On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 8:06 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/22/08, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Note that in the SoA report I was mistakenly mis-quoting the agreement
> > as I had forgotten to add the "for the first time" when I updated the
> > changes.
>
> That's
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 11:07 AM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If Wooble or comex writes a concurring opinion that arguably
> acknowledges Goethe's argument on appeal, I consent to the panel
> judging AFFIRM and publishing that concurring opinion.
Concurring opinion: I think this
> > Also, what happens if one of the specified players has the nerve to
> > deregister before the proposal takes effect and throws off the
> > balance?
>
> Erm, yes. I also want to allow some loose/flexible set specification
> (e.g. "all players with quality X get a P'ship of 1.5" where quali
On 2/22/08, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Note that in the SoA report I was mistakenly mis-quoting the agreement
> as I had forgotten to add the "for the first time" when I updated the
> changes.
That's really obnoxious. And all that work because you didn't properly
update your repor
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 6:45 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually root (sorry to keep coming back to this, it's bugging me), this
> is in fact where it falls down for me. I would say that:
>
> "I hereby initiate an inquiry CFJ on this sentence."
>
> is different from:
>
> I C
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> Of course that question doesn't initiate a CFJ. But the question this
> case is concerned with was "Do I hereby initiate an inquiry CFJ on
> this sentence?" The CFJ 1894 translation of that would be "I hereby
> initiate an inquiry CFJ on this sentence." D
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Ben Caplan wrote:
>> Or rather I should ask, how is the meaning ambiguous in a way that did
>> not apply equally in the case considered in CFJ 1894?
>
> Proposal 5425 was passed between CFJs 1894 and 1903.
>
> This was in fact the original point of this case, and I'm somewha
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 5:20 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> (c) The sum of all legally specified Partisanship values
>> for all specified players is equal to 1.0.
>
> I think you want the mean, not the sum. Also, note t
> Or rather I should ask, how is the meaning ambiguous in a way that did
> not apply equally in the case considered in CFJ 1894?
Proposal 5425 was passed between CFJs 1894 and 1903.
This was in fact the original point of this case, and I'm somewhat
surprised that the rather long discussion here
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 5:20 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (c) The sum of all legally specified Partisanship values
> for all specified players is equal to 1.0.
I think you want the mean, not the sum. Also, note that the mean
Partisanship of the specified set
Goethe wrote:
> At the end of
> each week, each player's EVLOP is set to eir VVLOP
> with
> At the end of
> each week, each player's EVLOP is set to eir VVLOP times eir
> Par
On 22/02/2008, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (c) The sum of all legally specified Partisanship values
> for all specified players is equal to 1.0.
So you can either set one player's Partisanship value to 1 or set two
players' Partisanship values to 0.5, assuming th
Proto: The new takeover, AI-2 please.
--
Partisanship 0.1
Amend Rule 2156 by replacing the following text:
At the end of
each week, each player's EVLOP is set to eir VV
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> I
> very much doubt that it ever would have passed had it not been a
> Takeover proposal.
Hm. I'll bet takeover proposals would work better than before based
on the current group of players. Those were (or had the potential for)
fun. -G.
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I propose to change paragraph 3 of the AAA contract to read:
>
> 3. Any player may become party to this agreement by announcement.
> Parties to this agreement are known as Farmers. As soon as possible
> after a first-class playe
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 3:16 PM, Iammars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> They get new lands and water rights vouchers for joining up.
>
Ah, I don't think this trick worked. Here is the text of the last
change I made to the AAA agreement:
{
Amend section 3 by replacing:
{{
As soon as possible after a f
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 3:45 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Line 11 scans ok but I think the multiple "to"s make the syntax a bit
> odd. It's like a split infinitive that decided to unsplit halfway
> through.
Huh, I never noticed that before.
Writing rules in verse (and doing
During the week ending February 17, no Fantasy Rules Contest
contestants posted any fantasy rules, so no points are awarded.
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 5:04 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Goethe wrote:
>> > On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> >> While we're on the subject, is it just me, or is the scansion of
>> >> R1922(b) subtly but maddening off?
>> >
>
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 5:04 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Goethe wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> >> While we're on the subject, is it just me, or is the scansion of
> >> R1922(b) subtly but maddening off?
> >
> > Any particular place? I took a long ti
They get new lands and water rights vouchers for joining up.
