On 11/19/07, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With *Agoran Consent*, I intend to have Agora join B Nomic as a faction.
OBJECT
-Goethe
On Monday 19 November 2007, Josiah Worcester wrote:
> And those that have been REMANDed, and thereby changed, or REASSIGNed,
> and thereby changed?
> ;)
rule 2175 for the win
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Monday 19 November 2007 18:36:42 comex wrote:
> On Monday 19 November 2007, Josiah Worcester wrote:
> > Finally, should this CFJ be judged with me as GUILTY, I intend to create
> > criminal CFJs against every judge whose opinion was overruled on appeal.
>
> There are only four, including yours,
On Monday 19 November 2007, Josiah Worcester wrote:
> Finally, should this CFJ be judged with me as GUILTY, I intend to create
> criminal CFJs against every judge whose opinion was overruled on appeal.
There are only four, including yours, and some of those might be old enough
for OVERLOOKED. Th
On Monday 19 November 2007 17:58:25 Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Nov 19, 2007 5:44 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I implore the judge to act in the best interests of the game. I note that
a
> > charge for a judgement may well be a write of FAGE.
> >
> > Finally, should this CFJ be ju
On Nov 19, 2007 5:44 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I implore the judge to act in the best interests of the game. I note that a
> charge for a judgement may well be a write of FAGE.
>
> Finally, should this CFJ be judged with me as GUILTY, I intend to create
> criminal CFJs again
On Monday 19 November 2007 16:55:26 Zefram wrote:
> H. pikhq, I hereby inform you of criminal case 1804 in which you are
> the defendant, and invite you to rebut the argument for your guilt.
>
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1804
>
> == CFJ
On Monday 19 November 2007, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Nov 19, 2007 6:05 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Where's the current ruleset for Nomicapolis, and what is your role in
> > them, Wooble?
>
> The current ruleset can be found at
> http://nomicapolis.net/wiki/Current_ruleset
On Monday 19 November 2007, Zefram wrote:
> comex wrote:
> >- Action by which e breached the rule: assigning an inappropriate
> > judgement to the question on veracity in CFJ 1711
>
> This is a straightforward EXCUSED. E reasonably believed that the
> judgement was appropriate.
Seems more like a
On Nov 19, 2007 6:05 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Where's the current ruleset for Nomicapolis, and what is your role in
> them, Wooble?
The current ruleset can be found at http://nomicapolis.net/wiki/Current_ruleset
My role is simply as a Player.
> And are you trying to drag
comex wrote:
>- Action by which e breached the rule: assigning an inappropriate judgement
>to the question on veracity in CFJ 1711
This is a straightforward EXCUSED. E reasonably believed that the
judgement was appropriate.
-zefram
On Sunday 18 November 2007, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> I submit the following proposal, entitled "Protective Alliance" and
> set its AI to 4.
Of course, this proposal has an unnecessarily high AI and, if adopted,
would have no effect...
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message
On Nov 18, 2007, at 12:59 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
I submit the following proposal, entitled "Protective Alliance" and
set its AI to 4.
{{
Whereas Agora faces grave danger from devious external forces, and is
in dire need of protection,
Agora submits to Nomicapolis as its benevolent protector
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, comex wrote:
> I think the rule makes it clear that you do not *become* an Agreement; you
> are, or you are not, depending on your characteristics. Since the rule
> requires that agreements specify how "any decisions that may need to be
> made on the agreement's behalf will b
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On a tangential note, I don't believe that CAN should be interpreted
> as implying a mechanism, as there is no specification as to what that
> mechanism might be. In particular, the rule would then suggest that
> *any* attempt to perform the action is a mec
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> This court finds that there is a minimal time between when a person
> first is able to see an agreement and when e has been "allowed"
> a reasonably sufficient time to form and communicate informed
> consent.
Okay okay, since it's both time to inform on
On Nov 19, 2007 1:35 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, the term "allow" in R2136(c) is not explicitly defined
> in the Rules. So how must an agreement text allow joining? In
> particular, does "allow" apply to the MAY in Rule 2152 (attempts to
> join are permissible) or does "
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, comex wrote:
> On Monday 19 November 2007, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Since
>> this time is for review, supplying the contest text in a discussion
>> forum before initiating it (e.g. a proto) may start ths clock.
