Ed Murphy wrote:
d) 1 point to a contestant who was an officer all week.
e) 1 point to a contestant who was not an officer all week.
j) 1 point to a contestant who is a partnership.
Whereas the others are nice, these (and maybe h)) seem boring as you
could award these e
comex wrote:
On 8/14/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I hereby agree to be bound by the following agreement:
This contract does not exist until someone else agrees to it, correct?
Someone has. Two someones, in fact.
d) 1 point to a contestant who was an officer all week.
On 8/14/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I hereby agree to be bound by the following agreement:
This contract does not exist until someone else agrees to it, correct?
>
> d) 1 point to a contestant who was an officer all week.
> e) 1 point to a contestant who was not an of
comex wrote:
On Monday 13 August 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
Eww.
I couldn't think of a better way to allow a player to be a Knight and a
Knave at the same time.
Smullyan is rolling over in his grave. Peekee is jumping for
joy, but you can't tell which ones are him and which ones are
just poin
comex wrote:
On Monday 13 August 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
No, it isn't. S/(S+O) = 0/(0+0) = 0/0 = 0 (Rule 2146), which
is <= 1/2 (Rule 2124), so the OSbA is REJECTED (Rule 955).
You're right. Therefore, my notice resolving the decision was invalid, so
the decision is still active. Would you
On Monday 13 August 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
> No, it isn't. S/(S+O) = 0/(0+0) = 0/0 = 0 (Rule 2146), which
> is <= 1/2 (Rule 2124), so the OSbA is REJECTED (Rule 955).
You're right. Therefore, my notice resolving the decision was invalid, so
the decision is still active. Would you like to vote
comex wrote:
For the agoran decision I initiated in this message:
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2007-August/007098.html
(published 7 days ago)
the options available are APPROVED and REJECTED.
No votes were made.
The option therefore selected by Agora is APP
On Monday 13 August 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Eww.
I couldn't think of a better way to allow a player to be a Knight and a
Knave at the same time.
> Ooh, tricky. Does "6000 FOR" count as a statement?
I don't see how this modification makes the issue (which could be CFJed)
any *more* relevant.
comex wrote:
Amend the rule titled "Truthiness, or the Island of
Knights and Knaves" by replacing the entire text of the rule with:
Knight and Knave are player switches with values NAY and YAY,
tracked by the Speaker, with default values of YAY and NAY,
respectively.
Eww.
Co
Amend the rule titled "Truthiness, or the Island of
Knights and Knaves" by replacing the entire text of the rule with:
Knight and Knave are player switches with values NAY and YAY,
tracked by the Speaker, with default values of YAY and NAY,
respectively.
A knight SHAL
On 8/13/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> root wrote:
>
> > Incidentally, I don't like these new dependent action rules; all the
> > Agoran decision cruft makes them much more heavyweight than they
> > really have any need to be. When are we ever going to use a dependent
> > action with a
root wrote:
Incidentally, I don't like these new dependent action rules; all the
Agoran decision cruft makes them much more heavyweight than they
really have any need to be. When are we ever going to use a dependent
action with a majority index other than one?
When we think of something impor
On 8/13/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ian Kelly wrote:
> >The option therefore selected by Agora is APPROVED; I hereby appeal
> >CFJ 1646, with the arguments above.
>
> You can't: R911 sets a time limit of two weeks (from the judgement),
> which expired long ago. If you want to revisit t
On 8/13/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>A person "publishes" or "announces" something by sending a
>public message. Each public message is considered to be sent
>by the person it identifies as its sender, unless an inquiry
>case pertaining to the truth of
>unless an inquiry
>case pertaining to the truth of this identification is not
>judged true
Consider:
unless an inquiry case pertaining to the truth of this identification
is judged other than TRUE, and is not overturned
in order to ensure that authorship remains as claimed while the case
is sti
On 8/13/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/13/07, Pavitra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't believe it, I did it again. Stupid technology.
>
> We've all done it; BobTHJ seems to do it every other message.
>
> -root
>
At least
BobTHJ
On 8/13/07, Pavitra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/13/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I intend to appeal CFJ 1646, with two support.
>
> I don't believe it, I did it again. Stupid technology.
We've all done it; BobTHJ seems to do it every other message.
-root
On 8/13/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I intend to appeal CFJ 1646, with two support.
SUPPORT.
On 8/13/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I never received the message you are replying to.
Well, it was only sent an hour ago. I've seen delays much longer than
that. In the meantime, you can find it in the agora-business
archives.
-root
On Monday 13 August 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On 8/13/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >public message. Each public message is considered to be sent
> >by the person it identifies as its sender, unless an inquiry
> >case pertaining to the truth of this identificati
On 8/13/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is anyone going to own up to triggering the web form?
Proto-CFJ:
{{{
A message sent by a Player to a Public Forum announcing that e
performs some action satisfies Rule 478's definition of Announcement
even if the message is sent by a means that ma
On 8/13/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>public message. Each public message is considered to be sent
>by the person it identifies as its sender, unless an inquiry
>case pertaining to the truth of this identification is not
>judged true, in which case it is
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
If such a proposal received no AGAINST votes, its proposer
gains one Zinnwaldite VC.
Zinnwaldite isn't a colour AFAICT. Otherwise I like the proto.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_colors
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinnwaldite_(color)
Peekee wrote:
Quoting Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I intend to ratify the VC holdings listed in the Assessor's Report
that I published within the past hour.
Could that cause problems if it turns out I am not a player anymore?
In that situation, the first paragraph of Rule 2126 would cau
Roger Hicks wrote:
>I suppose this action is wholly invalid if it turns out that Peekee is
>not a player?
Yes. You CANNOT install em unless e is an active player.
-zefram
Quoting Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Zefram, is there any chance of hurrying the judgment of this. I do not
want to attempt any actions (Voting etc) whilst my being a player is
in doubt.
Statement: Peekee is a player
Peekee, what are the circumstances around the sending of your
deregistra
Quoting Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I intend to ratify the VC holdings listed in the Assessor's Report
that I published within the past hour.
Could that cause problems if it turns out I am not a player anymore?
--
Peekee
Ed Murphy wrote:
> If such a proposal received no AGAINST votes, its proposer
> gains one Zinnwaldite VC.
Zinnwaldite isn't a colour AFAICT. Otherwise I like the proto.
-zefram
On 8/13/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> root wrote:
>
> > On 8/12/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Dates given are generally from the "Date:" header of the applicable
> >> message. This is not the legally effective time (CFJ 1646), but is an
> >> approximation of it. See the
29 matches
Mail list logo
