Re: DIS: RE: BUS: Ruling, in appeal 1937a

comex wrote: > On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 9:29 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Speaking personally, I moved to REASSIGN 1651, not just because the >> judge lacked understanding, but because this lack appeared to be so >> severe that I believed e would continue

DIS: Proto: Fix voter eligibility

Proto-Proposal: Fix voter eligibility (AI = 3, please) Amend Rule 107 (Initiating Agoran Decisions) by replacing this text: (b) A description of the class of eligible voters sufficient to enable public agreement on which persons are eligible. In particular, an explicit

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent on CFJ 1932a (fwd)

comex wrote: > Personally I think the most pressing concern is the lack of any > meaningful Agoran currency. Previously, even a judge who didn't > egregiously abuse the system was compelled to judge accurately and on > time so that e might gain the Blue VC. I've been trying to tweak Notes into a

Re: DIS: Proto: Fix voter eligibility

comex wrote: > On 5/19/08, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> proto related to CFJ 1651 > > Ha! > > I think that "conservative" should be defined. I also think the > explicit list bit should just be cut out entirely, or replaced with a > S

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent on CFJ 1932a (fwd)

comex wrote: > Not really. Even the contracts that define dependent actions aren't > really allowed to (Rule 1728: "the Rules explicitly authorize..."). I think this is covered by the first paragraph of Rule 2198: If a contract specifies a mechanism by which Contract Changes to it c

DIS: Re: BUS: posture, senate

comex wrote: > On 5/19/08, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I flip my posture to Sitting. >> >> I intend, with 2 Senate supporters, to call an Emergency Session. > Having achieved 2 Senate support, I hereby call an Emergency Session. Who supported this? Wooble didn't (at least not in

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Criminal notifications

Goethe wrote: > On Thu, 15 May 2008, Ed Murphy wrote: >> I hereby notify the following players of the following criminal cases, >> and invite em to rebut the argument against eir guilt: >> >> 1948 Goethe >> 1949 Murphy >> 1950 Wooble >> 1951 Goethe &

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent on CFJ 1932a (fwd)

comex wrote: > On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 2:42 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> comex wrote: >> >>> Not really. Even the contracts that define dependent actions aren't >>> really allowed to (Rule 1728: "the Rules explicitly author

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Hay guyz

Ivan Hope wrote: > On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Elliott Hird > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> If I am ehird, I initiate a criminal CFJ against Ivan Hope CXXVII, alledging >> that e violated Rule 2173 by revealing the text of that private contract. > > My defense: Rule 101 protects my right to

DIS: Re: FW: BUS: Duality

ais523 wrote: > I call for judgement on the following statement: "In the quoted message, ehird > sent an infinite number of messages." Gratuitous counterargument: X sends a message (actually), so Y sends the same message (legally), so X sends the same message... but e already actually does so, s

Re: DIS: Re: FW: BUS: Duality

comex wrote: > O Goethe, why do you always quote your own judgements? :D Because there are more of them? :) cotc=# select p.name, count(*) from events e join events e2 on e.link = e2.id join players p on e2.player = p.id join matters m on e2.matter = m.id where m.typecode <> 'Appeal' group by p

DIS: Pending court business

Inquiry cases: 1956-57, 1958, 1961, 1962 Criminal cases: 1951, 1963 Appeal cases: 1936a In this time of emergency, I urge my fellow senators to consider sitting up and volunteering for part of this case load.

DIS: Re: BUS: No unappealable judgements

Pavitra wrote: > I submit the following proposal, entitled "No unappealable judgements", > with AI=1.7 and II=1: > > {{ > Amend rule 911 by inserting the text " of REMAND or REASSIGN" after > "a judgement" in the second paragraph. > }} A judgement of REMAND or REASSIGN does not cause a judgement

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1936a assigned to comex, Pavitra, pikhq

Pavitra wrote: > Simply put: persons make binding agreements; Agora makes those > agreements into contracts, and eventually perhaps contests. The > judgement for a question on equation is not even a contract. Counterargument: R1742 says "Contracts are binding agreements governed by the rules".

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1963 assigned to OscarMeyr

OscarMeyr wrote: > I do not immediately see how R101 overrides R2173 regarding the > disclosure of a private contract. I may have to reread the a-d > archives, this'll teach me to delete emails! The disclosure message was actually posted by ehird, and (if Duality works as intended) also lega

Re: DIS: RE: Pending court business

ais523 wrote: > Oh, Eris, just a note: according to the CotC website at > , > you're over 2824 days late on a judgement. Fixed now.

