On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 22:37, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 24 September 2008 08:20:35 am Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> I recommend a sentence of
>> EXILE with a tariff of 180 days.
>
> R1504 prescribes "the middle of the tariff range... for severe rule
> breaches amounting to a
On Wednesday 24 September 2008 08:20:35 am Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> I recommend a sentence of
> EXILE with a tariff of 180 days.
R1504 prescribes "the middle of the tariff range... for severe rule
breaches amounting to a breach of trust." The middle of the tariff
range in this case is 90 days. Is
On Thursday 25 September 2008 12:31:43 am you wrote:
> On Thursday 25 September 2008 12:29:59 am I wrote:
> > redundant
>
> Whoops, BobTHJ got to it first.
Nope, it was Wooble. I AM A COMPLETE IDIOT
On Thursday 25 September 2008 12:29:59 am I wrote:
> redundant
Whoops, BobTHJ got to it first.
On Wednesday 24 September 2008 03:41:50 pm Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > In Section 7 remove:
> > {{
> > The owner of a Land MAY change its name by announcement.
> > }}
>
> Perhaps someone will volunteer to keep an informal record of
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What has been ratified in this instance is that I was wearing a hat at
> 10:00 PM. The ratification has nothing to do with whether I was
> wearing a hat at 10:05 PM, so the vote shoul
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 16:17, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sep 24, 2008, at 7:14 PM, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
>
>> I think I have this right:
>
> Almost. PF.
>
>> I mill 8 * 5 = 7.
>> I mill 8 - 8 = 0.
The RBoA would've happily exchanged an 8 crop for a 0 crop and some chit
root wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 1:37 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 15:31 -0400, ihope wrote:
>>> I will not be casting votes of SELL (2VP); since I'm a Slave, anyone
>>> can do that for me, and I think it's a reasonable assumption that if
>>> nobody does so,
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ratification *creates a legal fiction* but doesn't change the past, whether
> or not that legal fiction is about physical or virtual things doesn't
> matter.
Right, it creates the legal fiction that the current gamestate is
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 6:57 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ratification *creates a legal fiction* but doesn't change the past, whether
> or not that legal fiction is about physical or virtual things doesn't
> matter.
So why can't it be about the legal fiction of whether something is
On 25 Sep 2008, at 00:14, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
I think I have this right:
I mill 8 * 5 = 7.
I mill 8 - 8 = 0.
I harvest 5704, a Democratic proposal, for 4 points.
I harvest 5705, a Democratic proposal, for 4 points.
I mill 8 / 4 = 2. I deposit a 2 crop in the RBoA.
-
Benjamin Schultz
I think I have this right:
I mill 8 * 5 = 7.
I mill 8 - 8 = 0.
I harvest 5704, a Democratic proposal, for 4 points.
I harvest 5705, a Democratic proposal, for 4 points.
I mill 8 / 4 = 2. I deposit a 2 crop in the RBoA.
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 4:08 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If we can ratify an in-game fiction ("Goethe has 5 points, even though
>> after ratification we find evidence that e shouldn't have") we can ratify
>> an out-of-game fiction (Goethe w
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 4:08 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If we can ratify an in-game fiction ("Goethe has 5 points, even though
> after ratification we find evidence that e shouldn't have") we can ratify
> an out-of-game fiction (Goethe was wearing a hat, even though...) if
> we ha
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 1:30 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In Section 7 remove:
> {{
> The owner of a Land MAY change its name by announcement.
> }}
If you're going to do this, you may as well remove land names entirely
and make lands of the same type/value fungible.
--
Taral <[EM
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 1:30 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Append to Section 16:
> {{
> At the end of any week in which one or more Players won Agora by
> accumulating points the Federal Subsidy is decreased by 3.
> }}
What about cutting it in half instead of decreasing it?
--
Tar
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008, comex wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 4:27 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Um, it asked whether general "types" of conditions were *in principle*
>>> subject to ratification, and I said th
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 4:30 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> {{
>> The owner of a Land MAY change its name by announcement.
>> }}
>
> Would you be ok with allowing farmers to specify the name for a land
> tha
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 4:30 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> {{
> The owner of a Land MAY change its name by announcement.
