woggle wrote:
>> woggle, I think you also still need to choose a sentence for CFJ 2107:
>
> I'm not certain that anything happened which made CFJ 2107's judicial
> question on sentencing cease to have the judgment FINE (as far as I
> know, the appeal only suspending the judgment on culpability...
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 13:19, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Okay, here are my intended rewrites:
>
> 11. For the purposes of Buy and Sell Tickets, if the specified action
> is to vote in a certain manner on an Agoran decision, a party only
> fills eir obligation to take the spec
root wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 5:44 PM, ehird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> FOR*2 + FOR*-1 = FOR*1
>
> It's not algebra. You wrote "FOR*2, FOR*-1", which is shorthand for
> "I cast 2 votes FOR, then I cast -1 vote FOR." The first half of that
> is sensible, the second is not.
"FOR*-1" co
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 5:44 PM, ehird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> FOR*2 + FOR*-1 = FOR*1
It's not algebra. You wrote "FOR*2, FOR*-1", which is shorthand for
"I cast 2 votes FOR, then I cast -1 vote FOR." The first half of that
is sensible, the second is not.
-root
On 3 Oct 2008, at 00:30, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 4:36 PM, ehird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Are these valid?
It's impossible to cast a negative number of votes. Other than that,
the ones that aren't in excess of your voting limit would appear to be
valid.
-root
FOR*2 + F
Rule 208/7 (Power=3)
Resolving Agoran decisions
The vote collector for an unresolved Agoran decision CAN resolve
it by announcement, indicating the option selected by Agora.
...
This rule takes precedence over any rule that would provide
another mechanism by which an Agor
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 4:36 PM, ehird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are these valid?
It's impossible to cast a negative number of votes. Other than that,
the ones that aren't in excess of your voting limit would appear to be
valid.
-root
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:25, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, ais523 wrote:
>> On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 11:05 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> This version:
>>> http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2008-September/013955.html
>>>
>>> has Section 1
I vote as follows:
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 11:23, The PerlNomic Partnership
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> NUM C I AI SUBMITTER TITLE
> 5708 O 1 1.0 comex
AGAINST x 2
> 5709 D 1 2.0 Murphy Form 2126-EZ
AGAINST
> 5710 D 3 3.0 Murphy Pragmatic right
On 30 Sep 2008, at 18:02, Elliott Hird wrote:
On 30 Sep 2008, at 16:57, The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
This distribution of proposals 5727-5730 initiates the Agoran
Decisions on whether to adopt them. The eligible voters for ordinary
proposals are the active players, the eligible voters fo
comex wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:33 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Not least because you, er, didn't actually send the message in 1993.
>
> I wish ehird had tried that. E would have sent the message before eir birth.
Dammit, now you're making me feel old. (I was in college in
On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 11:58 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> I've entered this into the CotC DB using the timestamp from the
> "Received: from yzma.clarkk.net ... by yzma.clarkk.net ..."
> header. If another timestamp would be more appropriate, then I'd
> appreciate an explanation from the Distributor an
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> I think it should be evaluated at the time of resolution, to ensure
> that e.g. "6001: FOR if 6000 passed" works. (Gets messy if the
> resolution of 6000 is accidentally invalid, but I can't think of a
> good way around that. If the resolution of 6000 is de
On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 12:27 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> I think it should be evaluated at the time of resolution, to ensure
> that e.g. "6001: FOR if 6000 passed" works. (Gets messy if the
> resolution of 6000 is accidentally invalid, but I can't think of a
> good way around that. If the resolution
ehird wrote:
> On 2 Oct 2008, at 19:58, Ed Murphy wrote:
>
>> I've entered this into the CotC DB using the timestamp from the
>> "Received: from yzma.clarkk.net ... by yzma.clarkk.net ..."
>> header. If another timestamp would be more appropriate, then I'd
>> appreciate an explanation from the D
Goethe wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> from adequate information that (a) is clearly identified in the
>> voting message and (b) is or will be reasonably and readily available
>> to and interpretable by any player at all times between the end of
>> the voting
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 2:58 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've entered this into the CotC DB using the timestamp from the
> "Received: from yzma.clarkk.net ... by yzma.clarkk.net ..."
