On Tue, 30 Sep 2008, Ben Caplan wrote:
> On Tuesday 30 September 2008 10:53:00 pm Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008, Ben Caplan wrote:
5731 D 0 3.0 Goethe Loss of Privileges
>>>
>>> AGAINST. Still feels rough around the edges.
>>
>> How can something be rough that was par
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 8:27 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> although it's mostly ehird's code. While I don't think it's going to
> try being the CotC anytime soon, it has a highly interesting method of
> voting on proposals. Can you guess what it is?
It categorizes adopted proposals as s
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 9:49 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> i. Every person has the right, though not necessarily the
>>> ability, to perform actions that are not prohibited or
>>> regulated by the Rules, with the sole exception of
>>> changing the Rules
On Tuesday 30 September 2008 10:53:00 pm Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008, Ben Caplan wrote:
> >> 5731 D 0 3.0 Goethe Loss of Privileges
> >
> > AGAINST. Still feels rough around the edges.
>
> How can something be rough that was part of Agora for at least 10
> years? -G.
If
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Proposal 5707 has been adopted, awarding a win to ais523. Therefore,
>> by rule 2188, ais523 satisfies the Winning Condition of Legislation.
>> Therefore, by rule 2186, as ais523 satisfies a Winning Condition but
>> no Losing Co
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008, Ben Caplan wrote:
>> 5731 D 0 3.0 Goethe Loss of Privileges
> AGAINST. Still feels rough around the edges.
How can something be rough that was part of Agora for at least 10
years? -G.
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008, comex wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 8:30 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 6:15 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> 3. bayes.py is a script whose purpose is to act on behalf of Bayes in
>>> a generally autonomous way, controlled by the
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 5:26 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> i. Every person has the right, though not necessarily the
>> ability, to perform actions that are not prohibited or
>> regulated by the Rules, with the sole excep
ais523 wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-09-29 at 23:44 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
>>
>>> 5725 D 1 2.0 Murphy Namespace conflicts (players)
>> This was INVALID by R107(e) (and I have been discarding votes on it
>> accordingly). In case the PNP has technical diffi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Proposal 5707 has been adopted, awarding a win to ais523. Therefore,
> by rule 2188, ais523 satisfies the Winning Condition of Legislation.
> Therefore, by rule 2186, as ais523 satisfies a Winning Condition but
> no Losing Conditions, ais523 wins.
I need to check the ex
Goethe wrote:
> i. Every person has the right, though not necessarily the
> ability, to perform actions that are not prohibited or
> regulated by the Rules, with the sole exception of
> changing the Rules, which is permitted only when the
> Rules explici
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 7:26 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i. Every person has the right, though not necessarily the
> ability, to perform actions that are not prohibited or
> regulated by the Rules, with the sole exception of
> changing the Rules, which
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 8:35 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 5:39 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Proposal 5707 has been adopted
> Not until the Assessor determines the option selected by Agora.
Uh... how silly, to miss a monthly win because you misworded a me
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 8:30 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 6:15 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 3. bayes.py is a script whose purpose is to act on behalf of Bayes in
>> a generally autonomous way, controlled by the parties to this
>> contract.
>> 4. baye
On 01/10/2008, Dvorak Herring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree to the Bayes contract if I can.
>
> --
> Dvorak Herring
>
You cannot.
On 01/10/2008, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 6:15 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 3. bayes.py is a script whose purpose is to act on behalf of Bayes in
>> a generally autonomous way, controlled by the parties to this
>> contract.
>> 4. bayes.py CAN cause Bay
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 5:39 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Proposal 5707 has been adopted
Not until the Assessor determines the option selected by Agora.
-root
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 5:26 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i. Every person has the right, though not necessarily the
> ability, to perform actions that are not prohibited or
> regulated by the Rules, with the sole exception of
> changing the Rules, which
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 6:15 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 3. bayes.py is a script whose purpose is to act on behalf of Bayes in
> a generally autonomous way, controlled by the parties to this
> contract.
> 4. bayes.py CAN cause Bayes to act by sending a message from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
How
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 8:16 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I intend, with the consent of all parties to Bayes, to cause Bayes to
> register.
I consent.
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 4:39 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Proposal 5707 has been adopted, awarding a win to ais523.
You owe me 8 VP. :P
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 7:26 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> regulated by the Rules, with the sole exception of
> changing the Rules, which is permitted only when the
> Rules explicitly or implicitly permit it.
