On Tue, 4 Nov 2008, comex wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 7:34 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> R2214 could be clearer, but it's reasonable to extrapolate that the
>> rules are repealed by the effect of R2214. At least, that's how we've
>> always done this sort of thing in the past.
>
0x44 wrote:
>> 5833 D 1 2.0 Murphy No involuntary recordkeepors
>>
> SELL(2VP - F) * 2
>> 5840 D 1 2.0 rootNo accounting of private assets
>>
> SELL(2VP) * 2
Note that caste doesn't apply to democratic proposals. (How did I
manage to forget about Support Democ
Pavitra wrote:
> On Tuesday 04 November 2008 04:02:50 pm Alex Smith wrote:
>> Does this mean that all the Ranches in existence are owned by the
>> L&FD, and that none have ever been destroyed due to water rights
>> enforcement?
>
> MASSIVE GAMESTATE RECALCULATION
I believe you are correct, but o
ais523 wrote:
> I'm not convinced that that's an appropriate alternative judgement, and
> I don't want to break the rules, so I won't support this. However, you
> can still get it through with the CotC's support...
Oh, you're /funny/.
root wrote:
>> 5836 D 1 2.0 Murphy Generalize continuity
> FOR
>
>> 5838 O 0 1.0 ais523 Reformed Bank of Agora
> AGAINST x 2
"no vote" announcements are recommended (to guard against my possibly
mis-entering votes), especially when voting on multiple batches at once.
The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
> NUM C I AI SUBMITTER TITLE
> 5833 D 1 2.0 Murphy No involuntary recordkeepors
> 5834 D 1 3.0 Goethe Powered defines v0.3
> 5835 D 1 2.0 Goethe pledge fixup
> 5836 D 1 2.0 Murphy Generalize continuity
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 5:46 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 7:34 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> R2214 could be clearer, but it's reasonable to extrapolate that the
>> rules are repealed by the effect of R2214. At least, that's how we've
>> always done thi
On 5 Nov 2008, at 00:30, comex wrote:
This fails because you are not an instrument (see Rule 105).
Poop. One-off proposal, anyone?
--
ehird
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 7:34 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> R2214 could be clearer, but it's reasonable to extrapolate that the
> rules are repealed by the effect of R2214. At least, that's how we've
> always done this sort of thing in the past.
I swear there's a precedent (or at least
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 5:30 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 7:27 PM
> Subject: Re: [s-b] The Monster has moved shop to B
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 7:12 PM, Elliott
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 16:25, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 4 Nov 2008, comex wrote:
>> I cease to agree with this.
>
> How?
It was never a contract (would need two parties), so e can as an
unregulated action.
-woggle
On 5 Nov 2008, at 00:25, Kerim Aydin wrote:
How?
I hadn't joined it at the time.
--
ehird
-- Forwarded message --
From: comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 7:27 PM
Subject: Re: [s-b] The Monster has moved shop to B
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 7:12 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I repeal rules 2214, 2192 and 2193.
This fa
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 5:24 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 4 Nov 2008, Pavitra wrote:
>>> 5839 D 1 2.0 Goethe NOT GUILTY
>> AGAINST. Agora is not the USA.
>
> Um, was thinking of British system actually which originated this.
> Dunno much about French etc., do
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 7:25 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Nov 2008, comex wrote:
>> I cease to agree with this.
> How?
It was never a contract (because ehird didn't agree to it until after
that message); I simply (publicly) ceased to intend to form a contract
with ehird wi
On Tue, 4 Nov 2008, comex wrote:
> I cease to agree with this.
How?
> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 5:41 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I agree to this contract:
>> {
>> 1. This is a public contract. Only ehird can join this contract.
>> 2. If Obama becomes the unambiguous winner of the US pr
On Tue, 4 Nov 2008, Pavitra wrote:
>> 5839 D 1 2.0 Goethe NOT GUILTY
> AGAINST. Agora is not the USA.
