BobTHJ wrote:
On Dec 20, 2007 11:28 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Irrelevant; the resolution need only include the valid votes on it. Inclusion
of votes which were believed to be valid but aren't actually valid does not
violate the requirements set by rule 208 (nor does any in
On Thursday 20 December 2007 22:56:42 Ed Murphy wrote:
> Proposal: Only private assets can hyperinflate
> (AI = 2, please)
>
> Amend Rule 2166 (Assets) by replacing "An asset generally CAN be
> created" with "An asset whose backing document is not a rule generally
> CAN be created".
>
Agreed. :
On Dec 20, 2007 10:20 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thursday 20 December 2007 22:18:37 Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 20 Dec 2007, Josiah Worcester wrote:
> > > I create 100 points in my posession, as allowed by rule 2166/1.
> > > I win the game.
> >
> > Assuming you're
pikhq wrote:
On Thursday 20 December 2007 22:37:29 Ian Kelly wrote:
On Dec 20, 2007 9:53 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I create 100 points in my posession, as allowed by rule 2166/1.
I win the game.
Marks also have this loophole. Possibly VCs as well; changes to VCs
are sec
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007, Josiah Worcester wrote:
> I create 100 points in my posession, as allowed by rule 2166/1.
> I win the game.
Assuming you're the scorekeepor, I'll buy this one. Well found!
-Goethe
On Thursday 20 December 2007 22:37:29 Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Dec 20, 2007 9:53 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I create 100 points in my posession, as allowed by rule 2166/1.
> > I win the game.
>
> Marks also have this loophole. Possibly VCs as well; changes to VCs
> are secur
On Dec 20, 2007 9:53 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I create 100 points in my posession, as allowed by rule 2166/1.
> I win the game.
Marks also have this loophole. Possibly VCs as well; changes to VCs
are secured by R2126, but R2166 has the same power.
-root
On Thursday 20 December 2007 22:18:37 Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007, Josiah Worcester wrote:
> > I create 100 points in my posession, as allowed by rule 2166/1.
> > I win the game.
>
> Assuming you're the scorekeepor, I'll buy this one. Well found!
>
> -Goethe
>
>
>
>
I am ind
My initial thought is REMAND.
Probably on the grounds that there may be more issues to be considered
than those presented by the caller.
But, I'm really not sure yet.
Levi
Zefram wrote:
>I hereby assign the judicial panel of Murphy, pikhq, and Zefram as judge
>of CFJ 1837a and CFJ 1838a.
I intend, with support of the other panel members, to have the panel
judge REMAND in both of these CFJs.
-zefram
On Thursday 20 December 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
> (Ratification is a standing acknowledgment that
> certain levels of difficulty aren't worth the effort.)
Especially considering the amount of game actions Fookiemyartug has taken.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Goethe wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007, Roger Hicks wrote:
To be fair, I was not certain that Agora would accept Fookiemyartug's
retroactivity mumbo-jumbo, hence my reason for stating that it was a
test. I did however search the ruleset first to see if there was any
clear conflict with my actions. I
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007, Roger Hicks wrote:
> To be fair, I was not certain that Agora would accept Fookiemyartug's
> retroactivity mumbo-jumbo, hence my reason for stating that it was a
> test. I did however search the ruleset first to see if there was any
> clear conflict with my actions. In hindsi
On Thursday 20 December 2007 17:53:45 Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Dec 20, 2007 5:48 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I gained a violet mark by gaining a patent title (Agoran Spy), and I
gained a
> > white one by naming a mentor.
>
> You gained VCs, not marks.
>
> -root
>
Um. . . D
On Wednesday 19 December 2007 23:32:49 Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Josiah Worcester wrote:
> > As H. Notary Goethe can confirm, it is a distinct partnership.
> > If you really *must* know, its basis consists of myself and avpx.
>
> Is this permission for me to confirm or deny this
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007, Zefram wrote:
> We don't necessarily need to change the standard. We need to consider
> whether the proposed loophole was actually believed by the offending
> player. There must be a point beyond which we'd say that this player
> can't actually have believed that the loophol
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007, Roger Hicks wrote:
> At the point in time where Fookiemyartug registered, the courts had
> not established that concepts/objects created by contracts had no
> bearing on Agora, except when recognized in equity court. I believe it
> was actually the nkep scam that solidified t
On Dec 20, 2007 5:48 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I gained a violet mark by gaining a patent title (Agoran Spy), and I gained a
> white one by naming a mentor.
You gained VCs, not marks.
