of a word. I argue that this difference does not create an ambiguity in meaning, It results in a

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgment of CFJS 1655 and 1656

Zefram wrote: > In quoting old rule text it is only necessary to identify which part > of the existing text is meant; precisely what that text is is > determined principally by what text already exists. Specifying new > text is completely different: the rule change is the sole source of > the te

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5019-5026

bd_ wrote: On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 12:53:03PM +, Zefram wrote: Proposal 5021 (Democratic, AI=3) by Murphy Mother, May I? Create a rule titled "Mother, May I?" with Power 3 and this text: The following terms are defined. These definitions MUST be used when a rule includes a

Re: DIS: proto: Agoran arms in a rule

root wrote: On 6/18/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Consequently, I don't think a proposal can directly govern the game beyond making instantaneous changes. What do you think about effects such as this one, from proposal 4453? Upon adoption of this Proposal, the Scorekeepor shall as

DIS: Re: BUS: Open letter

root wrote: I've been around since 1998 -- 9 years! -- but how often do I get noticed? Twice in my whole life I've been invoked, and one of those times was a full two years before I hatched, so you can't really say that it counts! Let's face it, around here I'm appreciated about as much as one

Re: DIS: proto: renumeration

Zefram wrote: Amend rule 1023 by deleting the item (a) The term "number" shall mean "real number". [Each instance of "number" in the ruleset either is discussing a value that is inherently a natural number or is explicitly qualified as "rational" or some other subset of the real numbers.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Primo Shares

BobTHJ wrote: My interpretation was that since there is no time-limit for accepting shares that have been offered, the offer is still on the table. BobTHJ On 6/19/07, * Ian Kelly* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: On 6/19/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: CFJ 1684

comex wrote: On Tuesday 19 June 2007, Kerim Aydin wrote: Zefram wrote: comex wrote: I issue a Timing Order to the CotC to recuse the judge of CFJ 1684 ASAP (per R408). I also issue a Timing Order to the CotC to recuse the judge of CFJ 1684 ASAP (per R408). vii. Every person has the r

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in CFJ 1684

root wrote: On 6/19/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I call for appeal of CFJ 1684. Not because I necessarily disagree with its reasonableness, but as it conflicts with the (now possibly non-existent judgments of) 1622 and 1623. A Court of Appeals on a CFJ out of the self- refere

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Preserve the Partnerships

root wrote: On 6/19/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I hereby submit the following proposal titled "Preserve the Partnerships" with an AI of 1: { Amend R2145 by appending the paragraph: {{ Agora recognizes an agreement that implicitly or explicitly assigns its rights, obligations, an

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in CFJ 1684

root wrote: On 6/19/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It can (if the Board of Appeals agrees) accomplish the reversal of the judgement of CFJ 1684. Not because I disagree with its reasonableness either, but I find the judgements of CFJs 1622 and 1623 to also be reasonable, and h

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Primo Shares

root wrote: I disagree with both of you. The sqrt(2) shares that I transferred to you were created by charter-specified methods (IPO or CFO salary); and I didn't just offer them, I flat-out transferred them according to the old section 19. Yes, I agree with you on that count, but section 19 n

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in CFJ 1684

root wrote: If partnerships were composed of non-player entities, e.g. if Wal-Mart were to register, then I don't think there would be a problem. But in practice the partnerships are constructed by players, resulting in uneven representation of the natural players. This goes beyond just Agoran

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5027-5041

BobTHJ wrote: Below are the votes for BobTHJ and those votes made on behalf of Primo Corporation as CEO (prefaced by "Primo:"): Not to the PF.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Regulate ID numbers

Eris wrote: Sorry I didn't notice this before, but you almost certainly want a statement that ID numbers must be unique. Huh? Oh, I see the problem. Revised text: (b) Such an assignment is INVALID unless the number is a natural number distinct from any ID number, and g

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Regulate ID numbers

bd_ wrote: On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 07:07:13PM -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: Proto-Proposal: Regulate ID numbers (AI = 3, please) (b) Such an assignment is INVALID unless the number is a natural number greater than any orderly ID number previously assigned to an

