On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 10:10 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 7:06 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Parties to the Agoran Loan Service: Warrigal (Lender)
> CoE: I joined this contract.
Admitted.
> I initiate an equity case against the Agoran Loan Service, wh
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 10:10 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I initiate an equity case against the Agoran Loan Service, whose
> parties are {Warrigal, comex}. The problematic state of affairs is
> that Warrigal's Debt (2 coins) exceeds eir Credit (0).
...and has for at least half of the las
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 5:24 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think I failed to pass this one along until now.
>
> For the record, I started this ball rolling because (a) pikhq expressed
> an interest in seeking micronation status (before e got eaten by
> college) and (b) the AE seemed l
On Friday 07 November 2008 05:37:29 pm Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 5:11 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Elliott Hird
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> True. Although they still invest in this thing.
> >
> > They have a Wikipedia arti
On Fri, 7 Nov 2008, comex wrote:
> Hmm... you're right. :(
>
> Well,
>
> It doesn't matter. Does it?
>
> Surely the Mad Scientist can simply act on behalf of the Monster to
> permit Rule Changes?
>
> Admittedly, permission is usually supposed to be in a Rule's text, not
> a one-off thing. But th
ais523 wrote:
> Rule 1367 (Degrees) from 1.5 to 1;
This will fall afoul of Rule 649 ("Awarding ... a Patent Title by
Proposal is a secured change"), since there's no other mechanism
for awarding degrees.
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 5:11 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> True. Although they still invest in this thing.
>
> They have a Wikipedia article and have been mentioned in real-world
> newspapers.
Let's establish dip
On Friday 07 November 2008 03:24:39 pm Sgeo wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 4:03 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> 5. At the end of the voting period on each Agoran decision with
> >> a winning bid a number of Lobbyists equal to the number
> >> specified by the winning bid in the possession
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 4:49 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Nov 2008, comex wrote:
>> Why does general may meaning CAN lead to false? Rule 105 CANNOT is
>> contradicted by Rule 2192 CAN.
>
> Okay, I'll pay attention to this argument, it's simple.
>
> R105 => CANNOT.
> R2192
I think I failed to pass this one along until now.
For the record, I started this ball rolling because (a) pikhq expressed
an interest in seeking micronation status (before e got eaten by
college) and (b) the AE seemed likely to bother giving us a second
look. I also suggest that Pavitra's argume
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 5:18 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7 Nov 2008, at 21:58, Warrigal wrote:
>
>> Well, that was fun.
>
>
> Oh great, you're back to making completely useless contracts.
But the Notary doesn't have to track this one.
--Warrigal of Escher
On 7 Nov 2008, at 21:58, Warrigal wrote:
Well, that was fun.
Oh great, you're back to making completely useless contracts.
--
ehird
On Fri, 7 Nov 2008, comex wrote:
> Why does general may meaning CAN lead to false? Rule 105 CANNOT is
> contradicted by Rule 2192 CAN.
Okay, I'll pay attention to this argument, it's simple.
R105 => CANNOT.
R2192 is not CAN. It's "CAN if R2141 general may."
And R105 CANNOT => !R141 may.
The
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> True. Although they still invest in this thing.
They have a Wikipedia article and have been mentioned in real-world newspapers.
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 2:58 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree to the following: {This is a pledge. This is a public
> contract. Warrigal CAN terminate this contract by announcement.
> Warrigal SHALL NOT announce that he is not wearing a hat; if e does,
> then as punishment, e SHALL
Wooble wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 10:26 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I think we should just ignore these losers.
>> We're the ones who approached them diplomatically in the first place.
>
> The Ambassador had nothing to do with the approach. We should ignore
> Murphy too :P
No.
On Fri, 7 Nov 2008, comex wrote:
> Alternately, there's an excellent argument that Rule 2141 counts as
> permission and the "where permitted" clause is a no-op.
There's a better argument that R105 says rule changes CAN only happen
where (specifically) permitted, and that r2141 says that we assum
On Fri, 7 Nov 2008, comex wrote:
> I support ais523's appeal of this judgement.
I would pay more attention if a non-scammer agreed. -G.
On 7 Nov 2008, at 21:28, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I would pay more attention if a non-scammer agreed. -G.
That's a nice way to dismiss an entire person.
