On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 10:42, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 10:34 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I would consent to be its contestmaster if someone would take the AAA from
>> me.
>
> You never responded to my offer to trade contests. Shall I assume
>
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 06:58, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-09-29 at 13:13 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> AVAILABLE TICKETS
>>
> (snip)
>> comex
>> BUY - 2VP - (a) not have objected to this attempt before this
>> message, (b) object to this attempt, and (c) do not
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 09:39, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I harvest 2199, the ID of a CFJ, to gain 2 WRV.
> I harvest 2200, the ID of a CFJ, to gain 2 WRV.
Though you only have two 2 crops I'm counting this successful by using
an X in place of the third 2.
> I mill 9 + 1 = X
This
On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 12:26 AM, Ben Caplan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> SELL(5VP - AGAINST). I'm not sure I want actions invalidated because I
> forgot to sign my name, but I'm willing to be convinced for the right
> price.
I believe the wording would make it so a correct From: header that
unambi
On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 6:49 PM, ehird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bribery is even worse.
Not necessarily. If bribery is in Notes, then the same people who can
increase their caste through note spending can bribe the Grand Poobah
to promote them; but if it's in other currencies, such as VP or chi
On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 8:04 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 7:39 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Proto-Proposal: Close the partnership loophole
>> (AI = 2, please)
>
> By CFJ 1938, an appropriate equation only fixes an inequity between
> the partners, not
On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 7:39 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Proto-Proposal: Close the partnership loophole
> (AI = 2, please)
By CFJ 1938, an appropriate equation only fixes an inequity between
the partners, not between the partners and the rest of the game. It
would be much better to
OscarMeyr wrote:
> As noted by Murphy in eir support of filing this CFJ, the ninny did
> not use this alternate registration for material gain, so Exile is
> overkill. I therefore DRAFT sentence the ninny to the CHOKEY for the
> maximum of 180 days.
E didn't use it for non-trivial muddling
ihope wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 6:51 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Ivan Hope wrote:
>>> A valid vote cast by a Llama of LLAMA (X), where X resolves to FOR or
>>> AGAINST, is a party vote toward FOR or AGAINST, respectively. A party
>> "is a party vote toward X"
>
> Is that bet
Taral wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 5:52 AM, ehird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> What comes next? o.o or O.O?
>
> O.O of course.
Ook!
On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 6:51 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ivan Hope wrote:
>> A valid vote cast by a Llama of LLAMA (X), where X resolves to FOR or
>> AGAINST, is a party vote toward FOR or AGAINST, respectively. A party
>
> "is a party vote toward X"
Is that better beyond being a bit
Ivan Hope wrote:
> I agree to the following:
>
> {The name of this contract is "The Llama Party." This is a public
> contract. Parties to this contract are known as Llamas. Contract
> Changes can be performed with the consent of a majority of Llamas;
> this is the only way a person can join this
On 5 Oct 2008, at 22:01, Roger Hicks wrote:
I could have easily been bribed to prefer certain partnerships when I
was Poobah.
BobTHJ
Bribery is even worse.
--
ehird
On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 08:45, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 10:03 AM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Demoted to Epsilon: Bayes (not first class)
>
> Anyone up for Grand Poobah who won't prefer demoting partnerships?
>
I could have easily been bribed to p
On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 1:35 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 1:25 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Rule 1698, "Agora Is a Nomic", effectively states that it is possible
>> to make arbitrary rule changes and/or adopt arbitrary proposals, most
>> likely via the exi
On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 1:25 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rule 1698, "Agora Is a Nomic", effectively states that it is possible
> to make arbitrary rule changes and/or adopt arbitrary proposals, most
> likely via the existing proposal system.
I don't know about this. It's one thing to ch
On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 12:48 PM, ehird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Conditional: if this would cause R2193 to contain at least one
>> character that is not whitespace, a letter of the Roman alphabet, an
>> Arabic numeral, or a punctuation mark, then AGAINST; otherwise, FOR.
