Proto-contract: Agora Smock Exchange
[Too busy for me to handle manually. I hereby turn the concept over
to BobTHJ and/or ehird for potential implementation and automation.]
1) Administrivia:
a) The name of this public contract is the Agora Smock
Exchange (ASE). This contract
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 11:53 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Another point in R2156's favor is R2162: "If an instance of a switch
> would otherwise fail to have a possible value, it comes to have its
> default value." As soon as R2126 made an instantaneous change of
> comex's VP to a v
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 11:02 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, I'm not aware of any precise precedent when there's a conflict
> between a continuous defined state and an instantaneous change.
>
> R2156 defines voting limit continuously:
> The voting limit of an eligible voter
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 10:41 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
>> 2008/11/17 Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Clinching evidence:
>>
>> The player did not deregister. The registrar deregistered the player.
>
> Wasn't this the source of BobT
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> 2008/11/17 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> Aha. I initiate an inquiry case on the following statement,
>>> disqualifying comex:
>>>
>>> Neither Proposal 5956 nor Proposal 5962 has been adopted.
>>
>> Arguments:
>>
>> Strong precedent is that one-of
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
> 2008/11/17 Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Clinching evidence:
>
> The player did not deregister. The registrar deregistered the player.
Wasn't this the source of BobTHJs contract-to-deregister scam (e
contracted to deregister for a fee, had the Reg
root wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 6:55 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> root wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Elliott Hird
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I agree to the following:
{
This is a public contract and a pledge.
Anyone can join or lea
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 6:55 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> root wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Elliott Hird
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I agree to the following:
>>> {
>>> This is a public contract and a pledge.
>>>
>>> Anyone can join or leave this contract.
>>>
>>
This proposal would destroy much of Agora, including the part I tend
to participate in the most, and it would severely disrupt the economy
if there were an economy, but I'll vote FOR it anyway.
--Warrigal
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 8:04 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 5:33 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 7:26 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Surely these are ineffective because they don't have those notes?
>>
>> They (in the
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 5:33 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 7:26 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Surely these are ineffective because they don't have those notes?
>
> They (in theory) gained them at the end of the week (i.e. 00:00) due
> to the spam propo
For all we know, for reasons known only to you, it didn't work,
and you're pretending it did so that the actual working mechanism might
be done without us noticing
Not saying that that's the case, but still..
Sgeo:
stop being paranoid
true
I was kind of hoping nobody would coe on the se
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 19:34:20 -0500
Joshua Boehme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 16:33:56 -0800
> Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > For each of the 100 partnerships P1 through P100, I intend (with
> > Agoran consent) to deregister that partnership per Rule 2144.
> >
>
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 8:40 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> CoE:
>
> This is missing most of the votes that were cast on this proposal.
>
> I intend, with 2 support, to initiate a criminal case alleging that
> the AFO violated Rule 2215 by publishing the below message in an
> attem
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 8:49 PM, Joshua Boehme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rule 2034/4 (Power=3)
> Vote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges
>
> Any proposal that would otherwise change the validity of any
> existing vote on any specific unresolved Agoran decision is
> wholly withou
ehird wrote:
> 2008/11/17 Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Possibly, the declaration of invalidity did not work.. I remember some
>> rule against tampering with these things, though that might be from
>> Canada..
>>
>
> There is a rule specifically allowing ballots to be declared invalid.
You may as
root wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I agree to the following:
>> {
>> This is a public contract and a pledge.
>>
>> Anyone can join or leave this contract.
>>
>> Votes of the form RANDOM(vote), RANDOM(vote,vote), RANDOM(vote,vote,vote)
>> and
2008/11/17 Joshua Boehme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Is this what you were thinking of?
>
Other rules may place further constraints on the validity of
ballots. This rule takes precedence over any rule that would
loosen the constraints specified by this rule.
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 20:47:59 -0500
Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 8:44 PM, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 2008/11/17 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> CoE:
> >>
> >> This is missing most of the votes that were cast on this proposal.
> >>
> >> I inte
2008/11/17 Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Possibly, the declaration of invalidity did not work.. I remember some
> rule against tampering with these things, though that might be from
> Canada..
>
There is a rule specifically allowing ballots to be declared invalid.
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 8:44 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/11/17 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> CoE:
>>
>> This is missing most of the votes that were cast on this proposal.
>>
>> I intend, with 2 support, to initiate a criminal case alleging that
>> the AFO violated Ru
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 8:30 PM, Joshua Boehme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What, no campaign speeches anymore?
Ok: inductive reasoning tells us that Warrigal will almost certainly
accidentally deregister within the next 2 weeks, necessitating another
election (requiring a waiting period for deput
2008/11/17 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> CoE:
>
> This is missing most of the votes that were cast on this proposal.
>
> I intend, with 2 support, to initiate a criminal case alleging that
> the AFO violated Rule 2215 by publishing the below message in an
> attempt to mislead other into thi
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree to the following:
> {
> This is a public contract and a pledge.
>
> Anyone can join or leave this contract.
>
> Votes of the form RANDOM(vote), RANDOM(vote,vote), RANDOM(vote,vote,vote)
> and so on are
> conditional
2008/11/17 Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 2008/11/17 Joshua Boehme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> The second instance is BobTHJ in January 2008. Digging through the archives,
>> it looks like it generated some discussion, but I don't see a CFJ on it.
>> Thus, we cannot conclusively say that BobTHJ'
2008/11/17 Joshua Boehme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The second instance is BobTHJ in January 2008. Digging through the archives,
> it looks like it generated some discussion, but I don't see a CFJ on it.
