On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 13:09 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Taral wrote:
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:45 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Winning is too easy right now. It's boring (again IMO).
Temporary setback. Patience is advised. This game has been running for
a
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 13:22 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
I suggest you cut down the max point limits on contests, probably the
easiest way. The problem is that until a while back, nobody had won by
points for ages, and all the contests doubled
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 16:08 -0700, Roger Hicks wrote:
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 15:51, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Proto-Proposal: Complex scoring
(AI = 2, please)
A little help for those of us who haven't looked at imaginary numbers
since high school. I recall that sqrt(-1) = i, but
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 23:10 +, Alex Smith wrote:
sqrt(ab) = sqrt(a*b)
This should say sqrt(a*b) = sqrt(a)*sqrt(b).
--
ais523
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 16:20 -0700, Roger Hicks wrote:
2008/11/6 Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 23:10 +, Alex Smith wrote:
sqrt(ab) = sqrt(a*b)
This should say sqrt(a*b) = sqrt(a)*sqrt(b).
--
Got it. So then, what is the absolute value of a complex number
On Fri, 2008-11-07 at 06:55 -0500, Joshua Boehme wrote:
Before I started working on some protos, I wanted to get a feel for
people's opinions. There's not much point in taking the trouble to
rewrite sections of the rules if people are still enjoying them. Thus,
I am wondering: what aspects of
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 approach.
There seem to be several rules which are broken or scam-vulnerable
compared to their importance, due to having insufficient power; there
are also several rules that don't need the amount of power they have,
and could safely be depowered. (I'm not including rule 104 in this list,
because although
On Fri, 2008-11-07 at 14:03 -0500, comex wrote:
Proposal 5831 (Democratic, AI=2.0, Interest=1) by Murphy
Amend Rule 107 (Initiating Agoran Decisions) by replacing this text:
Amendment fails due to insufficient power.
Amend Rule 955 (Determining the Will of Agora) by appending this
text:
On Fri, 2008-11-07 at 12:34 -0700, Roger Hicks wrote:
On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 00:51, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Luck
I didn't see any comments on this. Like? Dislike?
I'm not sure that random promotions/demotions (with notes to affect the
chances) would add all that much; it certainly
On Sun, 2008-11-09 at 18:29 -0600, Pavitra wrote:
I have a proposal in PerlNomic right now to limit it to once per week
(as Promotor reports used to be), but the only vote on it so far
(except mine) is AGAINST.
The problem with limiting it to at least 7 days between proposals is
that almost
On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 22:44 -0700, Taral wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 10:20 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The AFO and I agree to the following: { ais523 CAN act on behalf of the
vote collector for Proposal 5707 to resolve that decision. Murphy CAN
terminate this contract by
On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 11:05 -0800, Taral wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 8:47 AM, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 2008-11-09 at 18:29 -0600, Pavitra wrote:
I have a proposal in PerlNomic right now to limit it to once per week
(as Promotor reports used to be), but the only vote
On Wed, 2008-11-05 at 06:05 -0800, The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
PerlNomic (unknown)
It should tell itself...
Normish (unknown)
irc://irc.freenode.net:6667/#rootnomic seems to be the usual place.
NooPolis(unknown)
Unfortunately, I don't know this one.
--
ais523
On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 12:58 -0700, Roger Hicks wrote:
On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 19:32, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Don't want to be bound by contests broken when equity dies Unfortunate
but not interested].
I resign from each and every public contract of which (a) I am a
On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 23:35 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
Create a rule titled Interest Index of Judicial Cases with Power 1.5
and this text:
Each judicial case has an interest index, which CAN be set by
its initiator at the time of initiation, and CAN be changed
by any player
On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 17:43 -0800, The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
The PNP withdraws one 5 crop from the PBA for ^8.
The PNP withdraws one 5 crop from the PBA for ^9.
Using a Addition Mill, the PNP mills 5 + 5 = X.
The PNP deposits one X crop into the PBA to gain ^30.
The PNP withdraws one 4
On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 09:14 +, Alex Smith wrote:
On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 17:43 -0800, The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
The PNP withdraws one 5 crop from the PBA for ^8.