Um, was thinking of British system actually which originated this.
Dunno much about French etc., do they have all these gradations?
I thought Guilty/not guilty was pretty universa
On 4 Nov 2008, at 22:27, Roger Hicks wrote:
For simply the sake of relaxed recordkeeping on both our parts, I
initiate the following Bank Motion:
{
The RBOA's exchange rate for Coins is removed.
}
I can't but I in-spirit oppose. I don't mind the recordkeeping and I
think the
intra-Bank act
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 2:07 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I initiate an equity case for the AAA, whose members are listed below.
> The state of affairs is the buggy automated WRV enforcement e-mail
> should not have been sent. I recommend a judgement that causes the
> effects of that
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 16:13, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 4 Nov 2008, at 23:04, Roger Hicks wrote:
>
>> 126, actually.
>
>
> ais523's coins / floor(rate*1.1), no?
>
It's 6 chits for each coin, 126 coins * 6 chits = 756 chits
BobTHJ
On 4 Nov 2008, at 23:04, Roger Hicks wrote:
126, actually.
ais523's coins / floor(rate*1.1), no?
--
ehird
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 4:03 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree to the following pledge:
> {
> This is a pledge, and a public contract called "Alpha testing"
> There is a type of action called "Alpha". Only actions defined in this
> pledge may be actions of type "Alpha". Any player may a
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 13:25, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 4 Nov 2008, at 20:10, Alex Smith wrote:
>
>> I RBoA-withdraw as many Coins as I can afford.
>
>
> 108
>
126, actually.
BobTHJ
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 15:58, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 13:25, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 4 Nov 2008, at 20:10, Alex Smith wrote:
>>
>>> I RBoA-withdraw as many Coins as I can afford.
>>
>>
>> 108
>>
> Actually, none. ais523 only has 2 chit
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 13:25, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 4 Nov 2008, at 20:10, Alex Smith wrote:
>
>> I RBoA-withdraw as many Coins as I can afford.
>
>
> 108
>
Actually, none. ais523 only has 2 chits. Not enough to withdraw even one coin.
BobTHJ
On 4 Nov 2008, at 22:13, Roger Hicks wrote:
therefore the RBOA rules for transactions apply, not the PBAs
That's a great way to cause mass confusion.
So now I get to special-case the RBoA in my program...
--
ehird
On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 16:46 -0600, Pavitra wrote:
> On Tuesday 04 November 2008 04:02:50 pm Alex Smith wrote:
> > Does this mean that all the Ranches in existence are owned by the
> > L&FD, and that none have ever been destroyed due to water rights
> > enforcement?
>
> MASSIVE GAMESTATE RECALCULAT
On Tuesday 04 November 2008 04:02:50 pm Alex Smith wrote:
> Does this mean that all the Ranches in existence are owned by the
> L&FD, and that none have ever been destroyed due to water rights
> enforcement?
MASSIVE GAMESTATE RECALCULATION
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 3:31 PM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 15:28 -0700, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> > 5833 D 1 2.0 Murphy No involuntary recordkeepors
>> FOR
>> > 5834 D 1 3.0 Goethe Powered defines v0.3
>> FOR
>> > 5835 D 1 2.0 Goethe
On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 15:28 -0700, Ian Kelly wrote:
> > 5833 D 1 2.0 Murphy No involuntary recordkeepors
> FOR
> > 5834 D 1 3.0 Goethe Powered defines v0.3
> FOR
> > 5835 D 1 2.0 Goethe pledge fixup
> FOR
> > 5836 D 1 2.0 Murphy Generalize continu
On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 22:18 +, Elliott Hird wrote:
> On 4 Nov 2008, at 22:13, Roger Hicks wrote:
>
> > therefore the RBOA rules for transactions apply, not the PBAs
>
>
> That's a great way to cause mass confusion.
>
> So now I get to special-case the RBoA in my program...
