On Nov 13, 2007 11:37 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Amend R2136 "Contests" by inserting after the the list that begins
> with "A contests is an agreement that...":
Typo.
-root
On Nov 13, 2007 6:18 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2. Anyone want to pull the old guillotine rules out?
I play the "Let Them Eat Cake" card and behead Marie Antoinette.
-root
On Nov 13, 2007 6:04 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 5296 O1 1.7 rootDecidable Undetermination
> AGAINST - I would recommend instead making as many judgements starting with
> UNDE as possible. Suggestions: UNDENIABLE, UNDEFATIGABLE, UNDECIMAL. Or
> else fix Rule 2110 to actual
Proto-Proposal: Plagiarism is the sincerest form of flattery
(AI = 2, please)
Wonko and bad leprechaun are co-authors of this proposal.
Create a rule titled "Winning by Legislative Dominance" with Power 2
and this text:
If, during a given Agoran week, all of these conditions are met:
I also SUPPORT, and I intend to vote FOR the B Nomic war proposal :)
BobTHJ
On Nov 13, 2007 8:02 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Nov 13, 2007, at 9:31 PM, comex wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday 13 November 2007, Levi Stephen wrote:
> >> I intend, with Agoran Consent, to send the mes
On Tuesday 13 November 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
> I agree to be bound by the following contract:
I don't think it's possible to join this contest. It also manifestly isn't
fair to all contestants... although contests don't have to be fair to
non-contestants.
Try again, I want points :D
signat
Ed Murphy wrote:
I agree to be bound by the following contract:
1) The name of this contest is Bake The Traitor.
2) The contestmaster of this contest is Murphy.
3) Any contestant other than comex who becomes a contestant
ceases to be a contestant one second later.
4) The contestm
On Tuesday 13 November 2007, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
> Is that four day limit their voting period?
Ours, for the Agoran Consent.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
> All first-class players who were bound by that contract did have a
> reasonable opportunity to review it. "Open to all first-class players"
> doesn't mean they /are/ bound by it, only that they /could/ be bound by
> it, hence it fails to trigger R101(v).
B
On Nov 13, 2007 7:06 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If that's accurate, whose side are you on, comex?
The fun side, of course.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
Let me make sure I have this straight:
comex is the only member of B Nomic voting FOR their declaration of
war on Agora. And e's ALSO voting SUPPORT for Agora taunting B.
If that's accurate, whose side are you on, comex?
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr
Goethe wrote:
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007, comex wrote:
Then we shall interpret the first-class player clause as something
completely different, where intent is the more important thing?
Not intent, but specific practicality of what first-class players are.
If we take the whole term "allow any fi
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007, comex wrote:
> If the dethronement rule "allows" a dethronement, then why didn't the
> contracts "allow" all players to join? Both actions are technically
> possible but (usually!) not feasible.
By that logic, you could make any sort of "technically feasible" contract:
"Any
On Nov 13, 2007 6:18 PM, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I intend, with Agoran Consent, to send the message "Chickens" to the B Nomic
> public forum on behalf of Agora.
I vote SUPPORT.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
Roger Hicks wrote:
On Nov 13, 2007 6:47 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tuesday 13 November 2007, Taral wrote:
On Nov 13, 2007 5:30 PM, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I intend with Agoran consent to send the message "Chickens" to the
bnomic-business mailing list on behalf of
On Nov 13, 2007 5:30 PM, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I intend with Agoran consent to send the message "Chickens" to the
> bnomic-business mailing list on behalf of Agora
Definitely.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
On Nov 13, 2007 5:05 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Um... anyone want to make sure that we aren't being declared war on?
Not yet.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
comex wrote:
On Tuesday 13 November 2007, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Actually, the proposal in question is:
B hereby declares war on Agora, bombing will commence in thirty
minutes.
submitted by comex.
1. Anyone have the patent title "traitor" handy?
2. Anyone want to pull the old guillotine rules
On Tuesday 13 November 2007, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Your Vladivostok rule "allows" a dethronement, but R101 forbids the rule
> from functioning, so the net effect of the rules is that dethronement
> isn't allowed.
>
> In your case, your contract strictly speaking "allowed" all players to
> review the
On Tuesday 13 November 2007, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Actually, the proposal in question is:
> > B hereby declares war on Agora, bombing will commence in thirty
> > minutes.
>
> submitted by comex.
>
> 1. Anyone have the patent title "traitor" handy?
>
> 2. Anyone want to pull the old guillotine rule
Um... anyone want to make sure that we aren't being declared war on?
-Goethe
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007, comex wrote:
> On Tuesday 13 November 2007, comex wrote:
>> On Tuesday 13 November 2007, Mike McGann wrote:
>>> 173: War (comex)
>>
>> FOR
>
> wrong forum
>
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007, comex wrote:
> The point was the usage of 'allow'...
Your Vladivostok rule "allows" a dethronement, but R101 forbids the rule
from functioning, so the net effect of the rules is that dethronement isn't
allowed.
In your case, your contract strictly speaking "allowed" all play
On Tuesday 13 November 2007, comex wrote:
> On Tuesday 13 November 2007, Mike McGann wrote:
> > 173: War (comex)
>
> FOR
wrong forum
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Tuesday 13 November 2007, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Addendum: this is an issue with allowing general inquiry cases rather
> than requiring callers to demonstrate specific relevance or standing.