The PNP withdraws one 5 crop from the PBA for ^9.
Using a Addition Mill, the PNP mills 5 + 5 = X.
The PNP deposits one
On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 08:09 -0700, Roger Hicks wrote:
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 07:18, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Presumably the idea is that high-rank cases would be more difficult,
complicated and time-consuming to judge, whereas low-rank cases would be
for typical CFJspam
On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 07:15 -0700, Roger Hicks wrote:
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 00:35, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Create a rule titled Judicial Rank with Power 1.5 and this text:
Judicial rank is a player switch, tracked by the Clerk of the
Courts, with the same range and
On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 06:56 -0500, Joshua Boehme wrote:
Contestmaster ais523, what is the current membership of Enigma?
the Left Hand, Murphy, root, Iammars, Wooble, Goethe, avpx, Zefram,
Pavitra, ais523, comex, Elysion, ehird, Sgeo, Billy Pilgrim
--
ais523
Notary
On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 09:34 -0800, Charles Reiss wrote:
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 07:36, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 06:56 -0500, Joshua Boehme wrote:
Contestmaster ais523, what is the current membership of Enigma?
the Left Hand, Murphy, root, Iammars, Wooble
On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 12:56 -0500, comex wrote:
Yesterday I was playing Monopoly with my brother and he loaned me some
money. Later in the game he asked for it back. The Monopoly rules
expressly forbid official loans, so by the rules of the game he
actually gave me mone for free; but I gave
(This was written in a hurry due to the recent scam, so probably is full
of bugs and mistakes atm. I just want to see what people think of the
idea. Also this doesn't include the amend/enact/repeal stuff, just gives
a flavour. This attempts to keep the current semantics of contract law
whilst
On Mon, 2008-11-17 at 13:10 -0500, Schrodinger's Cat wrote:
In accordance with Rule 869:
I am registering as a player.
I wish to be registered as a player.
I request registration as a player.
I request permission to be registered as a player.
I'm back!
...and there's no Registrar at
On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 16:20 -0500, comex wrote:
Of course you might complain that I don't annotate the Ruleset with
CFJs. Which is fair-- if someone has the spare time to, let them hold
the office...
R2166: CFJ 1911: This rule does not allow the creation of persons by
announcement.
R2215: CFJ
On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 19:19 -0500, Joshua Boehme wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 15:41:11 -0500
comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I cause Rule 1367 to amend itself by adding the following historical
annotation:
{
Note: comex CAN, and has been able to for the past several months,
cause this
On Thu, 2008-11-20 at 10:27 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
This message serves to resolve the Agoran Decision to choose the
holder of the Clerk of the Courts office. The option selected by
Agora is null.
This is entirely incorrect. Surely it was a tie?
--
ais523
On Thu, 2008-11-20 at 13:48 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
It's R754 that says a term defined in the rules is tied to its definition,
and that its definition takes precedence. So if R2126 causes something to
take a value outside its defined range, it conflicts with R754. I hope, by
your current
On Thu, 2008-11-20 at 14:11 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
There isn't a problem here: R1586 isn't triggered at all. It's to do
with things such as Contracts, which are rules-defined and exist outside
the rules somehow, and which can continue to exist when
On Thu, 2008-11-20 at 14:11 -0800, Kerim Aydin almost wrote (with rule
number typos corrected):
I say that VL for a particular OD is a R754(2) Rules-defined term and
that R2156 clearly defines VLOD. It doesn't say is set to or is
initially but it is a Rules-based term definition VLOD *is*
On Thu, 2008-11-20 at 23:05 +, Elliott Hird wrote:
On 20 Nov 2008, at 23:02, Roger Hicks wrote:
Vote Market allows tickets of any currency.
Oh. I leave Coin Votes.
Awesome, though! A coin market!
P.S. rename Vote Market to just Market. :P
I've used this: both in woggle's futures
On Thu, 2008-11-20 at 15:41 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
And R754 says if it says it is, it is
Very short digest of this disagreement for those watching: as far as I
can tell, it doesn't.