>
No, it's very
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 15:03, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 4 Nov 2008, at 21:59, Roger Hicks wrote:
>>>
>>> (PBA) 2008-10-23 00:21 -- Murphy joins.
>>> 2008-10-23 00:21 -- Murphy deposits 7 6 crops for ^140. (originally
>>
>> tried to deposit 8, but only had 7 - ed, 2008-10-27)
>>
On 4 Nov 2008, at 21:59, Roger Hicks wrote:
(PBA) 2008-10-23 00:21 -- Murphy joins.
2008-10-23 00:21 -- Murphy deposits 7 6 crops for ^140. (originally
tried to deposit 8, but only had 7 - ed, 2008-10-27)
2008-10-23 00:21 -- Murphy transfers ^156 to RBoA. (fails, Murphy
only
has ^140)
(This
On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 17:00 -0500, comex wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Disregard the automated mail enforcing water rights, it is in error.
> >
> > If needed: For each WRV and land destroyed in my previous message
> > about enforcing water right
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 14:59, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 4 Nov 2008, at 21:36, Roger Hicks wrote:
>
>> Ah..last time I reconciled that you didn't show it as failed.
>
> Which I apologize for - that was pre-automation. Geez, we sure are good at
> messing up
> our banks.
>
>> No
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Disregard the automated mail enforcing water rights, it is in error.
>
> If needed: For each WRV and land destroyed in my previous message
> about enforcing water rights I create a corresponding WRV or land in
> the correspond
On 4 Nov 2008, at 21:36, Roger Hicks wrote:
Ah..last time I reconciled that you didn't show it as failed.
Which I apologize for - that was pre-automation. Geez, we sure are
good at messing up
our banks.
Now we have some serious problems because this screws up all the
rest of
Murphy'
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 14:36, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 12:02, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 4 Nov 2008, at 18:56, Roger Hicks wrote:
>>
>>> 2008-10-23 00:21 -- Murphy joins. Murphy deposits 7 6 crops for ^140.
>>> (originally tried to deposit
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 12:02, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 4 Nov 2008, at 18:56, Roger Hicks wrote:
>
>> 2008-10-23 00:21 -- Murphy joins. Murphy deposits 7 6 crops for ^140.
>> (originally tried to deposit 8, but only had 7 - ed, 2008-10-27)
>> Murphy transfers ^156 to RBoA. (fails
On 4 Nov 2008, at 20:10, Alex Smith wrote:
I RBoA-withdraw as many Coins as I can afford.
108
--
ehird
On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 13:21 -0700, Ian Kelly wrote:
> My objection isn't over whether or not it's reasonable, but to the
> total lack arguments.
Actually, I think the appropriate judgement here is AFFIRM but with
different arguments to the original judge. I don't have arguments handy
yet, though, w
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 1:14 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 4 Nov 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 12:48 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 11:49 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinu
On Tue, 4 Nov 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 12:48 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 11:49 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2248a
>>>
>>> Appea
On Tue, 4 Nov 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 12:33 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Had e instead announced eir intent to select the Bank
>> Currency e had the most of at the time e posted the intent, this would
>> succeed if and only if e held more of one currency
now with more newlines!
--
ehird
On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 12:55 -0700, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 12:48, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 11:49 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2248a
> >>
> >> ==
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 12:48 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 11:49 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2248a
>>
>> Appeal 2248a
>
> I
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 12:33 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Had e instead announced eir intent to select the Bank
> Currency e had the most of at the time e posted the intent, this would
> succeed if and only if e held more of one currency than of any of the
> others.
Actually, in
On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 13:03 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I destroy 15 WRV in ais523's possession.
> I destroy 21 WRV in woggle's possession.
Can you fix this? No way did woggle have 21 Ranches, or even 21 Lands.
--
ais523
On 4 Nov 2008, at 18:56, Roger Hicks wrote:
2008-10-23 00:21 -- Murphy joins. Murphy deposits 7 6 crops for ^140.