Re: BUS: RE: DIS: RE: BUS: RE: [CotC] CFJ 1961 assigned to Pavitra

ais523 wrote: > I call for judgement on the following statement: "It is possible to > take a game action even in a message which includes the disclaimer > in the evidence section." But what is truth? Is truth a changing law? We both have truths-- are mine the same as yours? (Watch these message

Re: DIS: RE: Pending court business

ehird wrote: > 2008/5/22 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> Fixed now. >> > > What was wrong? I recently back-populated CFJ 1234 into the database; the judge delivered judgement, but was recused and replaced by Eris for the purpose of responding to a motion (request fo

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 1933

ehird wrote: > I judge this contract for CFJ 1933, which I join: > {This contract is a pledge. Parties to this contract may not judge CFJ > 1933 by anything other than this contract.} CFJ 1933 is an inquiry case, so this judgement is invalid.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1966 assigned to Ivan Hope

Ivan Hope wrote: > On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 9:41 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>R101 item i. reads: i. The map being obviously the most >>important rule, every person has the right to move it back up to >>the top of the ruleset if the Rule

DIS: Judicial status

ehird, you're about one day overdue to judge CFJ 1933. pikhq, ditto for CFJs 1934 and 1948, plus 1949-50 (closely related to 1948) are due about one day from now. There are two pending assignments (1951 and 1974) and no standing judges. I'll probably do another rotation on May 26. comex, you ha

DIS: Proto-proto: Privatize the economy

Proto-proto: Privatize the economy (AI = 2, please) Copy the current text of Rule 2126 (Notes) to an employment contract with all players as parties, and a "parties CAN leave this contract by announcement" clause, and changing "Notes are gained" to "Notes are earned". Amend Rule 2126 to regulate

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Here and Gone Again: a Registrar's Report

root wrote: > Has anybody else noticed that of the 18 current first-class players, > all but 4 are listed at gmail addresses? Apparently, we've been > invaded by Google Nomic. I noticed much the same over at B at one point, and labeled the trend as "Judean People's Front / People's Front of Jude

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Extended voting period for Proposal 5520

root wrote: > On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 11:32 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> root wrote: >> >>> Due to lack of quorum, the voting period for Proposal 5520 has been >>> extended to end Sat, 31 May 2008 12:53:03 UTC. I hereby chastise and >>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1951 assigned to OscarMeyr

comex wrote: > On 5/29/08, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> But the CFJ isn't over *appropriate* judgements, it's over assigning a >> judgement at all. > > Umm, that's just a wording thing. What I was attempting to try em for > is failing to augment the ambiguity in the Rules with

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Proto: Bidding for Judgeship

BobTHJ wrote: > None of the other offices have such powerful 'perks'. I think this is > part of what makes CotC elections so hotly contested while other > offices struggle to keep officers who can publish a regular report. But how much of a perk is it, really? No process of judge selection will

DIS: Re: BUS: Farming

BobTHJ wrote: > On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 1:46 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> The AFO transfers three 1 crops, four 5 crops, and a 0 crop to me. > > You only successfully transferred one 1 crop as that is all the AFO has. Could I please get an up-to-date list

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Farming

comex wrote: > On 5/30/08, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> The AFO transfers three 1 crops, four 5 crops, and a 0 crop to me. > Care to give some crops back in return? Once I get confirmation of what I still have. Some Bank of Agora transactions may also be useful at this point.

Re: DIS: Proto: Bidding for Judgeship

BobTHJ wrote: >>> When the CotC >>> ends the bidding phase on a judicial case e SHALL assign a qualified >>> entity from among all qualified entities whose total JP bid toward >>> them is greater than all other qualified entities to be judge of that >>> case. For each player who bid toward that en

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1951 assigned to OscarMeyr

ais523 wrote: > NttDF? (What happens if you send a proto to a-b, anyway?) On top of strong game custom, it fails to meet Rule 106's "clear indication" requirement. > as far as I could tell, it would be inequitable to judge anything but > what the parties wanted. [snip] > What would other players

Re: DIS: Rules as Binding Agreement

Zefram wrote: >> Other persons who participate >> in Agora SHOULD abide by the rules, but do not become party to >> them unless they explicitly intend to do so, e.g. by entering >> into a non-rule contract. > > This seems contradictory. Enteri

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: RE: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1934 assigned to Pavitra

Pavitra wrote: > CFJs 1883-4 treated questions as statements, so ruling FALSE here > would probably constitute overturning those precedents. Only yes-or-no questions, and only because "Is X true?" was judged equivalent to "X is true." (see CFJ 1894).

