I vote as follows:
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 6:53 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> NUM FL AI SUBMITTER TITLE
> 5528 D1 3ais523
AGAINST
> 5529 D0 3ais523
AGAINST
> 5530 O1 1comex
AGAINST x 5, FOR x 1
> 5531 D2 3Murphy Rules as Binding Agre
On 5/30/08, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A system that allows a judicial scam to succeed by legitimizing an improper
> judgement is no longer a judicial system worthy of Agora. Agorans put
> great store in their legal system, so such a system is un-Agoran. The reason
> the First G
On 5/30/08, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Second attempt at a valid ruling:
>
> CFJ 1951 must be dismissed, under R101(vii): Every person has the right to
> not be penalized more than once for any single action or inaction.
>
> This part of R101 is appropriate because CFJ 1951 i
On 5/30/08, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> None of the other offices have such powerful 'perks'. I think this is
> part of what makes CotC elections so hotly contested while other
> offices struggle to keep officers who can publish a regular report.
Despite Murphy's comment, I think t
2008/5/30 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Perhaps not explicitly, but you never disclaimed authorship either,
> and the message has a From: header with your name on it. What would
> be the inference of a person unfamiliar with the prior CFJ?
>
> -root
>
OK, there may be confusion, but it was uni
2008/5/30 Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Wow, an almost exact copy-paste of my attempt to win by paradox, even
> down to copying the same argument with the names changed.
I must point out that we were talking over IRC when you said that I could do it.
ehird
On May 30, 2008, at 7:12 PM, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 5:03 PM, Benjamin Schultz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
CFJ 1951 is for the same act as CFJ 1948 (citing a different
rule), and
therefore becomes ALREADY JUDGED.
I think you mean ALREADY TRIED. But note that while it may
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 5:03 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> CFJ 1951 is for the same act as CFJ 1948 (citing a different rule), and
> therefore becomes ALREADY JUDGED.
I think you mean ALREADY TRIED. But note that while it may be
reasonable here, it's not appropriate because AL
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I never claimed I authored that cfj anyway
Perhaps not explicitly, but you never disclaimed authorship either,
and the message has a From: header with your name on it. What would
be the inference of a person unfamiliar wit
On Fri, 30 May 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> In retrospect, I suppose it was my general disdain for the
> equity court (which has yet to actually produce a useful equation,
> save perhaps the judgement in CFJ 1927 (which had not yet been judged
> when I started putting this scam together)) that led me
2008/5/30 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Doubtful. R2149 doesn't offer exemptions just because another player
> gave you permission.
>
> -root
>
I never claimed I authored that cfj anyway
ehird
On Fri, 30 May 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> And there's the
> great irony in what you just wrote: you complain about the
> criminalization of judging poorly in one sentence, and in the next
> sentence you remark that a judge who may have done just that got off
> too easily.
Sorry, I phrased that ba
On Fri, 30 May 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Proto-Proposal: Defend the judiciary
> In the interest of defending the judicial system as a paragon of
> virtue, unfairly self-interested judgements are never appropriate,
> rules to the contrary notwithstanding.
Please take a look at my p
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/5/30 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> I wonder if outright plagiarism like this could be in violation of
>> R2149 with respect to truthfulness in claim of authorship?
>>
>> -root
>>
>
> Does ais523's consent count?
Do
Zefram wrote:
>> Other persons who participate
>> in Agora SHOULD abide by the rules, but do not become party to
>> them unless they explicitly intend to do so, e.g. by entering
>> into a non-rule contract.
>
> This seems contradictory. Enteri
2008/5/30 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I wonder if outright plagiarism like this could be in violation of
> R2149 with respect to truthfulness in claim of authorship?
>
> -root
>
Does ais523's consent count?
ehird
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 3:32 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I call for judgement on the following statement: {{comex CAN initiate
> an equity case concerning the Gnarlier Contract}}.
>
> [SNIP]
I wonder if outright plagiarism like this could be in violation of
R2149 with respect to
ais523 wrote:
> NttDF? (What happens if you send a proto to a-b, anyway?)
On top of strong game custom, it fails to meet Rule 106's "clear
indication" requirement.
> as far as I could tell, it would be inequitable to judge anything but
> what the parties wanted.
[snip]
> What would other players
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > and as far as I
> > could tell, it would be inequitable to judge anything but what the parties
> > wanted.
>
> If all of the parties agree to a resolution, the equity court isn't
> needed. I don
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> and as far as I
> could tell, it would be inequitable to judge anything but what the parties
> wanted.
If all of the parties agree to a resolution, the equity court isn't
needed. I don't think this interpretation is a go
ehird wrote:
> I call for judgement on the following statement: {{comex CAN initiate
> an equity case concerning the Gnarlier Contract}}.
(snip)
Wow, an almost exact copy-paste of my attempt to win by paradox, even
down to copying the same argument with the names changed. We certainly
do need some
Murphy wrote in a-b:
> Proto-Proposal: Defend the judiciary
> (AI = 2, please)
>
> Amend Rule 2158 (Judicial Questions) by inserting this paragraph after
> the paragraph containing "A judgement is valid and/or appropriate only
> as defined by the rules.":
>
> In the interest of defending t
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 2:42 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BobTHJ wrote:
>
>> On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 1:46 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> The AFO transfers three 1 crops, four 5 crops, and a 0 crop to me.
