On Fri, 16 Nov 2007, Levi Stephen wrote:
> Should the player's have also been active? Should only first-class players be
> able to be Senators?
Check on first-class. Not too worried about active.
> During an emergency session, any Senator MAY declare a filibuster on ?
Check.
> I'm not sure
On 11/15/07, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Should we decide to take over B nomic via flooding them with members, we must
> do so quickly. Proposal 176 of B nomic reads as follows:
It's dependent on 173, which is likely to fail.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if
Kerim Aydin wrote:
---
Proto: Rubicon
Enact a rule entitled "The Senate" with the following text and a
power of 2:
A Senator is any Player who has been registered continuously for
the immediately preceding thirty d
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007, Levi Stephen wrote:
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Funnily enough, I wonder if this is too broad. "hostile action" could be
>> any scam. How about "hostile action by another nomic"? -Goethe
>
> That's a good point. I made a choice to leave out the 'by another nomic'
> clause
>
On Thursday 15 November 2007 22:48:00 Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > Could flooding work against Agora in its current state?
>
> It might be worth it to write a quick and dirty defensive proposal
> to get it distributed quickly. It's probably an overreaction but we
> can always vote it down.
>
Well, yea
Funnily enough, I wonder if this is too broad. "hostile action" could be
any scam. How about "hostile action by another nomic"? -Goethe
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007, Levi Stephen wrote:
> I submit the following interested proposal with AI=1:
> {{{
> Goethe is coauthor of this proposal.
>
> Create a ru
On Nov 15, 2007 10:20 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The rules do not say that.
No, but the dictionary does.
> Also, if I am saying that I'm an ambassador by doing so, since the ambassador
> is not doing er duties, I could well deputise myself for it. :p
Only for the required
Josiah Worcester wrote:
On Thursday 15 November 2007 22:48:00 Kerim Aydin wrote:
Could flooding work against Agora in its current state?
It might be worth it to write a quick and dirty defensive proposal
to get it distributed quickly. It's probably an overreaction but we
can always vote it dow
On Nov 15, 2007 10:13 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why? An embassy is quite different from an ambassador. ;)
Seeking to establish an embassy implies that you are an ambassador.
-root
On Thursday 15 November 2007 22:17:02 Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Nov 15, 2007 10:13 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Why? An embassy is quite different from an ambassador. ;)
>
> Seeking to establish an embassy implies that you are an ambassador.
>
> -root
>
Also, if I am saying t
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007, Josiah Worcester wrote:
> On Thursday 15 November 2007 20:48:10 you wrote:
>> On Thursday 15 November 2007 20:44:18 Josiah Worcester wrote:
>>> Comex has posted to the B forum a suggestion for flooding. Therefore, I
>> create
>>> this proposal (this proposal:
*sigh* will the
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> Seeking to establish an embassy implies that you are an ambassador.
We're on a *choke* *gag* diplomatic *cough* mission
On Thursday 15 November 2007, Josiah Worcester wrote:
> I intend to join the AFO, with SUPPORT of all AFO members.
Judge CFJ 1783 already!
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Thursday 15 November 2007 22:17:02 Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Nov 15, 2007 10:13 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Why? An embassy is quite different from an ambassador. ;)
>
> Seeking to establish an embassy implies that you are an ambassador.
>
> -root
>
The rules do not say t
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007, Levi Stephen wrote:
> I like this sort of idea. Might be better to leave it to the judicial system
> to
> decide punishment. Something as simple as:
>
> A player MAY NOT initiate or encourage hostile action against Agora.
>
> might do the trick.
I proposed an overreac
On Thursday 15 November 2007 22:09:30 Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Nov 15, 2007 8:01 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I intend to have Agora join B Nomic as a B Nomic faction, with Agoran
support,
> > under the B Nomic name "Agoran Embassy (and spying organisation)". Why?
> > Just to
NUM FL AI SUBMITTER TITLE
5296 O1 1.7 rootDecidable Undetermination
6xFOR
5297 D1 3Murphy root is a Cretan
FOR
5298 O1 1Murphy More prerogatives
6xAGAINST
5299 D1 2Murphy Micropayments
FOR
5300 O1 1Murphy No multiple MwP's
6x
On Nov 15, 2007 8:01 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I intend to have Agora join B Nomic as a B Nomic faction, with Agoran support,
> under the B Nomic name "Agoran Embassy (and spying organisation)". Why? Just
> to put the fear of Agora into them. :p
That name could be viewed as
On Thursday 15 November 2007, Josiah Worcester wrote:
> On Thursday 15 November 2007 19:37:23 comex wrote:
> > On Thursday 15 November 2007, Josiah Worcester wrote:
> > > I intend to join the AFO, with SUPPORT of all AFO members.
> >
> > Judge CFJ 1783 already!
