Sgeo wrote:
>> Judge: OscarMeyr
>> Judgement: UNIMPUGNED
>>
> Um... WTF?
Perils of using a drop-down list for decision values. Fixed now.
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 10:56 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2072
>
> = Criminal Case 2072 =
>
>the CotC (Murphy) violated R2019 by not assigning the Default
>Justice (mys
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 8:11 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Why should II matter at all?
>
> It's an objective acknowledgment of the significance of the proposed
> changes. IIRC, a proposal to return to a straight Disinterested /
> Interested system (basically reducing scope from 0-to
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 3:25 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Suggestions? I'm happy to make a separate proto at the same
> time that gives us some minors. -Goethe
It's a Surprise?
:p
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 9:10 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 8:26 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 6:38 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 6:28 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 6
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 8:26 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 6:38 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 6:28 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 6:25 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You never define P
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 6:38 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 6:28 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 6:25 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> You never define P.
>>>
>> P is the power of the rule being podded.
>>> So this is simpl
Wooble wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 6:00 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 15:57 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
>>> Proposal: Chambers II
>>> AI: 3
>>> II: 1
>> Please propose this with an II of at least 2, or you'll get an automatic
>> AGAINST from me. Changing the pro
On Jul 15, 2008, at 12:09 AM, ihope wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 11:57 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 8:01 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
{action="X violated Z by Y", rule=Z} -- INNOCENT
This looks like UNIMPUGNED to me.
It's INNOCENT if the action, "X
On Jul 15, 2008, at 11:53 PM, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 7:13 PM, Benjamin Schultz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jul 15, 2008, at 4:19 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
The statement is obviously not FALSE.
Here's where it breaks down. If this i
On Jul 17, 2008, at 3:54 PM, Sgeo wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Kerim Aydin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Official Claim of Error:
I believe/claim that to the best of my knowledge, the results of
Proposal 5582 have been incorrectly reported in a manner that would
change their outcome,
On Jul 17, 2008, at 3:14 PM, Elliott Hird wrote:
2008/7/17 Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Is there an objective here? (apart from annoyance?)
BobTHJ
Consider it a verbose and chaotic version of "We should really have a
proposal limit like CFJs."
This'll play havoc with PerlNomic and the
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 6:00 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 15:57 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> Proposal: Chambers II
>> AI: 3
>> II: 1
> Please propose this with an II of at least 2, or you'll get an automatic
> AGAINST from me. Changing the proposal system so radical
On Jul 17, 2008, at 1:20 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
Quazie wrote:
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 9:52 PM, Ed Murphy
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ivan Hope wrote:
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 10:52 AM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I intend to deputise for the Assessor to resolve the Agoran
decision
on
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 6:28 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 6:25 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You never define P.
>>
> P is the power of the rule being podded.
>> So this is simply a race to see who can pod the most rules as quickly
>> as possible? Al
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 6:25 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You never define P.
>
P is the power of the rule being podded.
> So this is simply a race to see who can pod the most rules as quickly
> as possible? Also, you talk about a contest but you never describe the
> awarding of poi
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> -One off vetos, rubberstamps, etc.
Beware of anything that would provide an incentive to propose in
decuplicate. A general power of veto, with no per-use cost, could veto
decuplicate proposals just as well as a single proposal. A one-off veto,
however, threatens only s
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 4:20 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just a proto of an idea
>
> {
> This is a public contract, and a contest.
>
> Pods are a currency, and can only be created and destroyed per this
> contest's rules.
> Psyducks are a currency, and can only be created and destroyed pe
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, ais523 wrote:
>> Well given that the July 4 report is self-contradictory (lists ehird's
>> deregistration as an event, but still has em on the player list) it's
>> probably good that it doesn't right now :). -G.
> Wasn't that one ratified by hand?
No I checked, e ratified th
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> For the rules to define a class of assets to be a card, the
> Rules must define its Title, its House, and its Exploit.
I think you mean that the *assets* are cards, not that the *class* is
a card. I expect the Title, House, and Exploit are attributes of the
class,
Just a proto of an idea
{
This is a public contract, and a contest.
Pods are a currency, and can only be created and destroyed per this
contest's rules.
Psyducks are a currency, and can only be created and destroyed per
this contest's rules.
Rules can contain anywhere from 0 to P^2 pods, to be d
On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 15:16 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, ais523 wrote:
> > The Registrar's report should self-ratify IMO, as it's probably the
> > report in which a mistake can cause the largest chaos to the gamestate.