--
ais523
On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 07:29 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
I support. If someone says something not in the rules with an intent to
perform an action, normally it is reasonable to presume they meant the
correct version not the incorrect version (per R754
On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 15:49 +, Alex Smith wrote:
On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 07:29 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
I support. If someone says something not in the rules with an intent to
perform an action, normally it is reasonable to presume they meant
On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 09:07 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I was mixing a response to two separate posts by comex, sorry that they
were muddled, but they weren't lies. Some points/clarifications:
1. The Feb '08 change predates you and ehird, personally as players, if
I read the registration
On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 10:33 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
Scams are and have been rendered ineffective for the most trivial
reasons (annotations, decrease by -1), yet anti-scams with glaring
mistakes are considered effective?
This is actually something
On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 09:19 +1100, Michael Norrish wrote:
Nonetheless, I don't actually have a problem with your example
involving ais523. Perhaps this is because it's not much of a name.
If you put Bill in for ais523, my sensibilities might be more
offended.
As a data point, ais523 refers to
On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 03:40 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Uh, do the second and third paragraphs of R1607 actually sufficiently
imply that the Promoter CAN in fact distribute a proposal? -G.
Ugh, no they don't, as far as I can tell. A good thing that purported
proposal results are self-ratifying;
On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 07:06 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
On Thu, 2008-11-27 at 22:39 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2273a
Appeal 2273a
I
On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 07:10 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 07:05, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While a player owns at least 24 Rests, that player CAN be
deregistered by any player by announcement. A person so
On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 07:26 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
A very old tradition is that we used to give a strong weight to AFFIRM
in the name of this is a game, and judges work hard, and we should fucking
listen to them. I'm very, very, sorry that's dead.
Actually, I agree. Appeals panels should
On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 07:36 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
On Nov 28, 2008, at 10:12 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
happens. (Counterargument: this is defending the law, the law allows an
appeals court to pick one appropriate judgement over another
On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 07:58 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, comex wrote:
So can we please examine this appeal on its merits?
It has none. For gods sake you confessed to the crime and the judgement
was trivial on facts. To say that your already tried scam is
interesting in
On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 07:20 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
How can you have the audacity to even suggest with a straight face that
a REMAND of a guilty that was wholly uncontested is appropriate? Why
should anyone bother to judge anymore knowing that they will have to
fight tooth and nail for
On Sun, 2008-11-30 at 15:11 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 10:04 AM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another interesting data point: I was playing Cheat with a single deck
of cards with some friends. Someone called two fives, and put down
two cards. So I
On Sun, 2008-11-30 at 15:59 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
ehird wrote:
On 30 Nov 2008, at 22:15, Charles Schaefer wrote:
I might as well jump in head first. I also accept my nomination.
You get to do with a many-week backlog, plain incorrect info, and
inconsiderate messages.
Woo!
On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 16:08 -0500, comex wrote:
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 4:03 PM, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Someone remind me again why we have point award limits and fixed
points if the PRS is around?
Mainly because amending contest rules requires AI=2, but contestifying
something
On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 20:18 -0500, comex wrote:
I'd say that I've gotten more conservative... voting against new rules
without a good purpose and for repealing them (for example, Win by
Junta now encompasses the role of Win by Proposal, although I don't
think the latter has ever been used
On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 12:37 -0500, Sgeo wrote:
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 11:13 AM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 10:45 AM, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 18:41 -0500, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
Demoted to Delta: Bayes (twice!) (2nd class
On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 12:30 -0500, comex wrote:
We really need a Notary. I'm tired of having to search through old
reports-- Agora's stint with a web-accessible Notary site was highly
productive.
I could take on the office but I'd rather not. Alternatively, I'm
contemplating initiating a
On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 19:15 -0800, Taral wrote:
Scorekeepor's Scoreboard
Player Score
-
All other players have a score of 0.
I contest the accuracy of this report (to prevent any self-ratifications).