>
> I judge comex GUILTY in the CFJ 1
On Thursday 15 November 2007, Josiah Worcester wrote:
> At the time, I was thinking that it could be useful in a scam against B
> Nomic. It would no longer be necessary to be in the AFO, but anyways. .
> . I would create several factions with me and the AFO, where I make all
> actions on behalf of
On Thursday 15 November 2007 20:12:04 comex wrote:
> On Thursday 15 November 2007, Josiah Worcester wrote:
> > At the time, I was thinking that it could be useful in a scam against B
> > Nomic. It would no longer be necessary to be in the AFO, but anyways. .
> > . I would create several factions wi
On Thursday 15 November 2007 21:05:11 Taral wrote:
> On 11/15/07, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Should we decide to take over B nomic via flooding them with members, we
must
> > do so quickly. Proposal 176 of B nomic reads as follows:
>
> It's dependent on 173, which is likely t
On Thursday 15 November 2007 20:44:18 Josiah Worcester wrote:
> Comex has posted to the B forum a suggestion for flooding. Therefore, I
create
> this proposal (this proposal:
> Create a rule with the following text:
> Prevention of Flooding from B Nomic
> {
> With 2 SUPPORT, any player may be for
On Nov 15, 2007 4:10 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/15/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So it's specifically mandatory to award points if the contract describes
> > it? I think it would be better to make this "MUST NOT be made except
> > as ...". Though the whole thing is p
pikhq wrote:
On Thursday 15 November 2007 19:37:23 comex wrote:
On Thursday 15 November 2007, Josiah Worcester wrote:
I intend to join the AFO, with SUPPORT of all AFO members.
Judge CFJ 1783 already!
I judge comex GUILTY in the CFJ 1783, with the initiator's arguments.
NttPF.
On Thursday 15 November 2007 20:16:20 Levi Stephen wrote:
> comex wrote:
> > On Thursday 15 November 2007, Josiah Worcester wrote:
> >> At the time, I was thinking that it could be useful in a scam against B
> >> Nomic. It would no longer be necessary to be in the AFO, but anyways. .
> >> . I would
comex wrote:
On Thursday 15 November 2007, Josiah Worcester wrote:
At the time, I was thinking that it could be useful in a scam against B
Nomic. It would no longer be necessary to be in the AFO, but anyways. .
. I would create several factions with me and the AFO, where I make all
actions on be
On Thursday 15 November 2007 20:00:36 Levi Stephen wrote:
> comex wrote:
> > On Thursday 15 November 2007, Levi Stephen wrote:
> >> I think, as defendant you don't need supporters, but
> >>
> >> I SUPPORT this.
> >>
> >> Levi
> >
> > Actually he hasn't even judged it yet (nttpf), so .
> >
> > Lev
comex wrote:
On Thursday 15 November 2007, Levi Stephen wrote:
I think, as defendant you don't need supporters, but
I SUPPORT this.
Levi
Actually he hasn't even judged it yet (nttpf), so .
Levi, you going to support or object to his attempt to join the AFO?
Undecided so far :)
Any though
On Thursday 15 November 2007, Levi Stephen wrote:
> I think, as defendant you don't need supporters, but
>
> I SUPPORT this.
>
> Levi
Actually he hasn't even judged it yet (nttpf), so .
Levi, you going to support or object to his attempt to join the AFO?
signature.asc
Description: This is a dig
On Thursday 15 November 2007 19:37:23 comex wrote:
> On Thursday 15 November 2007, Josiah Worcester wrote:
> > I intend to join the AFO, with SUPPORT of all AFO members.
>
> Judge CFJ 1783 already!
>
I judge comex GUILTY in the CFJ 1783, with the initiator's arguments.
On 11/15/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So it's specifically mandatory to award points if the contract describes
> it? I think it would be better to make this "MUST NOT be made except
> as ...". Though the whole thing is pretty redundant, since obeying
> contracts is mandatory anyway.
Pe
On Nov 15, 2007 9:15 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/15/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Our past versions of contests worked best when they depended solely on a
> > contestmaster for continuity. But also, this is a philosophical difference
> > between us, I suspect. Wh
On Nov 15, 2007 2:41 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Geothe
I would like to quote a very famous* song:
BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM.
* Only famous in my head.
--
Eris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"In Memoriam harvel"
On Thursday 15 November 2007 18:19:05 comex wrote:
> On Thursday 15 November 2007, Josiah Worcester wrote:
> > On Wednesday 14 November 2007 18:04:53 Benjamin Schultz wrote:
> > > Given that B and Agora are rattling their rulesets, what do we
want
> > > to do should the situation devolve into open
On Tuesday 13 November 2007 19:18:06 Levi Stephen wrote:
> I intend, with Agoran Consent, to send the message "Chickens" to the
B Nomic
> public forum on behalf of Agora.
>
> Levi
>
I vote SUPPORT.