--
ehird
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 4:03 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 5. At the end of the voting period on each Agoran decision with a
>> winning bid a number of Lobbyists equal to the number specified by the
>> winning bid in the possession of the person who posted that bid are
>> destroyed. Then on
On 7 Nov 2008, at 20:23, Ian Kelly wrote:
But there is no explicit list of what these laws actually are. So do
they actually have a bunch of laws that are just unpublished, or do
they just claim a fuzzy general set of laws (in which case one might
argue that they're not really laws)?
http:/
On 7 Nov 2008, at 20:55, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 3:53 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Why are we taking this stupid invention of a bunch of 5 year olds
seriously?
to be fair, their founder is no longer 5.
True. Although they still invest in this thing.
--
> 5. At the end of the voting period on each Agoran decision with a
> winning bid a number of Lobbyists equal to the number specified by the
> winning bid in the possession of the person who posted that bid are
> destroyed. Then one Lobbyist is created in the possession of each
> other person who c
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 1:53 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 7 Nov 2008, at 20:23, Ian Kelly wrote:
>
>> But there is no explicit list of what these laws actually are. So do
>> they actually have a bunch of laws that are just unpublished, or do
>> they just claim a fuzzy general
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 3:53 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why are we taking this stupid invention of a bunch of 5 year olds seriously?
to be fair, their founder is no longer 5.
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 8:24 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It is also confusing how one can become a citizen of one of the
> colonies: although there is a prominently listed Citizenship Form
> which purports to submit to "our immigration officials and the
> Emperor", I do not see any law th
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 3. A person who owns one or more Lobbyists CAN bid on an Agoran
> Decision by announcement by identifying the Agoran Decision in
> question, specifying a valid vote option for that decision, and
> specifying a number of Lobbyi
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 1:12 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 13:05, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 1:00 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Time of Last Report: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 17:41
>>> Time of This Report: Fri, 07 Nov
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 13:05, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 1:00 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Time of Last Report: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 17:41
>> Time of This Report: Fri, 07 Nov 2008 20:09
>>
>> I attempt to award points as follows: root 1, BobTHJ 2 (thi
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 1:02 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> From the bottom of http://aericanempire.com/faq.html :
>>
>> 4: The Empire refused to recognise me. Can I appeal in any way? How
>> about I just declare war on you until you change your mind?
>>
>> If you are unsatisfied wit
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 7:20 AM, Pavitra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 06 November 2008 11:07:04 pm Benjamin Schultz wrote:
>> On Thursday 06 November 2008 10:59:21 pm Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
>>> > On Nov 6, 2008, at 11:34 AM, Ian Kelly wrote:
>>
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 12:21 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Given: We accept that the parsing of R2192 is generally (monsterrulechange
>> if (rulechange if permittedbyrules)).
>
> I dislike this assumption, and thin
On Fri, 2008-11-07 at 12:34 -0700, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 00:51, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Luck
> I didn't see any comments on this. Like? Dislike?
I'm not sure that random promotions/demotions (with notes to affect the
chances) would add all that much; it cert
On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 00:51, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Luck
> AI: 2
> II: 1
> {
> Replace the text of R2156 with:
> {{
> The eligible voters on an ordinary decision are those entities
> that were active players at the start of its voting period. The
> voting limit of an e
On 7 Nov 2008, at 19:30, Roger Hicks wrote:
Inspired by LLAMA and Vote Market, here is a more generalized (and
hopefully useful) version of vote selling:
Suggestion: just a regular Market, then build on it for vote-buying.
--
ehird
Inspired by LLAMA and Vote Market, here is a more generalized (and
hopefully useful) version of vote selling:
{
1. The name of this contract is the Political Action Committee. This
is a public contract, and if it has only one member, a pledge. This
contract CAN be amended without three objections.
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 11:45 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hypothetically.
>
> A web interface to a report, blah blah blah.
>
> Would it be useful to be able to see the state of the contract at a certain
> point of
> time? e.g. for CFJs.
>
> And how useful?
Historical reports would
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 2:09 PM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Amend Rule 107 (Initiating Agoran Decisions) by replacing this text:
>> Amendment fails due to insufficient power.
>> > Amend Rule 955 (Determining the Will of Agora) by appending this
>> > text:
>> Ditto.
> Ugh, how screwed
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 9:55 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 4. So, the question is, does the "may" in "The Mad Scientist CAN act on
> behalf of the Monster to take any action that the Monster may take..."
> mean the general, potentially-capable "may" (leading to false as the
> R105 CA
On Fri, 2008-11-07 at 14:03 -0500, comex wrote:
> > Proposal 5831 (Democratic, AI=2.0, Interest=1) by Murphy
> > Amend Rule 107 (Initiating Agoran Decisions) by replacing this text:
> Amendment fails due to insufficient power.