I'm pretty sure I have at least one point from Werewolves; I've spent
On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 12:12 -0700, Roger Hicks wrote:
Not sure if this changes anything at this point, but the above failed
as ais523 didn't have any favors (e transferred them to the PBA on Nov
20).
What, all of them? I thought I had a spare... Maybe not, though, it gets
hard to track all the
On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 18:44 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
For each contract listed below, I intend (without objection, and
assuming I am elected Notary) to terminate it.
/dev/null
I object to this termination (but not to the others).
--
ais523
On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 07:22 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 12:04 AM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wed 3 Dec 13:05:25 Pavitra awarded patent title Champion (U,V)
You don't get V for Champion. You do get it for MwP though, so it
works out. Is that a bug?
I'm not
On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 12:05 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
A mole has mentioned to me that the knives have been sharpened before the
carcass has even cooled, and no one has objected. Thanks, all! :P I
object to any/all attempts to make me inactive.
It wasn't meant to be an attack; I was trying to
On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 16:26 -0700, Roger Hicks wrote:
In lieu of publishing reports to the lists (they will be forthcoming,
but I have some programming to do first) the records at
http://nomic.bob-space.com/agoralog.aspx are up to date.
CoE: I'm not convinced the Win by Points worked and
On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 15:03 -0700, Roger Hicks wrote:
CROP WRV HOLDINGS
Farmer 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 X WRV
-
AFO53 35 1 0 3 0 3 40 11 26 1 0
ais523 3
On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 16:18 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
* Does Fookiemyartug still exist?
* Does the P2P Partnership still exist?
* Was Levi removed from the AFO's parties?
Not sure about the first two, but I'm pretty sure that Levi was removed
from the AFO's parties by proposal (although I can't
On Fri, 2008-12-05 at 11:03 -0500, comex wrote:
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 9:38 AM, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I call for judgement on the statement The Executor of the public
message that purported to initiate the Agoran Decisions on whether to
adopt proposals 5686-5687 cannot
On Fri, 2008-12-05 at 21:53 +, Elliott Hird wrote:
I change my name to the null string (i.e., without the quotes.)
Isn't that illegal, due to the null string already being generally used
to refer to a particular Patent Title?
--
ais523
On Fri, 2008-12-05 at 14:40 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
There was also the Quantum Crisis (major economic revamp turning
out to have failed due to a bug in a vote-affecting ability).
I didn't know of that one. Care to relate its history?
--
ais523
On Mon, 2008-12-08 at 10:36 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
All the contracts recently cleaned up were either never added, or
deleted in Wikidot's default sense (i.e. renamed by prepending
deleted:). However, this was never a pledge; BobTHJ simply wrote
on November 10:
Oh, I confused it with the
On Mon, 2008-12-08 at 18:07 -0500, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
Gratuitous Arguments by BobTHJ:
I'm guilty. Again, I ask for the court's mercy as I was on vacation
with limited internet.
I am inclined to impose a nominal fine of 1 coin under the PBA. Any
comments?
Seems reasonable. It
On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 21:52 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
I transfer a 0 ranch to the AFO.
The AFO transfers a 7 ranch to me.
As if the AFO didn't have enough zeroes already?
--
ais523
On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 16:23 -0700, Roger Hicks wrote:
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 16:09, The PerlNomic Partnership
perlno...@nomictools.com wrote:
The PNP withdraws one 4 crop from the PBA for ^8.
The PNP withdraws one 4 crop from the PBA for ^9.
Using a Addition Mill, the PNP mills 4 + 4 = 8.
On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 19:03 -0500, comex wrote:
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 5:32 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
I inform the PerlNomic Partnership of the following criminal cases
against it, and invite it to rebut the argument for its guilt. (I
don't think it's capable of sending
On Fri, 2008-12-12 at 11:16 -0500, comex wrote:
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 2:55 AM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
a) X is/are Y
b) Y is/are known as X
Any biological organism that is generally capable ... is a person
might fall under this. Probably doesn't,
On Fri, 2008-12-12 at 08:41 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
ehird wrote:
On 12 Dec 2008, at 06:54, Ed Murphy wrote:
Proposal: Undo the scam already
This wasn't actually the scam, you know; just the backup.