-root
On Thursday 20 December 2007 10:56:18 Zefram wrote:
> I hereby assign pikhq as judge of CFJ 1846.
>
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1846
>
> == CFJ 1846 ==
>
> Type: inquiry ca
On Thursday 20 December 2007 17:39:07 Ed Murphy wrote:
> pikhq wrote:
>
> > If I have one white, one blue, and one violet mark,
>
> You have neither a white nor a violet mark.
>
> > I spend them to increase my VVLOP by one.
>
> This would fail regardless.
>
>
I gained a violet mark by gaini
pikhq wrote:
If I have one white, one blue, and one violet mark,
You have neither a white nor a violet mark.
> I spend them to increase my VVLOP by one.
This would fail regardless.
On Thursday 20 December 2007 07:51:28 Zefram wrote:
> >Statement: submitting a protective decree to Steve Wallace is a violation
> > of rule 2159
>
> I note that this is asking about submitting a *real* protective decree,
> not (as the prior discussion) about falsely claiming something t
Zefram wrote:
comex wrote:
However, such a clause would not need the except bit in the first place,
The except bit would avoid a conflict between the two clauses.
Has there ever been much in the way of explicit legislation on the
topic of rules conflicting with themselves? Informally, I th
Zefram wrote:
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
b) comex referred to R2149 in eir arguments, and presented no other
rule in the message as provided to this CFJ. I consider this to
adequately identify the rule in question (although not as clearly as
I might prefer). PASS
Rule 1504 says that the
Ian Kelly wrote:
>Have you considered the possibility that the contract, as a means of
>creating obligations but not otherwise changing game state, merely
>required comex to authorize the AFO to act on eir behalf, and that
>comex's redaction of that authorization was effective but in violation
>of
Ed Murphy wrote:
>The intent was for the first clause in (+b) to refer to the first clause
>in (-b). Compare Rule 1871, which uses the following basic form:
The comparison is most instructive. I'd been meaning to bring it up,
but it slipped my mind.
> If X, then Z, except in the situation
comex wrote:
>However, such a clause would not need the except bit in the first place,
The except bit would avoid a conflict between the two clauses.
> the "except as noted
>below" clause is to be interpreted that the person gets a Blue VC *u
On Dec 20, 2007 4:33 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At the time that each of the alleged acts was committed, Rule 2149/7
> was in force, and it did proscribe the publication by a knight of a
> statement believed by em to be false. The defendant has laid out in
> eir defense that e did
On Dec 20, 2007 4:45 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I find it difficult to say what BobTHJ could have honestly believed on
> the balance of probabilities. Retroactivity doesn't seem at all like
> the sort of thing that Agorans would be likely to allow, and I'm sure
> a reasonable player w
On Dec 20, 2007 4:43 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wouldn't INNOCENT be more appropriate, then?
I don't believe so. While BobTHJ's defense was plausible, it is not
evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt". Furthermore, as Goethe has
noted, the defendant's word that e acted in good faith sho
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
>b) comex referred to R2149 in eir arguments, and presented no other
>rule in the message as provided to this CFJ. I consider this to
>adequately identify the rule in question (although not as clearly as
>I might prefer). PASS
Rule 1504 says that the announcement m
On Dec 20, 2007 4:36 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> These two aspects are in conflict: by the contract comex explicitly
> authorises the AFO to act on eir behalf, but by eir later statement
> e purports to repudiate such authorisation. Due to the conflict, the
> statement might conceivabl
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>The standard needs to be "would a reasonable player with the same information
>(including knowledge of motives) believe the same thing?" Otherwise, anyone
>can always avoid punishment by saying "I believed that [through a completely
>and utterly unbelievable loophole] I would b
On Thursday 20 December 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Dec 20, 2007 3:47 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I hereby, in linked fashion, assign root as judge of CFJs 1837-1838.
>
> At the time that each of the alleged acts was committed, Rule 2149/7
> was in force, and it did proscribe the publ
On Dec 20, 2007 4:33 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I note that a similar case in which the defendant is charged with
> being "reckless regarding the veracity of" eir statements while a
> knight, also proscribed by Rule 2149/7, may have different results.
By the way, I hope that somebo
comex wrote:
On 12/20/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The argument against blue mark awards for excess CFJing rests on the
interpretation that section (-b), by mentioning a circumstance that is
a subset of the trigger for (+b), implicitly "notes" that (+b)'s award
does not occur in that m
On Dec 20, 2007, at 6:16 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
OscarMeyr wrote:
(Murphy owes the Oracle four pieces of fluff and any hand tool.)
Would you settle for three pints and a sandwich?
