On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 11:04 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 8:58 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 8:54 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> You're half right. I initiate an appeal on the question of sentence in
>>>
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 8:58 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 8:54 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You're half right. I initiate an appeal on the question of sentence in
>> this case.
>
> I'm pretty sure that's unsuccessful unless I'm missing someth
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 8:54 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You're half right. I initiate an appeal on the question of sentence in
> this case.
I'm pretty sure that's unsuccessful unless I'm missing something big...
Are you trying to argue R101(iii)?
-woggle
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 8:40 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
>>
> I appeal this case.
I think you mean that you intend to appeal either the sentence or the
judgment on culpability with 2 support.
-woggle
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Taking the above into consideration, new proto:
>
> AI=1.7
> "Impeachment"
> {
> In rule 1504, between the paragraphs describing the sentences of FINE
> and CHOKEY, add the following paragraph
> {{
> * IMPEACH from an elected office
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 2:27 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 9:50 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Tue, 2008-07-01 at 14:36 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2028
>>>
>>> = Crimi
I wrote:
> These were both to the PF. Discussion ends and voting begins at
> Wed 2 Jul 17:59:17 UTC. (Sorry, the later attempt to retract is
> unsuccessful.)
I still need one or more votes on whether to lynch Pavitra.
Taking the above into consideration, new proto:
AI=1.7
"Impeachment"
{
In rule 1504, between the paragraphs describing the sentences of FINE
and CHOKEY, add the following paragraph
{{
* IMPEACH from an elected office the defendant currently holds for a
specified period of time (possibly none), app
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 2:43 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Ah...for some reason I thought that Apology didn't go into effect
>> until one week after the sentence, at which point you had three days
>> to respond. B
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ah...for some reason I thought that Apology didn't go into effect
> until one week after the sentence, at which point you had three days
> to respond. But I guess it doesn't have a tariff.
>
> This should be fixed. 72 hours do
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 8:08 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> VP HOLDINGS
>> Party VP
>> ---
>> BobTHJ 62*
>> Fookiemyartug 50
>> The
Sgeo wrote:
> AI=1.7
> "Impeachment"
> {
> In rule 1504, between the paragraphs describing the sentences of FINE
> and CHOKEY, add the following paragraph
> {{
> * IMPEACH from an elected office, appropriate if the rule breach is
> related to an abuse of an elected office, or failure to perform
>
ais523 wrote:
> Is there any way that this could be changed not to count more than one
> vote per player on a Democratic decision? People voting too many times
> is causing me to have to work out voting ratios by hand in many cases.
I've corrected all existing cases (root on 5584; Ivan Hope on 55
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 1:25 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 3 Jul 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> What if you had the ability to optionally avoid the forced sale and
>> instead be subject to criminal penalty? Would this be reasonable to
>> you?
>
> At this point, I'm realizing th
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
> What if you had the ability to optionally avoid the forced sale and
> instead be subject to criminal penalty? Would this be reasonable to
> you?
At this point, I'm realizing that I'm not comfortable being in a contract
with this kind of economic character
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008, ais523 wrote:
> If the 30 days were changed to 60 days, would you support then? The
> contract is then less restrictive then it was before.
There was no mandated enforced sale previously, so it is not
less restrictive than before. That's the part I object to. -Goethe
2008/7/3 Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 9:48 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I mill 4 + 8 = 2.
>> I mill 4 - 4 = 0.
> Isn't 4+8=1 mod 11?
>
Oh, someone already caught that. This is what I get for looking at
mistakes and not seeing if there's any DIS thread ab
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 9:48 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I mill 4 + 8 = 2.
> I mill 4 - 4 = 0.
Isn't 4+8=1 mod 11?
AI=1.7
"Impeachment"
{
In rule 1504, between the paragraphs describing the sentences of FINE
and CHOKEY, add the following paragraph
{{
* IMPEACH from an elected office, appropriate if the rule breach is
related to an abuse of an elected office, or failure to perform
duties, or other things related
Is there any way that this could be changed not to count more than one
vote per player on a Democratic decision? People voting too many times
is causing me to have to work out voting ratios by hand in many cases.
--
ais523
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 10:49 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I object to anything that takes away a good-faith ability to settle
> accounts as opposed to forced selling. This is bad, and I urge others
> not to approve. I also intend to leave the Vote Market as soon as I can,
> as it
On Thu, 2008-07-03 at 09:49 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I object to anything that takes away a good-faith ability to settle
> accounts as opposed to forced selling. This is bad, and I urge others
> not to approve. I also intend to leave the Vote Market as soon as I can,
> as it's obvious that I
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> I strongly object to this change. -Goethe
>
Both of them? To the public forum even?
BobTHJ
I strongly object to this change. -Goethe
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
> Borrowing from ais523's ideas and other discussions, with the majority
> consent of the Vote Market parties I intend to amend the agreement as
> follows:
> {
> Replace section 10 with:
> {{
> A first-class party
Proposal: Preparing for ostracism (AI=2)
{{
Amend Rule 1504 by replacing:
* EXILE with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied by
the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,
appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably
correlated with
On Wed, 2008-07-02 at 16:46 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Time for crop watering again. I'll hold off a couple days to give you
> > time to harvest those Water Rights Vouchers.
>
> I join the Vote Market.
>
> I post the follo
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 8:44 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 5591 O1 1BobTHJ Activate the PRS
> FOR (a neat way to get around the one-contest-per-contestmaster
> restriction!)
Thanks! Care to vote your EVLOD instead of a single FOR vote?
BobTHJ
On Tue, 2008-07-01 at 21:01 -0400, comex wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 6:23 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Indeed. Without 3 objections, I intend to cause the Reformed Bank of
> > Agora to destroy the currencies described above from its possession,
> > in the quantities described
On Thu, 2008-07-03 at 00:57 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
>
> > Name: The Werewolves of Agora Nomic
> > Contest: true
> > Publicity: public
> > Pledge: false
> > Parties: Murphy, root, Zefram, Wooble, ais523, tusho, Pavitra, ehird
>
> Claim of error: comex and Quazie are also parties.
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 1:54 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> CONTESTS (must be public to become a contest)
>
> NameContestmaster
> -
> Agoran Agricultural Association BobTHJ
> Agoran Proposal A
On Tue, 2008-07-01 at 12:53 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
> Federal Subsidy: 8
I request subsidisation.
--
ais523
On Wed, 2 Jul 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> 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.
Obviou
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 9:05 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why not PRESENT on all of them?
Because I can't be sure they don't have a scam in. Especially seeing
as how there are so many, the likelihood of an embedded scam is
higher.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if the
PARTNERSHIPS (must be public to be a person)
NamePartners
Association of Federated Organizations comex, Levi, Murphy, pikhq
Human Point Two OscarMeyr, Quazie
Left Hand
34 matches
Mail list logo