> Thus, we cannot conclusively say that BobTHJ's registration was permitted --
> it could have b
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 10:04:19 -0500
"Geoffrey Spear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This message serves to initiate the Agoran Decision to choose the
> holders of the IADoP and Tailor offices. The eligible voters are the
> active players and the vote collector is the IADoP.
>
> For IADoP, the valid
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 01:03:02 +
"Elliott Hird" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/11/17 Joshua Boehme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > The question is, does the "so" in the second sentence refer to
> > "deregister[ing]" or to "deregister[ing] by announcement?" If the latter,
> > then even deregistrati
2008/11/17 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> What strong precedent? I don't remember that clause being invoked
> even once (until now) since it was enacted.
>
>
Well, the precedent caused by it being voted in with that intention? Just
saying.
Anyway I think that the definition of voting limit is
ehird wrote:
> 2008/11/17 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Aha. I initiate an inquiry case on the following statement,
>> disqualifying comex:
>>
>> Neither Proposal 5956 nor Proposal 5962 has been adopted.
>
> Arguments:
>
> Strong precedent is that one-off increases work.
What strong p
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 7:33 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For each of the 100 partnerships P1 through P100, I intend (with
> Agoran consent) to deregister that partnership per Rule 2144.
I'll deregister them myself once the success of all this has been established.
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 7:26 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Surely these are ineffective because they don't have those notes?
They (in theory) gained them at the end of the week (i.e. 00:00) due
to the spam proposals passing. This was, of course, the purpose of
them, and the reason th
comex wrote:
> On behalf of P1: P1 spends one F# note to increase ehird's voting
> limit on Proposal 5962 by 1.
[snip]
> On behalf of P100: P100 spends one F# note to increase ehird's voting
> limit on Proposal 5956 by 1.
Surely these are ineffective because they don't have those notes?
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 7:17 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I act on behalf of Rule 2218 to create a new Power=1 Rule, titled "The
> New Threat" which reads:
Enacted as Rule 2219 in category "Trophies".
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 7:10 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [message #4]
> [version 1 - publish right after 12:10]
> [TODO check the actual votes on these guys - this is just from assessor db]
> /*
> In all my future communications, a vote of SDONATE(x - y) should be
> evaluated to be the p
Nevermind this, I thought the other one didn't work.
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 6:07 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OscarMeyr wrote:
>
>> Proposal: Article fix, AI = 2, II = 0:
>> Amend R2166 by replacing the text "an rule" with "a rule".
>
> I already proposed this fix.
And arguably I can fix it without proposal thanks to Rule 754. But
b
OscarMeyr wrote:
> Here's an idea for AAA: Harvest a mutated rule to turn a mill into a
> specified other kind of mill, or a digit ranch into a random other
> digit ranch. This will need supporting changes to the parts that say
> that a land CANNOT be changed once created.
Or harvest to d
OscarMeyr wrote:
> Proposal: Article fix, AI = 2, II = 0:
> Amend R2166 by replacing the text "an rule" with "a rule".
I already proposed this fix.
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 16 Nov 2008, at 15:39, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
>
>> I nominate comex and ehird for Notary.
>
>
> Absolutely happy to take it. Nothing can be as hard as Coinkeepor.
I'm interpreting R2154 as requiring acceptance of a nom
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 16 Nov 2008, at 15:52, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
>
>> I don't see the farm on there. Do I have to get an account and log in?
>
>
> Apparently it's unlinked. http://www.nomictools.com/agora/aaa
>
That page is out of date
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 5957 D 1 2.0 comex Govern by the Spirt (of Nomic)
>
> Probably breaks a whole bunch of things. AGAINST
Like what?
On Nov 16, 2008, at 11:11 AM, Elliott Hird wrote:
On 16 Nov 2008, at 16:03, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
Shiny! Thanks very much.
Thank Wooble, not me :)
Thanks to you ehird for reminding me of the link, and thanks to
Wooble for the page.
And now, a shiny -- for the LOL caption:
http://p
On 16 Nov 2008, at 16:03, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
Shiny! Thanks very much.
Thank Wooble, not me :)
On Nov 16, 2008, at 10:53 AM, Elliott Hird wrote:
On 16 Nov 2008, at 15:52, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
I don't see the farm on there. Do I have to get an account and
log in?
Apparently it's unlinked. http://www.nomictools.com/agora/aaa
Shiny! Thanks very much.
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3O
On 16 Nov 2008, at 15:52, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
I don't see the farm on there. Do I have to get an account and log
in?
Apparently it's unlinked. http://www.nomictools.com/agora/aaa
On Nov 16, 2008, at 10:46 AM, Elliott Hird wrote:
http://nomictools.com
I don't see the farm on there. Do I have to get an account and log in?
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr
On 16 Nov 2008, at 15:45, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
I think the AAA report is on a web page somewhere, but I lost the
URL. Somebody please repost it.
http://nomictools.com
--
ehird
I think the AAA report is on a web page somewhere, but I lost the
URL. Somebody please repost it.
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr
On 16 Nov 2008, at 15:39, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
I nominate comex and ehird for Notary.
Absolutely happy to take it. Nothing can be as hard as Coinkeepor.
--
ehird
On Nov 15, 2008, at 10:22 PM, Taral wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 3:22 PM, Benjamin Schultz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
OK, then, how should I rephrase it so that it is an equation?
Like a contract. X shall Y.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble
On Nov 15, 2008, at 1:19 PM, Taral wrote:
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 10:13 AM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I harvest 107, an amended power-3 rule, for 8 crops.
I harvest 955, an amended power-3 rule, for 8 crops.
I attempt to harvest 1728, an amended power-3 rule, for 8 crops. (Is
mutation
On 16 Nov 2008, at 04:24, Ed Murphy wrote:
Yes, it did:
The pledge at the start of this thread.
--
ehird
53 matches
Mail list logo