> header. If another timestamp would be more appropriate, then I'd
> appreciate an explanation from t
Goethe wrote:
> Proto: Conditional clarity
>
>
> Amend Rule 2127 by replacing the text:
>
> from information published within the voting period.
>
> with:
>
> from adequate information that (a) is clearly
I wrote:
> root wrote:
>
>> BobTHJ's exact vote was "SELL(5VP) x5". This is five sell tickets,
>> each corresponding to a single vote, not one sell ticket corresponding
>> to five votes. However, ais523 only filled one of these tickets: "I
>> fill BobTHJ's open sell ticket on proposal 5707, ca
On 2 Oct 2008, at 19:58, Ed Murphy wrote:
I've entered this into the CotC DB using the timestamp from the
"Received: from yzma.clarkk.net ... by yzma.clarkk.net ..."
header. If another timestamp would be more appropriate, then I'd
appreciate an explanation from the Distributor and/or another
ma
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 2:35 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> where the line was drawn. Does anyone know why rule 2127 was created in
>> the first place? I'm wondering if the bar was intentionally set high to
>> discourage that sort of scam.
>
> T
I've entered this into the CotC DB using the timestamp from the
"Received: from yzma.clarkk.net ... by yzma.clarkk.net ..."
header. If another timestamp would be more appropriate, then I'd
appreciate an explanation from the Distributor and/or another
mail guru (I am not one myself).
Ori
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But the problem is section 13 doesn't specify "cast a single vote"
> it specifies "voting" in general. Therefore a section 13 ticket
> action of (endorse or Y) is in fact a subclass of a section 11
> specification to vote in
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, ais523 wrote:
> Does anyone know why rule 2127 was created in
> the first place? I'm wondering if the bar was intentionally set high to
> discourage that sort of scam.
I wrote it, because I thought it would be fun to allow just the sort
of activity that's now going on (sell ti
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 2:35 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> where the line was drawn. Does anyone know why rule 2127 was created in
> the first place? I'm wondering if the bar was intentionally set high to
> discourage that sort of scam.
The archives show that Goethe originally proposed it
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 2:05 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Did I miss an amendement?
>>
>> This version:
>> http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2008-September/013955.html
>>
>> has Section 11 votes so that a Se
On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 11:25 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Okay then, here's my question. A section 13 is still a (conditional)
> offer to vote in a certain way on an agoran decision (Endorse or
> otherwise). As such, don't section 13 tickets still fall under the
> section 11's default requirement t
On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 11:15 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Just a followup ais523, would you agree with the following statement?
>
> For the purposes of R2127, if information published in the same message
> as a conditional vote and/or directly associated with a conditional vote
> contains a clear ab
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 11:38 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> BobTHJ voted "SELL (5VP - AGAINST) x 5". This amounted to 5 votes of
>> "SELL (5VP - AGAINST)", which resulted in 5 sets of conditional votes,
>> each set resolving to (endorse fille
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 2:05 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Did I miss an amendement?
>
> This version:
> http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2008-September/013955.html
>
> has Section 11 votes so that a Sell Ticket is a ticket to vote up to one's
> voting
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, ais523 wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 11:05 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> This version:
>> http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2008-September/013955.html
>>
>> has Section 11 votes so that a Sell Ticket is a ticket to vote up to one's
>> voting power
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, ais523 wrote:
>> On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 10:26 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> If you were arguing that a vote was unclear because it was unclear or
>>> ambiguous in the way it used an abbreviation, all well and good. But I'm
>>> not
>>> g
On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 11:05 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> This version:
> http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2008-September/013955.html
>
> has Section 11 votes so that a Sell Ticket is a ticket to vote up to one's
> voting power; under that section more than one ticke
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Where are you finding this? The vote I find is:
>> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> "SELL(5VP) x5"
>>
>> There's certainly no Against. Without the AGAINST (versus for example a
On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 13:59 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:55 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > (Note, however, that it is not certain that the Assessor
> > understood it correctly; Murphy recently admitted to treating unfilled
> > tickets as no-vote rather than PR
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:55 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (Note, however, that it is not certain that the Assessor
> understood it correctly; Murphy recently admitted to treating unfilled
> tickets as no-vote rather than PRESENT.)