>
> Y'be voting AGAINST
On 5 Oct 2008, at 17:18, Ian Kelly wrote:
I for one have no objection to being favored over partnerships.
-root
Sure. But I object to partnerships being mistreated like that.
comex very recently spent a lot to give Bayes 2 votes. It's just being
slapped down because "oh, it's a partnership"
On 5 Oct 2008, at 05:26, Ben Caplan wrote:
5740 O 1 1.0 Pavitra More Reasonable Monster Deputy v.2
Conditional: if this would cause R2193 to contain at least one
character that is not whitespace, a letter of the Roman alphabet, an
Arabic numeral, or a punctuation mark, then AGAINST;
On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 9:39 AM, ehird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 5 Oct 2008, at 15:03, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
>>
>> Demoted to Epsilon: Bayes (not first class), cdm014 (inactive).
>> -
>> Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
>> Grand Poobah OscarMeyr
>
>
> Why do we punish partnerships with an iron
On 5 Oct 2008, at 15:03, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
Demoted to Epsilon: Bayes (not first class), cdm014 (inactive).
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
Grand Poobah OscarMeyr
Why do we punish partnerships with an iron first again?
--
ehird
On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 10:53 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 11:41 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I submit the following proposal, Partner Responsibility, AI-2:
>>
>> --
>> Amend Rul
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 11:41 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I submit the following proposal, Partner Responsibility, AI-2:
>
> --
> Amend Rule 2145 by appending the following text:
>
>If a judge finds a partne
On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 10:03 AM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Demoted to Epsilon: Bayes (not first class)
Anyone up for Grand Poobah who won't prefer demoting partnerships?
On 5 Oct 2008, at 14:41, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
That's odd... which rule is saying that an AI=3 proposal can affect
a P=4 rule?
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr
--
Rule 2140/0 (Power=3)
Power Controls Mutability
On Oct 5, 2008, at 9:37 AM, ehird wrote:
On 5 Oct 2008, at 14:28, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
On Oct 5, 2008, at 9:15 AM, ehird wrote:
Proposal: Let's Get Our Names Right, Shall We? (AI=3)
As the rule indicates, it is power 4. An AI=3 proposal shouldn't
affect it, unless someone snuck somet
On 5 Oct 2008, at 14:28, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
On Oct 5, 2008, at 9:15 AM, ehird wrote:
Proposal: Let's Get Our Names Right, Shall We? (AI=3)
As the rule indicates, it is power 4. An AI=3 proposal shouldn't
affect it, unless someone snuck something in.
Last I checked AI=3 proposals we
On 4 Oct 2008, at 23:55, ehird wrote:
Hummm. 'sabug, I'll fix it tomorrow.
--
ehird
Hooray, all fixed.
('AGAINST', 0.63848244470276394)
and
('AGAINST', 0.55858365302709867)
are its two real votes, respectively, btw, although it has no way of
retracting votes in its software and stuff so
On Oct 5, 2008, at 9:15 AM, ehird wrote:
Proposal: Let's Get Our Names Right, Shall We? (AI=3)
As the rule indicates, it is power 4. An AI=3 proposal shouldn't
affect it, unless someone snuck something in.
And the phrase Hail Eris! is independent of Taral's current
nickname. I think.
On Oct 5, 2008, at 12:17 AM, Ben Caplan wrote:
On Saturday 04 October 2008 10:13:57 pm Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
On behalf of The Law-abiding Partnership:
{
The Law-abiding Partnership registers.
The Law-abiding Partnership claims, to Agora, that it is the
ambas
Goethe wrote:
> I submit the following proposal, Partner Responsibility, AI-2:
Good idea, and I already have something similar protoed in my Rests
proposal, but I suggest we pass this one while I work out the details
of mine (which could take a while).
--
ais523
<>
root wrote:
> Actually, "not to the public forum." "next time..." would require an
> additional t.
Heh, I always interpreted it as "now to the public forum"...
--
ais523
<>
32 matches
Mail list logo