Is it likely that changing the rules will cease to
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 4:39 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 1:11 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> 5727 D 1 2.0 Ivan Hope CXXVIILegal Tender
>> AGAINST (at least allow currencies the chance to opt out)
>
> Legal tender assets are defined by the currenc
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 1:11 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 5727 D 1 2.0 Ivan Hope CXXVIILegal Tender
> AGAINST (at least allow currencies the chance to opt out)
Legal tender assets are defined by the currency's backing document,
not by the legal tender assets' backing document. T
Proto: Return of the return of the secret ballot (AI=3)
[The secret ballot (which I wasn't around to see in Agora) sounds fun,
and most people who opposed P5605 did so because it would give the
Promotor too much power. So this is based on P5605, but the author of
a proposal has control over whethe
On Tue, 2008-09-30 at 15:37 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 2:55 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-09-30 at 14:53 -0400, comex wrote:
> >> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 1:12 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > I challenge this message's claim t
On 30 Sep 2008, at 20:47, ais523 wrote:
Actually I posted that to a-d deliberately, it was a bit too frivolous
for the Public Forum IMO. (It was partly an illusion to the
spoon-discussion memes that blow up out of nowhere in B every now and
then, such as players signing messages in s-d as from ea
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 2:55 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-09-30 at 14:53 -0400, comex wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 1:12 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > I challenge this message's claim that it was not published by tusho.
>>
>> I challenge this message
On Tue, 2008-09-30 at 20:05 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote:
> On 30 Sep 2008, at 19:55, ais523 wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2008-09-30 at 14:53 -0400, comex wrote:
> >> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 1:12 PM, Geoffrey Spear
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> I challenge this message's claim that it was not publi
On 30 Sep 2008, at 19:55, ais523 wrote:
On Tue, 2008-09-30 at 14:53 -0400, comex wrote:
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 1:12 PM, Geoffrey Spear
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I challenge this message's claim that it was not published by tusho.
I challenge this message's claim that it was not pubilshed
On Tue, 2008-09-30 at 14:53 -0400, comex wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 1:12 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I challenge this message's claim that it was not published by tusho.
>
> I challenge this message's claim that it was not pubilshed by root.
I challenge any claim this
On 30 Sep 2008, at 18:35, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I thought the whole *purpose* of MMI was to set up this conceit, that
CAN and CANNOT sets the game "physics". This is supported by every
precedent I am aware of as well as words like IMPOSSIBLE. Of course I
am aware of the self-referential issue of
On 30 Sep 2008, at 18:12, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
I challenge this message's claim that it was not published by tusho.
I am not Dvorak Herring, nor [EMAIL PROTECTED], nor Annabel.
I am Phill, previously known as tusho. That's it.
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 12:20 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Again, there's a difference between being being unable to do something
>> for reasons unrelated to the law (cannot find keys; no access to email
>> so can't mail agora-business) and b
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008, ais523 wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-09-30 at 11:53 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 10:58 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> we wouldn't say that he had
>>> gained the privilege of driving his car; nor would we in the more
>>> bizarre situation that he b
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 11:10 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 12:51 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> What about the voting example? An ineligible voter platonically
>> CANNOT vote, and real-life voting works the same way so far as I know.
>
> I do
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 12:51 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What about the voting example? An ineligible voter platonically
> CANNOT vote, and real-life voting works the same way so far as I know.
I doubt it; at least in jurisdictions with secret ballots there's
absolutely no way to
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 10:36 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 12:20 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Again, there's a difference between being being unable to do something
>> for reasons unrelated to the law (cannot find keys; no access to email
>> so
On Tue, 2008-09-30 at 08:57 -0700, The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
> NUM C I AI SUBMITTER TITLE
I vote as follows:
> 5727 D 1 2.0 Ivan Hope CXXVIILegal Tender
SELL (1VP - PRESENT)
> 5728 D 1 2.0 Ivan Hope CXXVIIWhat, still?
FOR
> 5729 D 1 3.0 comex switch off the
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 12:20 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Again, there's a difference between being being unable to do something
> for reasons unrelated to the law (cannot find keys; no access to email
> so can't mail agora-business) and because of it (it's a super-duper
> remote-control
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 11:53 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What if the teenager got eir driver's license by couldn't find eir
> keys. E'd have the privilege of driving eir car (e MAY drive it), but
> not the mechanism for doing so (e CANNOT drive it as it won't start).
Again, t
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 9:43 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> That's absurd. I couldn't find my keys for a bit this morning. Does
>> that mean my missing keys revoked my privilege? Practical blockages
>> have little to do with what is granted
On Tue, 2008-09-30 at 11:53 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 10:58 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > we wouldn't say that he had
> > gained the privilege of driving his car; nor would we in the more
> > bizarre situation that he became allowed to do it but remained una
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 10:58 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> we wouldn't say that he had
> gained the privilege of driving his car; nor would we in the more
> bizarre situation that he became allowed to do it but remained unable
> to.