I don't believe there's any reason from a reading of the
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Where are you finding this? The vote I find is:
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> "SELL(5VP) x5"
>
> There's certainly no Against. Without the AGAINST (versus for example a
> 5xAGAINST) missing it's unclear to me whether t
On 2 Oct 2008, at 18:08, Zefram wrote:
comex wrote:
I wish ehird had tried that. E would have sent the message before
eir birth.
Woo, we have a player younger than the game? Now Agora's really
grown up.
-zefram
I seem to recall ihope is 15, I don't know if e's older or younger
than
On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 10:47 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, ais523 wrote:
> > On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 10:26 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >> If you were arguing that a vote was unclear because it was unclear or
> >> ambiguous in the way it used an abbreviation, all well and good. But I
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 1:08 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> comex wrote:
>>I wish ehird had tried that. E would have sent the message before eir birth.
>
> Woo, we have a player younger than the game? Now Agora's really grown up.
"When I was your age, we didn't have fancy online nomics.
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, ais523 wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 10:26 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> If you were arguing that a vote was unclear because it was unclear or
>> ambiguous in the way it used an abbreviation, all well and good. But I'm not
>> going to support the idea that an abbreviation is a
On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 10:38 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> > BobTHJ voted "SELL (5VP - AGAINST) x 5". This amounted to 5 votes of
> > "SELL (5VP - AGAINST)", which resulted in 5 sets of conditional votes,
> > each set resolving to (endorse filler x 5 / AGAINST x
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> BobTHJ voted "SELL (5VP - AGAINST) x 5". This amounted to 5 votes of
> "SELL (5VP - AGAINST)", which resulted in 5 sets of conditional votes,
> each set resolving to (endorse filler x 5 / AGAINST x 1); and 5
> corresponding sell tickets.
Where are you findi
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, comex wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 1:15 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Rule 754 is more powerful than rule 2127, and they contradict each
>> other. Rule 754 wins.
>
> hmm..
>
> Rule 683 is more powerful than rule 2127, and they contradict each
> other (because R683
On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 10:26 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> If you were arguing that a vote was unclear because it was unclear or
> ambiguous in the way it used an abbreviation, all well and good. But I'm not
> going to support the idea that an abbreviation is automatically forbidden
> because an a
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 11:22 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 1:15 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Rule 754 is more powerful than rule 2127, and they contradict each
>> other. Rule 754 wins.
>
> hmm..
>
> Rule 683 is more powerful than rule 2127, and they contr
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, ais523 wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 10:12 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, ais523 wrote:
>>> Rule 754 explicitly allows knowledge of standard English, and of the
>>> rules. It doesn't allow knowledge of contract-defined terms. By the same
>>> "an explicit MAY
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 10:33 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
>>Well, I think it's pretty uncontroversially a date stamp,
>
> I controvert it. It was not stamped on the message, in the usual meaning
> of the term. It was not added as part of a regular process, nor in a
> mann
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 1:15 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rule 754 is more powerful than rule 2127, and they contradict each
> other. Rule 754 wins.
hmm..