>>
>> You only successfully transferred one 1 crop as that is all t
BobTHJ wrote:
>>> When the CotC
>>> ends the bidding phase on a judicial case e SHALL assign a qualified
>>> entity from among all qualified entities whose total JP bid toward
>>> them is greater than all other qualified entities to be judge of that
>>> case. For each player who bid toward that en
comex wrote:
> On 5/30/08, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The AFO transfers three 1 crops, four 5 crops, and a 0 crop to me.
> Care to give some crops back in return?
Once I get confirmation of what I still have. Some Bank of Agora
transactions may also be useful at this point.
BobTHJ wrote:
> On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 1:46 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The AFO transfers three 1 crops, four 5 crops, and a 0 crop to me.
>
> You only successfully transferred one 1 crop as that is all the AFO has.
Could I please get an up-to-date list of crop holdings for myse
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 2:38 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 1:32 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If you wrote a horrible (bad effects) insane proposal, then everyone in
>> their right mind would vote against it. However, if they did so, you
>> woul
BobTHJ wrote:
> None of the other offices have such powerful 'perks'. I think this is
> part of what makes CotC elections so hotly contested while other
> offices struggle to keep officers who can publish a regular report.
But how much of a perk is it, really? No process of judge selection
will
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 1:32 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you wrote a horrible (bad effects) insane proposal, then everyone in
> their right mind would vote against it. However, if they did so, you
> would win the game. So someone had to vote FOR it to stop you from
> winning.
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A system that allows a judicial scam to succeed by legitimizing an improper
> judgement is no longer a judicial system worthy of Agora. Agorans put
> great store in their legal system, so such a system is un-Agoran. The rea
On Fri, 30 May 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
> From the champion's list on the CotC website:
>
> 05/27/02 Craig Insane Proposal with no FOR votes
> 05/10/02 rootInsane Proposal with no FOR votes
>
> What the heck was this about?
An Insane proposal was a proposal submitted all
>From the champion's list on the CotC website:
05/27/02Craig Insane Proposal with no FOR votes
05/10/02rootInsane Proposal with no FOR votes
What the heck was this about?
BobTHJ
On Fri, 30 May 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
> I don't know that disinterested judges are any less impartial, or that
> simply having interest in a case makes you biased. An interested judge
> is more likely to deliver a judgment which has been thought out and is
> far more likely to deliver it on time
On Fri, 30 May 2008, comex wrote:
> In the Mousetrap Thesis, it's described how a
> scam that goes too far besides just plugging the loophole (too many
> gravy for the scamsters) is un-Agoran. But awarding a little gravy is
> reasonable, and preventing a scam from doing even that should be
> fro
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 11:54 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 1:32 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Perhaps a better method might be to have a two day window where any
>> potential judge can announce their interest in a case. Then the CotC
>> mak
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 1:32 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Perhaps a better method might be to have a two day window where any
> potential judge can announce their interest in a case. Then the CotC
> makes a random selection from among all interested judges?
I'd frankly prefer that
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 6:23 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 6:17 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> A player CAN NOT bid a number of JP greater than
>> their current JP total minus any JP they have already bid on this or
>> other cases which are still in t
2008/5/29 Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Wooble wrote:
>> I nominate Offhanded, ehird, and ais523 as Notary.
> I consent.
> --
> ais523
>
I turtle.
Does this involve me doing much work?
ehird
On 5/30/08, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I hereby punish myself for every action I've ever taken and ever will
> take by not Going Off Alone to Partake Joyously of a Hot Dog at
> lunchtime today.
This is, of course, the counter-argument.
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 11:47 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/30/08, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I now have 2 Support; I appeal CFJ 1935.
>
> I call for judgement on the statement:
> * If I am judged GUILTY in CFJ 1935, a sentence other than DISCHARGE
> is appropriate
The Gnarlier Contract does create a paradox that, were it in the
rules, would definitely deserve a Win by Paradox. The issue is
whether the contract is, in fact, allowed to state something like:
6. Whenever a party's gnarlierness becomes twistier (including, but
not limited to, being flipped to t
On 5/30/08, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The AFO transfers three 1 crops, four 5 crops, and a 0 crop to me.
Care to give some crops back in return?
On 5/29/08, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If valid scams should be allowed, then so should valid counter-scams;
> this alone is a red herring.
Perhaps, but then Goethe's (purported-- as I mentioned, e claims this
was not eir intent) scam-buster should be considered a scam itself, a
sort o
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 9:55 PM, Nick Vanderweit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 29 May 2008 10:12:03 Alexander Smith wrote:
>> Wooble wrote:
>> > I nominate Offhanded, ehird, and ais523 as Notary.
>>
>> I consent.
>
> TTttPF
Err, I think you meant "NttPF", although the forum doesn't matt
>Proposal 5531 (Democratic, AI=3, Interest=2) by Murphy
>Rules as Binding Agreement
An interesting attempt at giving Agora a distinctive constitution.
I'd vote FOR this if it were adequately clear and consistent.
> Other persons who participate
> in Agor
ihope wrote:
>On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 7:06 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> TTttPF ;)
>
>What, you're submitting it yourself?
That's how I interpreted it (as promotor). It's a novel usage, and I
don't like to set a precedent for "TTttPF" generally having this meaning
when quoting someone e
46 matches
Mail list logo