What if the teenager got eir driver's license by could
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 9:43 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's absurd. I couldn't find my keys for a bit this morning. Does
> that mean my missing keys revoked my privilege? Practical blockages
> have little to do with what is granted by law. -Goethe
Is there a practical diff
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 11:43 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's absurd. I couldn't find my keys for a bit this morning. Does
> that mean my missing keys revoked my privilege? Practical blockages
> have little to do with what is granted by law. -Goethe
If an entity acting unde
On Tue, 2008-09-30 at 08:40 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008, ais523 wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-09-30 at 00:02 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> >> Goethe wrote:
> >>
> 5708 O 1 1.0 comex
> >>> 4xAGAINST. Sell Ticket 2VP vote as specified.
> >>
> >> Your caste is only 2.
>
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008, comex wrote:
> Googling 'rights and privileges', one of the websites that comes up
> contrasts the right of life or liberty with the privilege of driving a
> car. Assume that a teenager does not have the privilege of driving
> his car, and MAY NOT and CANNOT do it (he doesn't
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 8:58 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The first, too, is irrelevant to this case; the crux of the issue is
> whether privilege, in ordinary-language meaning, is MAY or CAN. How
> about both?
>
> Googling 'rights and privileges', one of the websites that comes up
> con
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008, ais523 wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-09-30 at 00:02 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Goethe wrote:
>>
5708 O 1 1.0 comex
>>> 4xAGAINST. Sell Ticket 2VP vote as specified.
>>
>> Your caste is only 2.
>
> Ooh, sneaky. It's still a good deal for me anyway, though, I think.
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 9:10 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-09-30 at 09:06 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 2:23 PM, Ben Caplan
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > On Monday 29 September 2008 02:13:41 pm Roger Hicks wrote:
>> >> Ivan Hope (SLAVE)
On Tue, 2008-09-30 at 09:06 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 2:23 PM, Ben Caplan
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Monday 29 September 2008 02:13:41 pm Roger Hicks wrote:
> >> Ivan Hope (SLAVE) 80
> >
> > CoE: ihope ceased to be a Slave yesterday.
> >
> > Pavitra
>
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 2:23 PM, Ben Caplan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 29 September 2008 02:13:41 pm Roger Hicks wrote:
>> Ivan Hope (SLAVE) 80
>
> CoE: ihope ceased to be a Slave yesterday.
>
> Pavitra
>
Admitted. Though e is still indebted, despite eir claim otherwise.
B
On Tue, 2008-09-30 at 10:58 -0400, comex wrote:
> Googling 'rights and privileges', one of the websites that comes up
> contrasts the right of life or liberty with the privilege of driving a
> car. Assume that a teenager does not have the privilege of driving
> his car, and MAY NOT and CANNOT do i
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 12:19 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Of Wooble's three arguments in that case, the third one is the only
> one that is persuasive (although I invite Judge Wooble to show me a
> dictionary that explicitly equates "privilege" with all-caps "MAY" as
> e appears to c
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 8:55 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To me this says that the ratification of a ruleset that's missing the
> effects of the message wherein the Assessor resolved the decision to
> adopt a proposal doesn't cancel the effects of that resolution, so the
> propos
On 30 Sep 2008, at 14:07, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 8:59 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Also, where da mad scientist elections be at?
The nomination period hasn't ended yet.
Ah. Silly me.
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 8:59 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also, where da mad scientist elections be at?
The nomination period hasn't ended yet.
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 7:56 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Argument: Rule 1551 is an instrument, and a therefore rule 105 allows it
> to make rules changes where permitted by rules other than rule 105, and
> rule 1551 permits itself to make changes. (Note that there is no
> 'explicitly' i
On Tue, 2008-09-30 at 07:17 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> I install Murphy as CotC, assuming the text of Rule 2154 includes a
> provision for doing so.
Given that Goethe unconsented after the end of the nomination period,
then as far as I can tell, your installation of Murphy works, but
regardless
On Mon, 2008-09-29 at 19:49 -0400, comex wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 4:51 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I fill this ticket, specifying AGAINST.
> > Hmm... would you bribe me to vote on 5709 too?
> > I retract my votes on 5709 and vote SELL (2VP - Endorse Murphy) on 5709.
>
> Sorr
On Tue, 2008-09-30 at 00:02 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Goethe wrote:
>
> >> 5708 O 1 1.0 comex
> > 4xAGAINST. Sell Ticket 2VP vote as specified.
>
> Your caste is only 2.
Ooh, sneaky. It's still a good deal for me anyway, though, I think.
--
ais523
On Mon, 2008-09-29 at 23:44 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
>
> > 5725 D 1 2.0 Murphy Namespace conflicts (players)
>
> This was INVALID by R107(e) (and I have been discarding votes on it
> accordingly). In case the PNP has technical difficulty redistribut
Goethe wrote:
>> 5708 O 1 1.0 comex
> 4xAGAINST. Sell Ticket 2VP vote as specified.
Your caste is only 2.
64 matches
Mail list logo
