Direct consequences of taking an unbribable action or not performing
that action are secured by this rule to be those defined by the rule
that defines the unbribable action in question.
erm, rules to the contrary notwithstanding
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:45 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Protoproposal "Unbribed Actions" AI=3 II=3
>
> "Bribability " is a switch on game actions performable by first-class
> players. Options are bribable (default) and unbribable. Changes to
> bribability are secured. If a
> first-c
Protoproposal "Unbribed Actions" AI=3 II=3
"Bribable " is a switch on game actions performable by first-class
players. Options are bribable (default) and unbribable. If a
first-class player breaks a rule by performing an unbribable action,
or not performing an unbribable action, and a differen
Protoproposal "Unbribed Actions" AI=3 II=3
"Bribable " is a switch on game actions performable by first-class
players. Options are bribable (default) and unbribable. If a
first-class player breaks a rule by performing an unbribable action,
or not performing an unbribable action, and a different fi
Maybe if a rule tells someone that they must do something like vote a
certain way on a democratic question, if a criminal CFJ is called
against that person, they are EXCUSED, or maybe a new judgement..
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:13 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:09 AM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I perform the following action on behalf of ehird:
>> {{{I file a CFJ on the statement "This CFJ was filed by ehird".}}}
>
> You've gotten into the sa
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 5:45 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I submit the following on behalf of BobTHJ with respect to eir obligations
> on CFJ 2020, as authorized by the Vote Market Contract. -Goethe
>
> In many worlds, perhaps in an ideal one, I would have handled the matter of
>
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Quazie wrote:
> I don't know if I'm missing something, but R1992 seems to be out of
> sync accorind to this.
The Rulekeepor Memo for the proposal said it worked, but it looks like
it was never added.
While it may have been left out (v. sad!), Proposal 4865, adopted 28-Aug-06
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 4:08 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So long ago (May 5 2005) a proposal passed, specifically proposal 4736.
>
> This proposal's text can be found here
> http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2005-April/004245.html
>
> the fact that it pass
So long ago (May 5 2005) a proposal passed, specifically proposal 4736.
This proposal's text can be found here
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2005-April/004245.html
the fact that it passed can be found here
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-
2008/6/27 Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Proposal titled "Defend Democracy!" AI>=1.5 II=?
> No agreement is allowed to force a person to vote a certain way or to
> not vote on any democratic decision.
>
This is against the Spirit of the Game, I think.
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Proposal titled "Defend Democracy!" AI>=1.5 II=?
>> No agreement is allowed to force a person to vote a certain way or to
>> not vote on any democratic d
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 3:25 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Proposal titled "Defend Democracy!" AI>=1.5 II=?
>> No agreement is allowed to force a person to vote a certain way or to
>> not vote on any democratic d
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Proposal titled "Defend Democracy!" AI>=1.5 II=?
> No agreement is allowed to force a person to vote a certain way or to
> not vote on any democratic decision.
>
I fear that this is going to be buggy no matter what you do. Imagine a
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Proposal titled "Defend Democracy!" AI>=1.5 II=?
> No agreement is allowed to force a person to vote a certain way or to
> not vote on any democratic decision.
>
Erm, replace "person" with "first-class player"
On Jun 27, 2008, at 5:08 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:59 PM, Benjamin Schultz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jun 27, 2008, at 4:39 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
I create and agree to the following pledge titled "Agoran Slavery":
{
1. This is a pledge titled Agoran Slavery. Every
Proposal titled "Defend Democracy!" AI>=1.5 II=?
No agreement is allowed to force a person to vote a certain way or to
not vote on any democratic decision.
I knew about Agora for a long time, not sure where I first heard about
Nomic. Somewhat recently, I was invited into IRCnomic, and recent
discussions in the channel that used to host ircnomic got me
interested in Agora again..
BobTHJ wrote:
> Care to specify what you think is going wrong and propose a fix?
I can't think of a fix right now, although I do have some ideas.
First, as we're seeing at the moment, is the unbalancing issues
that a large VP trade can cause. (I'm thinking of comex losing all
eir VP, and spending a
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 3:45 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I attempt to award points as follows:
> comex - 15 points
> ais523 - 10 points
> Quazie - 1 point
> Pavitra - 1 point
As far as I can tell Pavitra is not a party to the Agoran Proposal
Awards (or did I miss it?) therefore I
On Jun 27, 2008, at 2:08 AM, Quazie wrote:
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 8:55 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Per Rule 869, I register as a player.