>
> Well given that the July 4 report is self-contradictory
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, ais523 wrote:
> The Registrar's report should self-ratify IMO, as it's probably the
> report in which a mistake can cause the largest chaos to the gamestate.
Well given that the July 4 report is self-contradictory (lists ehird's
deregistration as an event, but still has em on
BobTHJ wrote:
> Prepend to R2156:
> {{
> There is an Ordinary chamber.
> }}
This would allow ordinary proposals to affect Power=2 rules, provided
that they get at least 2-to-1 support weighted by ordinary voting
power. Given that this weighting has undemocratic by a roughly 4-to-1
ratio lately,
On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 15:07 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, ais523 wrote:
> > CFJs don't stop ratification unless they clearly state that they are for
> > the purpose of stopping ratification. (I was intending to use this to
> > force through my Disclaimer Scam, but I think it woul
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, ais523 wrote:
> CFJs don't stop ratification unless they clearly state that they are for
> the purpose of stopping ratification. (I was intending to use this to
> force through my Disclaimer Scam, but I think it would have failed on
> other grounds.)
Well the Registrar's repo
ais523 wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 14:49 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
>>> But if I ratify as a player, they will be.
>> Uh, weren't CFJs 2074-2075 raised in time to stop ratification?
>> I don't think a conspiracy of delaying those CFJs stops ratificatio
Goethe wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
>> But if I ratify as a player, they will be.
>
> Uh, weren't CFJs 2074-2075 raised in time to stop ratification?
> I don't think a conspiracy of delaying those CFJs stops ratification,
> does it? -Goethe
The CoE(s) against the results on
On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 15:57 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
> Proposal: Chambers II
> AI: 3
> II: 1
Please propose this with an II of at least 2, or you'll get an automatic
AGAINST from me. Changing the proposal system so radically (or at least,
moving a lot of things around that will need to be checked
On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 14:49 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
> > But if I ratify as a player, they will be.
>
> Uh, weren't CFJs 2074-2075 raised in time to stop ratification?
> I don't think a conspiracy of delaying those CFJs stops ratification,
> does it? -G
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 chamber exists only if defined by a rule that specifies, for
decisions to adopt proposals circulated within that chamber:
1) The set of el
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
> But if I ratify as a player, they will be.
Uh, weren't CFJs 2074-2075 raised in time to stop ratification?
I don't think a conspiracy of delaying those CFJs stops ratification,
does it? -Goethe
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>Zefram, I'm wondering if the abuse modifies your general "Proposals
>should be Free" stance
Not much. I'm still firmly opposed to requiring payment to submit
proposals or get them distributed, and also opposed to tight rate
limiting and other artificial restrictions. For the
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Zefram wrote:
> (Btw, e was awarded the patent title "Infinite Boor"
> for that, but it's not listed in the herald's report. Was it removed?)
I'd remember that I think, as far as I recall it wasn't in the report when
I was first herald in 2001 or since. -goethe
2008/7/17 Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> But since you're not a player, none of these are actually proposals.
>
> -zefram
>
But if I ratify as a player, they will be.
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
>> Proto: Limit the amount of proposals a week a user can make.
>
> It's worth noting that such limits existed from at least prior to 2001
> through 2006. Anyone else care to commen
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Zefram wrote:
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> CotC Murphy took it for granted that "I CFJ on this statement." self-
>> labeled the whole sentence "I CFJ on this statement" as a CFJ statement,
>> and that "I CFJ on that statement." referenced a quoted "I CFJ on this
>> statement."
>
>
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
> Proto: Limit the amount of proposals a week a user can make.
It's worth noting that such limits existed from at least prior to 2001
through 2006. Anyone else care to comment on how far back before 2001
they went? Limits were based on currency, cards,
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>CotC Murphy took it for granted that "I CFJ on this statement." self-
>labeled the whole sentence "I CFJ on this statement" as a CFJ statement,
>and that "I CFJ on that statement." referenced a quoted "I CFJ on this
>statement."
I found it quite clear, in those messages, that
On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 21:55 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote:
> Proto: Limit the amount of proposals a week a user can make.
>
> Duh.
I protoprotoed implementing that with Goethe's new Card system.
--
ais523
2008/7/17 ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 13:14 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> tusho wrote:
>>
>> > I propose the following proposal, named "Demon 1" (AI=1,II=0): {Hello,
>> > world #1!}
>> [snip]
>> > I propose the following proposal, named "Demon 450" (AI=1,II=0):
>> > {Hello, wor
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Has the Speakership ever been vacant?
