On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 7:28 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Too many proposals. I'm as likely as anything to vote against them all
> instead of reading them.
>
> --
> Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
> -- Unknown
>
Why not PRES
avpx wrote:
> I do like this idea, though I still don't see why someone who is an
> Alpha gets set to their default caste. . . It seems like they should
> just be demoted to a Beta rather than demoted to an Epsilon or Savage.
To create tension between keeping your caste fairly high (more votes
no
Too many proposals. I'm as likely as anything to vote against them all
instead of reading them.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 7:39 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> No, 4 - 4 is 0, in any base arithmetic.
>>
> Oops...
>
> But not in binary :)
If you're using a 4 in your binary, you're probably doing something
horribly wrong.
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 5:53 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The question implicitly raised by these CFJs is whether equations
> constitute an exception to this general rule. If the rules can be
> reasonably interpreted so that the answer is yes, then TRUE is
> appropriate, applying Quaz
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 6:17 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would still prefer Randomness in this if possible.
>
And I'd prefer to have a bribable Grand Poobah.
BobTHJ
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 5:12 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 6:00 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Ah-ha, also, should this be random? If not the Grand Poobah has LOTS
>> of power, and can propmite only those E thinks deserves it. If this
>> is the intenti
On 7/2/08, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
>
> I'm obligating myself to give everyone who has not participated in the
> fora since April 29 a D note. This is equivalent to giving everyone a
> D note and then penalizing people D notes for participating in the
> fora. However, by rule 101,
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 6:11 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I submit the following proposal AI = 2 ii = 1 entitled "Time to trade notes"
> ---
> Remove the word 'fixed' from the first paragraph of R2126
> ---
If you're going to do this, you should also get rid of a note spending method.
-
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 6:00 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ah-ha, also, should this be random? If not the Grand Poobah has LOTS
> of power, and can propmite only those E thinks deserves it. If this
> is the intention, then I'm not sure if I support it.
E can be replaced if necessary. A
On 7/2/08, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I call a inquiry CFJ on the following statement: "The CotC MAY NOT
> refuse cases based on cases being excess as defined by Rule 2175"
>
> Evidence:
> Rule 101(iii) gives all persons the "right to initiate a formal
> process to resolve matters of con
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 4:21 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>1) Promotions. At each step, the Grand Poobah SHALL choose a
>>>
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 4:21 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>>1) Promotions. At each step, the Grand Poobah SHALL choose a
>> player whose caste is as high as possible without equalling
>>
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 4:21 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>1) Promotions. At each step, the Grand Poobah SHALL choose a
> player whose caste is as high as possible without equalling
> or exceeding the new caste:
>
> a) Flip a player's caste to Al
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 5:21 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I retract my previous proposal with this title. (I forgot to update
> caste initialization to match Ivan Hope's non-linear scale.)
>
> Proposal: Some players are more equal than others
> (AI = 2, II = 2, please)
>
> OscarMeyr
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 3:20 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I mill 4 - 4 = 0.
>>
>> And this would yield an X crop (don't forgetbase 11 arithmetic).
>
> No, 4 - 4 is 0, in any base arithmetic.
>
Oops...
But not i
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 3:20 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I mill 4 - 4 = 0.
>
> And this would yield an X crop (don't forgetbase 11 arithmetic).
No, 4 - 4 is 0, in any base arithmetic.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give
2008/7/3 Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> After you kill me and find out I'm a townsperson,
> I suggest you lynch ehird.
You seem pretty resigned to your death, eh?
And all you can do upon it is suggest to lynch me...
Very interesting!
ehird
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 5:21 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For what it's worth, I will be voting not to lynch (I've already
> announced who I think the wolves are).
Oh, apparently the voting period has now begun. I do hereby inform
the contestmaster that I vote not to lynch Pavitra.
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 5:07 PM, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>This strikes me as not within the spirit of the game of Werewolf. Wolves need
>>>to be able to lie with impunity.
>>
>> See who fears information getting out. I propose to lynch Pavitra.
>
> This is an entirely rational (thou
>>This strikes me as not within the spirit of the game of Werewolf. Wolves need
>>to be able to lie with impunity.
>
> See who fears information getting out. I propose to lynch Pavitra.
This is an entirely rational (though misguided) proposal,
and in future we should probably restrict discussing
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 4:48 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 4:46 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I post the following Sell Ticket:
>>
>> * Action: Transfer all my current lands, crops, and WRV to the filler
>> of this ticket.
>> * Cost: AUCTION
>
> For
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 4:46 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I post the following Sell Ticket:
>
> * Action: Transfer all my current lands, crops, and WRV to the filler
> of this ticket.
