The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
> 5590 AGAINST
> 5591 AGAINST
> 5593 FOR
> 5594 FOR
> 5596 FOR
> 5597 AGAINST
> 5598 PRESENT
These (and 5589 from the previous method) missed the voting period.
Goethe wrote:
> I vote:
>>> 5634 O1 1.7 Taral Specific crinimality
> FORx5
>>> 5635 O1 1.7 SgeoImpeachment
> AGAINSTx5
I think your voting limit is still 4 on these, will fix if I'm wrong.
Quazie wrote:
>>> 5635 O1 1.7 SgeoImpeachment
> Endorse Murphy x 3, Denounce comex x2, Support Agora x 1 (where
> Support Agora means I vote in whichever way the majority of Players
> vote)
That last vote is beyond your VLOP. Also, the DB has been refactored to
support mixed endorse/d
Sgeo wrote:
> In a spirit of generosity, I vote FOR 5588
Past the end of the voting period.
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, comex wrote:
> Although I would like to note that the mentioned precedent is Goethe's
> own, I unfortunately concur with it (if I had remembered that CFJ, I
> wouldn't have included such a broad disclaimer).
I may have written a gratuitous argument, but it was Judge BobTHJ t
BobTHJ wrote:
> Remove all but the last paragraph from R2196
The essential-parameters clause should be retained somewhere. You
add chamber to R1607, but I think you drop AI.
> Create a new rule titled "Chambers" with Power=3 and the following text:
> {{
> A rule may define a chamber by specifyi
2008/7/12 Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I object, only because I there should be a way to get to their stuff.
> Can we come up with a way to get access to an inactive farmer's loot?
> If a farmer ceases to be a farmer their possessions get donated to the
> bank?
>
Too late.
ehird wrote:
> No, like, what are Chambers?
"Chamber" used to be the rule-defined name for "whether a proposal is
ordinary or democratic".
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 10:43 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I destroy 1 WRV in Iammmars' possession. I destroy An-Havva Township,
>> Fire-lit Thicket, and Graven Cairns in Iammars' possession. I intend
>> witho
Ivan Hope wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 2:49 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Ivan Hope wrote:
>>
>>> Rule 2191: "An equity case regarding a pledge CAN be initiated by a
>>> non-party, provided that all other requirements for initiating an
>>> equity case are met. The initiator of s
ais523 wrote:
> Ah, I was wondering what you were trying to change there. (Incidentally,
> what happens in situations where the wrong parties are listed and so the
> wrong parties are informed, under the new rule?)
All informs have been sent to the PF, so no worries on that front.
comex wrote:
> By the way, I had to read the entire third part of my message to make
> sure it didn't contain any attempts at actions. Reading nonsense is
> somewhat fun, you should try it.
There was at least one instance of "proposal" in that section that could
be interpreted in a non-nonsensic
2008/7/11 Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 4:27 PM, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 2008/7/11 Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> Proposal: Chambers II
>>> AI: 3
>>> II: 1
>>
>> Cliff's Notes?
>>
> Allows more chambers to be created beyond the democratic and
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 4:27 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/7/11 Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Proposal: Chambers II
>> AI: 3
>> II: 1
>
> Cliff's Notes?
>
Allows more chambers to be created beyond the democratic and the
ordinary. Secondary proposals create a champions cha
2008/7/11 Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Proposal: Chambers II
> AI: 3
> II: 1
Cliff's Notes?
Proposal: Chambers II
AI: 3
II: 1
{
Remove all but the last paragraph from R2196
Create a new rule titled "Chambers" with Power=3 and the following text:
{{
A rule may define a chamber by specifying:
1) The class of eligible voters on agoran decisions to adopt
proposals within that chamber
2) T
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 3:07 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I OBJECT to any action comex has attempted to take in the past 7 days.
>
> CoE: the message to which I'm replying contains at least one error on each
> line.
Denied. Although some parts of the message (e.g. "Murphy play
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 3:36 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 2:30 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 17:26 -0600, Nick Vanderweit wrote:
>>> I lose.