Didn't one deregister in the Pope era? can't remember. This is
more about getting a card unstuck expediently than it is about
being paranoid about a vacancy.
> Errors in holdings can cascade here. Likewise for the o
Quazie wrote:
> Was I part of that scam? Or was i just interested in seeing something
> intersting happen?
Looks like neither.
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2007-January/006052.html
> On each proposal in the group of proposals from proposal 4893 to proposal
Roger Hicks wrote:
>You're too concerned with the facts of this case.
Ah, you're one of those "faith-based" politicians.
-zefram
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
>
>> Why did you have to spoil a perfectly good paradox?
because paradoxes involving maybe-players questioning their playerhood
have been Done. -Goethe.
ihope wrote:
>Now, assuming that "Ivan Hope is always in violation of this pledge"
>works,
I don't think it does. Ivan Hope is not actually contravening any
obligation imposed by the pledge, so e is not in violation of it.
The quoted clause is just a false statement.
-zefram
As part of my project to flood Agora with Canada references, I'm
considering a contest along these lines, though I'm still not sure how
Power-1 Dances would be obtained. I was thinking 2 Power-N dances
could be converted to 1 Power-(N+1) Dance, Dances of Power-4 or
greater are Powerful Dances, and
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 1:17 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 13:14 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> tusho wrote:
>>
>> > I propose the following proposal, named "Demon 1" (AI=1,II=0): {Hello,
>> > world #1!}
>> [snip]
>> > I propose the following proposal, named "Demon 450"
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 1:14 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> tusho wrote:
>
>> I propose the following proposal, named "Demon 1" (AI=1,II=0): {Hello,
>> world #1!}
> [snip]
>> I propose the following proposal, named "Demon 450" (AI=1,II=0):
>> {Hello, world #450!}
>
> Proto-proto: Amend
On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 13:14 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> tusho wrote:
>
> > I propose the following proposal, named "Demon 1" (AI=1,II=0): {Hello,
> > world #1!}
> [snip]
> > I propose the following proposal, named "Demon 450" (AI=1,II=0):
> > {Hello, world #450!}
>
> Proto-proto: Amend Rule 2161 (
ais523 wrote:
> Why did you have to spoil a perfectly good paradox?
Because that's how he rolls and/or doesn't roll.
> Besides, I think
> this CoE is wrong, as OscarMeyr voted on the proposal, not on the Agoran
> Decision about it.
These are R754(1)-equivalent.
tusho wrote:
> I propose the following proposal, named "Demon 1" (AI=1,II=0): {Hello,
> world #1!}
[snip]
> I propose the following proposal, named "Demon 450" (AI=1,II=0):
> {Hello, world #450!}
Proto-proto: Amend Rule 2161 (ID Numbers) to allow officers to
assign initially-chaotic ID numbers b
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 12:25 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, comex wrote:
>> The problem with this is that the proposal is currently useless, and
>> like Locations, this may be forgotten about and eventually repealed.
>> I suggest that at least some Minor Arcana
Goethe wrote:
> Title: Speaker
> Exploit: The holder of this card is the Speaker. If the
> holder of this card becomes inactive or if this card is
> ever in the deck, the Herald SHALL as soon as possible
> transfer it to a randomly determined active Minister Without
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 1:00 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Goethe wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, ais523 wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 10:43 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Fantasy Rule Catalyst:Peter
Fantasy Rule Compulsion: Zefram
Fantasy Rule Conspirator: OscarMeyr
Goethe wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, ais523 wrote:
>> On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 10:43 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> Fantasy Rule Catalyst:Peter
>>> Fantasy Rule Compulsion: Zefram
>>> Fantasy Rule Conspirator: OscarMeyr
>>> Fantasy Rule Creator: Murphy
>> What was the Fantasy Rules Scam?
>
>
On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 20:53 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote:
> 2008/7/17 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > Official Claim of Error:
> >
> > I believe/claim that to the best of my knowledge, the results of
> > Proposal 5582 have been incorrectly reported in a manner that would
> > change their outc
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Official Claim of Error:
>
> I believe/claim that to the best of my knowledge, the results of
> Proposal 5582 have been incorrectly reported in a manner that would
> change their outcome, by leaving out OscarMeyr's vote AGA
2008/7/17 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Official Claim of Error:
>
> I believe/claim that to the best of my knowledge, the results of
> Proposal 5582 have been incorrectly reported in a manner that would
> change their outcome, by leaving out OscarMeyr's vote AGAINST.
