> Appeal 1966b
> Assigned to root (panelist):(as of this message)
> Assigned to Wooble (panelist): (as of this message)
> Assigned to Murphy (panelist): (as of this message)
I assure you that the first two s
root wrote:
> I spend 3 Db + 3 E to gain 3 G.
> I spend 2 D + 2 Gb to gain 2 Bb.
> I spend E + Db to gain Bb.
These fail; the method you attempted does not yet exist. Proposal
to add that method coming up (I did the write-up a while back, just
didn't want to spam the list with too many proposals
On Wed, 4 Jun 2008, comex wrote:
> There is no precedent in the CFJ archive. The name clause of rule
> 1586 has been invoked when I deemed Murphy to be my nickname, but even
> then, Judge Zefram abstained from commenting on what would happen if
> Murphy was in fact commonly used as a nickname for
On 6/4/08, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Proto:
> Create a rule entitled "The Law of Fives" with the following text:
>
> All numbers are five.
FORx5
--
Eris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 8:14 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What might be better is to refactor rounding rules, e.g.
> "banker's rounding" = "breaking ties toward even integers"
> "anti-banker's rounding" = "breaking ties toward odd integers"
Break ties by flipping a coin. Even "bette
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now, that I look more closely, that part of Rule 1586 is broken
> anyhow. It says "Two Rule-defined entities CANNOT have the same name
> or nickname" where "CANNOT" means "Attempts to perform the described
> action are unsucces
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 5:31 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>I spend 3 Db + 3 E to gain 3 G.
>>>I spend 2 D + 2 Gb to gain 2 Bb.
>>>I spend E + Db to gain Bb.
>>
>> How do these work?
>
> (8) A player CAN spend three Notes to gain a Note whose pitch is
> as many semito
Wooble wrote:
> Speaking of which, has their recently been a way to achieve a
> non-integer VVLOD? Is there any good reason not to just make VVLOD an
> integer and get rid of that awful sentence?
What might be better is to refactor rounding rules, e.g.
"banker's rounding" = "breaking ties towa
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 7:13 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ian Kelly wrote:
>>I spend 3 Db + 3 E to gain 3 G.
>>I spend 2 D + 2 Gb to gain 2 Bb.
>>I spend E + Db to gain Bb.
>
> How do these work?
(8) A player CAN spend three Notes to gain a Note whose pitch is
as many sem
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 6:53 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> WOO! 5!
hail you.
Proto:
Create a rule entitled "The Law of Fives" with the following text:
All numbers are five.
Ian Kelly wrote:
>I spend 3 Db + 3 E to gain 3 G.
>I spend 2 D + 2 Gb to gain 2 Bb.
>I spend E + Db to gain Bb.
How do these work?
-zefram
On 6/4/08, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I create a Digit Ranch (land #73) with a Seed of 5 and a WRV in the
> possession of Eris.
WOO! 5!
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 4:49 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 4:36 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> {{
>> The Treasurer shall publish a report including the text and parties of
>> this contract and the ownership of pens. Any Banker may become the
>> Trea
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 4:36 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> {{
> The Treasurer shall publish a report including the text and parties of
> this contract and the ownership of pens. Any Banker may become the
> Treasurer without the objection of a Banker.
> }}
You still don't have a repor
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 5:28 PM, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I suggest you submit some arguments to the effect that this case should
> not just be summarily judged IRRELEVANT. It would be appropriate if
> this got dragged out in the courts indefinitely.
We all know that it's quite possi
On Wednesday 4 June 2008 4:19:46 comex wrote:
> I initiate an inquiry case on the statement:
> {
> At least one of the following statements is true:
> - War is Peace.
> - Freedom is Slavery.
> - Ignorance is Strength.
> }
>
I suggest you submit some arguments to the effect that this case should
n
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 3:07 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually, since Rule 1586 is only Power=2, this won't break anything
> if adopted. It will, however, create a conflict between Rule 106 and
> Rule 1586.
Now, that I look more closely, that part of Rule 1586 is broken
anyhow. It s
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 3:00 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What about making OVERLOOKED always be appropriate after (say) 90
> days-- Agora would be terribly bored if a scam lasted that long-- and
> appropriate as in this proposal after 30 days?
Fine by me.
-root
On 6/4/08, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > AGAINST, unless the proposer is willing to compile a list of all
> > proposal titles ever used to avoid future R1586 clashes.
> AAH!
>
> I retract my vote on Proposal 5538.
> I vote AGAINST Proposal 5538.