It's the only part of the scam that worked, assuming that CFJ 2282
is affirmed
On Fri, 2008-12-12 at 08:53 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
ais523 wrote:
This breaks a huge number of rules. [...] for which the question of
veracity is defined as UNDECIDABLE in rule 2110 is one of the most
obvious, but the word is is common enough that nounphrase is
nounphrase is a very
On Sat, 2008-12-13 at 18:07 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
6019 O 1 1.0 Murphy Undo the scam already
FOR x 5
ehird/comex, how much would you bribe me to cast AGAINSTx8 on this one?
(Assuming you can't somehow leverage your dictatorship to stop it
passing in the first place...)
--
ais523
On Fri, 2008-12-12 at 12:14 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
ais523 wrote:
Also, it is a very bad idea to put SHOULDs into the rules which cause
things other than players or people to carefully consider their actions.
Interpretation is performed by people.
(I remember when I submitted the
On Mon, 2008-12-15 at 22:32 -0500, Warrigal wrote:
I CFJ on the following statement:
If a CFJ were called on X, it would be legal to judge FALSE on the
CFJ, where X is defined as the following string, followed by a
quotation mark, followed by the same string, followed by a quotation
mark:
On Thu, 2008-12-18 at 09:54 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I've been toying with an idea for a combined brainfuck (er sorry BobTHJ)/
corewars match... by which I mean BF language and array but two programs
fighting for the array space. I think if done right it would be a bit
more like Robo Rally
On Thu, 2008-12-18 at 10:11 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Just goes to show great minds think alike while fools etc. Pondered an
arrangement just like this but worried about exactly that degeneracy (and
others). I thought I'd drop this fundamental corewars part:
The data buffer for each of
On Thu, 2008-12-18 at 18:37 -0500, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
Does there exist a decent Perl to Brainfuck parser / compiler?
(There probably does, as nobody in their right mind writes their code
directly in Brainfuck.)
Probably not. I'm working on a C to BF compiler based on gcc, and it's
On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 00:37 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
6. Code execution is simultaneous between competitors, but [ and ]
comparisons for both competitors occur before + and - (only place
order matters in a cycle). + and - are cumulative. Every symbol takes
one cycle to execute.
Not that
On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 00:37 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
e. If 1000 cycles pass with no winner as above, you both lose.
1000 seems too low, given that you have to set a value down from 128;
I'd suggest 1 or even 10. (Otherwise, a warrior could simply
create lots of fake flags with its
On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 15:10 +, Elliott Hird wrote:
seems very easy
[129 +s, then a large, large amount of s]
The 129 +s kill you, as you set your own flag to 0 after 128 of them.
Then your lots of s send you off the end of the tape and you lose
again.
--
ais523
On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 15:46 -0800, Taral wrote:
Activity since last report
--
Fri, 12 Dec 2008 15:51 - PRS revokes 5 points from ais523
Fri, 12 Dec 2008 15:51 - AAA revokes 3 points from ais523
Mon, 15 Dec 2008 00:00 - Contest weekly point allowances reset
Mon, 15 Dec
On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 23:25 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
woggle wrote:
Cleanliness is a public contract switch with values Unclean
(default) and Clean. Changes to Cleanliness are secured.
tracked by whom?
The Janitor.
* Murphy and the AFO agree to the following public
On Mon, 2008-12-22 at 09:46 -0800, Charles Schaefer wrote:
2008/12/22, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com:
I publish the following Notices of Violation:
{{
Charles violated R2143 by failing to publish the Notary's
weekly
report during the
On Mon, 2008-12-22 at 13:51 -0500, comex wrote:
Proposal: Cruft (AI=2)
{
Amend Rule 1023 by removing item (b) and all text under it, and by
renaming item (c) to item (b).
}
[Remove the paragraph definitions. While in theory they allow one
to refer to the 'fifth paragraph' of a rule with
On Tue, 2008-12-23 at 19:14 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
I preemptively object to all dependent actions attempted between now
and Dec. 31, 2012.
