Pavitra wrote:
>> Screw it. I nominate myself.
>>
>> -root
>
> I second this nomination, on the theory that werewolves are more likely
> to pay attention to the game (root was the only other person to
> actually vote)
Voting begins at Wed, 27 Aug 2008 16:05:19 -0500. Discuss!
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 4:18 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh I see, you're accepting that CAN works to limit doing things through
> mechanism, but not SHALL. Sorry, I thought you were arguing in the "I'm
> privileged to do anything so I CAN do anything just by saying that I do it"
On Aug 25, 2008, at 5:06 PM, Pavitra wrote:
On Sunday 24 August 2008 08:37:06 am Benjamin Schultz wrote:
2. OscarMeyr may modify this by announcement. (If Agora doesn't
like the change, feel free to kick me out of office.)
Item 2 is there so I can fix bugs without having to repeal and
rein
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 3:05 PM, Pavitra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Screw it. I nominate myself.
>>
>> -root
>
> I second this nomination, on the theory that werewolves are more likely
> to pay attention to the game (root was the only other person to
> actually vote)
Or perhaps I'm a villa
On Sunday 24 August 2008 08:37:06 am Benjamin Schultz wrote:
> 2. OscarMeyr may modify this by announcement. (If Agora doesn't
> like the change, feel free to kick me out of office.)
> Item 2 is there so I can fix bugs without having to repeal and
> reinstate the pledge.
This effectively negate
On Monday 25 August 2008 03:08:16 pm Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> I'm not sure I accept that it's not possible to play if CAN implies
> MAY. Of course, it makes a lot of the stuff that's intentionally
> "CAN but SHALL NOT" for pragmatic purposes break, but it's still
> possible to play. B Nomic for a
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 3:58 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Well we've never really settled that "Rules are an agreement issue" but
>> I have a meta-argument for choosing it... if we accept your argument,
>> it's not possible to play Agor
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 3:58 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well we've never really settled that "Rules are an agreement issue" but
> I have a meta-argument for choosing it... if we accept your argument,
> it's not possible to play Agora, so we might as well choose the
> interpretatio
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> I do, however, still maintain that R101(i) makes every SHALL in the
> ruleset completely ineffective, including this hypothetical one.
Well we've never really settled that "Rules are an agreement issue" but
I have a meta-argument for choosing it... if
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008, ais523 wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-08-25 at 13:12 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 12:35 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Probably rule 101 stops this being effective, though, but arguably it
>>> does much the same with respect to the PRS.
>>
>> I'd
On Mon, 2008-08-25 at 13:12 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 12:35 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Probably rule 101 stops this being effective, though, but arguably it
> > does much the same with respect to the PRS.
>
> I'd argue that R101 doesn't protect anyone fr
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 12:35 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Probably rule 101 stops this being effective, though, but arguably it
> does much the same with respect to the PRS.
I'd argue that R101 doesn't protect anyone from contracts they're
already party to changing.
I do, however, sti
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008, ais523 wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-08-25 at 09:24 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008, ais523 wrote:
--
Increase the power of Rule 2198 to 2.
Amend Rule 2198 by prepending th
On Mon, 2008-08-25 at 09:24 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008, ais523 wrote:
> >> --
> >>
> >> Increase the power of Rule 2198 to 2.
> >>
> >> Amend Rule 2198 by prepending the following sentence to the
> >> first
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008, ais523 wrote:
>> --
>>
>> Increase the power of Rule 2198 to 2.
>>
>> Amend Rule 2198 by prepending the following sentence to the
>> first paragraph:
>>
>> Contract changes are secured.
>>
>>
On Mon, 2008-08-25 at 08:48 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
> >> 5681 O 1 1.0 BobTHJ PRS Changes
>
> This sort of messing around means any contract, no matter how well-
> protected in the contract itself against change, can be amended by
> majority
September will be here soon. Do you have adequate WRV to keep your crops alive?
17 matches
Mail list logo