Welcome Sgeo. May your registration be uneventful (if that is what
you so desire).
Welcome to the game, Sgeo!
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
Osca
On Jun 27, 2008, at 2:36 PM, Quazie wrote:
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Geoffrey Spear
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2008/6/27 Geoffrey Spear <[EMA
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:43 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Do we really
>>> have to treat every contract action as if we were trying to make a wish
>>> with a twisted genie? It's really rather tiresome.
>> Well as far as I can tell
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:43 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Goethe wrote:
>> Yes. The fact that you felt the need, in the initial attempt, to give a
>> long-winded explanation of your phrase-interpretation, should be prima
>> facie evidence for a judge that you knew that your int
Goethe wrote:
> Yes. The fact that you felt the need, in the initial attempt, to give a
> long-winded explanation of your phrase-interpretation, should be prima
> facie evidence for a judge that you knew that your interpretation wasn't
> what BobTHJ intended, and you knew that it might not be w
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Alexander Smith wrote:
> Goethe:
>> I read the ticket 4 times and each time came up with the wording
>> BobTHJ intended, not the one you inferred. Even if yours seemed
>> a little more natural to you, the good faith and common sense that
>> are the cornerstone of equity shoul
2008/6/27 Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I create and agree to the following pledge titled "Agoran Slavery":
No.
2008/6/27 Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> With the majority consent of the Dons I de-protect this CFJ.
>
> I judge FALSE.
>
> BobTHJ
>
Your judicial corruption is going well, I see.
ehird
Goethe:
> I read the ticket 4 times and each time came up with the wording
> BobTHJ intended, not the one you inferred. Even if yours seemed
> a little more natural to you, the good faith and common sense that
> are the cornerstone of equity should have suggested BobTHJ meant
> the other way. -G
BobTHJ wrote:
> I suppose if this is judged TRUE you owe me votes on 27 future proposals.
Yes, but I'm willing to consider deals in which I would refund much of the
scammed VP in exchange for being released from most of the obligations
(that or BobTHJ pledging not to exercise them, which comes to m
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Alexander Smith wrote:
> Well, in that case: there are at least 28 players (I'm not counting
> ehrid or the Left Hand in that count because their registration stati
> are in doubt), and that ticket has been filled once, so it can be filled
> a further 27 times. I therefore fi
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:03 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BobTHJ wrote:
>> Buy Ticket
>> Cost: A number of VP equal to 1/3 (rounded down) of the filler's
>> current Voting Limit on Ordinary proposals.
>> Action: Vote in the manner specified by me on a future proposal of my
>> ch
BobTHJ wrote:
> Buy Ticket
> Cost: A number of VP equal to 1/3 (rounded down) of the filler's
> current Voting Limit on Ordinary proposals.
> Action: Vote in the manner specified by me on a future proposal of my
> choice. This ticket may be filled multiple times (a maximum of once
> per each player
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> I post the following Sell Ticket:
>
> Cost: 1VP
> Action: Vote in the manner specified by the filler on any 3 specified
> proposals.
Sheesh, the bottom really is dropping out of the market. Shows how
difficult a "hard limit" rule may be to keep. -G
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 1:32 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
>>> If you ask me Vote Market is finally starting to act as it was envisioned.
>>
>> Fair enough. I'm happy enough to be required to keep
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 1:35 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Alexander Smith wrote:
>> Goethe wrote:
>>> By the way, does OBLIGATED in all caps have any meaning other than
>>> the standard definition of the word (not in all-caps)? I can't find it.
>>> (This is
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 1:32 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> If you ask me Vote Market is finally starting to act as it was envisioned.
>
> Fair enough. I'm happy enough to be required to keep offering things
> for sale when I'm below 50, b
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Alexander Smith wrote:
> Goethe wrote:
>> By the way, does OBLIGATED in all caps have any meaning other than
>> the standard definition of the word (not in all-caps)? I can't find it.
>> (This isn't a prelude to trying to weasel out of anything, I'm just
>> curious if I'm mi
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
> If you ask me Vote Market is finally starting to act as it was envisioned.