On Thursday 15 November 2007, Josiah Worcester wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 November 2007 18:04:53 Benjamin Schultz wrote:
> > Given that B and Agora are rattling their rulesets, what do we want
> > to do should the situation devolve into open warfare?
>
> One thing we could do is attempt to become pro
On Wednesday 14 November 2007 18:04:53 Benjamin Schultz wrote:
> Given that B and Agora are rattling their rulesets, what do we want
> to do should the situation devolve into open warfare?
>
One thing we could do is attempt to become protector of B. Upon a
cursory view of the B rules, any Agora
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007, Roger Hicks wrote:
> Requiring Agoran Consent to disband a contest is far simpler. The
> above is biased against any rapidly changing contest.
It's not in the best interests of the game to allow for rapidly
changing rules in contests (this is differentiated from contests
whic
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> A member of an existing public contract may make the contract
> into a Contest without 3 objections. Any player may make a
> contest cease to be a contest without 3 objections.
Should have "CAN ... by announcement" in both sentences.
I share root's concern ab
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> Because the judge of CFJ 1682 chose to interpret Rule 1742 that way in
> order to avoid the possibility of single-party partnerships, and the
> rule text was subsequently amended to make that explicit.
In other words, for contests to work without requiring
On Nov 15, 2007 3:26 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Nov 15, 2007 2:53 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 15 Nov 2007, Roger Hicks wrote:
> > > Requiring Agoran Consent to disband a contest is far simpler. The
> > > above is biased against any rapidly chang
On Nov 15, 2007 2:53 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007, Roger Hicks wrote:
> > Requiring Agoran Consent to disband a contest is far simpler. The
> > above is biased against any rapidly changing contest.
>
> It's not in the best interests of the game to allow for rap
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> But they could have simply objected to the contest creation in the first
> place.
You neglect non-contestant scams. E.g., it seems like a good fair contest
so no-one protests, then a month later "hey, e's about to win with the
next [fairly won] points awa
On Nov 15, 2007 2:33 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> > But they could have simply objected to the contest creation in the first
> > place.
>
> You neglect non-contestant scams. E.g., it seems like a good fair contest
> so no-one protests, the
On Nov 15, 2007 10:47 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> > Because the judge of CFJ 1682 chose to interpret Rule 1742 that way in
> > order to avoid the possibility of single-party partnerships, and the
> > rule text was subsequently amended to
On Nov 15, 2007 11:52 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
>
> > On Nov 15, 2007 11:31 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> A member of an existing public contract may make the contract
> >> into a Contest without 3 objections.
--
Draft 2: Simple contests
[Let's go for the simple, and see if the objection mechanism pretty
much avoids scams. It depends on sportsmanship a bit in using the
objection mechanism].
Amend Rule 2136 (Contests) to read:
On Nov 15, 2007 11:31 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A member of an existing public contract may make the contract
> into a Contest without 3 objections. Any player may make a
> contest cease to be a contest without 3 objections.
As the latter is the inverse operat
On Nov 15, 2007 11:52 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
>
> > On Nov 15, 2007 11:31 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> A member of an existing public contract may make the contract
> >> into a Contest without 3 objections.
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Nov 15, 2007 11:31 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> A member of an existing public contract may make the contract
>> into a Contest without 3 objections. Any player may make a
>> contest cease to be a contest without 3 obje
I vote as follows:
> NUM FL AI SUBMITTER TITLE
> 5296 O1 1.7 rootDecidable Undetermination
PRESENT
> 5297 D1 3Murphy root is a Cretan
PRESENT
> 5298 O1 1Murphy More prerogatives
FOR
> 5299 D1 2Murphy Micropayments
FOR
> 5300 O1 1Murphy
On Nov 15, 2007 9:37 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I concur. It makes sense for a partnership to have a minimum of two
> parties, but why do contracts in general require a second party?
Because the judge of CFJ 1682 chose to interpret Rule 1742 that way in
order to avoid the possibi
On 11/15/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Our past versions of contests worked best when they depended solely on a
> contestmaster for continuity. But also, this is a philosophical difference
> between us, I suspect. While we needed non-Agoran contract definitions to
> bootstrap partn
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>It's a different mechanism.
But you still define contests to be a subclass of contracts. I don't
think this will work.
>root proposed a rule that would fix that,
No, root's proposal would define "basis" for first-class persons.
It's currently defined only for partnerships.
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007, Zefram wrote:
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> A contest is a public contract that an originator (hereafter
>> the contestmaster) may create without 3 objections...
> How does this fit together with the general contract formation rule?
> I suggest a better way may be to le
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> A contest is a public contract that an originator (hereafter
> the contestmaster) may create without 3 objections, provided
> e is not the contestmaster of another contest. Members other
> than the contestmaster are known as contestants.
How does this f
57 matches
Mail list logo