Rule 683 is more powerful than rule 2127, and they contradict each
other (because R683 requires that the voter clearly identify whic
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 11:09 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 1:05 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 11:02 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
>>> You know, it seems to me that your interpretation of it should more
>>> plausibly be written "SELL (5VP -
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 10:55 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I intend, with 2 support, to appeal CFJ 2203. The judgement looked
>> reasonable at the time, but various doubts have come up since which I
>> think need looking at. Rule 754 is probably th
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 1:12 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And was the SLR published within every voting period? Otherwise by your
> rules you can't refer to it. -Goethe
Note that the Rulekeepor's obligation to post the SLR weekly would be
satisfied if e published, for example, on
On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 10:12 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, ais523 wrote:
> > Rule 754 explicitly allows knowledge of standard English, and of the
> > rules. It doesn't allow knowledge of contract-defined terms. By the same
> > "an explicit MAY implies MAY NOT in all other cases" th
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, ais523 wrote:
> Rule 754 explicitly allows knowledge of standard English, and of the
> rules. It doesn't allow knowledge of contract-defined terms. By the same
> "an explicit MAY implies MAY NOT in all other cases" that we have in the
> rules (via the definition of regulation),
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, ais523 wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 09:49 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> If, as you claim, you don't allow *any* references to outside material,
>> you'd have to publish a dictionary every voting period. And a grammar
>> guide. And maybe a kindergarten curriculum. Clearly ab
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, comex wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:49 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "Information" is *not* merely the words in the message, it is something
>> that informs. If you publish (during the voting period) a clear and
>> adequate reference to something that may
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 1:05 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 11:02 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> You know, it seems to me that your interpretation of it should more
>> plausibly be written "SELL (5VP - AGAINST x 3)".
> Well, does that allow the buying of 1 vote or 3? That
comex wrote:
>I wish ehird had tried that. E would have sent the message before eir birth.
Woo, we have a player younger than the game? Now Agora's really grown up.
-zefram
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 10:55 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I intend, with 2 support, to appeal CFJ 2203. The judgement looked
> reasonable at the time, but various doubts have come up since which I
> think need looking at. Rule 754 is probably the best argument as to what
> is allowed, be
On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 11:02 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
> You know, it seems to me that your interpretation of it should more
> plausibly be written "SELL (5VP - AGAINST x 3)".
Well, does that allow the buying of 1 vote or 3? That isn't at all clear
from that. A conditional vote that changes number acc
On 2 Oct 2008, at 18:01, comex wrote:
I wish ehird had tried that. E would have sent the message before
eir birth.
I asked ais523 about that, and probably if that kind of time-travel
did work,
it'd just be an email from a non-person.
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 10:55 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree with Wooble that SELL (5VP - AGAINST) probably works, due to it
> being an abbreviation whose expansion is well-known and repeatedly
> published. (Note, however, that it is not certain that the Assessor
> understood it cor
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:33 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not least because you, er, didn't actually send the message in 1993.
I wish ehird had tried that. E would have sent the message before eir birth.
--
hopefully
minor evil
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:34 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> THE SHORT LOGICAL RULESET
>
> Last proposal with recorded effect on this ruleset: 5686
> Last change to this ruleset: by proposal 5686
CoE: This should read 5704. I should make a checklist...
On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 09:49 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> If, as you claim, you don't allow *any* references to outside material,
> you'd have to publish a dictionary every voting period. And a grammar
> guide. And maybe a kindergarten curriculum. Clearly absurd even under
> the *current* Rule.
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ian Kelly wrote:
>>Thorny part: the time of day is not part of the date
>
> It is if you're dealing with timezones. Our date stamps have resolution
> finer than one day; I see no contradiction here.
Agora has no time zones. Day
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:49 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Information" is *not* merely the words in the message, it is something
> that informs. If you publish (during the voting period) a clear and
> adequate reference to something that may be outside that period, but is
> reason
Ian Kelly wrote:
>Thorny part: the time of day is not part of the date
It is if you're dealing with timezones. Our date stamps have resolution
finer than one day; I see no contradiction here.
-zefram
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, ais523 wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 12:30 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> My point is not that it's true now and needs a fix (though a clarification
>>> is always useful) my point is that it's ridicul
On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 09:42 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Wooble wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> My point is not that it's true now and needs a fix (though a clarification
> >> is always useful) my point is that it's ridiculous to interpret the
Wooble wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> My point is not that it's true now and needs a fix (though a clarification
>> is always useful) my point is that it's ridiculous to interpret the *current*
>> rule as excluding readily-available information
On 1 Jul 2008, at 01:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I CFJ on the statement: {This CFJ was initiated or will be
initiated at midnight, 1 July 2008.}
Oh my, Murphy, you're a bit late with this one...
ais523 wrote:
>Well, I think it's pretty uncontroversially a date stamp,
I controvert it. It was not stamped on the message, in the usual meaning
of the term. It was not added as part of a regular process, nor in a
manner that would be expected to normally give an accurate record of
the current
On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 12:30 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > My point is not that it's true now and needs a fix (though a clarification
> > is always useful) my point is that it's ridiculous to interpret the
> > *current*
>
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My point is not that it's true now and needs a fix (though a clarification
> is always useful) my point is that it's ridiculous to interpret the *current*
> rule as excluding readily-available information (as long as it's *re
On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 17:25 +0100, Zefram wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
> >X-Date-Stamp header saying the same thing. That one's definitely a date
> >stamp!