Note that ehird had a standing preemptive objection. If the other
preemptive objections work, so did this one, and Goethe's scam failed
all along.
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
On Sun, 2008-12-28 at 11:53 -0500, comex wrote:
[Summary: More y-points for me, to a total of 640, then a win
announcement.]
Just a quick explanation of why this works, but Goethe's attempt at the
same scam earlier didn't. It's all in the timing.
The Holidays rule says:
{{{
If some Rule
On Sun, 2008-12-28 at 11:56 -0500, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
This contract has the same basis as W30 1 through W30 37. The W30
contracts all fail, if I understand the contract rules correctly.
They aren't partnerships.
--
ais523
On Mon, 2008-12-29 at 14:56 -0800, Charles Schaefer wrote:
2008/12/29, Elliott Hird penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com:
I degregister.
Just to make sure, you might want to spell it correctly.
I don't know why you're leaving Agora too.
This actually is a reminder of a recent scam at
On Mon, 2008-12-29 at 18:15 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 6:01 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
It's
ambiguous whether deregistration or degregistration was meant, so
the last paragraph of Rule 2197 prevents it from having any effect
(contract-related or
On Wed, 2008-12-31 at 16:17 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
ais523 wrote:
On Mon, 2008-12-29 at 23:34 -0500, comex wrote:
In protest of this, I submit the following token Proposal (AI=1.7),
titled Moment of Silence:
{
Award each of {j, Murphy, ais523, 0x44, Billy Pilgrim} one Rest.
}
The
On Sun, 2009-01-04 at 19:07 -0600, Pavitra wrote:
6040 D 1 3.0 ais523 Scam reset
PRESENT. If the intent is to resolve ambiguity, why is it conditional
on the efficacy of a scam?
The intention is to refund points that the scam unfairly removed from
people, not to resolve
On Mon, 2009-01-05 at 08:04 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I announce my intent w/o three objections to make Brainfuck Joust a
contest[*].
[*]May have been done already during holiday.
You need to specify the contestmaster too (although it's obvious in this
case, probably best to specify it to
On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 14:40 +, Elliott Hird wrote:
On 6 Jan 2009, at 05:44, Ed Murphy wrote:
ehird http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2326
i end the pre trial phaseihjreu90yug9 u4983u5jiosjddsf
Oops, I almost fell asleep on my keyboard.
I NoV ehird for
On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 09:55 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jan 2009, Sgeo wrote:
On January 6th, 2009, 2:52:53 AM, B Nomic has died. May it rest in peace.
Obviously, the message sent from Agora had its desired effect.
It was allegedly destroyed by a Terrible Scam, which may or may
On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 14:41 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
ais523 wrote:
6038 O 1 1.7 comex Moment of Silence
AGAINSTx8 (I believe only 5 of these are valid, but get slightly
confused as to how the Holiday screws up voting power.)
Your caste was 5 both before and after the
On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 20:13 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009, Charles Schaefer wrote:
Unless someone can point me to somewhere where the first game ends and,
presumably, the second game starts, then I argue Michael Norrish should
still be the Speaker. (this doesn't mean he has
On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 20:13 -0500, Sgeo wrote:
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 9:45 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 21:22 -0500, comex wrote:
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 9:05 PM, Charles Schaefer
chuckles11...@gmail.com wrote:
Inquiry CFJ: {The current Speaker is Michael
On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 23:14 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
Text of adopted proposals:
}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
Proposal 6027 (Democratic, AI=2.0, Interest=1) by Elysion
none
Amend rule 2124 (Agoran Satisfaction) by appending the following
sentence
On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 23:08 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
Mon 5 Jan 21:32:10 Warrigal becomes a senator
Something's gone badly wrong here. How did Warrigal manage to last long
enough to become a Senator without accidentally deregistering emself
again?
--
ais523
On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 23:18 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
For castes, see the Grand Poobah's report.
For inactive and non-first-class players, see the Registrar's report.
For players in the chokey, see the CotC's report.
This boilerplate probably needs changing. Chokey's now done in terms of
Rests.
101 - 200 of 1537 matches
Mail list logo