Don't forget the peanuts.
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr
OscarMeyr wrote:
(Murphy owes the Oracle four pieces of fluff and any hand tool.)
Would you settle for three pints and a sandwich?
On Dec 20, 2007 3:55 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007, comex wrote:
> > On 12/20/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> The statements I made regarding Fookiemyartug I believed (through the
> >> retroactivity clause) to be able to be proven true.
> >
> >
PROTO JUDGEMENT in CFJ 1845:
R1504 lays out the requirements for initiating a criminal case:
a) The identity of the defendant.
b) Exactly one rule allegedly breached by the defendant.
c) The action (which may be a failure to perform another action)
by which the defend
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007, comex wrote:
> On 12/20/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The statements I made regarding Fookiemyartug I believed (through the
>> retroactivity clause) to be able to be proven true.
>
> Interesting; if e did, then not even an APOLOGY is appropriate.
The standard
On Dec 20, 2007, at 3:57 PM, Zefram wrote:
I hereby assign the judicial panel of Iammars, OscarMeyr, and root as
judge of CFJ 1831b.
Which, incidentally, was the appellate panel for 1831a.
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr
comex wrote:
>Do you have a suggestion for what else the except-as-noted-below
>clause could mean?
It's obviously meant to match up with a later provision along the lines
of "A person who is wearing a hat does not gain the usual blue mark for
calling for judgement.". However, there is no such pro
On 12/20/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The statements I made regarding Fookiemyartug I believed (through the
> retroactivity clause) to be able to be proven true.
Interesting; if e did, then not even an APOLOGY is appropriate.
On 12/20/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The argument against blue mark awards for excess CFJing rests on the
> interpretation that section (-b), by mentioning a circumstance that is
> a subset of the trigger for (+b), implicitly "notes" that (+b)'s award
> does not occur in that more speci
Zefram wrote:
20 Dec 2007 00:38:57 1839 pikhq +1b call for judgement
20 Dec 2007 00:38:57 1840 pikhq +1b call for judgement
I had missed these.
The other differences in our records depend on which CFJs comex
called (CFJs 1833 and 1835), which CFJs WALRUS called (CFJ 1840),
and
On Dec 20, 2007 2:14 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12/20/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > VP can be increased by posting Sell tickets and/or filling Buy tickets.
>
> That's not deterministic. There is no guarantee that anyone will be
> interested in one's Sell tickets or t
On 12/20/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> VP can be increased by posting Sell tickets and/or filling Buy tickets.
That's not deterministic. There is no guarantee that anyone will be
interested in one's Sell tickets or that Buy tickets will be
available.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"
On 12/20/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Taral wrote:
> >Having received support of Zefram and root, I appeal Murphy's
> >judgement in CFJ 1840.
>
> This is not a complete tally of votes. You must include your own
> implicit vote. (See thread re CFJ 1831.)
I think that needs fixing. Impl
On Dec 20, 2007 2:06 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12/20/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 10. When the VP of a first-class party falls below 50, e is OBLIGATED to
> > increase it to 50 or above within 60 days.
>
> There's no deterministic way to increase one's VP. :(
>
VP
On 12/20/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 10. When the VP of a first-class party falls below 50, e is OBLIGATED to
> increase it to 50 or above within 60 days.
There's no deterministic way to increase one's VP. :(
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any furthe
comex wrote:
>Cripes. What's the point of that other than to confuse?
It makes a difference if the vote collector is not first-class.
It used to be that a partnership that was not eligible to vote on a
dependent action could act "with 2 support" by getting votes from only
two first-class players.
On Dec 20, 2007 3:35 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 20, 2007 1:30 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Actually, the mechanism has changed. To act "with 2 support" you
> > need *three* votes of SUPPORT. You, as vote collector, are no longer
> > disqualified from voting, an
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007, Zefram wrote:
> I note that this judgement of CFJ 1831 means that the case doesn't
> properly address the matter that was originally in controversy.
> I disagree with Goethe's reasoning, because I think that a URL on its
> own does not constitute any vote at all. I agree wit
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
I interpret (+b)'s "except as noted below" as "except when a person
calls for judgement within the narrower circumstances noted below".
No doubt that's what was intended, but it's not what it says.
I think my interpretation is a reasonable one, and as the reco
Ed Murphy wrote:
> * UNAWARE, appropriate if the defendant violated the specified
>rule via the specified action, but reasonably believed at the
>time that e was not violating a rule
I thought that when you first proposed this we agreed that the "if the
defendant violated ..."