>
> Fix coming up.
Actually, since Rule
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 4:18 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There's nothing in it that prevents the rest of the Bankers from
> producing their own unofficial reports if that happens.
True, but since the Bankers didn't produce official reports for 2
months when they were required to "tak
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 4:16 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wouldn't mind seeing it go either. If we do that, we can get
> probably rid of VVLOD as well and just have EVLOD be changed directly.
I thought the rationale for having both was more to make it so you
don't need to keep trac
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 2:13 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, go ahead and do it then, although I'll leave my objection in
> place because I agree with Ivan that the change should specify a
> report frequency. It should probably also specify a means of
> replacing the Treasurer
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 1:56 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Presumably my mistake was because the result of EVLOD=VVLOD is rounded to an
> integer, and both are set to the rounded value. That made me jump to the
> conclusion that the value being rounded could somehow end up not a
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 3:57 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 1:53 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> I object, mostly because I just spent 10 minutes setting up
>> http://static.nomictools.com/bank
>>
>
> If you'd rather do it, be my guest. I only
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 3:56 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> root wrote:
>> What VVLOD/EVLOD averaging?
> Ah, I misread rule 2156; all this time I thought it said that at the end of
> each week the EVLOD and VVLOD were averaged and both set to the same value.
> And I've read that
root wrote:
> What VVLOD/EVLOD averaging?
Ah, I misread rule 2156; all this time I thought it said that at the end of
each week the EVLOD and VVLOD were averaged and both set to the same value. And
I've read that rule several times!
Presumably my mistake was because the result of EVLOD=VVLOD is
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 1:53 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I object, mostly because I just spent 10 minutes setting up
> http://static.nomictools.com/bank
>
If you'd rather do it, be my guest. I only offered since:
a) I'm the recordkeeper of both crops and VP
b) The 'taking turn
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 1:45 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 3:37 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The Treasurer shall publish a report including the text and parties of
>> this contract and the ownership of pens.
>
> What, only once? You need to specify th
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 1:46 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If a player's VVLOD is odd, increasing it by just 1 is a waste of your notes
> because it'll be reduced by 1 at the VVLOD/EVLOD averaging, unless someone
> else boosts the same VVLOD again within the week.
What VVLOD/EV
root wrote:
> I spend C + E + G to increase BobTHJ's VVLOD by 1.
> I spend C + E + G to increase woggle's VVLOD by 1.
> I spend C + E + G to increase Pavitra's VVLOD by 1.
> I spend Gb + Bb + Db to increase Wooble's VVLOD by 1.
> I spend Gb + Bb + Db to increase Murphy's VVLOD by 1.
> I spend Gb +
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 3:37 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Treasurer shall publish a report including the text and parties of
> this contract and the ownership of pens.
What, only once? You need to specify that e shall do it more than once
if e shall do it more than once.
--Ivan
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 1:42 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Wooble wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 4:28 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Wooble Thu 17 Apr 13:02:48 114
>>>
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 1:42 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wooble wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 4:28 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Wooble Thu 17 Apr 13:02:48 114
>>
>>> 48.48/ 53.6 4 crops
>>
>> I withdraw two 4 crops for 107.2 pens, leaving me w
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 11:33 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 11:21 AM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> (@root: it doesn't matter if two proposals have the same title,
>> because a title isn't a name. It would be a violation if two proposal
>> titles h
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 11:21 AM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (@root: it doesn't matter if two proposals have the same title,
> because a title isn't a name. It would be a violation if two proposal
> titles had the same name, but luckily titles don't have names at all,
> generally s
On Jun 3, 2008, at 5:54 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
I intend, without objection, to flip the Recognition of Dragonomic
to Neutral.
/declarewar Dragonomic
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 1:15 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "I wish to register as a player" seems pretty explicit to me.
The fact that all registering does is flip an entity switch, and we
have nothing like B Nomic's "A Player is an Outsider who consents to
be governed by the rules[...
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 11:05 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ivan Hope wrote:
>> Implicit consent is not explicit consent. I judge the same thing as
>> before, which is TRUE.
>
> Rule 1742 does not require explicit consent. I intend (with 2 support)
> to appeal this case, and I recommen
On Mon, 2 Jun 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> The last few non-scam points wins were in late 2003 to mid-2004,
> though those involved grouping the players into four teams. Non-scam
> individual points wins occurred twice in 2002, once in 2001, once in
> 1998, and the record gets fuzzy after that.
The
39 matches
Mail list logo