> }}
Would you be ok with allowing farmers to specify the name for a land
that will be created when making the announcement that would cause the
land to be create
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 5:47 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 4:33 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> *Ivan Hope 577 Chits
>> *woggle451 Chits
>> *Quazie675 Chits
>
> I cause Ivan Hope, woggle, and Quazie to cease to
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 4:27 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Um, it asked whether general "types" of conditions were *in principle*
>> subject to ratification, and I said they were *if* they were tracked
>> for po
On 24 Sep 2008, at 22:18, ais523 wrote:
On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 22:13 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote:
I transfer all my VP to ais523.
Why the VP? Trying to bribe me?
--
ais523
You bet.
On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 22:13 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote:
> I transfer all my VP to ais523.
Why the VP? Trying to bribe me?
--
ais523
On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 15:08 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> TOTAL 7578 Chits
> >
> > The total value of the bank's assets is 9151 chits, so
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> TOTAL 7578 Chits
>
> The total value of the bank's assets is 9151 chits, so the bank is
> currently showing a profit of 1573 chits. What do
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> TOTAL 7578 Chits
The total value of the bank's assets is 9151 chits, so the bank is
currently showing a profit of 1573 chits. What do we want to do with
that profit?
-root
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In Section 7 remove:
> {{
> The owner of a Land MAY change its name by announcement.
> }}
Perhaps someone will volunteer to keep an informal record of Land names?
-root
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 1:37 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 15:31 -0400, ihope wrote:
>> I will not be casting votes of SELL (2VP); since I'm a Slave, anyone
>> can do that for me, and I think it's a reasonable assumption that if
>> nobody does so, nobody wants it don
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Um, it asked whether general "types" of conditions were *in principle*
> subject to ratification, and I said they were *if* they were tracked
> for points purposes or something. It was one of those "hypothetical"
> types of
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 12:27 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Sep 24, 2008, at 12:56 PM, "Ian Kelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Whether an entity is biological is similarly not ratifiable, for the
same reason.
>>> Goe
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 12:27 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sep 24, 2008, at 12:56 PM, "Ian Kelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Whether an entity is biological is similarly not ratifiable, for the
>>> same reason.
>>>
>>> -root
>>
>> Go
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008, comex wrote:
> On Sep 24, 2008, at 12:56 PM, "Ian Kelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Whether an entity is biological is similarly not ratifiable, for the
>> same reason.
>>
>> -root
> Goethe's arguments in CFJ 2165 would disagree with you.
No they don't. -Goethe
I will not be casting votes of SELL (2VP); since I'm a Slave, anyone
can do that for me, and I think it's a reasonable assumption that if
nobody does so, nobody wants it done, so I shouldn't be punished if
the votes are never cast.
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 12:27 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sep 24, 2008, at 12:56 PM, "Ian Kelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Whether an entity is biological is similarly not ratifiable, for the
>> same reason.
>>
>> -root
>
> Goethe's arguments in CFJ 2165 would disagree with you
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 2:08 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually, I was surprised at how short it was. Our ratification is
> working well; probably the other things that need to self-ratify are
> these:
> - the existence of a CFJ
> - the success of a deputised action
> - the verdict of
On 24 Sep 2008, at 19:27, comex wrote:
Goethe's arguments in CFJ 2165 would disagree with you.
Oh the irony.
On Sep 24, 2008, at 12:56 PM, "Ian Kelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Whether an entity is biological is similarly not ratifiable, for the
same reason.
-root
Goethe's arguments in CFJ 2165 would disagree with you.
On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 12:16 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 12:08 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > - the existence of a CFJ
> > - the success of a deputised action
> > - the verdict of a CFJ
>
> Why deputised actions? They're no different in this regard than any
> other
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 12:08 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - the existence of a CFJ
> - the success of a deputised action
> - the verdict of a CFJ
Why deputised actions? They're no different in this regard than any
other official action.
-root
On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 19:08 +0100, ais523 wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 10:57 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> > ais523 wrote:
> >
> > > I submit the following proposal (AI=3, II=1, Title="Combining the
> > > Gamestates"):
> >
> > Ow. We really should just be able to do this:
> >
> > "Ratify the fo
On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 10:57 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
>
> > I submit the following proposal (AI=3, II=1, Title="Combining the
> > Gamestates"):
>
> Ow. We really should just be able to do this:
>
> "Ratify the following document: {{{ tusho was a player
>during . }}}"
>
> a
ais523 wrote:
> I submit the following proposal (AI=3, II=1, Title="Combining the
> Gamestates"):
Ow. We really should just be able to do this:
"Ratify the following document: {{{ tusho was a player
during . }}}"
and have it clearly generate knock-on effects similar to those listed
in yo
On 24 Sep 2008, at 18:23, Taral wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 4:26 AM, Phil Lister
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
okay, I can't login to the a-b archives with
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and
i'm not receiving anything from the lists.