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Regulate ID numbers

BobTHJ wrote: I forsee problems. I assign a chaotic number 1 to a proposal. Ten years from now, the Neo-proposal Promoter assigns number 1 to a proposal, blissfully unaware that the number was already assigned 10 years ago. That's what (e) is for. But even if we do make a mistake, the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Regulate ID numbers

Goethe wrote: Murphy wrote: Create a rule titled "ID Numbers" with this text: Can someone explain, and use small words so I'm sure to understand, precisely why a system that has worked very well for a very long time needs a new, long, rule? The current system will have the occasional glitch

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Regulate ID numbers

Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: (c) Each ID number SHOULD be as small as possible. A player may, with Agoran consent, make an entity's ID number chaotic. Also need "an ID number is orderly by default". Possibly also explicate that "orderly" and

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: A Suffusion of Yellow

Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: Change the Power of Rule 2126 (Voting Credits) to 2, This rule change standing alone has been voted down twice (while also, curiously, failing quorum both times). I'll takes my chances. a) A player may spend one VC to increase another pla

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: A Suffusion of Yellow

Zefram wrote: Sounds too powerful, and subject to timing attacks. But perhaps something like this could hasten VLOP decay: say, for a 3 VC spend the target's VLOP goes through an extra *0.9 multiplier at the end of the week. There'll be some level of VLOP where this mechanism matches the effic

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Regulate ID numbers

Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: I'm thinking "SHALL, unless e reasonably believes that assigning a smaller number might be invalid". Too tight. If a number assignment has been incorporated into persistent documents, such as a published ruleset, I shouldn't have to re

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Registar] Who's Who

Roger Hicks wrote: Bob's Quality Cards is missing from the registration list. This remains under dispute (CFJ 1687). The CotC database is a couple days out of date at the moment. I'll get it caught up later today.

DIS: Re: BUS: CotC backlog

The following issues are also pending: * HP2's judgement of CFJ 1647 * comex's judgement of CFJ 1611 * Assignment of CFJs 1688-94 Also, assignment of a Board of Appeals to CFJ 1684.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: A Suffusion of Yellow

Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: When a player registers, eir VCs are set to zero. You're generally retaining language that's based on a single per-player count of VCs, whereas your new scheme has four separate VC counts per player. Also, "eir VCs are set to zero"

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: A Suffusion of Yellow

Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: I think it's clear enough, but okay, "eir VCs of each color are set to zero". That's still a bad wording. The intent is not to modify the VCs themselves, it's to arrange for em to not have any VCs. No doubt someone will argue that &q

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Judicial Cleanup

Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: A subject SHOULD NOT be pursued through a new CFJ, but rather through Appeal. "An appealable subject". Amend Rule 1742 (Agreements) to read: You're removing all the civil remedies. Is that intended? Yes, they're largely redu

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Judicial Cleanup

Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: Amend Rule 1742 (Agreements) to read: You're removing all the civil remedies. Is that intended? If so, you may as well drop the "Civil CFJ" terminology. To clarify: Currently, rule violations are punished by Rule 1504 (and/or Rule 1742

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Return of switches

Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: Activity is a player switch with values Active (syn. "Off Hold") and Inactive (syn. "On Hold"), tracked by the Registrar. I see no benefit in bringing back the "Hold" synonyms. Some players want to use them.

DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Tidy up promoter

Levi wrote: I don't see where a proposal's 'chamber' is defined. This used to be defined as whether the proposal was Ordinary or Democratic. It may have been repealed when switches were.

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ - Voting on behalf of

Levi wrote: I call for judgement on the following statement, barring BobTHJ and Primo Corporation (not sure if I have to bar em or not): BobTHJ can vote on behalf of Primo Corporation This does not affect the outcomes of any past proposals: * 5010-18 would have passed even without Primo

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Judicial Cleanup

Goethe wrote: Murphy wrote: > You're removing all the civil remedies. Is that intended? Yes, they're largely redundant with Rule 1504. No, they aren't. Punitive damages are in R1504, but you've deleted a cornerstone of justice, the ability of a judge to assess compensatory (e.g. non- punit

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Return of switches

Zefram wrote: When an entity becomes a type of entity with one or more switches, all of eir switches for that type are set to their default values. Careful here. What if an entity changes from one type to another where both types have the same switch? That is, it has changed b