> In a real sense, the rules in question would conflict, but the conflict
> wouldn't be evident until an i
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2007, comex wrote:
>> This rule does not 'allow', as in make reasonably possible restriction of a
>> person's rights or privileges. Nevertheless it 'allows' it by legislating
>> it. Does Rule 101, which claims to "take precedence over any
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007, comex wrote:
> This rule does not 'allow', as in make reasonably possible restriction of a
> person's rights or privileges. Nevertheless it 'allows' it by legislating
> it. Does Rule 101, which claims to "take precedence over any rule which
> would allow restrictions of a pe
On Tuesday 13 November 2007, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> If we take the whole term "allow any first-class player", we can use the
> reasonable abilities of an attentive first-class player as a starting
> point.
Proto-rule:
Any person may, by publishing the text of page 106 of the 1961 Vladivostok
telepho
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007, comex wrote:
> Then we shall interpret the first-class player clause as something
> completely different, where intent is the more important thing?
Not intent, but specific practicality of what first-class players are.
If we take the whole term "allow any first-class play
Roger Hicks wrote:
>Proto-Proposal: Limited Stare-Decisis
I like the unlimited stare decisis that we operate at present.
>As part of the judgment on the question of veracity in an inquiry case
>the judge MAY submit a proposal, known as a Judicial Proposal.
Historically, judges rarely took advant
On Nov 13, 2007 2:51 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Nov 13, 2007 2:40 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 13 November 2007, Roger Hicks wrote:
> > > Proto-Proposal: Limited Stare-Decisis
> >
> > This will never, ever, ever pass.
> >
> > Probably shouldn't either--
On Nov 13, 2007 2:40 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 13 November 2007, Roger Hicks wrote:
> > Proto-Proposal: Limited Stare-Decisis
>
> This will never, ever, ever pass.
>
> Probably shouldn't either-- we already have enough rule text as it is :/
>
In my opinion, its better to hav
On Tuesday 13 November 2007, Roger Hicks wrote:
> Proto-Proposal: Limited Stare-Decisis
This will never, ever, ever pass.
Probably shouldn't either-- we already have enough rule text as it is :/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Proto-Proposal: Limited Stare-Decisis
AI: 1.7
{
Replace the last paragraph of R591 "Inquiry Cases" with:
{{
As part of the judgment on the question of veracity in an inquiry case
the judge MAY submit a proposal, known as a Judicial Proposal. A
Judicial Proposal MUST be Disinterested. A Judicial Pro
On Tuesday 13 November 2007, Roger Hicks wrote:
> And I wholeheartedly disagree. If the message would have really
> created a contest then the rules call for no such time limit. Game
> custom should not surpass the rules. I doubt either of you would say
> "You can't exploit that loophole because th
On Nov 13, 2007 1:38 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What the rules call for is that any first-class player be allowed to
> join the contest, or it's not a contest. To honor that, there must be
> a sufficient period of time during which anybody may join; this was
> decided in CFJ 1777
On Nov 13, 2007 1:28 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And I wholeheartedly disagree. If the message would have really
> created a contest then the rules call for no such time limit. Game
> custom should not surpass the rules. I doubt either of you would say
> "You can't exploit that loo
On Nov 13, 2007 12:42 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >By the way, if I were to opine on "what is sufficient time for players to
> >be allowed to join", I would opine that game custom gives a minimal window
> >of 72 hours, as this is the minimal time window that has bee
On Nov 13, 2007 12:33 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> By the way, if I were to opine on "what is sufficient time for players to
> be allowed to join", I would opine that game custom gives a minimal window
> of 72 hours, as this is the minimal time window that has been placed in
> other
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>before its dissolution, and specifically said "all other things being equal"
>which I take to include the timing of the publication of the existence of
>Partnership 1 itself.
I think it is reasonable in this case to take "all other things being
equal" to mean that the rest of
Semi-Evil pseudo-judgements for 1792-1793:
The caller specifically asks what would have happened if the announcement
of Partnership 1's CONTEST had been received 60 seconds and 60 minutes
before its dissolution, and specifically said "all other things being equal"
which I take to include the timi
On 11/13/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> comex wrote:
> >There is no reasonable interpretation of "Beverly" that would cause it
> >to not be about the possibility of a rule-defined action.
>
> I interpret it as nonsense.
I CFJ, barring Zefram, on the statement:
* CFJ 1794 is an inquiry cas
comex wrote:
>There is no reasonable interpretation of "Beverly" that would cause it
>to not be about the possibility of a rule-defined action.
I interpret it as nonsense.
-zefram
On 11/13/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I note that since the referent of "Beverly" is not clear, this case is
> not clearly on the possibility of a rule-defined action (R2110).
There is no reasonable interpretation of "Beverly" that would cause it
to not be about the possibility of a rul
On 11/13/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 12, 2007 4:55 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Someday I will take over the game with a judgement and award myself the
> > title Scamster. I was a vote away from doing it a month and a half ago
> > with 'Refactor regulation'...
>
> 'Re
comex wrote:
>CFJ: It is possible for Beverly to deregister.
I note that since the referent of "Beverly" is not clear, this case is
not clearly on the possibility of a rule-defined action (R2110).
-zefram
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>All right. I propose that we, as the appeals panel, post the following
>message in the PF:
I consent to that judgement and argument.
-zefram
Taral wrote:
>Your arguments above are about UNDECIDABLE vs. IRRELEVANT. I am
>arguing about UNDECIDABLE vs. FALSE. Did I miss something?
I have an argument for TRUE: rule 2158 only places the obligation to not
assign an inappropriate judgement on judges. Anyone who is not a judge is
not bound by
47 matches
Mail list logo