Are you still subscribed?
Yah. 'Sall working now.
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 11:07 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Preferred alternative: It ratified that:
> 1. The message was sent by "Phill"
> 2. We now know that Phill is a non-person.
> 3. Therefore the entity who sent the message is a non-person.
> 4. The entity "Elliot Hird" se
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 4:26 AM, Phil Lister
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> okay, I can't login to the a-b archives with [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
> i'm not receiving anything from the lists.
Are you still subscribed?
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I ca
On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 10:07 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 10:44 AM, Elliott Hird
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> Phill is a person, no ratification necessary, unless you're claiming
> >>> that either you're not Phill or you're not
On 24 Sep 2008, at 18:07, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 10:44 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Phill is a person, no ratification necessary, unless you're
claiming
that either you're not Phill or you're not a person.
I am argu
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 10:44 AM, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Phill is a person, no ratification necessary, unless you're claiming
>>> that either you're not Phill or you're not a person.
>>
>> I am arguing that I am not Phill, yes, that it
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 10:44 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Phill is a person, no ratification necessary, unless you're claiming
>> that either you're not Phill or you're not a person.
>
> I am arguing that I am not Phill, yes, that it ratified as Phill, who didn't
> previously exi
On 24 Sep 2008, at 17:37, Ian Kelly wrote:
Which of these was the claim of identity:
Phill
Phill, a biological organism capable of communicating by email in
English
and therefore a first-class person (rule 2150)
Phill, a biological organism capable of communicating by email in
Englis
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> How about defining "enabled rights" (e.g. deregistration, judicial
> action):
>
> and/or "natural rights" (e.g. performing unregulated actions):
>
I like this distinction. Where would you put speech (e.g. fora).
-Goethe
> Which of these was the claim of identity:
>
>> Phill
>
>> Phill, a biological organism capable of communicating by email in English
>> and therefore a first-class person (rule 2150)
>
>> Phill, a biological organism capable of communicating by email in English
>> and therefore a first-class perso
Goethe wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Proposal: Pragmatic rights and privileges
>> (AI = 3, II = 3, please)
>>
>> Amend Rule 101 (Agoran Rights and Privileges) to read:
>>
>> Each person has the right to do the following things; these
>> rights CANNOT be removed or re
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 6:48 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Fails. The Promotor is only required to distribute proposals that
>> have been in the pool since the beginning of the week.
>
> The Monster doesn't have to wait for an officer to
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Proposal: Pragmatic rights and privileges
> (AI = 3, II = 3, please)
>
> Amend Rule 101 (Agoran Rights and Privileges) to read:
>
> Each person has the right to do the following things; these
> rights CANNOT be removed or restricted beyond reasona
On 24 Sep 2008, at 15:53, Roger Hicks wrote:
I also support, but agree with Murphy regarding a lessened sentence.
BobTHJ
It's also worth pointing out that I am possibly not a player...
(which is
why I suggested holding off the criminal CFJs, I wasn't trying to buy
time
or something.)
On 24 Sep 2008, at 14:07, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 6:48 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Fails. The Promotor is only required to distribute proposals that
have been in the pool since the beginning of the week.
The Monster doesn't have to wait for an officer to
On 24 Sep 2008, at 14:20, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
I don't think we owe it to tusho to give em what e wants by holding
off on criminal CFJs, or giving em any deference at all. Since he
first came across Agora, e's constantly shown a blatant disregard for
the rules, and unlike many other scamsters
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 6:48 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Fails. The Promotor is only required to distribute proposals that
> have been in the pool since the beginning of the week.
The Monster doesn't have to wait for an officer to miss a deadline.
2008/9/24 Phil Lister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> okay, I can't login to the a-b archives with [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
> i'm not receiving anything from the lists.
>
> What happen
>
> --
> Phill
>
... but I received this.
Anyway, my messages got through, but only on phill, not this one :|
Kind of antic
okay, I can't login to the a-b archives with [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
i'm not receiving anything from the lists.
What happen
--
Phill
61 matches
Mail list logo