>
> Saying it doesn't make it so.
>
Well, I think it's pretty uncontroversially a date stamp, albeit one
with the wrong date on. The scam itself fa
ais523 wrote:
>X-Date-Stamp header saying the same thing. That one's definitely a date
>stamp!
Saying it doesn't make it so.
-zefram
On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 12:20 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 29, 1993 at 8:04 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Happy birthday, Agora!
>
> There were no Ribbons in 1993, and in any case the relevant Tailor's
> report saying you've got no magenta ribbon has self-ratified, so even
On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 17:19 +0100, Zefram wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
> >Date: 30 June 1993 00:04:30 +1200
>
> It's a pity the Truthfulness rule is gone. This would have been a
> great CFJ.
>
Just in case people argue about which header is correct, there's an
X-Date-Stamp header saying the same thing
On Tue, Jun 29, 1993 at 8:04 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Happy birthday, Agora!
There were no Ribbons in 1993, and in any case the relevant Tailor's
report saying you've got no magenta ribbon has self-ratified, so even
if you gain one in the past you lost it at the time of ratification
ais523 wrote:
>Date: 30 June 1993 00:04:30 +1200
It's a pity the Truthfulness rule is gone. This would have been a
great CFJ.
-zefram
On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 11:55 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> [Would require an unambiguous specification of identity so that "I am
> a current player" sent anonymously wouldn't work. Also generalizes to
> when message was sent instead of specifying the date stamp, which
> follows current precedent (
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, ais523 wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 07:22 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
>>> So we are saying that SELL votes aren't valid unless the VM is
>>> published during the voting period on which they are cast? That is
>>> somewhat ridiculous, isn
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 15:44, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
>
>> I submit the following arguments on the CFJs which Murphy's website shows
>> will be assigned the numbers 2203-2205:
>>
>> An excerpt from Rule 2172:
>> {{{
>> The option selected shall be considered to b
On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 15:50 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote:
> On 1 Jul 2008, at 03:58, Elliott Hird wrote:
> > Farewell Eris! We knew you well.
> >
> > I shall also. I change my nickname to tusho.
> >
> > tusho
>
> I change my nickname to ehird.
>
Farewell Phill! We knew you well.
--
ais523
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> Counter-evidence:
>>
>> Tue, 23 Sep 2008 16:21:26 -0700 Voting period of Proposal 5707 begins
>> Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:13:41 -0600 Vote Market text published
>> Tue, 30 Sep 2008 16:21:26 -0700 Voting period of Proposal 5707 ends
>>
> So we are saying that
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, ais523 wrote:
> The
> win conditions of Agora have been developed over time and cause all
> sorts of parts of the game to open up which would otherwise be
> irrelevant.
Yah, keep going, you've almost unlocked the first bonus action.
You'll need it against the next Boss scam.
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Goethe wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> I recuse Goethe from CFJ 2148. I change Goethe to supine.
>> ?which one was that? I sit up.
>
> That was the equity case on tusho creating CFJs just so their ID numbers
> could be harvested.
Oh
On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 22:18 -0400, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
> I just realized that root would have qualified for the patent title
> Groovy (for winning three different ways), if we hadn't repealed it
> prematurely. Is it worth bringing back?
Ah, yes please. I've been going for that one for mont
On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 14:31 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
> Unless you plan on buying it, I wish you wouldn't. That vote is now
> going to count toward quorum, regardless of whether anyone ends up
> directing it or not.
Well, given that I didn't want proposal 5707 to fail quorum, it was a
sensible actio
90 matches
Mail list logo
