On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 5:20 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Why is it 3 * floor(power) rather than floor(3 * power) to begin with?
>> My recommendation for an equitable resolution is to amend the
>> contract to match the practice.
>
>
> [[WP:SOFIXIT]]
Doesn't bother me enough.
On Oct 10, 2008, at 1:08 AM, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 10:01 PM, Ben Caplan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thursday 09 October 2008 10:53:28 pm Charles Reiss wrote:
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 20:37, Roger Hicks wrote:
I create the following crops in the possession of ais523:
8, 3, 5
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 4:09 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> ehird did, in fact, illegally reveal it to me. (E was simultaneously
>> 1) required to reveal it to the AFO
>> 2) prohibited from revealing it to the AFO
>> 3) prohibited from re
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> ehird did, in fact, illegally reveal it to me. (E was simultaneously
> 1) required to reveal it to the AFO
> 2) prohibited from revealing it to the AFO
> 3) prohibited from revealing it to me
> so any criminal prosecution on #2, and possibly #3 as well,
Pavitra wrote:
> On Friday 10 October 2008 04:40:18 pm Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Only on ehird's end; it wouldn't prevent me from revealing the
>> password (I'm not a party, only the AFO is).
>
> How would you find out the password unless someone (e.g., the AFO)
> illegally revealed it to you?
ehird
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 3:33 PM, Ben Caplan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What about:
>
> {
> Once each week, for each mill e owned at the beginning of that week, a
> farmer may mill by specifying two crops e owns. E then forms a
> mathematical expression using the values of those two crops and the
On Friday 10 October 2008 04:40:18 pm Ed Murphy wrote:
> Only on ehird's end; it wouldn't prevent me from revealing the
> password (I'm not a party, only the AFO is).
How would you find out the password unless someone (e.g., the AFO)
illegally revealed it to you?
On Friday 10 October 2008 09:05:52 am Roger Hicks wrote:
> {
> Once each week for each Operator, a farmer may mill by destroying
> two crops e owns. E then forms a mathematical expression using the
> values of those two crops and the value of the chosen Operator
> exactly once each, and e evaluates
root wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 2:20 PM, Ben Caplan
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Friday 10 October 2008 03:16:38 pm comex wrote:
>>> Parties to Russian Roulette SHALL NOT reveal the password to the
>>> zip file this text file is contained in, publicly or privately in
>>> any forum or o
Ivan Hope wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 9:42 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 18:21, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
5772 D 1 2.0 Murphy Loose ordering of ID numbers
>>> LLAMA (PRESENT)
>> The above vote is invalid per the Llama party agreem
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 2:20 PM, Ben Caplan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 10 October 2008 03:16:38 pm comex wrote:
>> Parties to Russian Roulette SHALL NOT reveal the password to the
>> zip file this text file is contained in, publicly or privately in
>> any forum or other method of commun
On Friday 10 October 2008 04:19:52 pm Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Ben Caplan wrote:
> > Presumably the miller is supposed to be the farmer whose mill is
> > milling. In a mill rental (let Alice be renting eir mill to Bob),
> > Alice's mill is consuming Bob's crops and giving
On Friday 10 October 2008 03:49:32 pm Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 2:29 PM, Ben Caplan
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It might be less clear to someone who knows what the encrypted
> > text *really* says:
> >
> > Russians SHALL NOT eat cake.
> >
> > In a timely fashion after joini
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 8:05 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 06:47, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 6:34 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> announcement, with the consent of that farmer. At the beginning of
>>> each
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Ben Caplan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Presumably the miller is supposed to be the farmer whose mill is
> milling. In a mill rental (let Alice be renting eir mill to Bob),
> Alice's mill is consuming Bob's crops and giving the result to Bob.
> (This is effectively
On 10 Oct 2008, at 22:11, Ian Kelly wrote:
Note the proposed revision would fix this.
-root
It is quite irrelevant now.
--
ehird
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 2:49 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 2:29 PM, Ben Caplan
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It might be less clear to someone who knows what the encrypted text
>> *really* says:
>>
>> Russians SHALL NOT eat cake.
>>
>> In a timely fashion afte
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 2:29 PM, Ben Caplan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It might be less clear to someone who knows what the encrypted text
> *really* says:
>
> Russians SHALL NOT eat cake.
>
> In a timely fashion after joining, each Russian SHALL reveal the
> encrypted text to a non-Foreign forum
On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 16:39 -0400, ihope wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 9:42 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 18:21, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> 5772 D 1 2.0 Murphy Loose ordering of ID numbers
> >> LLAMA (PRESENT)
> >
> > The above vote
On Friday 10 October 2008 03:23:01 pm Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
> > On 10 Oct 2008, at 21:16, comex wrote:
> >> snip
> >
> > I initiate an equity case regarding Russian Roulette, parties:
> > me, AFO, Embassy.
> >
> > It was clearly not envisioned that the text i
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
> On 10 Oct 2008, at 21:16, comex wrote:
>
>> snip
>
> I initiate an equity case regarding Russian Roulette, parties: me, AFO,
> Embassy.
>
> It was clearly not envisioned that the text inside the zip would be revealed.
You might think so... I cannot poss
On Friday 10 October 2008 03:16:38 pm comex wrote:
> Parties to Russian Roulette SHALL NOT reveal the password to the
> zip file this text file is contained in, publicly or privately in
> any forum or other method of communication (the password in
> question is "").
(...)
> ehird MUST email the pas
Parties to Russian Roulette CANNOT leave Russian Roulette.
Parties to Russian Roulette SHALL NOT reveal the password to the zip file this
text file is contained in, publicly or privately in any forum or other method of
communication (the password in question is "").