Ed Murphy wrote:
>I interpret (+b)'s "except as noted below" as "except when a person
>calls for judgement within the narrower circumstances noted below".
No doubt that's what was intended, but it's not what it says.
-zefram
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
(+b) When a person calls for judgement, e gains one Blue Mark,
*except as noted below*.
There is no provision below that says "If XXX then e does not gain the
usual Blue Mark for calling for judgement.".
(-b) When a person calls for judge
Ed Murphy wrote:
>Relevant excerpts: (emphasis added)
Yes, that's the bit.
> (+b) When a person calls for judgement, e gains one Blue Mark,
> *except as noted below*.
There is no provision below that says "If XXX then e does not gain the
usual Blue Mark for calling for judgement.
Taral wrote:
>As per appellate instruction, I judge FALSE.
I note that this judgement of CFJ 1831 means that the case doesn't
properly address the matter that was originally in controversy.
I disagree with Goethe's reasoning, because I think that a URL on its
own does not constitute any vote at al
On Dec 20, 2007 10:46 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12/20/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >Amend Rule 2126 (Voting Credits) by replacing "Assessor" with
> > >"Accountor".
> >
> > Amendment fails: there are two separate instances of "Assessor" in
> > that rule. You must
Roger Hicks wrote:
>In the absence of a specification it is reasonably implied that all
>instances should be replaced.
I don't think so. It's always been made explicit before, when multiple
replacements were desired. I think in the absence of such specification
the proposal is assuming that ther
On 12/20/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Amend Rule 2126 (Voting Credits) by replacing "Assessor" with
> >"Accountor".
>
> Amendment fails: there are two separate instances of "Assessor" in
> that rule. You must specify which instance(s) you want to replace.
>
In the absence of a specific
Wooble wrote:
On Dec 20, 2007 7:56 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I hereby assign the judicial panel of Goethe, root, and Wooble as judge
of CFJ 1836a.
With the consent of Goethe and root, I intend to have the panel judge
REMAND with instructions to consider the effects of the ratifica
comex wrote:
On 12/20/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As stated above, I find that all of these points conflict with the
best interests of the game, and so I think it important to deviate
from the set interpretation. In contrast, a rational number
interpretation results in no such pro
Zefram wrote:
pikhq made an unsuitable announcement out of ineptness, I don't think
it was deliberate. E mistakenly made a public message that relied on
a term that was only defined privately.
T1 was several hours after comex's Spartacus attempts. Had it occurred
before those attempts, one c
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
02 Dec 2007 23:39:06 1818 pikhq +1b call for judgement
This didn't happen, due to 2176 (+b)'s "except as noted below" clause.
There is no note below about not gaining blue marks. There's a note
about *losing* blue marks when making excess calls for jud
On 12/20/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As stated above, I find that all of these points conflict with the
> best interests of the game, and so I think it important to deviate
> from the set interpretation. In contrast, a rational number
> interpretation results in no such problems. B
>Statement: submitting a protective decree to Steve Wallace is a violation
> of rule 2159
I note that this is asking about submitting a *real* protective decree,
not (as the prior discussion) about falsely claiming something to be a
protective decree.
-zefram
On 12/20/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Initiator's Arguments:
>
> Arguments for:
> I submitted to Steve Wallace, as a 'protective decree', "there is such a thing
> as a suffusion of yellow.
> Steve Wallace may be considered a Nomic, since his opinions, thoughts,
> behaviors, and even pote
Ian Kelly wrote:
>By way of arguments, Telescope refers to CFJ 1361 and notes that for
>an action to be effective, there should be a clear indication of who
>is performing the action, which was not provided when WALRUS first
>attempted to register.
Murphy's judgement is based on the argument that
Ed Murphy wrote:
>Based on information known to pikhq at the time, and without resorting
>to retroactivity, WALRUS was a person and a player at time T1.
That doesn't follow. pikhq know WALRUS to be a person, but (according
to my argument) e failed to make a suitable announcement in order to
regis
Ed Murphy wrote:
>> 02 Dec 2007 23:39:06 1818 pikhq +1b call for judgement
>
>This didn't happen, due to 2176 (+b)'s "except as noted below" clause.
There is no note below about not gaining blue marks. There's a note
about *losing* blue marks when making excess calls for judgement, but
no
root wrote:
On Dec 19, 2007 11:18 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
T1 = first time at which pikhq claimed to register WALRUS
T2 = second time at which pikhq claimed to register WALRUS
Based on information known to pikhq at the time, and without resorting
to retroactivity, WALRUS was a
74 matches
Mail list logo
