I consent to any member's removal from the Baye's contract, including my
own.
--
Dvorak Herring
On 17/10/2008, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 9:02 PM, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> What do I need to do to leave the Bayes contract?
>> Consent to your parting, I think.
>
> And Wooble's.
After e leaves eir consent is unneeded.
>
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 9:02 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> What do I need to do to leave the Bayes contract?
> Consent to your parting, I think.
And Wooble's.
On 17/10/2008, Dvorak Herring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Am I still a member of the Bayes Contract?
> What do I need to do to leave the Bayes contract?
>
> --
> Dvorak Herring
>
Consent to your parting, I think.
Am I still a member of the Bayes Contract?
What do I need to do to leave the Bayes contract?
--
Dvorak Herring
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 6:13 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 17:08, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 17:56, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I join Nomic Wars I.
>>>
>>> I add the following section to Nomic Wars I:
>>> {
>>
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 17:08, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 17:56, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I join Nomic Wars I.
>>
>> I add the following section to Nomic Wars I:
>> {
>> Sections with lower Ratings take precedence over sections with higher
>> Ratings
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 17:56, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I join Nomic Wars I.
>
> I add the following section to Nomic Wars I:
> {
> Sections with lower Ratings take precedence over sections with higher
> Ratings; Sections of this contract whose Rating is a positive integer
> are void and
On Oct 16, 2008, at 12:09 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
= Criminal Case 2229
=
Goethe violated rule 2173 by neither informing the Notary of the
text and set of parties of UNDEAD, nor understanding and
carefully weighing the full implications
On 16 Oct 2008, at 23:02, Charles Reiss wrote:
I mill 4 / 7 = X.
I mill 4 / 7 = X.
I mill 3 - 4 = X.
I RBoA-withdraw an 8 crop for 61 chits.
I mill 4 * 8 = X.
I mill 4 + 6 = X.
I PBA-deposit a 3 crop.
I PBA-deposit a 6 crop.
I RBoA-withdraw a 7 crop for 72 chits.
I RBoA-withdraw a 1 crop fo
On 16 Oct 2008, at 22:45, Pavitra wrote:
I deposit one crop each of the digits 1, 4, 8, and 9 with the PBA.
I deposit 1 2 Crop with the RBoA.
I withdraw 1 VP from the RBoA and deposit it with the PBA.
☭ Comrade Pavrita
Thanks! You have 111 coins.
--
ehird
On Thursday 16 October 2008 11:21:16 am Ed Murphy wrote:
> I object to flipping Nomic 217's Recognition. I will withdraw this
> objection if someone points out subsequent RFCs causing Nomic 217
> to meet the Agoran definition.
Arguably, RFC 2:
{When interpreting and applying the rules, the genera
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 14:56, Pavitra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 16 October 2008 02:03:59 pm Roger Hicks wrote:
>> Unofficially:
>>
>> CHITS (* = Banker)
>>
>> Pavitra 4528 Chits
>
> I'm a Banker.
>
> Pavitra
>
Indeed. I'll fix that.
BobTHJ
On Thursday 16 October 2008 02:03:59 pm Roger Hicks wrote:
> Unofficially:
>
> CHITS (* = Banker)
>
> Pavitra 4528 Chits
I'm a Banker.
Pavitra
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 2:15 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I make myself the owner of section 24 (root's section quoted above).
>
> Fails, per section 8.
Actually, this probably succeeded for section 24, but failed for all the others.
-root
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I create a new section reading "Murphy CAN make emself the owner of
> any section, and other parties SHALL NOT act to change the ownership
> of a section that Murphy owns." I increment the rating of this section
> by 1, twice.
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 13:52, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I create a new section reading "Murphy CAN make emself the owner of
> any section, and other parties SHALL NOT act to change the ownership
> of a section that Murphy owns." I increment the rating of this section
> by 1, twice.
BobTHJ wrote:
> 9. (Rating=8, Owner=null) Thrice each week, each party CAN increment
> or decrement the Rating of a section of this contract by 1.
There should be a section along the lines of "If this contract says
that an action CAN be performed, then the method is by announcement
unless otherwi
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 13:39, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> BobTHJ wrote:
>>
>>> 18. (Rating=4, Owner=null) At the end of each week, the contestmaster
>>> CAN and SHALL award points to each party equal to eir Prese
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 13:39, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BobTHJ wrote:
>
>> 18. (Rating=4, Owner=null) At the end of each week, the contestmaster
>> CAN and SHALL award points to each party equal to eir Presence.
>
> This should be "As soon as possible after the end of each week, the
>
BobTHJ wrote:
> 18. (Rating=4, Owner=null) At the end of each week, the contestmaster
> CAN and SHALL award points to each party equal to eir Presence.
This should be "As soon as possible after the end of each week, the
contestmaster SHALL award points to each party equal to eir Presence
at the e
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 13:10, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 3:03 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Unofficially:
>>
>> CHITS (* = Banker)
>
> I assume this doesn't include Murphy's most recently deposit since e's
> shown with fewer chits than e wou
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 3:03 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Unofficially:
>
> CHITS (* = Banker)
I assume this doesn't include Murphy's most recently deposit since e's
shown with fewer chits than e would have gained from that one
transaction. Other than that, how up to date is this?
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 12:58, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What are the current RBOA assets/rates?
>
> --
> Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
>-- Unknown
>
Unofficially:
CHITS (* = Banker)
The AF
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 12:25 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So create a section, increment its Score twice, and use it to repeal
> all other Sections.
True. Also, a conspiracy of 3 could trivially create a section and
increment its Score all the way to 7.
Probably the best fix is to mak
What are the current RBOA assets/rates?
