Zefram wrote:
quazie wrote:
They can be removed from being judges on them can't they??
Takes a while. I think we've got some still waiting on Peter.
1657-8, but the deliberation period has expired, so CotC comex
may recuse em at will.
(The CotC database should be mostly caught up at this
Proto-proposal: down with non-person players
{{{
Amend rule 869 by appending the paragraph:
A player who is not a person and has never been a natural person
can be deregistered by any player by announcement.
[We are faced with some players that used to be non-natural legal
persons a
Roger Hicks wrote:
> An automated web-page can easily track transfers of property and
>property ownership taking 90% of the hassle out of it. An audit record can
>be maintained by sending e-mail notification of all transactions to the
>mailing list,
Be careful there. If transfers and ot
Sorry, I wasn't very clear. What you describe is more or less what I was
referring to regarding "manual override".
For instance, I have no problem with a bot distributing Proposals
automatically as long as at least one player (or more preferably a chain of
command) has the ability to manually dis
quazie wrote:
>They can be removed from being judges on them can't they??
Takes a while. I think we've got some still waiting on Peter.
-zefram
Roger Hicks wrote:
>What's wrong with automation?
It goes away when its maintainer does. It has in some cases not in fact
been kept up to date. If it bypasses email, there's no reliable record
of the transactions that actually occurred.
I'm all in favour of automation, as a tool for officers to
Maud wrote:
> How temporary should it be?
Only until the current state of emergency has passed.
(by temporary, I meant "temporary way of killing a proposal until we
fixed abortion" not a temporary power).
> What is the real role of the Speaker?
A true prize for winning the game; I'd suggest th
Zefram wrote:
comex wrote:
How so?
We have in fact had several CFJs assigned to them.
-zefram
They can be removed from being judges on them can't they??
On 5/21/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You were on my side with this one, Maud.
Yes, I remembered that this came from Cobalt (or something like that),
but I didn't remember *why* it happened.
Veto used to "abort" proposals,
but then we di
On 5/20/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Do you disagree that the phrase should be added, or that it would
succeed in de-criminalizing claims such as BobTHJ's? (Assuming
for the sake of argument that at least one of em was, in fact,
false.)
I disagree that the phrase would decriminaliz
1. (Technical) Automate the proposal distribution process entirely.
Not likely to pass after what happened to Nomic World.
What's wrong with automation? The internet is a much more stable and
long-term place now then it used to be. NomicWorld has been defunct for
14-15(?) years now. A
Zefram wrote:
> R2133 only applies to a good-faith error.
As an officer, I once had to make an impossible assignment that
was allowed to stand under "good faith errors" (had to do with
auctioning fractional units). I argued that I could "error on
the side of caution", in other words purposefully
Roger Hicks wrote:
>While interesting, I don't think Nemo can register as a player, because
>(despite the language of Item #6 below) because it can not make an
>announcement as called for in R869.
I think there's a case for my posting of the agreement to constitute
the announcement of registration
While interesting, I don't think Nemo can register as a player, because
(despite the language of Item #6 below) because it can not make an
announcement as called for in R869.
BobTHJ
On 5/22/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No players at all have agreed to the following R1742 binding agree
On 5/22/07, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/21/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I hereby register as a player, with the nickname root.
Welcome back, human!
Thanks!
> I hereby make the following agreement under R1742, heavily based on
> the Pineapple Partnership.
Argh
On 5/22/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Trial judge selection is at the discretion of the CotC, but
Justice selection is random. I have never knowingly cheated on
a random determination in this game (or for that matter, knowingly
cheated or lied in the fora, saving in a game of Mafia
On 5/22/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ian Kelly wrote:
>I hereby make the following agreement under R1742, heavily based on
>the Pineapple Partnership.
What's your theory by which you can make a R1742 agreement with only
one player?
-zefram
Game precedent. There have been multiple R
comex wrote:
>How so?
We have in fact had several CFJs assigned to them.
-zefram
Maud wrote:
> There was no reason to believe that the appeal would be handled
> fairly.
Trial judge selection is at the discretion of the CotC, but
Justice selection is random. I have never knowingly cheated on
a random determination in this game (or for that matter, knowingly
cheated or lied i
On 5/22/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You know, I'm amazed that three folks didn't appeal the original
(self-interested) judgements that said partnerships could be players
in the first place.
There was no reason to believe that the appeal would be handled
fairly.
--
C. Maud Image
On 5/22/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[The long-term inactive players have been screwing up CFJ assignment.
How so? R698 only says "Each active player is eligible to judge..."
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 players
in the first place.
-Goethe
On 5/21/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I hereby register as a player, with the nickname root.
Welcome back, human!
I hereby make the following agreement under R1742, heavily based on
the Pineapple Partnership.
Argh...
2. The Steward shall act as a corporation sole, in a manner
23 matches
Mail list logo
