On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is your RNG stuck on 4 or something? 4 4 ranches really aren't that
> useful these days.
>
> -woggle
>
At the rate CFJs are being called lately I think 4s will be in high
demand before too longjust wait for another 2k C
woggle wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 13:25, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 9:00 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 14:26, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
AGORAN AGRICULTURAL ASSOCIATION REPORT
Time of
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 6:47 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hmmm... just testing it so that Agoran voters can see how the PNP
> would distribute proposals. Which seems fine, although it ought to
> send to official, not to business with a false "OFF:"
Proposed, but I'll need to subscribe t
2008/8/15 The PerlNomic Partnership <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> This distribution of proposal 5673 initiates the Agoran
> Decisions on whether to adopt it. The eligible voters for ordinary
> proposals are the active players, the eligible voters for democratic
> proposals are the active first-class play
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 6:41 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-08-15 at 15:38 -0700, The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
>> This distribution of proposal 5673 initiates the Agoran
>> Decisions on whether to adopt it. The eligible voters for ordinary
>> proposals are the active play
On Fri, 2008-08-15 at 15:38 -0700, The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
> This distribution of proposal 5673 initiates the Agoran
> Decisions on whether to adopt it. The eligible voters for ordinary
> proposals are the active players, the eligible voters for democratic
> proposals are the active first
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does this mean that the change to democratic can be made after results
> are announced (though before self-ratification)? -Goethe
I'd say that once an Agoran Decision is resolved, it's no longer a
decision and can't be chan
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 13:25, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 9:00 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 14:26, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> AGORAN AGRICULTURAL ASSOCIATION REPORT
>>>
>>> Time of last report: Mon, 04
2008/8/15 ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Fri, 2008-08-15 at 23:07 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote:
>> How can you NOT vote PNP with this?:
>>
>> http://nomic.info/perlnomic/current-proposals/proposal.ais523.code_for_being_the_Agoran_Promotor
> Heh, my email system even labeled that message as spam. Arg
On Fri, 2008-08-15 at 23:07 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote:
> How can you NOT vote PNP with this?:
>
> http://nomic.info/perlnomic/current-proposals/proposal.ais523.code_for_being_the_Agoran_Promotor
Heh, my email system even labeled that message as spam. Arguably, it
was...
--
ais523
2008/8/15 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> This message serves to initiate the Agoran Decision to choose the
> holder of the Promotor office.
>
> The eligible voters are the active players, and the vote collector is the
> IADOP.
>
> The valid options are:
> * PerlNomic Partnership
> * comex
>
On Fri, 2008-08-15 at 13:55 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> This message serves to initiate the Agoran Decision to choose the
> holder of the Promotor office.
>
> The eligible voters are the active players, and the vote collector is the
> IADOP.
>
> The valid options are:
> * PerlNomic Partnershi
On Fri, 2008-08-15 at 13:37 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Aug 2008, ais523 wrote:
> > I judge CFJ 2110 as follows:
> >
> > At the time the CFJ was called, its statement was FALSE. Vote validity
> > is evaluated instantaneously (see root's gratuitous arguments and CFJs
> > 1959 and 1960), a
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008, ais523 wrote:
> I judge CFJ 2110 as follows:
>
> At the time the CFJ was called, its statement was FALSE. Vote validity
> is evaluated instantaneously (see root's gratuitous arguments and CFJs
> 1959 and 1960), and at the time the CFJ was called the Agoran Decision
> about the
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008, comex wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Followup: The old Rule 1527 has been repealed. Nothing has explicitly
>> replaced it and so the Rules are silent on how to deal with those
>> situations now. It is perfectly in keepi
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 12:32 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 12:49 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I recuse myself from this case.
>
> I transfer one prop from BobTHJ to CotC Murphy, on account of the
> hassle created by the former to the latter.
>
> I
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Followup: The old Rule 1527 has been repealed. Nothing has explicitly
> replaced it and so the Rules are silent on how to deal with those
> situations now. It is perfectly in keeping with custom and precedent,
> then, to
On Fri, 2008-08-15 at 13:17 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 12:44 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I consent, and also request the prior judge to consider whether the
> > message in fact had the effect of making Sgeo supine (another possible
> > meaning of 'I lie').
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 12:44 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I consent, and also request the prior judge to consider whether the
> message in fact had the effect of making Sgeo supine (another possible
> meaning of 'I lie').
In the context of the defendant's message, I can't see any way y
> > > == CFJ 2077
> > >Ivan Hope is a player
> >
> > Is there anyone who thinks this should not be judged FALSE?
>
> hmm... would not judging it FALSE make it TRUE? I think it ought not
> to be judged FALSE, but on moral grounds not Agoran-rules grounds.
> ihope ha
On Fri, 2008-08-15 at 12:57 -0400, comex wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 2:59 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > == CFJ 2077 ==
> >
> >Ivan Hope is a player
> >
> > =
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 2:59 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> == CFJ 2077 ==
>
>Ivan Hope is a player
>
>
Is there anyone who thinks this should not be j
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> Maybe I'm misreading this, but it seems to me that the context of the
> process of making a statement contained in a message is the
> publication of that entire message. While the ordering of actions
> announced in a message can be significant, we shou
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> While
> I'm not sure a phrase like "simultaneous but ordered" makes sense,
> it's one I might use in this situation.
Simultaneous but ordered makes perfect sense, but that breaks
when a later message goes back and modifies a previous one ("the
preced
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 10:05 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Whups, I was too late! This nullifies Zefram's arguments in 2087,
> dunno what to do with that now. -Goethe
Zefram: "For the record, I am dubious about this interpretation of a statement
being made, and action being taken
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 3:02 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> == CFJ 2133 ==
>>
>>". The previous sentence is false." results in
>> being performed.
>
> I judge FALSE. CFJ 1
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2133
>
> == CFJ 2133 ==
>
>". The previous sentence is false." results in
> being performed.
>
>
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 9:38 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Addition and subtraction mod 11 are moderately less obnoxious to figure out
> than division.
Well, ok, when you're dealing with single-digit operands addition is
incredibly simple and subtraction's not much worse once y
28 matches
Mail list logo