DIS: Re: BUS: CotC

comex wrote: If Murphy will not bring the CotC database up, e may as well say so. I have ample time to assign CFJs and even maintain a database if necessary, but one already exists, and Murphy seems to be the only one that can access it. I will neither object to this nor support it. The probl

DIS: Okay, *now* the CotC DB is available

At some point, a router setting on this end got mangled. (May have been when I was configuring a signal booster yesterday.) Anyway, fixed now.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5042-5049

root wrote: On 6/25/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 5047 AGAINST (see above; existing rule could be interpreted as "voting limit on the proposal's current chamber at the start of its voting period"; this is awkward, but so is the phrase "bal

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5042-5049

root wrote: On 6/26/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "At the end of the voting period of an Agoran decision, the first N ballots submitted by each entity on that decision (where N is the entity's voting limit) remain valid; all other ballots submit

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5042-5049

root wrote: On 6/26/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "At the end of the voting period of an Agoran decision, the first N ballots submitted by each entity on that decision (where N is the entity's voting limit for that proposal) remain valid; all other ballots s

DIS: Re: OFF: Appeal of CFJ 1621

comex wrote: I'm not sure whether a majority judging REMAND means that the CFJ has been overturned, or if bd_ still has to judge. The latter. In fact, which "above" (b) or c)?) does Rule 1447 d) refer to? (b), but amending it to say "as if a majority had judged REASSIGN" wouldn't be a bad

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 1611 judged TRUE

Zefram wrote: comex wrote: If there are complications, Zefram did not mention them when calling this CFJ. The only complication is that at the time GreyKnight believed that e could not legally assign a judge to those CFJs. Per CFJ 1604 e was mistaken, but of cou

Re: DIS: Okay, *now* the CotC DB is available

comex wrote: And now it's down again. And now it's up again. By the way, any luck with the signal booster? I've had nothing but pain with them. Alas, no.

DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1689 assigned to root

comex wrote: CFJ 1689 is hereby assigined to root. And here's another conflict of interest. At least with CFJ 1647 I was the only standing judge left (though there's no requirement to assign judges in increasing order of CFJ number, and in this case the order should arguably have been twiddle

DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1690 assigned to Zefram

== CFJ 1690 == Caller's Arguments: A challenge should be direct and specific to a proposal, or at least specific to the precise votes being challenged, to prevent the R2034 challenge limit clock from expiring. It is not enough to cha

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1647 assigned to Murphy

I wrote: comex wrote: CFJ 1647 is hereby assigned to Murphy. To avoid conflict of interest without having to lose time and a VC, I hereby solicit a pseudo-judgement from any of the following players: bd_, comex, Levi, Manu, root, Zefram ...of which root and Zefram are the only ones not

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1677 assigned to PP

root wrote: On 6/27/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: CFJ 1677 is hereby assigned to the Pineapple Partnership. The Pineapple Partnership is not a player, as per CFJ 1684, so it can't judge CFJs. But wasn't there an appeal of CFJ 1684 in progress? I don't recall There is, yes. The Cot

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Reinstate Elections

root wrote: On 6/27/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Proto-Proposal: Reinstate Elections Why? Elections were always unnecessarily complex. Currently, the entire process is telescoped into a single Agoran Consent period, requires a separate slate of support and objections fo

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1677 assigned to PP

comex wrote: On 6/27/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Also, OscarMeyr needs to re-judge CFJ 1621. Not until I reassign it to him, I think. But I am waiting for all three actions until the CotC database is in a good mood again. :) Ah, you're right, R1447(c) is prag

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJs 1692-3 assigned to Murphy

root wrote: On 6/27/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The rules do not regulate the numbering of CFJs. There is clear game custom that purported CFJs are numbered in order of submission. There have been no recent ambiguities in any part of this process. (The purported CFJ 1

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Reinstate Elections

Goethe wrote: Murphy wrote: Currently, the entire process is telescoped into a single Agoran Consent period, requires a separate slate of support and objections for each candidate, One is forgetting the worst aspect of the old system, the continual stream of nomination periods with no nominee

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJs 1661-5 assigned to BobTHJ

BobTHJ wrote: Oops! I missed that message the first time around, and thus I figured I was still waiting on the PP. Based upon the above-referenced message I judge as follows: Not to the PF, but apparently R591 doesn't require it to be. There was a "CFJs and judgements must be public" proposa