Parties to Russian Roulette MU
On Thursday 09 October 2008 11:36:38 pm Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 9:14 PM, Ben Caplan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thursday 09 October 2008 05:34:37 pm Ian Kelly wrote:
> >> 10. A farmer's milling queue is initially empty. A farmer (the
> >> miller) may add milling jobs to the
On 10 Oct 2008, at 20:58, Ian Kelly wrote:
The Embassy also joins this contract.
Please specify how I can contact the Embassy, as it is not a player.
c/o you? Thanks.
--
ehird
On 10 Oct 2008, at 20:37, comex wrote:
> Sorry, but this is trivially TRUE. ehird did, in fact, decide to
disclose the password to the AFO's other partners.
yah, pikhq too
--
ehird
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 3:30 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I initiate an inquiry case on the following statement, disqualifying
> ehird:
>
> The AFO is bound by the Russian Roulette contract.
>
> Caller's arguments:
>
> ehird has disclosed the password to me, but (to the best of m
comex wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 3:15 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I could record this in the database as three separate assigns (similar
>> to appeal panels, a holdover from the old justices / appellate judges
>> system) but I'm concerned that it might confuse some of the scr
On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 12:15 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> I could record this in the database as three separate assigns (similar
> to appeal panels, a holdover from the old justices / appellate judges
> system) but I'm concerned that it might confuse some of the scripts. I
> recommend the following in
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 3:15 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I could record this in the database as three separate assigns (similar
> to appeal panels, a holdover from the old justices / appellate judges
> system) but I'm concerned that it might confuse some of the scripts. I
> recommen
BobTHJ wrote:
> AI: 1.7
> {
> In R2169 replace:
> {{
> The members of the bases of the parties to the contract are all
> unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case.
> }}
> with:
> {{
> The members of the bases of the parties to the contract are all
> unqualified to be assigned as judge
Sgeo wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 9:58 AM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 2:47 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Proposal: Fix OVERLOOKED
>>> (AI = 1.7, please)
>>>
>>> Ivan Hope and Pavitra are co-authors of this proposal.
>>>
>>> Amend Rule 1504 (Crimi
On 10 Oct 2008, at 20:00, Ed Murphy wrote:
The AFO joins this contract.
I assume that I can contact the AFO by contacting each of its members?
--
ehird
AI: 1.7
{
In R2169 replace:
{{
The members of the bases of the parties to the contract are all
unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case.
}}
with:
{{
The members of the bases of the parties to the contract are all
unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case. However, if this
would c
On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 15:28 -0700, The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
> NUM C I AI SUBMITTER TITLE
I vote as follows:
> 5765 O 1 1.0 Wooble
AGAINSTx3
> 5766 O 0 1.0 ais523 root made me do it
AGAINSTx2
> 5767 D 1 2.0 Murphy Be careful what you start
On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 23:08 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 10:01 PM, Ben Caplan
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thursday 09 October 2008 10:53:28 pm Charles Reiss wrote:
> >> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 20:37, Roger Hicks wrote:
> >> > I create the following crops in the possession
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 09:23, ehird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 10 Oct 2008, at 15:58, comex wrote:
>>
>> I object. If you want to leave in a huff, do it the proper way (R1789).
>
> I do not. I am trying, through the mechanism of Agoran Consent, to determine
> whether I am welcome or not.
>
On 10 Oct 2008, at 15:58, comex wrote:
I object. If you want to leave in a huff, do it the proper way
(R1789).
I do not. I am trying, through the mechanism of Agoran Consent, to
determine
whether I am welcome or not.
--
ehird
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 10:34 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I dunno. I'll check. Who was your supporting ranked knight?
You know well the contents of Section Five (or at least that's the
number I have; you may have a different number for the section).
On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 19:53 -0500, 0x44 wrote:
> I wish to register as a player of Agora with the name 0x44.
>
Welcome! (Just a note: most of the time you take a game action by saying
that you take it, not that you wish to take it or request to take it.
Registration was special-cased because peopl
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 9:58 AM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 2:47 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Proposal: Fix OVERLOOKED
>> (AI = 1.7, please)
>>
>> Ivan Hope and Pavitra are co-authors of this proposal.
>>
>> Amend Rule 1504 (Criminal Cases) by replacin
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 9:58 AM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wasn't there a proposal to fix this a while ago? What happened to it?
P5612. It failed with a VI of 0.4, possibly because it redefined
INNOCENT instead of just fixing the "allegedly" bit of OVERLOOKED.
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 08:05, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 06:47, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 6:34 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> announcement, with the consent of that farmer. At the beginning of
>>> each we
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 06:47, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 6:34 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> announcement, with the consent of that farmer. At the beginning of
>> each week, after Digit Ranches produce crops, each Mill processes and
>> removes t
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 2:47 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Proposal: Fix OVERLOOKED
> (AI = 1.7, please)
>
> Ivan Hope and Pavitra are co-authors of this proposal.
>
> Amend Rule 1504 (Criminal Cases) by replacing this text:
>
> * OVERLOOKED, appropriate if the alleged act allege
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 2:36 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I submit the following proposal titled "Secure points":
>
> Upmutate Rule 2136 to power 2.
> Upmutate Rule 2179 to power 2, and amend it by appending to the first
> paragraph the text:
>
> Changes to point holdings are secu
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 1:08 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why is it 3 * floor(power) rather than floor(3 * power) to begin with?
> My recommendation for an equitable resolution is to amend the
> contract to match the practice.
I'm not sure that's an equitable resolution under the cu
On 10 Oct 2008, at 03:42, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
On Oct 7, 2008, at 6:35 PM, comex wrote:
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 6:30 PM, Benjamin Schultz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(list of numbers which provides absolutely no context, forcing me to
go back to the relevant distributions to find out what's
48 matches
Mail list logo
