On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 5:39 PM, David Nicol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> just don't clear your cookie file. The cookie will persist until 2038
> or something.
Unless, like me, your cookies are automatically forced to be session cookies.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 7:53 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 5:33 PM, David Nicol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Phooey. I so want to define "rounds of applause" as a currency, right
>> alongside http://tipjar.com/2008i/tipjarium.html";> tipjarium
>> which is in
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 4:13 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Fixed. (The current-judgement logic is "maximum event_id where the
> decision is not AFFIRM"; for equations, the decision_id is null. I
> tweaked it to use "maximum event_id, period" for the "case open"
> check. 1932 was dif
BobTHJ wrote:
> CROPS & VOUCHERS
> FARMER 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 X WRV
>
(snip)
> ais523 14 2 1 5
I mill 8+9=6.
I deposit one WRV in the RBoA. (I think this gains me
175 Chits.)
I withdraw thr
Goethe wrote:
> R683 strongly implies that a vote is valid if it is among the first N where
> N<= the voting limit when the vote is submitted. This points to a dangerous
> break in the rule allowing democratization during the voting period, in that
> Ordinary votes cast before the democratizatio
Wooble wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 1:16 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It also seems to list any equity case as "case open", which I imagine
>> has something to do with there not being a fixed set of available
>> judgments.
>
> Although oddly 1932 displays the judgment as "
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 1:41 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Taral wrote:
>>> I support. With two support (root, Zefram) I appeal the judgement of CFJ
>>> 2090.
>> Just out of interest, have I ever made a jud
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 1:41 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Taral wrote:
>> I support. With two support (root, Zefram) I appeal the judgement of CFJ
>> 2090.
> Just out of interest, have I ever made a judgement that /hasn't/ been
> appealed?
Sounds like a case for the new zenit
BobTHJ wrote:
> Federal Subsidy: 8
I request subsidisation.
--
ais523
<>
Taral wrote:
> I support. With two support (root, Zefram) I appeal the judgement of CFJ 2090.
Just out of interest, have I ever made a judgement that /hasn't/ been appealed?
--
ais523
<>
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 11:35 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 1:15 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Why? If somebody attempts to perform an action by announcement, and
>> the action can't be performed by announcement, then obviously the
>> attempt fails re
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 1:15 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why? If somebody attempts to perform an action by announcement, and
> the action can't be performed by announcement, then obviously the
> attempt fails regardless of whether R2208 can be applied to it. It
> doesn't matter whe
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 1:16 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It also seems to list any equity case as "case open", which I imagine
> has something to do with there not being a fixed set of available
> judgments.
Although oddly 1932 displays the judgment as "equation" when none of
t
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 3:03 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Caveats: Only one option can be used at a time. Search by judge
> does not care whether the player's decision was final.
It also seems to list any equity case as "case open", which I imagine
has something to do with there no
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 10:56 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Although Rule 2124 defines it as a message that must be sent, we treat
> objecting very, very much like an action, which we send
> pseudo-announcements in order to perform. Or is it a real
> announcement? Although Rule 478 defin
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 10:47 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Come on. Statements like "I object to everything that can be
> objected to" put a whole lot of unnecessary work on anyone who is
> trying to perform a dependent action.
How so? If I'm trying to perform a dependent action, it's
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 10:49 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think it would. That's why I worded it "who becomes" instead
> of "who is". Becoming inactive or deregistered triggers the Slave
> status on, there is no continuing requirement to remain that way.
You worded it "who
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 12:34 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, the "by announcement" criterion of R478 is not satisfied, because
> it specifically only applies to rule-defined actions. Nowhere do the
> rules define objecting to a dependent action as an action.
Although Rule 2124 def
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 10:45 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 9:33 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> And without three objections I intend to make the following change to
>> the Vote Market agreement:
>> {
>> Append the following to Section 10:
>> {{
>
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 10:34 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 10:28 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Yes, but where does it say that attempts to support such an action
>>> must be un
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 10:28 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Yes, but where does it say that attempts to support such an action
>> must be unambiguously specified?
>
> I CFJ on the statement:
>
> Publishing the messag
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 1:40 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Assuming that tusho is not a player (CFJ 2074), Proposal 5648 was not
>> made democratic until after the end of the voting period. Rule 2142
>> allows this, but what does it do t
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 8:29 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 9:50 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Rule 2124 (Agoran Satisfaction) does not include "specify" like
>> the rule relevant to CFJ 1307 did.
>
> Rule 2208/0 (Power=3)
> Clarity of Announcements
>
>
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 1:03 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> New search options: caller, judge, arguments/evidence text.
>
> Caveats: Only one option can be used at a time. Search by judge
> does not care whether the player's decision was final.
Excellent. Thanks!
-root
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 8:09 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I intend, with 2 support, to make Proposal 5657 Democratic.
>
I support.
I support.
> 5651 O1 1Quazie Left in a lull
PRESENT
> 5652 D1 2comex Awful proposal
AGAINST
> 5653 O1 1.5 BobTHJ Department of Corrections
FOR * 8
> 5654 D0 2ais523
PRESENT
> 5655 D1 2comex Allow chaotic ID numbers to be assigned
AGAINST
> 5656 O1
2008/7/23 comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I intend, with 2 support, to make Proposal 5657 Democratic.
>
I offer my moral support.
tusho wrote:
> 2008/7/23 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> I'm also treating /this/ as insufficiently clear as to initiate a case.
>>
>>
>
> Give me an actual reason for it to fail apart from an offhand note.
An offhand note suffices. It's basically equivalent to announcing "I
(do not yet) subm
2008/7/23 Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>5657 O1 1.5 comex enough already?
> AGAINST*11
Do you find this interesting?
Funny?
Exciting?
Good for Agora?
Stop it.
tusho
2008/7/23 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I'm also treating /this/ as insufficiently clear as to initiate a case.
>
>
Give me an actual reason for it to fail apart from an offhand note.
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Assuming that tusho is not a player (CFJ 2074), Proposal 5648 was not
> made democratic until after the end of the voting period. Rule 2142
> allows this, but what does it do to vote validity?
Gratuitous:
R683 strongly implies that a vote is valid if i
tusho wrote:
> 2008/7/21 Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> The following action will fail: I initiate a criminal CFJ against tusho for
>> violating rule 2149 by stating that the initiation of this criminal CFJ will
>> fail.
>>
>> tusho
>>
>
> I retract any CFJs I initiated in this message, if
Quazie wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 7:25 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> 5649 O1 1.7 Quazie Partnerships devolve, and so should unqu...
>> AGAINST x 17 (should explicitly lift the first-class restriction for
>> initiating)
>
> I'll fix that then. Also, is the word basis
New search options: caller, judge, arguments/evidence text.
Caveats: Only one option can be used at a time. Search by judge
does not care whether the player's decision was final.
34 matches
Mail list logo