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Batch processing of CFJs 1948-51

OscarMeyr wrote: > He got hit with two criminal CFJs for the same act. I'm trying to > find a way to dismiss the second one as double jeopardy (regardless > of my ruling on CFJ 1948, as I feel CFJ 1951 should have been > rejected ex genesis), but since it's citing a different rule than CFJ

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1935a assigned to Murphy, OscarMeyr, BobTHJ

comex wrote: > On 6/1/08, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I preemptively consent to any judgment of REMAND this panel attempts to >> make. >> >> BobTHJ > > You can't do this anymore. Blame Agree2Support. Rule 2124 can be interpreted as allowing pre-emptive support.

DIS: Re: BUS: Contestmaster awards

root wrote: > The contestmasters eligible to be awarded points for running contests > during the month of May are listed below. To facilitate this, I > request that each of these contestmasters provide me with: > > 1) a current list of membership in the contest. > 2) a list of any additional pla

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 5521-5527

root wrote: > Witness the recent total > lack of participation in Fight Arena, which I suspect is largely > because everybody is already focused on the AAA. Speaking personally, my lack of participation in Fight Arena has nothing to do with the AAA, and everything to do with my being lousy at "gu

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 5521-5527

comex wrote: > The higher the Score Index, as a score winner, you start more and more > behind everyone else in the next "game", ergo less incentive to get > points. Whereas, the lower the Score Index, once someone is close to winning, everyone else has less incentive to get points until after th

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1966 remanded to Ivan Hope

I wrote: > Rule 1742 does not require explicit consent. I intend (with 2 support) > to appeal this case, and I recommend that the panel judge REASSIGN. With the support of Wooble and root, I appeal CFJ 1966.

Re: DIS: RE: Hall of Sensibility

Wooble wrote: > Speaking of which, has their recently been a way to achieve a > non-integer VVLOD? Is there any good reason not to just make VVLOD an > integer and get rid of that awful sentence? What might be better is to refactor rounding rules, e.g. "banker's rounding" = "breaking ties towa

DIS: Re: BUS: Hall of Sensibility

root wrote: > I spend 3 Db + 3 E to gain 3 G. > I spend 2 D + 2 Gb to gain 2 Bb. > I spend E + Db to gain Bb. These fail; the method you attempted does not yet exist. Proposal to add that method coming up (I did the write-up a while back, just didn't want to spam the list with too many proposals

DIS: Re: [CotC] CFJ 1966b assigned to root, Wooble, Murphy

> Appeal 1966b > Assigned to root (panelist):(as of this message) > Assigned to Wooble (panelist): (as of this message) > Assigned to Murphy (panelist): (as of this message) I assure you that the first two s

DIS: New voting analysis service

http://zenith.homelinux.net/assessor/ The new form on this page allows root-style "which players most frequently vote like I do?" analyses. (The database only has records from Proposal 5500 onward, though.) I also cleaned up the filtered proposal queries to perform as advertised.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1984 assigned to root

comex wrote: > On 6/5/08, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1984 > > Out of curiosity, why does the actual database entry say that the case > was assigned "as of this message" (rather than including

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1984 assigned to root

Eris wrote: > On 6/5/08, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Because I forgot to run the 'setdate' script after the e-mail went >> out. Fixed now, and similarly for 1985 and 1966b. > > Are my old python scripts still being used?! So far, yes. I should

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] Docket

OscarMeyr wrote: >> 1935aais523, Eris,Murphy, BobTHJ, Sat 7 Jun 01:05:41 >>ehird, Ivan Hope OscarMeyr > > Do my fellow panelists care to propose a decision in this case? Fix the loophole in Rule 1504 legislatively, then REMAND.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1984 assigned to root

Ivan Hope wrote: > Also, I appeal the judgement I intended to appeal. Unclear to me, hence I'm treating it as ineffective.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1985 assigned to Pavitra

