root wrote:
On 11/4/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
root wrote:
On 11/4/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
root wrote:
Second, the statement of this case is deliberately vague; it does not
specify the circumstances to which it applies, but an UNDECIDABLE
judgement is permissi
On 11/4/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/4/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I object. It's not part of the CotC's report, and its accuracy is
> > in doubt.
>
> Proto: Public claims of personhood are self-ratifying, to avoid
> gamestate recalculation.
I don't think that works.
On 11/4/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I object. It's not part of the CotC's report, and its accuracy is
> in doubt.
Proto: Public claims of personhood are self-ratifying, to avoid
gamestate recalculation.
On 11/4/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Btw, the line I was expecting you to use to object to this was "This
> is madness!". I was all prepared with the "This is Agora!" rejoinder.
I berate myself for not having thought of that.
On 11/4/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> root wrote:
> > The statement could equally be equivalent to "Judging UNDECIDABLE is
> > [generally] permissible" (FALSE), "Judging UNDECIDABLE is [sometimes]
> > permissible" (TRUE), or even "Judging UNDECIDABLE is permissible [in
> > this cas
comex wrote:
>Perhaps, but Zefram could have easily have kept the VCs.
pikhq and I made an agreement to destroy all but one of the VCs.
We both wanted the VCs to not exist, as is evidenced by our voting on
relevant proposals.
>seems contrary to the spirit of Agora that he didn't.
It is very much
On 11/4/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/4/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The statement could equally be equivalent to "Judging UNDECIDABLE is
> > [generally] permissible" (FALSE), "Judging UNDECIDABLE is [sometimes]
> > permissible" (TRUE), or even "Judging UNDECIDABLE is
On 11/4/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> root wrote:
>
> > On 11/4/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> root wrote:
>
> >>> Second, the statement of this case is deliberately vague; it does not
> >>> specify the circumstances to which it applies, but an UNDECIDABLE
> >>> judgemen
On Sunday 04 November 2007 17:02:35 comex wrote:
> Perhaps, but Zefram could have easily have kept the VCs. Honestly
> it seems contrary to the spirit of Agora that he didn't.
Perhaps Zefram keeps his word even outside of the public forum? :p
On 11/4/07, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think not. It eliminated one of your attempts at spamming the
> courts. :)
Perhaps, but Zefram could have easily have kept the VCs. Honestly it
seems contrary to the spirit of Agora that he didn't.
On Sunday 04 November 2007 16:50:34 comex wrote:
> I KNEW that allowing the CotC discretion over linked assignments was
> a bad idea!
I think not. It eliminated one of your attempts at spamming the
courts. :)
On 11/4/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If all ten thousand CFJs referred to as Sparta-Sparta in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> exist, then I spend 2 blue VCs
> to make pikhq gain 1 blue VC.
>
> -zefram
>
I KNEW that allowing the CotC discretion over linked assignments was a
bad idea!
root wrote:
> The statement could equally be equivalent to "Judging UNDECIDABLE is
> [generally] permissible" (FALSE), "Judging UNDECIDABLE is [sometimes]
> permissible" (TRUE), or even "Judging UNDECIDABLE is permissible [in
> this case]" (FALSE). As it stands, it contains zero context, which in
Levi Stephen wrote:
>I had a proposal in the message
>
>http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2007-October/007825.html
>
>that I believe has been missed.
Correct. Sorry. It's in the pool and will be distributed in the
next batch.
-zefram
Josiah Worcester wrote:
>If all ten thousand CFJs referred to as Sparta-Sparta in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> exist, then I spend 40 blue VCs
>to make Zefram gain 20 blue VCs.
nttpf.
-zefram
If all ten thousand CFJs referred to as Sparta-Sparta in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> exist, then I spend 40 blue VCs
to make Zefram gain 20 blue VCs.
Josiah Worcester wrote:
>If all ten thousand CFJs referred to as Sparta-Sparta in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> exist, then I spend 2500 blue VCs
>to make Zefram gain 1250 blue VCs.
nttpf.
-zefram
If all ten thousand CFJs referred to as Sparta-Sparta in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> exist, then I spend 2500 blue VCs
to make Zefram gain 1250 blue VCs.
Ed Murphy wrote:
> pikhq initiated a criminal case in
> Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I thought it was rather unclear, and possibly thereby ineffective,
but not for your reason. I thought that the identification of the
defendant was clear, but the rule allegedly breached and particula
Zefram wrote:
There would normally be a proposal distribution at this time, but
there are no proposals to distribute.
Proposal ID numbers:
highest orderly: 5286
disorderly: none
Proposal pool: empty
I had a proposal in the message
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private
root wrote:
On 11/4/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
root wrote:
Second, the statement of this case is deliberately vague; it does not
specify the circumstances to which it applies, but an UNDECIDABLE
judgement is permissible iff it is appropriate. Therefore, a
judgement of UNDECIDA
On 11/4/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I hereby assign comex as judge of CFJ 1779.
Pseudo-judgement: UNDETERMINED, per the clear precedent set by CFJ 1744.
On 11/4/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The statement could equally be equivalent to "Judging UNDECIDABLE is
> [generally] permissible" (FALSE), "Judging UNDECIDABLE is [sometimes]
> permissible" (TRUE), or even "Judging UNDECIDABLE is permissible [in
> this case]" (FALSE). As it stands
On 11/4/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> root wrote:
>
> > First, the veracity of the statement is not irrelevant to the game, as
> > the outcome of this case determines whether or not the Initiator wins
> > the game; a judgement of IRRELEVANT is thus inappropriate to this
> > case.
>
> S
On 11/4/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> root wrote:
>
> > First, the veracity of the statement is not irrelevant to the game, as
> > the outcome of this case determines whether or not the Initiator wins
> > the game; a judgement of IRRELEVANT is thus inappropriate to this
> > case.
>
> S
root wrote:
First, the veracity of the statement is not irrelevant to the game, as
the outcome of this case determines whether or not the Initiator wins
the game; a judgement of IRRELEVANT is thus inappropriate to this
case.
So? The outcome of any case determines whether or not the judge gets
On 11/4/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I hereby call for judgement, barring comex, on the statement "Partnership
> 1's Contest allowed any first-class player to become a party". Arguments:
Gratuitous arguments:
It seems odd that a message sent *after* the contest was formed could
retroac
Ed Murphy wrote:
>Does this mean that you are the author of Proposal 5269?
I believe no one is. That's what I have recorded for it, and for the
precedent proposal 4963.
-zefram
28 matches
Mail list logo