> * Cost: AUCTION
For reference:
FARMER 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 X WRV
--
>> Sounds good for the sell side, but I'd still like to see "I buy up to
>> X VP worth of votes in the obvious optimal fashion" refactored as well.
>
> Not quite sure how to make that one work. Care to take a stab at it?
I'm not sure about auto-optimization, but the current contract text
supports
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 3:57 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Hands have generally been treated as separate contracts, and now,
> because they have clauses excluding people from each if they're not a
> party to the other, you say that each Hand is an "arbitrary subset"?
Yes.
> You say th
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 7:48 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I mill 4 + 8 = 2.
Fails. This would yield a 1 crop.
> I mill 4 - 4 = 0.
And this would yield an X crop (don't forgetbase 11 arithmetic).
>
> I harvest 2054, the number of a recently called CFJ, for 2 WRVs.
Fails d
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 2:03 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Maybe you care about a different abstract level than those who agree
>> to the Hands; I expect that most of their parties care that they be
>> treated as separa
Zefram wrote:
> comex wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 1:42 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> For this CFJ I judge TRUE.
>>> This CFJ I find to be TRUE
>>> I find this CFJ to be TRUE.
>> I intend to appeal all of these (well, the TTttPF versions) with 2
>> support. Being a party to an eq
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 2:48 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Create the following Rule, "Standing for Rights", power 1.8:
>
>If an inquiry case purports that an interpretation of Agoran
>Law may abridge, reduce, limit, or remove a defined Right, but
>the CFJ statement does n
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 2:19 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Maybe you care about a different abstract level than those who agree
>> to the Hands; I expect that most of their parties care that they be
>> treated as separate contracts.
>
> What matters is how the rules view it, not the pa
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 12:05 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Any member of the species Homo sapiens, past or present, is a person
Why do you say "member of the species Homo sapiens" rather than
"human"? The latter is over 5 times as short counting by syllables,
words, letters, characters,
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 2:03 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 1:11 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> At Place X, if I buy a chocolate bar I must buy an ice cream cone, and
>>> if I buy an ice cream cone I must buy a chocolate bar. Therefore, the
>>> chocolate
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 1:58 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm obligating myself to give everyone who has not participated in the
> fora since April 29 a D note. This is equivalent to giving everyone a
> D note and then penalizing people D notes for participating in the
> fora.
No, because
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 3:58 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm obligating myself to give everyone who has not participated in the
> fora since April 29 a D note. This is equivalent to giving everyone a
> D note and then penalizing people D notes for participating in the
> fora. However, by
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 1:11 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> At Place X, if I buy a chocolate bar I must buy an ice cream cone, and
>> if I buy an ice cream cone I must buy a chocolate bar. Therefore, the
>> chocolate bar and the ice cream cone together are one item.
>
> They're two sepa
> == CFJ 2040 ==
>
>If a partnership is party to another contract, individual
>members of the contract may be required, by an equity settlement
>involving the second contract, to be parties to the settlement,
>even if the pa
I wrote:
> 2019a: I intend, with the support of comex and cdm014, to cause
> the panel to judge REASSIGN, on the grounds that the judge was
> presumably unaware that the currently-registered Human Point Two
> is the same partnership that was previously awarded a Patent Title.
This is overdue. c
> ---
> Replace the following sentence in R 2124
>
> The Executor of such an announcement of intent CANNOT support
> nor object to it.
>
> with
>
> The Executor of such an announcement of intent CANNOT support
> nor object to it. A partnership of which the Executor is a party
> CANNOT support nor
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 5:02 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 8. MANDATE, REQUIREMENT, OBLIGATION: The action CAN be
> performed, and SHALL be performed by the specified time
> limit (if any).
Oh, my... since when does being obligated to do something imply being
able
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 5:03 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Proposal: Decriminalization
> (AI = 2, please)
>
> Create a rule titled "Decriminalization" with Power 2 and this text:
>
> If a rule defines a method of breaching it as decriminalized, then
> no person SHALL initiate
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 6:15 AM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 10:57 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Assuming reasonable participation, the net effect in this case is very
>> similar to taking five points (per week) away from everyone who does
>> excersize
On Wed, 2 Jul 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 10:59 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If we're talking specific points
>> in time here, then nobody's capable of sending email in English except
>> during the split second they're pressing the "send" button
>
> I'm capable
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 10:59 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If we're talking specific points
> in time here, then nobody's capable of sending email in English except
> during the split second they're pressing the "send" button
I'm capable of sending an email in English at any moment. I ju
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 10:25 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The big issue is that under the hypothetical scheme, the effective
> vote power P of sets of players has the property P(S u T) - P(S) =
> VVLOD(T) (for |S| >=2). Thus, the effective bargaining power every
> non-empty set of
44 matches
Mail list logo