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 5:10 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 12:40 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 2/22/08, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 12:27 PM, T
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 12:40 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/22/08, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 12:27 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I transfer 3 Water Rights Vouchers, 2 #4 crops, and land #7 to root.
> >
>
> > I transfer 6 Water Ri
Goethe wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> While we're on the subject, is it just me, or is the scansion of
>> R1922(b) subtly but maddening off?
>
> Any particular place? I took a long time over those iambs.
Line 10 does require reading "Player" with one syllable.
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> While we're on the subject, is it just me, or is the scansion of
> R1922(b) subtly but maddening off?
Any particular place? I took a long time over those iambs.
-G. the Bard
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> Or rather I should ask, how is the meaning ambiguous in a way that did
> not apply equally in the case considered in CFJ 1894?
No more free judgement
For Affirm or Reassign
My opinion waits
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 2:12 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 2:02 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Judge pikhq limits it
> > Nonambiguous meaning
> > Is not the case here
>
> How is the translation in this case in any way ambiguous?
Or rat
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 2:02 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Judge pikhq limits it
> Nonambiguous meaning
> Is not the case here
How is the translation in this case in any way ambiguous?
-root
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 3:19 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 2:54 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The "question yes/no = equivalent statement true/false" is a legal fiction
> > that applies only after the CFJ is initiated. Until that CFJ i
While we're on the subject, is it just me, or is the scansion of
R1922(b) subtly but maddening off?
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> Note that my purpose in raising this argument is not to have this case
> judged along the same lines as CFJ 1894, but to have the court
> consider the full implication of that judgement and hopefully overturn
> or at least limit it.
Judge pikhq limits it
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The "question yes/no = equivalent statement true/false" is a legal fiction
> that applies only after the CFJ is initiated. Until that CFJ is clearly
> initiated, the answer to the question (yes/no) is clearly different t
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> Of course that question doesn't initiate a CFJ. But the question this
> case is concerned with was "Do I hereby initiate an inquiry CFJ on
> this sentence?" The CFJ 1894 translation of that would be "I hereby
> initiate an inquiry CFJ on this sentence."
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 12:36 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> CFJ 1894 does not address what external context or announced acts are
> required
> to make a Call a Call. The above argument does. For example, is the name of
> the game Agora? I just asked a question with no indicati
On 2/22/08, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Really, I didn't want to get into this. My I Ching based argument is far
> better (again, Really).
Win.
--
Eris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 12:20 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> El Cheapo concurring opinion, use if you really must:
>>
>>Not every question is a CFJ, any more than every statement ever made
>>in Agora Business is a CFJ. A specific di
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 12:20 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> El Cheapo concurring opinion, use if you really must:
>
>Not every question is a CFJ, any more than every statement ever made
>in Agora Business is a CFJ. A specific directive is needed: eg "I call
>for judgeme
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Zefram wrote:
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Ew, I just can't get line breaks right in Webpine,
>
> No, you got them right. Murphy mangled it.
Well, to be fair, I meant to stay within the to meet the CotC's
current format out of courtesy, and missed: that's the webpine part.
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Charles Reiss wrote:
> If Wooble or comex writes a concurring opinion that arguably
> acknowledges Goethe's argument on appeal, I consent to the panel
> judging AFFIRM and publishing that concurring opinion.
No REMAND? But...but... I read the I Ching in anticipation! And it
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>Ew, I just can't get line breaks right in Webpine,
No, you got them right. Murphy mangled it.
-zefram
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 10:04 PM, Ben Caplan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 2008 6:40 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In the matter of the appeal of CFJ 1903, I intend to cause the panel
> > to judge AFFIRM.
>
> Given that the original judge supported the appeal, shoul
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> simply, is that this is a game for the entertainment(?) of unique
> individuals
Ew, I just can't get line breaks right in Webpine, after so long trying.
Back to straight pine I guess (but the filters are broken there, sigh).
-Goethe
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 11:19 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 7:36 PM, Iammars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> http://jmcteague.com/mediawikiold/index.php?title=Agora_Nomic_Tailor%27s_Report
> > Put it up on my wiki because I decided it was easier than trying to
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 11:13 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 7:35 PM, Iammars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The key part of Rule 2149/8 is that a message doesn't have to be true,
> but
> > that the person who writes it believes that it is true. comes tries to
>
Roger Hicks wrote:
>What permits the BobTHJ-in-Vote-Market position to deregister?
Its playerhood, which is tied to the BobTHJ aspect.
-zefram
44 matches
Mail list logo