Wooble wrote: > On the other hand, MMI terms should probably only be used when the > rule using them is explicitly defining an action, not when some action > is implied. Rule 2153 suffers from the same sort of thing, although > SHOULD is a lot different than CANNOT. Proto: Amend R2152 by append

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1985 assigned to Pavitra

root wrote: > On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> If the described state of affairs is not an action, then these >> terms apply instead to the change to the gamestate that would >> otherwise occur and lead direct

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1984 assigned to root

Ivan Hope wrote: > On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 3:12 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Ivan Hope wrote: >> >>> Also, I appeal the judgement I intended to appeal. >> Unclear to me, hence I'm treating it as ineffective. > > I appeal the judge

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1984 assigned to root

Eris wrote: > setdate was totally a hack. It was supposed to be temporary until I > got the other script to send out the email and set the date itself. I don't know if my host can be configured to send e-mail, and even if it can, I don't want to try. (It does act as a POP3 server, but only for i

Re: DIS: Weird wording

root wrote: > On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 4:59 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> What's this in 2198? >> >> Otherwise, any party to the >> contract CAN make Contract Changes to that contract without >> Objection if, before the dependent action is resolved, no party >> blocks the c

DIS: Re: BUS: Oddballs

Ivan Hope wrote: > e asked for it! > > For all integers n from 1 to A(G_64,G_64), I award the oddball {0,1/n} to > ehird. For any non-math-geeks in the audience, http://godplaysdice.blogspot.com/2007/09/xkcd-number.html

DIS: CotC web admin v0.1

Implemented: initiate, decide (arguments/evidence containing ' seem to run into a bug) Not implemented: appeal, decide appeal, inform defendant/parties, end pre-trial, add/change player info, bar, recuse, add/change exhibit

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1937 judged FALSE

Wooble wrote: > On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 2:50 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Judge: Wooble >> Judgement: > > The judgement is missing here... I missed a piece of the web-based "record decision" form. It's

Re: DIS: CotC web admin v0.1

comex wrote: > On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 3:26 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Implemented: initiate, decide (arguments/evidence containing ' seem >> to run into a bug) > While you're at it... > http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1240&

Re: DIS: CotC web admin v0.1

comex wrote: > While you're at it... > http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1240'' > > Causes a database error. This might lead to some sort of SQL injection, FWIW. Incidentally, there was no past danger of SQL injection because Apache was only granted query access until yesterday.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1985 assigned to Pavitra

Pavitra wrote: > There is, I think, a precedent somewhere to the effect that a state of > affairs can remain in place even when it can no longer come into being. > Something involving holding an office, or perhaps MwoP. So it would be > unreasonable to interpret "CANNOT have" as synonymous with "C

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5541-5545

Pavitra wrote: > On Saturday 7 June 2008 12:13:46 Ed Murphy wrote: >> Suggested fix for the first problem with 5542: If the prior judgement >> ceases to be effective, then the contract is amended to read as it would >> have if it had not been amended as specified b

DIS: Re: BAK: [Fwd: Judgements]

Ivan Hope wrote: > On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 3:21 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 1988: UNDETERMINED >> >> The dangling pronoun "it" is sufficiently vague to make this judgement >> appropriate. > > True, "it" can refer to

DIS: Re: BAK: Proto-proposal: Chambers

root wrote: > Now that I think about it, can filibuster, as currently written, even > work? Couldn't setting the quorum too high to be adopted be construed > as "preventing a proposal from taking effect", a Power-3 secured > change per Rule 106? No more than defining the F/A threshold needed for

DIS: Re: BAK: Questions

BobTHJ wrote: > 1. Who manages agoranomic.org? It could use an update (about a year > out of date). Eris hosts it, but most of the content was written by Zefram. > 2. Should we designate one of these backup lists as the unofficial > "discussion-forum"? Some of us are sending mail to one while ot

DIS: Re: BUS: lateJudgement of CFJ 1964

comex wrote (to a-b, delivery delayed): > I judge CFJ 1964 UNIMPUGNED. I've updated the CotC DB to reflect the earlier date of judgement.