> > Amend Rule 955 (Determining the Will of Agora) by appending this
> >
On 7 Nov 2008, at 18:02, Dvorak Herring wrote:
NUM C I AI SUBMITTER TITLE
5942 O 0 1.0 woggle Transporter Accident Repair
AGAINST
why?
--
ehird
On Fri, 7 Nov 2008, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Given: We accept that the parsing of R2192 is generally (monsterrulechange
> if (rulechange if permittedbyrules)).
>
> Question: Is permittedbyrules for R2193 TRUE?
Sorry about the logic shift, on re-reading, I realized that I just made a
more forceful
On Fri, 7 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
> You've parsed the rules as
> (rulechange if permittedbyrules), (rulechange if permittedbyrules),
> (monsterrulechange if permittedbyrules); the correct parsing is
> (rulechange if permittedbyrules), (rulechange if permittedbyrules),
> (monsterrulechange if (
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Or alternatively nominate Murphy for Ambassador...
But this would only make it more likely that in the future we'd
attempt to establish diplomatic relations with "nations" founded by
5-year-olds.
Hypothetically.
A web interface to a report, blah blah blah.
Would it be useful to be able to see the state of the contract at a
certain point of
time? e.g. for CFJs.
And how useful?
--
ehird
On Fri, 2008-11-07 at 11:26 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 10:26 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I think we should just ignore these losers.
> >
> > We're the ones who approached them diplomatically in the first place.
>
> The Ambassador had nothing to do with the
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 10:26 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I think we should just ignore these losers.
>
> We're the ones who approached them diplomatically in the first place.
The Ambassador had nothing to do with the approach. We should ignore
Murphy too :P
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 10:24 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think we should just ignore these losers.
We're the ones who approached them diplomatically in the first place.
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 9:20 AM, Pavitra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 4: The Empire refused to recognise me. Can I appeal in any way? How
> about I just declare war on you until you change your mind?
>
> If you are unsatisfied with the outcome of speaking with minister
> Glark, you can always ap
On 7 Nov 2008, at 14:20, Pavitra wrote:
*sigh*
I think we should just ignore these losers.
--
ehird
On Thursday 06 November 2008 11:07:04 pm Benjamin Schultz wrote:
> On Thursday 06 November 2008 10:59:21 pm Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
>> > On Nov 6, 2008, at 11:34 AM, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> >> I suggest flipping the Aerican Empire's recognition to Hostile.
>> >
On Fri, 2008-11-07 at 13:53 +, Elliott Hird wrote:
> On 7 Nov 2008, at 13:51, The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
>
> >
> > This message serves to make votes on behalf of the PerlNomic
> > Partnership (a public contract).
> >
> > The PerlNomic Partnership votes as follows. Each vote is made a
> >
On 7 Nov 2008, at 13:51, The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
This message serves to make votes on behalf of the PerlNomic
Partnership (a public contract).
The PerlNomic Partnership votes as follows. Each vote is made a
number of times equal to the maximum number of valid votes that
the PerlNomic
There seem to be several rules which are broken or scam-vulnerable
compared to their importance, due to having insufficient power; there
are also several rules that don't need the amount of power they have,
and could safely be depowered. (I'm not including rule 104 in this list,
because although it
On Fri, 2008-11-07 at 06:55 -0500, Joshua Boehme wrote:
> Before I started working on some protos, I wanted to get a feel for
> people's opinions. There's not much point in taking the trouble to
> rewrite sections of the rules if people are still enjoying them. Thus,
> I am wondering: what aspects
On 7 Nov 2008, at 11:50, Warrigal wrote:
Do you think I would be an Agoran liberal?
Yep, you always act as if Agora is a serious, important thing that
must be respected
and treated carefully.
--
ehird
On 7 Nov 2008, at 11:55, Joshua Boehme wrote:
Before I started working on some protos, I wanted to get a feel for
people's opinions. There's not much point in taking the trouble to
rewrite sections of the rules if people are still enjoying them.
Thus, I am wondering: what aspects of the ru
On 7 Nov 2008, at 02:23, Dvorak Herring wrote:
5859 O 3 1.0 P23 Points for Me
FOR
Hahahahahah
--
ehird
Before I started working on some protos, I wanted to get a feel for people's
opinions. There's not much point in taking the trouble to rewrite sections of
the rules if people are still enjoying them. Thus, I am wondering: what aspects
of the ruleset do people still enjoy or are still playing ar
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 12:44 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Warrigal wrote:
>
>>> May I suggest the alternate names Tory and Whig, respectively?
>>
>> Lovely. I cease agreeing to the Conservative Party and agree to the
>> same, with all forms of "Rep" replaced with the corresponding for
60 matches
Mail list logo