Fair enough. I'm happy enough to be required to keep offering things
for sale when I'm below 50, but if no one accepts even at the cheapest
price after good faith effort, that sho
Goethe wrote:
> By the way, does OBLIGATED in all caps have any meaning other than
> the standard definition of the word (not in all-caps)? I can't find it.
> (This isn't a prelude to trying to weasel out of anything, I'm just
> curious if I'm missing something somewhere).
I thought it was in M
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
> Actually, there has been more Vote Market activity in the past month
> then in the six months previously. There have certainly been
> opportunities to gain VP, and there presently exist at least 10 open
> tickets. Just not much of it has been for the buyin
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 1:19 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> Actually, there has been more Vote Market activity in the past month
>> then in the six months previously. There have certainly been
>> opportunities to gain VP, and there presentl
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
> Actually, there has been more Vote Market activity in the past month
> then in the six months previously. There have certainly been
> opportunities to gain VP, and there presently exist at least 10 open
> tickets. Just not much of it has been for the buyin
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 8:22 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Ben Caplan wrote:
On Thursday 26 June 2008 8:30:54 Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:36 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Quazie wrote:
>> Where in the rules are Gratuitous arguments described... it seems like
>> it is custom and not rule.
>
> It is wholly custom. In fact, while R2205 says that arguments SHOULD
> be pres
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Quazie wrote:
> Where in the rules are Gratuitous arguments described... it seems like
> it is custom and not rule.
It is wholly custom. In fact, while R2205 says that arguments SHOULD
be presented, there's nothing to say that the CotC has to publish or
report *any* of it (I
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Elliott Hird
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> 2008/6/27 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
It's already a cont
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 2008/6/27 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> It's already a contest.
>>
>> Ironic.
>>
>
> Proto-proposal: rename "contests" to something
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/6/27 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> It's already a contest.
>
> Ironic.
>
Proto-proposal: rename "contests" to something that doesn't share
most of the same letters with "contracts"
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:26 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I join the PRS.
>>
>> 2008/6/27 Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> I intend to make the Points Relay Service a contract with myself as
>>> contest
2008/6/27 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> It's already a contest.
Ironic.
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I join the PRS.
>
> 2008/6/27 Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> I intend to make the Points Relay Service a contract with myself as
>> contestmaster without three objections.
>>
>
> I object.
>
> I intend to make the Points Rel
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:20 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Alexander Smith wrote:
>
>> I perform the following action on behalf of ehird:
>> {{{I file a CFJ on the statement "This CFJ was filed by ehird".}}}
>> --
>> ais523
>
> Gratuitous: If CFJ 1895 is fo
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Alexander Smith wrote:
> I perform the following action on behalf of ehird:
> {{{I file a CFJ on the statement "This CFJ was filed by ehird".}}}
> --
> ais523
Gratuitous: If CFJ 1895 is followed, filing something on behalf
of ehird is not the same as ehird filing something
2008/6/27 Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:09 AM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I perform the following action on behalf of ehird:
>> {{{I file a CFJ on the statement "This CFJ was filed by ehird".}}}
>> --
>> ais523
>>
>
> You've gotten into the same I probl
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:10 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I join the PRS.
>
> 2008/6/27 Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> I intend to make the Points Relay Service a contract with myself as
>> contestmaster without three objections.
>>
>
> I object.
>
> I intend to make the Points Re
2008/6/27 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:09 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I perform the following action on behalf of ehird:
>> {{{I file a CFJ on the statement "This CFJ was filed by ehird".}}}
>
> Why?
>
Testing 'I' in on-behalf actions, says
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:09 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I perform the following action on behalf of ehird:
> {{{I file a CFJ on the statement "This CFJ was filed by ehird".}}}
Why?
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 4:20 AM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I join the Points Relay Service.
>
> I request a cashout of 5 PV.
The PRS is not a contest yet (comex never finished turning it into
one) so you can't cash-out yet.
BobTHJ
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 11:19 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 11:15 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I might be wrong, but don't reports traditionally go in OFF?
