On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 12:19 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Proposal 5800 doesn't specify a rule amendment.]
Arguably, it doesn't meet the definition of a proposal then. CFJ 1834
would imply that it is a proposal, although the judge there didn't
consider the issue at hand. For note
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 10:18 PM, Jamie Dallaire
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As I'm already a member of it outside of Agora, I join the Fantasy Rules
> Committee.
If you meant to join the Contest, you mistyped. I'm considering this
ineffective.
-root
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 6:03 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 6:11 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I deposit all of my non-fixed assets which have an exchange rate into the
>> PBA.
>
> I withdraw all assets that I deposited in this message, except for 2 VP.
Y
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 4:06 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I support. I mean, really, don't meddle with other people's contracts, okay?
Ironic.
-root
On 27/10/2008, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 6:11 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I deposit all of my non-fixed assets which have an exchange rate into the
>> PBA.
>
> I withdraw all assets that I deposited in this message, except for 2 VP.
>
can't afford all of
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 6:27 PM, warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I intend, without objection, to terminate the Llama Party. It's clearly
>> unfair on BobTHJ to be stuck having eir votes potentially controllable
>> by W
Dvorak Herring wrote:
> I vote:
>
> NUM C I AI SUBMITTER TITLE
> 5822 D 1 2.0 BobTHJ PBA Busting
>
> FOR
NttPF.
On 26 Oct 2008, at 22:11, comex wrote:
I deposit all of my non-fixed assets which have an exchange rate
into the PBA.
>__<
God damn it.
--
ehird
On 26 Oct 2008, at 21:36, Roger Hicks wrote:
OopsI had another (highly secret) reason for doing thisbut I
just realized it won't work after all. Ah well.
Can I have my VP now?
--
ehird
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 15:32, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I submit the following Proposal (AI=2), entitled "Retribution":
> {
> Whereas the Rules of Agora make it IMPOSSIBLE to flip the
> Contestmaster of a contest if that change would cause one player to be
> Contestmaster of more
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 14:49, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 26 Oct 2008, at 18:22, Roger Hicks wrote:
>
>> The PBA really shouldn't have anything to fear from this anyway. Plus,
>> it also means the distribution of the anti-RBOA proposal.
>
>
> There is none. Warrigal is not a playe
I vote:
NUM C I AI SUBMITTER TITLE
> 5822 D 1 2.0 BobTHJ PBA Busting
>
FOR
--
Dvorak Herring
14:05:51 fungot: If your response to this message makes sense
as a set of obligations to impose on me in Agora, I pledge to follow
them.
14:05:51 comex: ( a) as soon as possible after being made
aware of this condition, randomly select a copy of the requested
records within one week.
14:0
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 6:07 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://sgeo.diagonalfish.net/agora/newmain.htm is an updated version
> of agoranomic.org, so perhaps Taral might use this..
Replicated to agoranomic.org, with one small tweak.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if t
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 12:02, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 26 Oct 2008, at 17:42, Roger Hicks wrote:
>
>> Anyway, anyone want to fill my Buy ticket? I want to see these
>> distributed today.
>
>
> All of the active PerlNomic members seem to be PBA-{neutral,supportive}.
>
The PBA re
warrigal wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 1:02 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Goethe, I inform you of this criminal case, and invite you to rebut the
>> argument for your guilt:
>> http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2229
>
> Did this publication cause that CFJ to be a
On 26 Oct 2008, at 17:42, Roger Hicks wrote:
Anyway, anyone want to fill my Buy ticket? I want to see these
distributed today.
All of the active PerlNomic members seem to be PBA-{neutral,supportive}.
--
ehird
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 1:02 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Goethe, I inform you of this criminal case, and invite you to rebut the
> argument for your guilt:
> http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2229
Did this publication cause that CFJ to be assigned the number 2229, o
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 11:14, warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ehird asked "someone" to make this proposal. Here it is.
>
> RBoA-busting
> AI: 2
> II: 1
> {
> Upon the adoption of this proposal the RBoA contract is terminated.
> }
>
> I would like 5 VP in payment.
>
Sure, its only fair.
Anyw
ehird asked "someone" to make this proposal. Here it is.
RBoA-busting
AI: 2
II: 1
{
Upon the adoption of this proposal the RBoA contract is terminated.
}
I would like 5 VP in payment.
--Warrigal of Escher
On Sun, 26 Oct 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Rotational autocratic would be a variation of Unilateral, I guess.
I'm not so sure. Steve and I used this for a while when our group had
a lot of votes and just we two were active. Idea was: you can cast all
the votes this week (and I can't complain) th
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 10:45, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 26 Oct 2008, at 16:29, Roger Hicks wrote:
>
>> Revenge? Vindication? Grumpiness?