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 7:32 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ahem, Dvorak?
You don't need eir consent to remove em, do you?
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 8:58 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Your caste is Delta (2).
Right. Darn it. :/
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
root wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 12:16 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> 4. (Score=5, Owner=null) Thrice each week, each party CAN increment or
>>> decrement the score of a section of this contract by 1.
>>>
>>
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 2:18 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 12:16 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> 4. (Score=5, Owner=null) Thrice each week, each party CAN increment or
>>> decre
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 12:16 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 4. (Score=5, Owner=null) Thrice each week, each party CAN increment or
>> decrement the score of a section of this contract by 1.
>>
>> 6. (Score=5, Owner
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 10:55 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1. (Score=5, Owner=null) Any player CAN join this contract by announcement.
This is a little weird in that the effect of nullifying it would be to
allow any person to join (via R2198) instead of any player.
-root
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 4. (Score=5, Owner=null) Thrice each week, each party CAN increment or
> decrement the score of a section of this contract by 1.
>
> 6. (Score=5, Owner=null) Once each week each party CAN add a new
> section to this contract
BobTHJ wrote:
> 1. (Score=5, Owner=null) Any player CAN join this contract by announcement.
"Score" is used by the rules. Granted, for a different set of entities,
but I still recommend changing this to "rating" or something else.
> 9. (Score=5, Owner=null) Among equally scored sections, sectio
On 16 Oct 2008, at 16:38, Ed Murphy wrote:
Wooble wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 10:40 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Tue 7 Oct 22:19:33 oklopol registers (disputed, since ratified).
Tue 7 Oct 23:21:15 the Monster registers (disputed, since
ratified).
CoE: neither of these rat
> 4. (Score=5, Owner=null) Thrice each week, each party CAN increment or
> decrement the score of a section of this contract by 1.
> 6. (Score=5, Owner=null) Once each week each party CAN add a new
> section to this contract
When a section is added its Owner is set to
> the party who directly adde
NOTE: These could probably stand to be ordered a little better, and/or
have their scores adjusted before starting. Are there any major gaps I
am missing?
{
1. (Score=5, Owner=null) Any player CAN join this contract by announcement.
2. (Score=5, Owner=null) Any party to this contract CAN act on be
Wooble wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 11:38 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If this is about Ivan Hope publishing a Cantus Cygneus (albeit quoting
>> BobTHJ's rather than writing eir own), then e doesn't get deregistered
>> until the CotC carries out eir part of the procedure (which
Goethe wrote:
> I hereby ban from judging this case the only player with the most
> recent registration who is not a member of the alleged contract whose
> existence is not confirmed by this message.
I'm interpreting this as referring to the People's Bank of Agora.
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 11:38 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If this is about Ivan Hope publishing a Cantus Cygneus (albeit quoting
> BobTHJ's rather than writing eir own), then e doesn't get deregistered
> until the CotC carries out eir part of the procedure (which I have not,
> and do
Taral wrote:
>> 5765 O 1 1.0 Wooble
> FORx5
Your caste is Delta (2).
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 11:10 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 11:01 AM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Wasn't there a CFJ about this?
>
> CFJ 2177 held that "Mr. Elbow" was not a nickname for Ivan Hope
> because it was defined as a player on whose behalf
Ed Murphy wrote:
> (f) Left in a Huff, to be awarded by the Clerk of the Courts or
> the Registrar (whichever one gets around to it first) to
> any player who deregistered in a Writ of FAGE.
So everyone who so deregistered now has to have this title awarded again?
And the
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was referring to the contract stuff, actually. I remember discussion
> here about some CFJ regarding contracts that claim that doing
> something means you agree to the contract..
I doubt that applies when the doing something is
Wooble wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 10:40 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Tue 7 Oct 22:19:33 oklopol registers (disputed, since ratified).
>> Tue 7 Oct 23:21:15 the Monster registers (disputed, since ratified).
>
> CoE: neither of these ratified; Ivan Hope was not a Player at the
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 8:06 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Kyle is hereby defined as a non-registered entity on whose behalf I
>> can act by announcement. Kyle degregisters.
>
> You're the only such entity. Thi
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 11:01 AM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wasn't there a CFJ about this?
CFJ 2177 held that "Mr. Elbow" was not a nickname for Ivan Hope
because it was defined as a player on whose behalf e could act by
announcement, and there were 2 such players, causing ambiguity. In
t
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 4:58 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I nominate The Law-abiding Partnership, Quazie, and ihope for Assessor.
Quazie and ihope aren't active players; both of their noms fail.
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 8:06 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Kyle is hereby defined as a non-registered entity on whose behalf I
>> can act by announcement. Kyle degregisters.
>
> You're the only such entity. Thi
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 8:06 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kyle is hereby defined as a non-registered entity on whose behalf I
> can act by announcement. Kyle degregisters.
You're the only such entity. This probably succeeds in establishing
"Kyle" as a nickname for yourself and binding y
On 16 Oct 2008, at 15:28, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 4:35 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 4:24 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Actually, you can't. With the agreement of the other members of
Bayes, I intend to cause Wooble to cease
On 16 Oct 2008, at 07:01, Ian Kelly wrote:
There's not enough context here. The fact that RFC 2 was created via
RFC 1 demonstrates that the rules were at least somewhat amendable,
not that they are. Would the initiator please provide the text of RFC
1 and whatever rules were in effect at the t
Taral wrote:
> Um... oops? Did this get done?
>
> On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 8:18 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2196a
>>
>> Appeal 2196a
woggle intended to REMAND, root
Um... oops? Did this get done?
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 8:18 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2196a
>
> Appeal 2196a
>
> Panelist: woggle
> De
54 matches
Mail list logo