>
> It is equally effective to send a report to agora-business as to
> agora-official, and i
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 8:22 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Ben Caplan wrote:
>>> On Thursday 26 June 2008 8:30:54 Kerim Aydin wrote:
Oh hey, comex! Want to do a back-and-forth for trade for free to get us
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 8:59 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm about to post a simple contract that will let anyone buy my votes
> on anything without me actually having to remember to create Sell
> Tickets. I would do this already, but I'm not sure...
>
> What should the price be, to fac
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 8:22 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Ben Caplan wrote:
>> On Thursday 26 June 2008 8:30:54 Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> Oh hey, comex! Want to do a back-and-forth for trade for free to get us
>>> both above the limit for an instant? We could d
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 7:01 PM, Ben Caplan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I post the following Buy Ticket:
> Action: Transfer 20 VP to Pavitra.
> Cost: 19 VP.
> Target: comex.
>
> [This will raise your VP to 50 temporarily, giving you another two
> months to get it there in a more stable fashion.
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> More specifically: The contract originally known as Teh Cltohed Mna [1]
> and renamed to ehrid [2] contains an explicit list of its members,
> titled the Manroster.
Actually, the contract doesn't claim the Manroster is a list
I agree with and to these changes.
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
> 2008/6/27 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> In that case, ehrid still has two partners, so the attempts to
>> deregister it were unsuccessful. Updating records accordingly.
>>
>>
>
> But the Manroster contains a non-player (me). The contract states
> it
ehird wrote:
> 2008/6/27 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Was Manroster a public contract? I've lost track of that. If so,
>> the official membership list doesn't change until the change is
>> published (R2178). -Goethe
>
> The Manroster is just a list in the ehrid/mna contract.
More speci
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Alexander Smith wrote:
> Goethe wrote:
>> Was Manroster a public contract? I've lost track of that. If so,
>> the official membership list doesn't change until the change is
>> published (R2178).
>
> No, it was internal state of a public contract, but not state that
> appea
2008/6/27 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> In that case, ehrid still has two partners, so the attempts to
> deregister it were unsuccessful. Updating records accordingly.
>
>
But the Manroster contains a non-player (me). The contract states
it is a list of players.
???
ehird
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 9:53 AM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree to this contract. If there are any such ordinary decisions
> that I can attempt to change to democratic, I do so with 2 support. If
> there are any current attempts to change an ordinary decision to
> democratic that I can s
Quazie wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 9:05 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 6:01 AM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Goethe wrote:
>>> The contract mentioned in the CFJ, at the time it was filed, had the
>>> following text:
>>>
>>> {{{
>>> There is a
2008/6/27 Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I agree to this contract. If there are any such ordinary decisions
> that I can attempt to change to democratic, I do so with 2 support. If
> there are any current attempts to change an ordinary decision to
> democratic that I can support, I do so.
>
NttPF
eh
2008/6/27 Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hmm... a contract that imposes no obligations on you, but which you
> expect players to join?
> --
> ais523
>
Hey, I'm hopeful that I'll be a player soon...
ehird
I agree to this contract. If there are any such ordinary decisions
that I can attempt to change to democratic, I do so with 2 support. If
there are any current attempts to change an ordinary decision to
democratic that I can support, I do so.
ehird wrote:
> The Manroster is just a list in the ehrid/mna contract.
Not even that, the contract states the existence of such a
list and its initial value, but not its current state. So its
a list in the internal gamestate of the mna contract.
--
ais523
<>
ehird wrote:
> I agree to the following, titled "The Democratic Revolutionaries":
Hmm... a contract that imposes no obligations on you, but which you
expect players to join?
--
ais523
<>
2008/6/27 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Was Manroster a public contract? I've lost track of that. If so,
> the official membership list doesn't change until the change is
> published (R2178). -Goethe
The Manroster is just a list in the ehrid/mna contract.
ehird
Goethe wrote:
> Was Manroster a public contract? I've lost track of that. If so,
> the official membership list doesn't change until the change is
> published (R2178).
No, it was internal state of a public contract, but not state that
appeared in the text of that contract.
--
ais523
<>
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Alexander Smith wrote:
> Evidence on CFJ 2046:
>
> comex wrote:
>> Actually, if I deregistered ehird before e attempted to change the
>> Manroster, ehird was no longer a player in the Manroster, so e was not
>> able to change it.
> Ah, good catch. In that case, I may have been
Sgeo wrote:
> Maybe the proposal should explicitly override R869..