(originally tried to deposit 8, but only had 7 - ed, 2008-10-27)
Murphy transfers ^156 to RBoA. (fails, Murphy only has ^140)
538
Keyword "fails".
--
ehird
On 4 Nov 2008, at 18:56, Roger Hicks wrote:
It appears both ehird and I are incorrect on the RBOA's coin total.
if the log is right the count is right unless I have a major bug,
which I'm not sure
I do.
It's program-generated. But let me test.
--
ehird
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 11:56, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 11:05, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The reports definitely agree at this point, I checked myself. That should
>> save some calculation.
>
> Below is the data, first from the PBA report, and th
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 11:05, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The reports definitely agree at this point, I checked myself. That should
> save some calculation.
Below is the data, first from the PBA report, and then from the RBOA
logs, which at this point are in agreement. It appears both
Proto-proto: If a bank transaction for an amount less than
would otherwise fail, then currency is created as needed to cover it,
and an appropriate obligation to destroy currency ASAP is incurred.
Would obviously depend on backing documents opting in.
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 10:55, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 17:51 +, Elliott Hird wrote:
>> On 4 Nov 2008, at 17:24, Roger Hicks wrote:
>>
>> > Take a look at my online log, but some of the deposits didn't happen
>> > due to the PnP not having the appropriate cro
On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 10:55 -0700, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 10:51, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 4 Nov 2008, at 15:44, Roger Hicks wrote:
> >> FYI, after this transaction the RBoA had 0 coins.
> >
> > k
The reports definitely agree at this point, I checked myse
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 10:51, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 4 Nov 2008, at 15:44, Roger Hicks wrote:
>>
>> 2008-10-20 19:33 -- ais523 attempts to withdraw 2 X crops for ^47.
>> (fails, it didn't - ed, 2008-10-21) ais523 transfers all of eir coins
>> (^719) to RBoA. (note - this hap
On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 17:51 +, Elliott Hird wrote:
> On 4 Nov 2008, at 17:24, Roger Hicks wrote:
>
> > Take a look at my online log, but some of the deposits didn't happen
> > due to the PnP not having the appropriate crops.
>
>
> Yes, in the _up to date online report which is always availab
On 4 Nov 2008, at 15:44, Roger Hicks wrote:
2008-10-20 19:33 -- ais523 attempts to withdraw 2 X crops for ^47.
(fails, it didn't - ed, 2008-10-21) ais523 transfers all of eir coins
(^719) to RBoA. (note - this happened in splits throughout the run -
ed, 2008-10-21)
The total amount of coins ais
On 4 Nov 2008, at 17:24, Roger Hicks wrote:
Take a look at my online log, but some of the deposits didn't happen
due to the PnP not having the appropriate crops.
Yes, in the _up to date online report which is always available at
http://agora.eso-std.org/pba-report and is really cute and fluff
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 15:09, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008-11-03 22:01 -- PNP withdraws a 5 crop for ^11. (originally wanted
> 2, but the bank didn't have that much) PNP deposits a X crop for ^34.
> PNP withdraws a 7 crop for ^13. PNP withdraws a 9 crop for ^14. PNP
> deposits a 2
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 12:35, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3 Nov 2008, at 13:35, Roger Hicks wrote:
>
>> CoE: The RBoA has 260 coins (I believe I mentioned this before).
>
>
> Declined, as you haven't provided any evidence. If you can give me some I
> will accept.
>
The issue is how
ehird, here's my previous message on the RBOA's coin holdings:
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 13:47, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 24 Oct 2008, at 20:26, Roger Hicks wrote:
>
>> NOTE: After this withdraw I show the RBoA having 260 coins remaining.
>> The PBA would seem to have a different
On 4 Nov 2008, at 02:49, 0x44 wrote:
I become a Comrade.
I'll forgive the awful typo.
--
ehird
64 matches
Mail list logo
