On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 11:31 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The rule in question says "a specified time in the future". Another
> part of that rule explicitly equates "I perform X
> times" as equivalent to that many instances of "I perform X", so "I
> perform X at each of " would
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 11:31 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The rule in question says "a specified time in the future". Another
> part of that rule explicitly equates "I perform X
> times" as equivalent to that many instances of "I perform X", so "I
> perform X at each of " would
root wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 10:30 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Getting your nomics crossed again? (B Nomic allows actions to be
>> performed in the future like this; ties are broken in favor of the
>> player who published first.)
>
> Hmm. Suppose I announce in B Nomic
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 10:30 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Getting your nomics crossed again? (B Nomic allows actions to be
> performed in the future like this; ties are broken in favor of the
> player who published first.)
Hmm. Suppose I announce in B Nomic that I perform an act
BobTHJ wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 1:08 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Roger Hicks wrote:
>> >Uh...yeah. I'm gonna recuse myself from this one too.
>>
>> Go on then.
>>
>> -zefram
>>
> Very well then, at exactly 03:59 UTC on April 5, 2008 I recuse myself
> from this case.
Getting
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 9:41 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Very well then, at exactly 03:59 UTC on April 5, 2008 I recuse myself
> from this case.
Fails.
-root
pikhq wrote:
> I disqualify Agora Nomic from this case.
>
> (Agora Nomic, by rule 2145, is a partnership, and therefore a
> person. I can disqualify any person I damned well want to. Have fun
> judging this one!)
This fails on multiple points:
* Rule 2171 (Rules Viewed as Binding Agreement) w
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 9:24 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 15:24 Sun 30 Mar , Ed Murphy wrote:
> > Iammars wrote:
> >
> > > I initiate a criminal case on pihkq for misrepresenting Agora on the
> > > Nomic Wiki by failing to include my name in the players list.
> > >
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 9:24 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Guilty as charged.
>
> However, I would like to be a bit of a bitch:
> I disqualify Agora Nomic from this case.
>
> (Agora Nomic, by rule 2145, is a partnership, and therefore a
> person. I can disqualify any person I da
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 8:35 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Apr 1, 2008, at 11:49 AM, Iammars wrote:
> > Wow. That was probably the worst land for me to get. I had 2 Digit
> > Ranches (4) and a subtraction Mill. 0 is the only number I can make!
>
>
> I'll trade you one of my D
On Apr 1, 2008, at 11:49 AM, Iammars wrote:
Wow. That was probably the worst land for me to get. I had 2 Digit
Ranches (4) and a subtraction Mill. 0 is the only number I can make!
I'll trade you one of my Digit Ranches (5) for one of your Digit
Ranches (4).
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
Osc
On Apr 1, 2008, at 6:03 AM, ihope wrote:
On 01/04/2008, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I request to be un-busy. That's not going to happen. Who wants my
stuff?
What, you're giving it away?
If he is, I'd appreciate some of the loot.
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr
On 02/04/2008, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I object to this change. [same reason as Zefram]
>
> Congratulations!
See what a good contestmaster I am? :-)
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 4:33 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I could make this change right now, I guess
OBJECT
BobTHJ wrote:
> Uh...yeah. I'm gonna recuse myself from this one too. Too busy at the
> moment to give it a fair look.
I believe this falls afoul of the same problem as "I'll consent".
On 02/04/2008, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 5488 D2 2Ivan Hope
> AGAINST. Foreign nomics that wish to be Agoran persons can do so by
> forming a partnership for that purpose. I'm not comfortable granting
> personhood to non-biological entities that aren't bound by A
On 02/04/2008, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A contract with no obligations is not much of a contract. I suggest
> that a change can take effect no less than 1 week after being
> approved. That will give people time to leave if they don't like it.
Sounds good. I suppose I might get a new ve
Roger Hicks wrote:
>Uh...yeah. I'm gonna recuse myself from this one too.
Go on then.
-zefram
On 4/2/08, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "A C'an may make a Contract Change to this contract with a majority of
> C'ans; however, after this is done, any C'an has the option to cease
> to become a party in a timely fashion rather than continuing to follow
> it"? Maybe we can make it impossi
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 8:53 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 5487 O1 1Murphy Spelling it out
FOR * 4
> 5488 D2 2Ivan Hope
AGAINST. Foreign nomics that wish to be Agoran persons can do so by
forming a partnership for that purpose. I'm not comfortable granting
personho
On 01/04/2008, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 9:36 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I agree to the following, to become a contract as soon as one other
> > person agrees to it:
>
> I was thinking of something similar, but on a more grandiose scale--
> for pro
On 02/04/2008, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/30/08, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Well, I'm sure overnight is long enough for anybody. Hopefully there's
> > nothing wrong with this.
>
> Why a contract?
So it can define currencies and impose obligations and such things
without
On 3/30/08, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, I'm sure overnight is long enough for anybody. Hopefully there's
> nothing wrong with this.
Why a contract?
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On 4/1/08, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A C'an may make a Contract Change to this contract with the consent of
> a majority of C'ans. A person CANNOT become a party to this contract
> if e has been a party in the preceding 14 days.}
Nice idea, not joining with this clause in.
--
Taral <
24 matches
Mail list logo