There's no conflict, ehird isn't registering emself, the
proposal's registering em.
--
ais523
<>
Maybe the proposal should explicitly override R869..
2008/6/27 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> ais523 wrote:
>
>> Murphy wrote:
>>> ehird, I inform you of this case (2048) and invite you to rebut the
>>> argument against your guilt.
>> Aren't you supposed to invite em to rebut the argument in favour of
>> eir guilt?
>
> Sorry, yes, I invite ehird to
2008/6/27 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> comex wrote:
>
>> I initiate a criminal case against ehird, for violating Rule 2149 by
>> saying that e joins. In fact, as e knew, the statement was
>> ineffective (because e deregistered less than thirty days prior to
>> it), so e did not join at any tim
2008/6/27 Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> ehird wrote:
>> With 2 support I intend to bah.
> I support.
> I support.
> --
> ais523
>
Having recieved the neccessary support, I bah.
ehird
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 9:05 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 6:01 AM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Goethe wrote:
>> The contract mentioned in the CFJ, at the time it was filed, had the
>> following text:
>>
>> {{{
>> There is a list of players called
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 6:01 AM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Goethe wrote:
> The contract mentioned in the CFJ, at the time it was filed, had the
> following text:
>
> {{{
> There is a list of players called the Manroster. The Manroster is
> initially ehird and ihope. Any player in
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 7:44 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Judgement: TRUE
>
> Arguments:
>
> Event E1 = ehird creates a contract containing the claause "Anything may
> act on behalf of ehird by announcement"
> E2 = comex acted on ehird's behalf to cause em to deregis
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:45 AM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gmail says that this was sent 1 hour ago, but I confirmed my IRC
> identity with Alexander just some minutes ago.. I think Alexander is a
> time traveler >.>
Umm, Gmail tells me eir message was sent 5 minutes ago. Sounds like a
t
Gmail says that this was sent 1 hour ago, but I confirmed my IRC
identity with Alexander just some minutes ago.. I think Alexander is a
time traveler >.>
Murphy wrote:
> ehird, I inform you of this case (2048) and invite you to rebut the
> argument against your guilt.
Aren't you supposed to invite em to rebut the argument in favour of
eir guilt?
--
ais523
<>
ais523 wrote:
> Murphy wrote:
>> Not that it affects the results, but I recorded ais523 as voting
>> 4P, 4P, P (rather than 4A, 4A, A) on 5559 through 5561. May have
>> been a typo on my part. Would someone mind checking?
>
> According to my sent items, I voted 4A, 4A, A.
Confirmed via archive
Wooble wrote:
> I agree to be bound by the following, which becomes a contract when
> another officer agrees to it.
Interesting idea. However, it's not obvious what it's meant to
accomplish to me; also, you should probably make salaries depend on
whether reports were done on time. The contract seem
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 1:58 AM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Um, can I make ihope a co-author?
Rule 106: "A person is a co-author of a proposal if and only if e is
distinct from its author, and unambiguously identified by its author
as being its co-author at the time of submission." You'll h
I know the real Sgeo through other forums, so I'll try to contact
em later today to verify that it is em, rather than ehird
pretending (which I doubt at this point, but just to be sure...)
Sgeo has been a watcher for a while IIRC.
--
ais523
<>
Goethe wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
>> 2008/6/26 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> H. Notary, as "ehrid" is/was (apparently) a public contract, can you confirm
>>> the text and membership in the PF? -Goethe
>>
>> H. Notary is ais523, and he has root on that server. (So do I
ehird wrote:
> With 2 support I intend to bah.
I support.
I support.
--
ais523
<>
Murphy wrote:
> Not that it affects the results, but I recorded ais523 as voting
> 4P, 4P, P (rather than 4A, 4A, A) on 5559 through 5561. May have
> been a typo on my part. Would someone mind checking?
According to my sent items, I voted 4A, 4A, A.
--
ais532
<>
Sgeo wrote:
> Is it too late for me to vote FORx4 on 5565? As far as I can tell, I
> should have joined before the voting period in order to vote for that :/
Right. From Rule 2156:
The eligible voters on an ordinary decision are those entities
that were active players at the start o
100 matches
Mail list logo