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJs 1661-5 assigned to BobTHJ

BobTHJ wrote: Just to avoid un-needed problems, TTttPF (thanks Murphy!): You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 5027 - 5041

root wrote: I hereby dispute the announced results for proposals 5030 and 5041, as partnerships are not players and could not have voted on them. I disagree (I expect CFJ 1684 to wind up being reversed), but in any case this unambiguously stops the R2034 clock. If CFJ 1684 winds up being uphe

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJs 1661-5 assigned to BobTHJ

BobTHJ wrote: On 6/27/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: BobTHJ wrote: > Just to avoid un-needed problems, TTttPF (thanks Murphy!): You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Which word? "P". (Your second posting of the judgement was also to a-d.)

DIS: Re: BUS: HP2 judges CFJ 1687

root wrote: On 6/28/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Human Point Two judges CFJ 1687 FALSE. No arguments? I appeal. I don't see a substantive difference between this and "I accept the caller's arguments as valid". To-ma-to, to-mah-to.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Unofficial list of pending judicial actions

Goethe wrote: root wrote: Ack! The whole point of CFJ 1684 was to settle the matter of CFJs 1622 and 1623 while avoiding the paradoxes introduced in those earlier CFJs. I was wondering when someone would notice this. So was I. However, if HP2 did not become Speaker, Murphy is still Speak

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Unofficial list of pending judicial actions

OscarMeyr wrote: On Jun 29, 2007, at 12:29 AM, Ed Murphy wrote: 1621 OscarMeyr to judge I believe I'm waiting on this to be officially reassigned to me, pending the database's hampsters waking up and going to work. Yes, this is waiting on CotC comex to reassign it to you per

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5059-5061

BobTHJ wrote: I vote as follows: Not to the PF.

Re: DIS: proto: judicial reform

Zefram wrote: * UNPROVEN, appropriate if the information available to the judge is insufficient to determine which of the FALSE, TRUE, and UNDECIDABLE judgements is appropriate. I would use "UNKNOWN" for this. * LAW ABIDING, appropriate if the alleged act was not

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto-Contest: Mediocrity

Eris wrote: On 7/4/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 4) Each week, the contestmaster shall award floor(10/N) points to each of the N contestants whose Party's membership at the end of the week was closest to the median of all such memberships. Where&

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Three-Tone Economics

Zefram wrote: Peekee wrote: I believe accountants(?) etc. use that rounding fairly often. No. Bankers' rounding is nearest-or-even. That's also the usual mode for binary floating point arithmetic. The proto's method is a variation of bankers' rounding; I didn't want 0.5 to be rounded to 0

Re: DIS: proto: judicial reform

Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: I would use "UNKNOWN" for this. Mm. I think "UNPROVEN" is more descriptive. I'm influenced by the "unproven" verdict in Scottish criminal law. Why do you prefer "UNKNOWN"? Because it's neutral. "Un

Re: DIS: odd-proto: Committees

BobTHJ wrote: This is just popped into my head, and I thought I would write it out for comments. Essentially, this broadens current offices by converting them into 3-person committees. By doing so, it provides redundancy to official duties and thus eliminates a considerable amount of ruletext de

Re: DIS: proto: judicial reform

Zefram wrote: How about "UNDETERMINED"? Works for me.

Re: DIS: proto: judicial reform

Geoffrey Spear wrote: Can anyone expound on why it would be necessary to have both UNDECIDABLE and another category, whatever it ends up being called, for when there's not enough information to determine if the question is undecidable? If it's "not capable of being accurately described as either

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5062-5070

Wooble wrote: I vote as follows: These are ineffective, as your voting limit at the start of the voting period was zero. See Rule 1950.

DIS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Org Chart

Office Report (* = monthly) Last published ( * = due) -- (** = overdue) Registrar Players, Fora *Tue 3 Jul 07 Should have been Thu 12 Jul 07.

DIS: Proto-proto: The Republic of Agora

Proto-proto: The Republic of Agora (AI = 2, please) Amend Rule 2126 to assign each player a state with a population, some portion of which supports em. Rename "Voting Credits" -> "Political Capital" Rename "VLOP" -> "int(population/100,000)" Rename "ordinary proposal" -> "House proposal" Rename

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >