pikhq, I'm the caller of your CFJ, not the judge.
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 9:58 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 3 Apr 2008, Josiah Worcester wrote:
> > On 11:55 Thu 03 Apr , Iammars wrote:
> >> I judge CFJ 1917 in the following manner:
> >> {
> >> The defendant has admi
On 18:58 Thu 03 Apr , Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 3 Apr 2008, Josiah Worcester wrote:
> > On 11:55 Thu 03 Apr , Iammars wrote:
> >> I judge CFJ 1917 in the following manner:
> >> {
> >> The defendant has admitted to being guilty, and in fact has not published a
> >> notary report las
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 9:40 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree to this:
>
> 1) This public contract is named Universe 1.
> 2) Beans are a class of assets.
> 3) The recordkeepor of beans is Murphy.
> 4) Beans are restricted to the class of players whose nickname
>is M
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 9:40 PM, Ed Murphy > I create 2 beads in my possession.
> I call for judgement on the following statements:
>
> * Murphy has a bead.
> * pikhq has a bead.
I suggest that each contract defined a novel type of asset called a
"bean", and that the rest of the message is the
On Thu, 3 Apr 2008, Josiah Worcester wrote:
> On 11:55 Thu 03 Apr , Iammars wrote:
>> I judge CFJ 1917 in the following manner:
>> {
>> The defendant has admitted to being guilty, and in fact has not published a
>> notary report last month, so I judge GUILTY.
>> }
>>
>> I sentence em in the f
On 19:49 Wed 02 Apr , Ed Murphy wrote:
> 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
On Thu, 3 Apr 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > To put it in a language and describe it as a custom all Agorans should
>> > understand, allowing future specification would be a TEOISIWDTIWDTWPAIAW.
>>
>> "terrible example of 'I say
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > To put it in a language and describe it as a custom all Agorans should
> > understand, allowing future specification would be a TEOISIWDTIWDTWPAIAW.
>
> "terrible example of 'I say I will do, therefore I will do' that will
Zefram wrote:
> I'd prefer to legislate that messages take effect at the time they
> are processed by the list software. That'd make it the same Received:
> header that is significant in each message, and any skew affects everyone
> equally.
If you propose this, then please annotate it to explai
Goethe wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Apr 2008, Zefram wrote:
>> Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>>> Rule 478: "Any action performed by sending a message is performed at
>>> the time date-stamped on that message."
>> I'd point at the preceding sentence:
>>
>> Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed
Ed Murphy wrote:
> A public message's claim to have been published as of the
> time in its Date: header is self-ratifying,
Do you expect there to be a lot of such claims?
I'd prefer to legislate that messages take effect at the time they
are processed by the list software. That'd make
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 12:19 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So my scam only fails if someone accuses me of scamming *before* I
> actually do it?
No, it follows the normal self-ratification process, unless such a
challenge has been made against the publisher (presumably for some
On Thu, 3 Apr 2008, Zefram wrote:
> Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> Rule 478: "Any action performed by sending a message is performed at
>> the time date-stamped on that message."
>
> I'd point at the preceding sentence:
>
> Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed "by
> announcem
Zefram wrote:
> When I was registrar, many years ago, I actually used the appropriate
> Received: header routinely. As far as I know this is unique among
> officeholders.
Likely because it requires remembering which Received: header is the
appropriate one.
Proto-Proposal: When Am I?
(AI = 3, p
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>Rule 478: "Any action performed by sending a message is performed at
>the time date-stamped on that message."
I'd point at the preceding sentence:
Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed "by
announcement", a player performs that action by announci
> When I was registrar, many years ago, I actually used the appropriate
> Received: header routinely. As far as I know this is unique among
> officeholders.
I used to do this as well as Promotor and Registrar, until the
appropriate Received: header changed.
-root
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 2:16 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Looking at B Nomic Rule 4E7, I also see nothing stopping one from
> basing either the scheduled time or the number of repetitions on a
> specific quantity that is impractical to compute (e.g. "the private
> key corresponding
On 4/3/08, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does it allow conditionals as well?
Yes.
Yes it does.
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What is it exactly that makes post-dated actions invalid? (just curious)
Rule 478: "Any action performed by sending a message is performed at
the time date-stamped on that message."
Forging your date stamp arguably would a
19 matches
Mail list logo
