Goethe wrote:
I CFJ on the following statement (criminal case): comex has violated
Rule 2149 in his communication of voting on proposal 5375.
Arguments: comex has stated specifically in the past that e does not
believe that e has huge numbers of ordinary votes, nor would any reasonable
person
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007, Taral wrote:
> On 12/22/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Of course e should. It's still misrepresentation. What about any/every
>> player who tries to keep some kind of reasonable tally on how voting is
>> going? Should they be constantly required to check agai
On 12/22/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Of course e should. It's still misrepresentation. What about any/every
> player who tries to keep some kind of reasonable tally on how voting is
> going? Should they be constantly required to check against the report in
> light of obvious fal
> On 12/22/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With all due respect to the recordkeepors, the Assessor should be
> taking the VLOP into account when recording votes to prevent
> accidental over-voting.
Of course e should. It's still misrepresentation. What about any/every
player who tr
On Saturday 22 December 2007 23:24:16 Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> I CFJ on the following statement (criminal case): comex has violated
> Rule 2149 in his communication of voting on proposal 5375.
>
> Arguments: comex has stated specifically in the past that e does not
> believe that e has huge numbe
On 12/22/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Arguments: comex has stated specifically in the past that e does not
> believe that e has huge numbers of ordinary votes, nor would any reasonable
> person. So e has made a false representation of eir voting power with
> a demonstrated lack of
Ed Murphy wrote:
>When was this? Were the amounts larger?
1996-1997. Marks were the basic currency, and they'd inflated
such that the fixed awards and penalties were pretty insignificant.
The Mil was then defined as 1/1000 of all the Marks in circulation at the
beginning of the present month (th
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
[Rather than limit the minting of currency, simply devalue it. This
is both simpler and more realistic.]
Been done before, and it was horrendous. Making currency units decay
(as we now have them do) involves a lot less paperwork.
When was this? Were the amo
Ed Murphy wrote:
>[Rather than limit the minting of currency, simply devalue it. This
>is both simpler and more realistic.]
Been done before, and it was horrendous. Making currency units decay
(as we now have them do) involves a lot less paperwork.
-zefram
Nick Vanderweit wrote:
>Any player may spend N pesos to cause another player to gain .75*N
>pesos. However, if one of the parties in the transaction is the
>Treasury,
The Treasury is not a player, so by definition neither party in the
transaction can be the Treasury.
You didn't define a recordkee
avpx wrote:
Any player may spend N pesos to cause another player to gain .75*N
pesos. However, if one of the parties in the transaction is the
Treasury, then N pesos may be spent by one party to cause the other
party to gain N pesos.
"I spend 500 of the Treasury's pesos to cause myself to gain
Nick Vanderweit wrote:
>What do you mean?
How does anyone come to possess a peso? You didn't define any way for
pesos to be gained by persons or to be transferred from the Treasury
to persons.
Btw, it seems strange to call it "real currency" when it can't be
transferred freely.
-zefram
On Saturday 22 December 2007 17:08:22 Zefram wrote:
> Josiah Worcester wrote:
> >I intend to deputise to publish the IADoP's report for last week. The time
> >limit has already expired.
>
> It's now a low-priority office, and so only has a monthly report.
>
> -zefram
>
Did *not* notice that.
What do you mean? I want the currency to be rule-defined, but I think
it would be a good idea to let the free market take its course in
terms of payment. The currency being rule-defined would help a great
deal when it is extended it to perform certain Agoran functions, like
perhaps having a game-wi
On Dec 22, 2007 6:25 PM, Nick Vanderweit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I submit the following proposal, titled "Real Currency, with AI=2 and
> coauthor=pikhq:
Useless rule :/
comex wrote:
On Dec 22, 2007 12:12 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
An announcement claiming that such an import has occurred is
self-ratifying.
I don't think you get around to specifying that it must be imported by
announcement.
True, though the Ambassador's report o
On Dec 22, 2007 12:12 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>An announcement claiming that such an import has occurred is
>self-ratifying.
I don't think you get around to specifying that it must be imported by
announcement.
Ed Murphy wrote:
>I call for judgement on this statement, barring Zefram:
And there was me thinking that judicial activity must be over for
the year. Only 30 hours left before the holiday, during which judges
can't legally be assigned. We've had over 250 judicial cases this year,
which is way ab
On Dec 21, 2007, at 11:29 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
As Herald, I hereby award pikhq the Patent Title Champion (win on
points).
If pikhq's win is upheld on CFJ ruling, I'm going to propose awarding
em the title Scamster.
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr
On Dec 21, 2007, at 10:51 PM, Josiah Worcester wrote:
The AFO, Agora's Child, WALRUS, and I agree to the following:
pikhq SHALL NOT create points unless acting as a contestmaster, or is
otherwise obligated to do so.
Human Point Two emphatically does not agree to this.
-
Benjamin Schultz K
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>I looked it up, by R1922, that missed being made pragmatic (I thought
>I did!), the Herald's not empowered to award it as required by R649.
>My bad!
Proposal 5341 failed to amend that clause, because the text to replace
had already been amended by the time it took effect.
21 matches
Mail list logo
