Zefram wrote:
5423 O0 1.5 woggle Refactoring Contracts II
5424 D0 2Zefram everything in its place
5425 O1 1.7 Murphy A different sort of judicial question
5426 D1 2Murphy Corporate judges
The next Assessor should also note that Jeremy's registration increa
Gratuitous evidence: I often don't have ag-dis delivery turned on, so such
messages are frequently not "sent" to me (I do, obviously, read them from
the archives). -Goethe
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1888
>
> ==
On 17:20 Wed 30 Jan , Ed Murphy wrote:
> pikhq wrote:
>
>> On 18:17 Wed 30 Jan , Josiah Worcester wrote:
>>> THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED TO BE PUBLIC
>>> -
>>> The AFO joins the Vote Market.
>>> I transfer 1 VP to the AFO.
>>> The AFO transfers 1 VP to me.
>
comex wrote:
http://cfj.qoid.us/1314
I can't find (in any of the archives on Zefram's page, for one thing)
much information about this CFJ. Specifically, there are no judge's
arguments listed. Does anyone have a copy of the list from Aug. 2001,
or can anyone tell me where to find it?
From c
On Wednesday 30 January 2008 7:18 Josiah Worcester wrote:
> On 18:17 Wed 30 Jan , Josiah Worcester wrote:
> > THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED TO BE PUBLIC
> > -
> > The AFO joins the Vote Market.
> > I transfer 1 VP to the AFO.
> > The AFO transfers 1 VP to me.
> >
pikhq wrote:
On 18:17 Wed 30 Jan , Josiah Worcester wrote:
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED TO BE PUBLIC
-
The AFO joins the Vote Market.
I transfer 1 VP to the AFO.
The AFO transfers 1 VP to me.
The AFO leaves the Vote Market
I CFJ on the following: The above
On 18:17 Wed 30 Jan , Josiah Worcester wrote:
> THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED TO BE PUBLIC
> -
> The AFO joins the Vote Market.
> I transfer 1 VP to the AFO.
> The AFO transfers 1 VP to me.
> The AFO leaves the Vote Market
>
I CFJ on the following: The above mes
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED TO BE PUBLIC
-
The AFO joins the Vote Market.
I transfer 1 VP to the AFO.
The AFO transfers 1 VP to me.
The AFO leaves the Vote Market
> Amend section 9 to read:
> {{
> Any party may amend this agreement with the majority consent of the
> other parties
> }}
I would prefer to require more than simple majority -- 2/3, perhaps?
watcher
--
But you won't have every kid in America reading your book.
They will look at it, and they wi
On Jan 30, 2008 5:16 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, Rule 478 explicitly redefines a public message with one,
> clear definition:
> A message is public if and only if it is sent via a public forum
> or is sent to all players and contains a clear designation of
> intent
http://cfj.qoid.us/1314
I can't find (in any of the archives on Zefram's page, for one thing)
much information about this CFJ. Specifically, there are no judge's
arguments listed. Does anyone have a copy of the list from Aug. 2001,
or can anyone tell me where to find it?
On Jan 30, 2008 6:31 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Rules don't need to define an action to proscribe it.
>
> In this case, it would still be perfectly possible in the absence of
> the rules to falsely make a statement in a manner that the rules as
> they exist deem to be public, i.
On Jan 30, 2008 4:17 PM, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, if the player making that statement believed it wasn't true, then
> that statement would be a lie, which is what the statement says?
The rule prohibits any person from making a statement that e does not
believe to be true. T
On Jan 30, 2008 4:15 PM, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > since
> > making a public statement is not a rule-defined action.
> >
>
> I'm not sure I follow this. How would it be possible to violate Rule
> 2149 if the act of 'making a public statement' is not defined by the rules?
The Rul
On Wednesday 30 January 2008 17:43:08 Levi Stephen wrote:
> I agree to REMAND also.
>
> Is it also worth considering the possibility that the registration
> notice registered a player 'Pavitra', rather than 'watcher'? (I believe
> this was the initial interpretation from the registrar?)
I believe
I used my entrance to Agora as part of one of my college application essays.
On Jan 30, 2008 6:21 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008, Levi Stephen wrote:
> > (I'm writing these quick emails from work, where I probably shouldn't be
> ;) )
>
> Heh. I actually had
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008, Levi Stephen wrote:
> (I'm writing these quick emails from work, where I probably shouldn't be ;) )
Heh. I actually had my performance plan written to include Agora one year.
(Not anymore, unfortunately :( ). -Goethe
For the convenience of the new Assessor, here are records for the
proposal voting periods currently in progress.