>> I act on behalf of tusho to cause tusho to think about The Game.
>> --
>> ais523
>>
>
>
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 2:30 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 17:26 -0600, Nick Vanderweit wrote:
>> I lose.
> I act on behalf of tusho to cause tusho to think about The Game.
> --
> ais523
>
Well this isn't so much ISIDTID, by saying you do, you really do do,
because
COE: you are missing the following sell ticket from me:
1 VP, I will object or support a change to the
?? pledge. This ticket may be filled
mutiple times, though only 1 time per change. This ticket does not
expire until I say it does.
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 4:28 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 4:20 PM, Ben Caplan
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> That wouldn't be an effective scam, unless the judge was in on it. E's
>> under no obligation to specify your shell corporation's currency for
>>
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 4:20 PM, Ben Caplan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That wouldn't be an effective scam, unless the judge was in on it. E's
> under no obligation to specify your shell corporation's currency for
> the fine. E could just as easily fine you in something you care about,
> such as V
On Friday 11 July 2008 03:08:13 pm Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 3:49 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Why have a maximum fine amount?
>
> Because without it I can't create a shell corporation to hold all of
> my assets, giving me some arbitrary currency in exchange
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What if the backing document of a currency doesn't want such an
> auction? See my suggestion for how VP could be finable.
>
The backing document could still define its own methods for
transferring currency from the L&FD. It could al
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 4:09 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Ben Caplan
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> We want to restrict fines to currencies whose backing documents opt-in
>> to fineability. Now, we could make it binary rather than scalar
>> (instead
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 4:08 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 3:49 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Why have a maximum fine amount?
>
> Because without it I can't create a shell corporation to hold all of
> my assets, giving me some arbitrary curr
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Ben Caplan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We want to restrict fines to currencies whose backing documents opt-in
> to fineability. Now, we could make it binary rather than scalar
> (instead of "The maximum FINE amount of VP is 7", "VP are fineable"),
> if you want to
Any opinions on what the maximum fine amount for notes should be?
Also, what II should the proposal be?
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 3:49 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why have a maximum fine amount?
Because without it I can't create a shell corporation to hold all of
my assets, giving me some arbitrary currency in exchange and setting a
really low maximum fine amount for that currency.
On Friday 11 July 2008 02:49:19 pm Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 9:42 AM, Ben Caplan wrote:
> > On Thursday 10 July 2008 08:18:54 pm Sgeo wrote:
> >>this amount of the currency, specifies a
> >>maximum FINE amount, and the amount is no greater than the
> >
> > Should
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If a contract wants to allow full judicial discretion, it can just
> specify an incredibly huge max. fine amount.. unless you want just any
> currency to be finable?
>
Wasn't that the point of ensuring that any currency could be fin
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 3:49 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 9:42 AM, Ben Caplan
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thursday 10 July 2008 08:18:54 pm Sgeo wrote:
>>>this amount of the currency, specifies a
>>>maximum FINE amount, and the amount i
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 9:42 AM, Ben Caplan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 10 July 2008 08:18:54 pm Sgeo wrote:
>>this amount of the currency, specifies a
>>maximum FINE amount, and the amount is no greater than the
>
> Should be:
>>this amount of the currency, and
On Thursday 10 July 2008 06:41:15 pm Ian Kelly wrote:
> I never understood the attraction of that meme in the first place.
There's a pretty good analysis of it here:
http://gameshelf.jmac.org/2008/02/i-lose.html
On Thursday 10 July 2008 08:18:54 pm Sgeo wrote:
>this amount of the currency, specifies a
>maximum FINE amount, and the amount is no greater than the
Should be:
>this amount of the currency, and the backing document specifies
>a maximum FINE amount, and the amount
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> Stay on your guard, people, for all I know there may be others...
>>
>> Oh, and my spam-detector marked this as exactly as spammy as half the
>> stuff I send to a-d for some reason...
>
> My spam filter didn't touch it.