>
> This is directed at
On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 12:36 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
> > I withdraw my proposal titled Exorcism. I request that Goethe submit a
> > suitably similar proposal that would accomplish the intended purpose.
>
> First things first. Where does tusho's playerhoo
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
>>> Why restrict cards to first-class players?
>>
>> Major arcana (e.g. prerogatives) should be so restricted.
>>
> Why? Prerogatives are not currently restricted to first-class players,
> are they? (Yes, being Default Justice does a partnership no good, but
> Maybe you could have Refreshing cards, which are automatically generated
> at the end of the week; e.g. if a card has Refreshing 4, everyone is
> restored up to 4 of them at the end of each week. Then you could have
> Refreshing cards for proposals and CFJs, to implement an excess-proposal
> limi
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
> I withdraw my proposal titled Exorcism. I request that Goethe submit a
> suitably similar proposal that would accomplish the intended purpose.
First things first. Where does tusho's playerhood stand with the
fact that OscarMeyr's AGAINST vote was discove
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Quazie wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Proto-Proposal: the Return of cards.
>
> Much excitement for this. The thing is, as proposals aren't regulated
> like they were the last time cards were in play i'm not quite sure
>
On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 12:25 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, comex wrote:
> > The problem with this is that the proposal is currently useless, and
> > like Locations, this may be forgotten about and eventually repealed.
> > I suggest that at least some Minor Arcana should be defined
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 3:01 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Exploit: Whenever the Clerk of the Courts assigns a judicial
>>> panel, e SHALL assign one with the Default Justice as a member,
>>> unless no such panel is eligibl
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 3:25 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 1:14 PM, Elliott Hird
>> Exorcism
>> AI: 1
>> II: 0
>
> This will likely need to be a higher AI.
>
> Side note: looks like the first thing to do for minor a
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 1:25 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 1:14 PM, Elliott Hird
>> Exorcism
>> AI: 1
>> II: 0
>
> This will likely need to be a higher AI.
>
Why? and what would you recommend?
BobTHJ
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can't the Promotor distribute the Exorcism one first? But I'm guessing
> that before Exorcism is resolved, the Demon stuff will need to be
> distributed too?
>
Nope. The Promotor need only to distribute them by Sun, 27 Jul 2008
23:5
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
> Um, that'll be distributed along with mine.
Doesn't have to be. Zefram tends to distribute twice a week, but can
legally hold them up to a week, do the cancel one immediately, etc.
Since the AI has to be changed (I think), might want to add a provisio
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, comex wrote:
> The problem with this is that the proposal is currently useless, and
> like Locations, this may be forgotten about and eventually repealed.
> I suggest that at least some Minor Arcana should be defined.
Suggestions? I'm happy to make a separate proto at the sa
2008/7/17 Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Elliott Hird
> Can't the Promotor distribute the Exorcism one first? But I'm guessing
> that before Exorcism is resolved, the Demon stuff will need to be
> distributed too?
>
bingo
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/7/17 Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> I submit the following proposal:
>>
>> Exorcism
>> AI: 1
>> II: 0
>> {
>> Upon adoption of this proposal each proposal whose title includes the
>> word "Demon" which is in the Pr
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 1:14 PM, Elliott Hird
> Exorcism
> AI: 1
> II: 0
This will likely need to be a higher AI.
Side note: looks like the first thing to do for minor arcana is
to start charging for proposal distribution again :(.
-Goethe
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Um, that'll be distributed along with mine.
Not if the Promotor decides for some reason to wait to distribute
yours. I can't image why e might decide to do that, though.
Apparently "social barrier" doesn't mean anything t
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/7/17 Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> I submit the following proposal:
>>
>> Exorcism
>> AI: 1
>> II: 0
>> {
>> Upon adoption of this proposal each proposal whose title includes the
>> word "Demon" which is in the Pr
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 1:18 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Proto-Proposal: the Return of cards.
>>> Cards are tracked by the Herald. Ownership of cards
2008/7/17 Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> Exorcism
> AI: 1
> II: 0
> {
> Upon adoption of this proposal each proposal whose title includes the
> word "Demon" which is in the Proposal Pool is removed from the
> Proposal Pool without being distributed.
> }
>
>
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 2:55 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Proto-Proposal: the Return of cards.