>
>
> Waaah, my bank was scammed.
>
Its my proposal and I'll cry if I want to.
BobTHJ
comex wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 1:55 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Ineffective, must be submitted to the CotC who was not on the channel
>> at the time.
>
> Just like with any other PF, you SHOULD ensure you can receive
> messages via it, and messages sent via it are prima fa
On 26 Oct 2008, at 16:29, Roger Hicks wrote:
Revenge? Vindication? Grumpiness?
Waaah, my bank was scammed.
--
ehird
woggle wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 22:00, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Revisiting my B.N. thesis (11/29/07) on partnerships, I've identified
>> the following general models of partnership control. Can anyone think
>> of any others?
>>
>> * Consentual (e.g. Pineapple, Human Point
On Sun, 26 Oct 2008, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Oct 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Revisiting my B.N. thesis (11/29/07) on partnerships, I've identified
>> the following general models of partnership control. Can anyone think
>> of any others?
>>
>> * Consentual (e.g. Pineapple, Human Point Two)
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 10:26, warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 12:03 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I submit the following proposal:
>>
>> PBA-busting
>> AI: 2
>> II: 1
>> {
>> Upon the adoption of this proposal the PBA contract is terminated.
>> }
>
> A
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 12:03 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> PBA-busting
> AI: 2
> II: 1
> {
> Upon the adoption of this proposal the PBA contract is terminated.
> }
Any particular reason?
--Warrigal of Escher
On Sat, 25 Oct 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Revisiting my B.N. thesis (11/29/07) on partnerships, I've identified
> the following general models of partnership control. Can anyone think
> of any others?
>
> * Consentual (e.g. Pineapple, Human Point Two)
> * Capitalist (e.g. Primo, Reformed Bank)
>
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 10:54 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 2:43 AM, Jamie Dallaire
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This is a partnership between X and Y. If the Dow hits 6000 before
> hitting
> > 12000, X must transfer 1000 chits [[not sure what those are yet...]
On 26 Oct 2008, at 15:18, Roger Hicks wrote:
Not at all. It just proved to be a useful too to balancing the PBA's
initial rate flaws. Now that the PBA rates are more in line with what
they should be the RBOA abuse should slow or stop completely.
...until actual usage patterns show up a differ
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 09:05, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 26 Oct 2008, at 14:51, Roger Hicks wrote:
>
>> I would recommend against the doom and gloom that indicates teh RBOA
>> will fail. Despite any setbacks it is still doing fine.
>
>
> However, its model has been shown to be fu
On 26 Oct 2008, at 14:51, Roger Hicks wrote:
I would recommend against the doom and gloom that indicates teh RBOA
will fail. Despite any setbacks it is still doing fine.
However, its model has been shown to be fundamentally flawed.
--
ehird
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 2:43 AM, Jamie Dallaire
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is a partnership between X and Y. If the Dow hits 6000 before hitting
> 12000, X must transfer 1000 chits [[not sure what those are yet...]] to Y.
> Else, Y must transfer 1000 chits to X.
That wouldn't require a part
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 08:49, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 26 Oct 2008, at 06:43, Jamie Dallaire wrote:
>
> This is a partnership between X and Y. If the Dow hits 6000 before hitting
> 12000, X must transfer 1000 chits [[not sure what those are yet...]] to Y.
> Else, Y must transfe
On 26 Oct 2008, at 06:43, Jamie Dallaire wrote:
This is a partnership between X and Y. If the Dow hits 6000 before
hitting 12000, X must transfer 1000 chits [[not sure what those are
yet...]] to Y. Else, Y must transfer 1000 chits to X.
Chits are the currency of the Reformed Bank of Agora,
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 00:43, Jamie Dallaire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 1:00 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Revisiting my B.N. thesis (11/29/07) on partnerships, I've identified
>> the following general models of partnership control. Can anyone think
>> o
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 1:55 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ineffective, must be submitted to the CotC who was not on the channel
> at the time.
Just like with any other PF, you SHOULD ensure you can receive
messages via it, and messages sent via it are prima facie considered
to be rec
On 26 Oct 2008, at 03:42, Ian Kelly wrote:
Nothing in particular. Just the scams annoyed me, and I'm feeling
petty.
The scams are pretty unrelated to the PBA itself, though; just
because I was pretty
satisfied with them and said "sure" to ais523 finishing it off later
doesn't mean the
On 26 Oct 2008, at 03:07, warrigal wrote:
So as to be able to lend more money:
I deposit a Vote Point for 21 coins. I deposit a Vote Point for 20
coins. I deposit a Vote Point for 19 coins. I deposit a Vote Point for
18 coins. I deposit a Vote Point for 17 coins. I deposit a Vote Point
for 16 c
40 matches
Mail list logo