Re: DIS: Re: BAK: Proto-proposal: Chambers

root wrote: > On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> root wrote: >> >>> Now that I think about it, can filibuster, as currently written, even >>> work? Couldn't setting the quorum too high to be adopted be constru

Re: DIS: Proposal idea

avpx wrote: > My idea is an official currency, the Napier, abbreviated Np, which is > the base-10 log of its worth. 2 Np is worth 10x as much as 1 Np which > is worth 10x as much as 0 Np. One can transfer, for example, 1 Np to a > person who has 2 Np, and, assuming no tax, the recipient will have

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposal 5546

Quazie wrote: > On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 7:35 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 6:53 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> NUM FL AI SUBMITTER TITLE >>> 5546 D0 2ais523 Monstrous Decrees >> COE: You missed my proposal "Empower the Notary" (t

Re: DIS: Proposal idea

avpx wrote: > On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 9:59 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> avpx wrote: >> >>> My idea is an official currency, the Napier, abbreviated Np, which is >>> the base-10 log of its worth. 2 Np is worth 10x as much as 1 Np which &g

Re: DIS: Proposal idea

Ivan Hope wrote: > And once people advance as far as log(37) rather than > 1.56820172, they'd like to go ahead and make it 37 Np. Speak for yourself.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AGORA AGORA AGORA AGORA

Goethe wrote: > On Wed, 11 Jun 2008, Nick Vanderweit wrote: >> But then people would know how many FOR and AGAINST votes there had >> been, and would simply use that to judge how they would vote. > > That's ok. Games to play: >-So who votes first? >-What if you vote as a decoy and change

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AGORA AGORA AGORA AGORA

Goethe wrote: > Or, we could bring back mafia, that was nice. WANT. (They've been doing the Werewolf variety at the local gaming conventions for a year or two now.)

DIS: Re: BAK: Criminal case

Pavitra wrote: > I initiate a criminal case against comex for falsely stating to a > public forum that Hillary Rodham Clinton is a senator, who in fact > has never even been so much as a player. This is unsuccessful because it did not specify the rule allegedly breached.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AGORA AGORA AGORA AGORA

root wrote: > On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 9:16 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Goethe wrote: >> >>> Or, we could bring back mafia, that was nice. >> WANT. (They've been doing the Werewolf variety at the local gaming >> conventions for a

DIS: [Fwd: Thank you for writing to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton]

Original Message From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Thank you for writing to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:35:41 -0400 Dear Friend: Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts and concerns with me via e-mail. I hope

DIS: OVERLOOKED is still broken

Ivan Hope, Pavitra, Zefram: Why did you vote against Proposal 5520?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1936a assigned to root, BobTHJ, Ivan Hope

Ivan Hope wrote: > On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 1:56 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I intend to send the following message on behalf of the panel, with >> the support of BobTHJ and Ivan Hope: >> >> Prior Judge Murphy's interpretation of Rule 2169 is a reasonable one >> in the face of real

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Belle

Pavitra wrote: > On Friday 13 June 2008 9:46:55 Ed Murphy wrote: >> [I pledge to ASAP spend a major chord to increase the VVLOD of the >> first player who correctly explains why I chose this proposal title.] > > http://query.nytimes.com/

Re: DIS: Re: BAK: Proto-Judgement on 1989, ponderances of 1990

Goethe wrote: > The (non-Agoran-source) quote that Murphy posted on "speech acts" Eris posted it, not me.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: banking

comex wrote: > On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 1:53 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I change the deposit rate for VCs to 48.0 >> I change the deposit rate for 5 crops to 77.0 >> >> I deposit 2 5 crops to gain 154 pens. >> I deposit 1 VC to gain 48 pens. > > What is a VC? I think it's a

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Intractable cases

Pavitra wrote: > I submit the following proposal, "Intractable cases", AI=2, II=2: > { > Amend rule 911 by replacing the third paragraph with: > > The entities qualified to be assigned as judge of an appeal case > whose prior question has never been suspended before the case > w

Re: DIS: Proto-Judgement of CFJ 1996

comex wrote: > It is really too bad that there is no mail archive from this period, > so I cannot see the controversy over this. (Eris?) But it seems like > this precedent is not what I thought. Steve (I think) provided me with case files going back to 1089 without a break, as well as almost 40

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Belle

Pavitra wrote: > On Friday 13 June 2008 8:51:40 Ed Murphy wrote: >> Pavitra wrote: >>> On Friday 13 June 2008 9:46:55 Ed Murphy wrote: >>>> why I chose this proposal title. >>> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9D04E1DD153DE334BC4B52DFB566838

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Intractable cases

root wrote: > On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Suggested alternative: >> >> Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, if the prior question has >> been suspended more than twice, then the panel SHALL assign >>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Intractable cases