>
> For now, lays out a framework for cards and changes prerogatives
> to cards, since prerogatives could work better, are pretty
> straightforward, and it has been mentioned that they'r
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Proto-Proposal: the Return of cards.
>> Cards are tracked by the Herald. Ownership of cards is
>> restricted to first-class players and The Deck. First-class
>>
2008/7/17 Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Is there an objective here? (apart from annoyance?)
>
> BobTHJ
>
Consider it a verbose and chaotic version of "We should really have a
proposal limit like CFJs."
This'll play havoc with PerlNomic and the AAA too, I think.
tusho
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 1:09 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I propose the following proposal, named "Demon 1" (AI=1,II=0): {Hello,
> world #1!}
Is there an objective here? (apart from annoyance?)
BobTHJ
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 1:08 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 3:01 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Exploit: Whenever the Clerk of the Courts assigns a judicial
>>> panel, e SHALL assign one with the Default Justice as a member,
>>>
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Proto-Proposal: the Return of cards.
> Cards are tracked by the Herald. Ownership of cards is
> restricted to first-class players and The Deck. First-class
> players CAN transfer cards to each other or the
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 3:01 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Exploit: Whenever the Clerk of the Courts assigns a judicial
>> panel, e SHALL assign one with the Default Justice as a member,
>> unless no such panel is eligible to be so assigned.
> This doesn't work, because
On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 11:55 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Title: Default Justice.
> Exploit: Whenever the Clerk of the Courts assigns a judicial
> panel, e SHALL assign one with the Default Justice as a member,
> unless no such panel is eligible to be so assigned.
This doe
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Proto-Proposal: the Return of cards.
Much excitement for this. The thing is, as proposals aren't regulated
like they were the last time cards were in play i'm not quite sure
what the Minor cards would end up doing.
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, ais523 wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 10:43 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Fantasy Rule Catalyst:Peter
>> Fantasy Rule Compulsion: Zefram
>> Fantasy Rule Conspirator: OscarMeyr
>> Fantasy Rule Creator: Murphy
> What was the Fantasy Rules Scam?
Murphy, would you like to
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, ais523 wrote:
> this certainly is unambiguous at the time it is resolved,
> even though I don't know who the first person to judge a CFJ on July 18
> is, and the action itself hasn't changed between the time it was
> initiated and the time it was resolved.
The whole point o
On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 10:43 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Fantasy Rule Catalyst:Peter
> Fantasy Rule Compulsion: Zefram
> Fantasy Rule Conspirator: OscarMeyr
> Fantasy Rule Creator: Murphy
What was the Fantasy Rules Scam?
--
ais523
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 11:00 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
>>> I think the appropriate response at this point would be to call a
>>> press conference and announce how I tried to work for a bi-partisa
Quazie wrote:
> So if CFJs 2073, 2019, 2080, and 2079 weren't actually CFJs, does that
> make the rotations of the bench that happened after judges were
> assigned to these cases invalid? Meaning, if they don't exist, then
> they weren't judged. If they weren't judged, then they couldn't have
>
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 11:16 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> comex wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Partnerships can't initiate criminal cases, either.
>>
>> I am willing to give chits, VP, and/or crops for a pledge that you
>> will
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 1:11 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So if any of those end up not being CFJs there is a criminal case
> against the CotC
Yes, but trivially UNAWARE if e reasonably believed that the cases in
question were CFJs, and I see no reason to think otherwise. I can't
imagi
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 10:09 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Quazie wrote:
>> So if CFJs 2073, 2019, 2080, and 2079 weren't actually CFJs, does that
>> make the rotations of the bench that happened after judges were
>> assigned to these cases invalid? Meaning,
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Quazie wrote:
> So if CFJs 2073, 2019, 2080, and 2079 weren't actually CFJs, does that
> make the rotations of the bench that happened after judges were
> assigned to these cases invalid? Meaning, if they don't exist, then
> they weren't judged. If they weren't judged, then
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 8:06 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/7/17 Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> I submit the following proposal, AI=1.7, II=1, titled "No frivolous
>> prosecution":
>
> Violates R101.
I don't think it does. Inquiry cases are still available.
--
Taral <[EMA
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 7:19 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Quazie wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 12:03 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 11:20 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I can't find a vote from OscarMeyr in the archives, so I
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 2:31 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Such is Agora.
>
> tusho
Don't forget to end your pre-trial periods.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 9:59 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 12:04 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2073
>>
>> == CFJ 2073 ==
>>
>>Ei
1 - 100 of 131 matches
Mail list logo