>
> So, given that people have had plenty of opportunity to review th
On Monday 19 November 2007, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Note that this represents a middle ground between #1 and #2 above;
> the contest need not ensure the net effects of all Rules allow
> joining, but must ensure that the availability of the contest
> text itself allows sufficient time for review to all
Pseudo-judgement: CFJ 1800 <- TRUE
In the matter of CFJ 1722, Judge Zefram laid out eight criteria for
successfully initiating an Agoran decision of whether to approve the
action. The message must:
a. announce intent to perform a dependent action;
b. unambiguously describe the action to
On Monday 19 November 2007, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Gratuitous argument: the assigning of an incorrect judgement is
> historically the subject for an appeal, not another CFJ. An identical
> case is here:
>
> http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1296
Not quite identical. There, the
On Nov 19, 2007 12:36 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, comex wrote:
> > I initiate a criminal case.
> > - Defendant: pikhq
> > - Rule breached: 2158
> > - Action by which e breached the rule: assigning an inappropriate judgement
> > to the question on veracity in
On Monday 19 November 2007, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> It's actually confusing whether comex is correct. A faction is a
> subtype of a registered B-nomic agreement. To be registered as such,
> Agora must satisfy the following:
> http://b.nomic.net/index.php/Rule_5-1. Which, incidentally, Agora does.
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, comex wrote:
> On Monday 19 November 2007, Zefram wrote:
>> Interesting distinction. What do Factions do?
>
> They collect votes. [...]
Again, what's missing here is what a faction *is*, not just what it does.
By definition in B-nomic, it is an Agreement.
-Goethe
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, comex wrote:
> I initiate a criminal case.
> - Defendant: pikhq
> - Rule breached: 2158
> - Action by which e breached the rule: assigning an inappropriate judgement
> to the question on veracity in CFJ 1711
Gratuitous argument: the assigning of an incorrect judgement is his
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, Zefram wrote:
> comex wrote:
>> - Goethe's argument about Rule 101 (v) is irrelevant, because in B,
>> becoming a Faction, unlike becoming a Player, does not require agreeing to
>> be bound by the Rules.
>
> Interesting distinction. What do Factions do?
It's actually confusi
On Monday 19 November 2007, Zefram wrote:
> >- However, since Agora cannot literally send a message to the B public
> >forum, it might not be able to join in any case.
>
> R2172 speaks of a player acting on behalf of Agora. That seems an
> adequate mechanism, presuming that B Nomic allows for fact
On Nov 19, 2007 1:47 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Interesting distinction. What do Factions do?
At the moment, a Faction can just act as a proxy, casting votes for
any Player who has given the Faction eir allegiance. Except as a way
to allow players to vote without actually paying att
comex wrote:
>- Proposal is one other mechanism to cause Agora to join B Nomic.
I don't think it is. I think you'd need a *rule* that says Agora
is to join B Nomic. A proposal can only make instantaneous changes,
and granting someone permission to post the joining message on Agora's
behalf is a
On Monday 19 November 2007, Zefram wrote:
> Statement: Agoran Consent is required to have Agora join B Nomic as a
>B Nomic faction
Pseudo-judgement: FALSE.
- Proposal is one other mechanism to cause Agora to join B Nomic.
- If not for proposal, then TRUE might be appropriate. Rule 5-2
On Nov 19, 2007 11:03 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >== CFJ 1798 ==
> >Statement: Goethe is a coauthor on the Proposal Contests Fix Mk II
>
>
> The ordinary English meaning is approximately "a writer who collaborates
> with others
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, Zefram wrote:
> Acting on behalf of Agora is regulated by Rule 2125(b) as conditions are
> put in place by 2172 (Agoran Consent). The question arises of whether
> actions by Agoran players in foreign Nomics are regulated.
Gratuitous arguments:
Rule 2125(b) states a minimal
On Monday 19 November 2007, Zefram wrote:
> liberal view of what constitutes collaboration on a proposal. I am not
> aware of any prior case where a coauthorship claim has been
> unequivocally false, as in BobTHJ's proposal.
For the record, the proposal with the false coauthorship claim was mine.
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, Zefram wrote:
> Determining whether a proposal submitter can be prosecuted for false
> statements in the proposal is beyond the scope of this CFJ. I suggest
> that this issue should be explored in a future CFJ, particularly if
> attempts are made to abuse the coauthorship pro
On Nov 19, 2007 5:20 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On behalf of B Nomic as its Minister of Foreign Relations:
>
> B Nomic registers.
I wasn't aware that B Nomic was either a biological person or an R2145
partnership.
-root
On Nov 18, 2007 10:55 PM, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I had chosen Assets because permissions would share the concept of 'being
> owned'
> I guess. Each permission would belong to a person and specify an action.
> Permissions being liquid and allowing me to transfer them actually see
Levi Stephen wrote:
>Actually, CotC Zefram, upon rereading, although they concern the same
>action, they seem to concern separate issues, so linked assignment does not
>seem appropriate.
I came to the same conclusion.
-zefram
37 matches
Mail list logo