[Voting periods ending February 2 at approx. 12:53:00 UTC]
5418 5419 5420 5421 5422
BobTHJ R R6R6R R
LeviF A
On Jan 30, 2008 4:09 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> E has taken player-only actions on a conditional basis, due to uncertainty
> about eir registration status. I think this is no evidence at all about
> intent, as a perfectly reasonable interpretation is that e is merely
> accepting the (
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Jan 30, 2008 3:02 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Making the public statement 'This statement is a lie' would
cause the person making that statement to violate Rule 2149.
Soliciting comments on this CFJ.
Judge BobTHJ
I agree with H. Zefram's anal
Ed Murphy wrote:
Levi wrote:
I initiate an Agoran Decision to resolve the holder of the Assessor
office. The eligible voters are the active players. The vote collector
is the IADoP.
The valid options are BOBTHJ and ROOT.
This voting period has ended. Please resolve it with all due speed.
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, Zefram wrote:
> E has taken player-only actions on a conditional basis, due to uncertainty
> about eir registration status. I think this is no evidence at all about
> intent, as a perfectly reasonable interpretation is that e is merely
> accepting the (possible) accidental re
> since
making a public statement is not a rule-defined action.
I'm not sure I follow this. How would it be possible to violate Rule
2149 if the act of 'making a public statement' is not defined by the rules?
Levi
Levi wrote:
I initiate an Agoran Decision to resolve the holder of the Assessor
office. The eligible voters are the active players. The vote collector
is the IADoP.
The valid options are BOBTHJ and ROOT.
This voting period has ended. Please resolve it with all due speed.
I wrote:
I nominate comex, Eris, OscarMeyr, and Wooble for Accountor.
H. IADoP Levi, you're required to conduct an election. The
consenting nominees were comex, Eris, Wooble, and the AFO
(nominated by comex).
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>might be reasonable to use after-the-fact evidence of consent/intent, namely
>that "watcher" has acted as a player since trying to register.
E has taken player-only actions on a conditional basis, due to uncertainty
about eir registration status. I think this is no evidence a
I agree to REMAND also.
Is it also worth considering the possibility that the registration
notice registered a player 'Pavitra', rather than 'watcher'? (I believe
this was the initial interpretation from the registrar?)
Levi
I agree to this judicial decision of REMAND, with the added note t
I agree to this judicial decision of REMAND, with the added note that I don't
find Woggle's judgement inappropriate, but that there are two competing ideas
here: (1) Judge Steve's admonition (CFJ 1263) that we shouldn't be too nit-
picky about attempts to register (which is a little contrary to
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1882a
Appellant Zefram's Arguments:
> Per R754 that definition applies *by default*.
> It makes perfect sense as a modifier to make "register" refer to
> something other than the default (registration as a player), specifically
> to ref
On Jan 30, 2008 1:16 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I register.
>
Welcome to Agora, Ivan
BobTHJ
On Jan 30, 2008 1:02 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Soliciting comments on this CFJ.
Zefram's assessment seemed reasonable to me, although I think that the
statement is too general to be found TRUE; UNDETERMINED seems more
appropriate. Note also that a judgement of UNDECIDABLE here
On Jan 30, 2008 3:02 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Making the public statement 'This statement is a lie' would
> > cause the person making that statement to violate Rule 2149.
>
> Soliciting comments on this CFJ.
>
> Judge BobTHJ
I agree with H. Zefram's analysis. Rule
On Jan 29, 2008 10:34 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1887
>
> == CFJ 1887 ==
>
> Making the public statement 'This statement is a lie' would
> cause the person m
On Jan 30, 2008 12:09 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BobTHJ wrote:
>
> > With the majority consent of the Farmers in AAA #1 (which I believe to
> > be only Murphy and comex) I intend to amend the Agoran Agricultural
> > Association agreement (the first one) by adding the following secti
On 1/30/08, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> > On Jan 29, 2008 7:53 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I can do a *double* ROT-13 encoder. Does that count?
> >
> > That would be an interesting contest. I'm sure I'd lose horrib
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Jan 29, 2008 7:53 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I can do a *double* ROT-13 encoder. Does that count?
>
> That would be an interesting contest. I'm sure I'd lose horribly with
> my bloated 4-character solution.
But I'll bet tha
On Jan 29, 2008 7:55 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I OBJECT to this appeal. Does that count for anything?
It could count for something when the decision on who is named to the
Appeals Panel is made...
On Jan 29, 2008 7:53 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can do a *double* ROT-13 encoder. Does that count?
That would be an interesting contest. I'm sure I'd lose horribly with
my bloated 4-character solution.
On 1/30/08, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I dissolve the first Agoran Agricultural Association.
I don't think you can do that, considering that it has several members.
Levi Stephen wrote:
> Making the public statement 'This statement is a lie' would
> cause the person making that statement to violate Rule 2149.
That depends on the person's belief about the truth of that statement.
I expect all Agorans are well aware of the self-contradictory nature
o
40 matches
Mail list logo
