On Wednesday 08 August 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On 8/8/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 8/8/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Proposal: Support Ordinary
> > >
> > > Amend Rule 2142 by adding the paragraph:
> > > Any player may cause a Democratic proposal with a
On Wednesday 08 August 2007, Zefram wrote:
> After a proposal with an adoption index of at least 3 passes,
> the toastmaster CAN initiate a toast to Agora, and SHALL do so
> as soon as possible with a bag on eir shoulder.
That wording is more concise, and perhaps in this case the
Taral wrote:
>Yes, but I hate tracking that number.
I previously suggested a couple of ways round that, which you might like
to try. One is to always vote *10^6 (or * your favourite largish number):
the excess votes get disallowed, but there's a possibility that you'd
fall foul of R2149. The oth
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If CFJ 1718 is judged IRRELEVANT, anyone want to CFJ on who the proposer
is here? For the time being I'm presuming that the message is legally
from a player, and hence legally submitting a proposal; I'm tentatively
recording the proposer as being
On 8/8/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/8/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Proposal: Support Ordinary
> >
> > Amend Rule 2142 by adding the paragraph:
> > Any player may cause a Democratic proposal with an Adoption
> > Index of 2 to become Ordinary, With 2
On 8/8/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Proposal: Support Ordinary
>
> Amend Rule 2142 by adding the paragraph:
> Any player may cause a Democratic proposal with an Adoption
> Index of 2 to become Ordinary, With 2 Supporters. This rule
> takes precedence over Ru
On 8/8/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> root, care to swap pseudo-judgements on these?
Sure thing. Proto-judgement of CFJ 1717:
Zefram has argued that the message in question was unclear because it
lacked the usual "Proposal:" line to indicate that a proposal
submission was int
On 8/8/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Taral wrote:
> >> 5120 Oi 1Murphy Allow implicit resolution
> >FOR
>
> Your voting limit on the ordinary proposals in this batch is 4.
Yes, but I hate tracking that number. So I vote once unless I feel the
need to vote more.
--
Taral <[EM
Taral wrote:
>> 5120 Oi 1Murphy Allow implicit resolution
>FOR
Your voting limit on the ordinary proposals in this batch is 4.
-zefram
Peekee wrote:
> If I am foolish enough to allow
>other people/Players to send email as if from me. Then those messages
>should be considered as being sent from me.
Who sent the message is an interesting philosophical question. We've
always accepted messag
On 8/8/07, Peekee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would urge Judge root to Judge TRUE. If I am foolish enough to allow
> other people/Players to send email as if from me. Then those messages
> should be considered as being sent from me. What if somebody left
> their email account open and somebody s
On 8/8/07, Peekee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
> > I CFJ on the following:
> >
> > Peekee submitted an email to the agora-discussion forum containing "Fnord!"
> >
> > --
> > Peekee
> >
>
>
> I would urge Judge root to Judge TRUE. If I am foolish enough to allow
> other
root, care to swap pseudo-judgements on these?
Bah! I seem to do this on about every other official message I send.
Thanks for the reminder!
BobTHJ
On 8/8/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BobTHJ, you sent your votes to a-d again.
>
>
Zefram wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > A knight SHALL NOT publish statements that e believes are
> > > false. A knave SHOULD NOT publish statements that e
> > > believes are true.
>
> Yuck. That sounds completely unworkable. It's definitely a recipe for
> confusion, espec
BobTHJ, you sent your votes to a-d again.
Zefram wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> 5124 AGAINST
>
> What's the problem with proper disinterest? Having the penalty apply
> to disinterested proposals provides a perverse incentive for people
> to vote on disinterested proposals contrary to their actual opinion of
> the proposal. That's
Zefram wrote:
> Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Gunner Nomic 2.0 0 1 1 0
>
> Per CFJ 1697, Gunner Nomic 2.0 is not and never has been a player.
I disagree with that judgement, hence my current attempt to appeal
it. If it doesn't get 2 support, I'll update the report accordingl
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I CFJ on the following:
Peekee submitted an email to the agora-discussion forum containing "Fnord!"
--
Peekee
I would urge Judge root to Judge TRUE. If I am foolish enough to allow
other people/Players to send email as if from me. Then those messages
should b
Roger Hicks wrote:
>I'm getting a 400 error every time I attempt to access the current
>ruleset form agoranomic.org.
One of the admins at www.fysh.org is reconfiguring things. I've notified
em that e's broken it.
-zefram
I'm getting a 400 error every time I attempt to access the current
ruleset form agoranomic.org.
BobTHJ
I vote as follows:
> NUM FL AI SUBMITTER TITLE
> 5134 Oi 1.7 rootDeadlock avoidance
FOR
> 5135 Oi 1.7 Wooble
FOR
> 5136 Di 2Zefram clarify Mother, May I?
FOR
> 5137 Dd 2Zefram rectify possibility of numbering
PRESENT
> 5138 Dd 2Zefram rep
Peekee wrote:
>Asking that question (especially in the subject)
Per CFJ 1631 the subject line is not significant.
>imply that the text following it was a proposal.
Maybe, but it's far from clear.
Actually, R106 explicitly requires clarity, so I think Murphy's message
was canonically not a propo
Quoting Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Asking that question (especially in the subject) could be taken to
imply that the text following it was a proposal. As for what its title
is...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is the title of this proposal?
Er, did you intend to submit a proposal in th
proto-proposal: head of state
AI: 1
{{{
Amend rule 402 by replacing the paragraph
The speaker is an office.
with
The speaker is an office. The speaker is the head of state of
this nomic. The speaker embodies the spirit of Agora.
Diplomatic missions from this nomic to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> A knight SHALL NOT publish statements that e believes are
> false. A knave SHOULD NOT publish statements that e
> believes are true.
Yuck. That sounds completely unworkable. It's definitely a recipe for
confusion, especially if a knave ever holds office
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Proposal: Retroactively colorize second-class VCs
Second time round for both of these. I'd be happier if you proposed to
colourise *all* players' VCs in one proposal.
-zefram
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>5124 AGAINST
What's the problem with proper disinterest? Having the penalty apply
to disinterested proposals provides a perverse incentive for people
to vote on disinterested proposals contrary to their actual opinion of
the proposal. That's what disinterest is meant to
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
What about the fools?
What is the title of this proposal?
[Zefram is trying to repeal the Speaker's traditional role as
default officeholder, so what should the Speaker do instead? Keep
track of speech, obviously.]
Change the title of Rule 2149 to "Truthiness, or t
Fnord!
Quoting Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is anyone going to bite?
What's the point? We can all *already* send email, we don't need
an(other) HTTP interface to do it.
-zefram
but can you send emails as me? (apart from the fact that From: fields
are insecure)
--
Pee
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Is anyone going to bite?
What's the point? We can all *already* send email, we don't need
an(other) HTTP interface to do it.
-zefram
Is anyone going to bite?
http://www.peekee.co.uk/agora/ad.pl
http://www.peekee.co.uk/agora/ab.pl
http://www.peekee.co.uk/agora/ao.pl
33 matches
Mail list logo