My Agora-filter operates before my s
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, comex wrote:
> Disclaimer: Some or all of the statements in this message may be false.
By CFJ 1971 precedent, it is very likely all these can be ignored.
-Goethe
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 2:49 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ivan Hope wrote:
>
>> Rule 2191: "An equity case regarding a pledge CAN be initiated by a
>> non-party, provided that all other requirements for initiating an
>> equity case are met. The initiator of such a case is considered
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 12:27 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 14:20 -0400, comex wrote:
>> I CFJ on the statement: w/ o objection I
>>{{This is Agora}}(www.poolappeal.tv)
>> I CFJ on the statement: intend to ra
On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 11:49 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Ivan Hope wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 11:14 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 8:02 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> I call an equity case.
> >>>
> >>> Pledge: the above.
> >>> Parties: Sgeo an
Ivan Hope wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 11:14 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 8:02 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I call an equity case.
>>>
>>> Pledge: the above.
>>> Parties: Sgeo and me.
>>> State of affairs: Sgeo could stash all the currency I didn
root wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 4:31 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Note the following excerpt from the judgement of 1774:
>>
>>> If the effort is an obvious or apparent scam or abuse of other
>>> player's time and efforts, and the scam wholly depends on ISIDTID
>>> to absolve t
On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 14:20 -0400, comex wrote:
> I CFJ on the statement: w/ o objection I
>{{This is Agora}}(www.poolappeal.tv)
> I CFJ on the statement: intend to rat-ify this /products.aspx
>{{This is Agora}} report:
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I post the following ticket:
>
> Action: As soon as possible, I SHALL either perform the action
> requested by the filler of this ticket OR give the filler of this
> ticket 2VP.
> Cost: 2VP
> This ticket doesn't expire until revoke
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> Don't make me recontestify brainfuck golf.
Note to self: read through entire threads before getting distracted
with something. -Goethe
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
> 2008/7/11 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> As Kelly once told some Pirates, can you take these silly games somewhere
>> else? To paraphrase yourself to David, this isn't a forum for every
>> random little nonsense game from minor subsets of players th
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Sgeo wrote:
> I think the cultural/socual block might just be an effect of needing
> to send multiple messages to do so many actions. If multiple messages
> are not needed, then I don't see any cultural/social consequences of
> one message with a lot of lines.
We obviously ne
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, comex wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> for i in range(1000):
>>print "I go on hold. I come off hold."
>
> for((i=0;i<1000;i++)); do echo 'I go on hold. I come off hold.'; done
++>++>++<<[->[->[->[->+
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I will note that performing the same action 1,000 times takes at least
9 copies and 14 pastes; the same
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 12:34 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/7/11 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> As Kelly once told some Pirates, can you take these silly games somewhere
>> else? To paraphrase yourself to David, this isn't a forum for every
>> random little nonsense game
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I will note that performing the same action 1,000 times takes at least
>>> 9 copies and 14 pastes; the same action 10,000 times takes at least 13
>>> copies and 17 pastes, which is not sig
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Sgeo wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 4:27 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 2:07 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I go on hold. I come off hold. I repeat the last two actions 999 more times.
>>
>> I'm just going to infer from CFJ 1774
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
> 2008/7/10 Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> 2008/7/10 Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> 2008/7/10 Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
2008/7/10 Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 2008/7/10 Nick Vanderweit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> I agree
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 9:22 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think it can be argued that, although it's certainly possible to make
> a contract in a-d (I've made an Agoran contract over IRC before, for
> instance), the context of that particular pledge seems to show that it
> might not ne
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 9:22 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think it can be argued that, although it's certainly possible to make
> a contract in a-d (I've made an Agoran contract over IRC before, for
> instance), the context of that particular pledge seems to show that it
> might not ne
On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 22:36 -0400, ihope wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 10:29 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I agree to the following pledge
> > {
> > I pledge to, upon a player giving me eir entire supply of a currency,
> > give said player all of my supply of that currency, including w
56 matches
Mail list logo