Pavitra wrote: > Alternative alternative: Append the following paragraph to R2158: > Assigning judgement to a judicial question is secured. What would this do?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Werewolves of Agora Nomic

Ivan Hope wrote: > Well, this is not what I'm used to. I thought roleclaiming and public > voting (which entails bandwagons) were nice aspects of the game. Well, you can certainly /imply/ that you (have a certain role / will vote a certain way). Conventional wisdom in face-to-face play is that t

DIS: Re: BUS: Werewolves, take two

root wrote: > I agree to this. Without three objections, I intend to make The Werewolves of Agora Nomic a contest, with me as the sole contestmaster.

DIS: Re: A private contract

ehird wrote, privately: > I agree to the following: > > { > This is a private contract. > This is a pledge. > When a party to this contract wishes to say "support", they must > instead say "obejct". > } This sort of thing was already shot down by CFJs 1260-61 (basically a refusal to attempt dist

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5547-5555

Wooble wrote: > On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 8:18 AM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hmm, why is everybody (except one voting PRESENT, apparently) against >> this? Does it break something? > > Some people prefer to have the right to do the thousands if not > millions of non-game-related actions t

DIS: Re: BUS: Werewolves, take two

ehird wrote: > I agree to this contract. There are 5 contestants, so I'm obligated to start a game. I'll wait a few more days in case anyone else wants to join.

DIS: Imminent rotation

Would any of the new players like to sit up before the next rotation? (See Rule 1871.)

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5547-5555

comex wrote: > On 6/17/08, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> votes > > Voting when identifying proposals strictly by number (as opposed to > quoting the distribution message) makes it much more difficult for the > general public to see what you're voting

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Werewolves, take two

Wooble wrote: > On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 2:59 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Is it just me, or is there no defined length for the voting period? I >>> suppose Rule 107 says it should last for seven days, but that seems a >>> bit long. >&g

Re: DIS: 1st proposal

cdm014 wrote: > I was under the impression only one player could fill an office. But offices can be (and have been) filled by partnerships.

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements

Quazie wrote: > If possible I bar ehrid from the above CFJ. Not possible. Rule 591, excerpt: The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case, and in the initiating announcement e CAN disqualify one person from assignment as judge of the case.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Banking, farming

Quazie wrote: > On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 8:18 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> BobTHJ wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 12:44 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> I rename land #75 to Union Train Depot >>> Fails. A la

DIS: Judge assignment tweak

In the interest of spreading the judicial workload among as many players as possible, I've updated the 'assign judge' web form to give preference to hugging players for inquiry cases, similarly hanging for criminal.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Paradox cleanup

ais523 wrote: > root wrote: >> What is unknown about the current set of CFJs? > Whether comex filed an equity case against the Gnarlier Contract. (E > tried to, and it was found UNDECIDABLE whether this was possible, so > I can only include that it's undecidable whether e created the CFJ. > Murp

DIS: Re: BUS: Office of Greeter

cdm014 wrote: > I submit the following proposal as player cdm014. > > Co-Authors are: > Zefram > avpx > ihope > -root > the player who sends e-mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Murphy. > Title: Agoran Welcoming Committee Agora does not use the convention of "proposals im

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Repeal Partnerships

comex wrote: > On 6/18/08, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I submit the following proposal, titled "Repeal Partnerships" (AI=2, II=0): > > I wouldn't support repealing partnerships altogether-- for example, > the AFO provides a nice place for Murphy and I to store crops-- but > there are

Re: DIS: Proto: Emergency exit

Goethe wrote: > Solutions proposed: > 1. judicially declare all actions performed by "annabel" to be > (retroactively) ineffective because, in retrospect, the messages didn't > constitute clear communication as to whom they applied to (I still think > this would have and did work, hence no

Re: DIS: proto Stock Market

cdm014 wrote: > 2. This contract creates a currency known as SMDs which are fungible. What is this an initialism for? "which are fungible" should be removed; it's a broken version of what Rule 2166 (Assets) already covers (e.g. instances should not be fungible while they have different owners).

Re: DIS: Fwd: Large messages

comex wrote: > Oh, and if it would be possible to make 46 Mr. Monopoly contracts > without restating the contract's text every single time, I could avoid > large messages much more easily. But then again, that's not game > custom, is it? Game custom holds that locally defined abbreviations are R

<    7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   >