On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 20:35, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> woggle wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 18:31, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Sgeo wrote:
>>>
Wouldn't it be best then to always buy Linen Smocks and Cotton Smocks,
and sell them at the end of the month, an
comex wrote:
> http://agora.qoid.us/notes
Cute. How about ditching the detailed tables and just labeling the
keys instead?
woggle wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 18:31, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Sgeo wrote:
>>
>>> Wouldn't it be best then to always buy Linen Smocks and Cotton Smocks,
>>> and sell them at the end of the month, and repeat?
>> Blah, you're right. Maybe smock <-> shekel conversion should o
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 7:57 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just a quick thing I hacked up:
>
> http://agora.qoid.us/notes
Yay, a view I don't have to write.
If you don't want to scrape the text report, there's a dump of most of
the database available at http://agora.periware.org/dumpdata
Just a quick thing I hacked up:
http://agora.qoid.us/notes
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 18:31, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sgeo wrote:
>
>> Wouldn't it be best then to always buy Linen Smocks and Cotton Smocks,
>> and sell them at the end of the month, and repeat?
>
> Blah, you're right. Maybe smock <-> shekel conversion should only be
> allowed dur
Sgeo wrote:
> Wouldn't it be best then to always buy Linen Smocks and Cotton Smocks,
> and sell them at the end of the month, and repeat?
Blah, you're right. Maybe smock <-> shekel conversion should only be
allowed during the first week of each month?
On 20/11/2008, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 19/11/2008, Nick Vanderweit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Because people have been bugging me, I agree to the following contract:
>>
>> {ehird can act on behalf of avpx to choose a target for lynching in
>> Werewolves.}
>>
>> avpx
>>
>
> O
On 19/11/2008, Nick Vanderweit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Because people have been bugging me, I agree to the following contract:
>
> {ehird can act on behalf of avpx to choose a target for lynching in
> Werewolves.}
>
> avpx
>
Oh, stuff you.
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 2:53 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 o
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 1:18 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Proto (AI=2?)
>
>The CotC CAN declare a potential CFJ statement as Malformed by
>an announcement specifying eir reasons for doing so. E SHOULD
>only do so if the construction or means of calling the potential
>
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 11:44 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At http://agora.eso-std.org/pba-report.txt now, will change when
> I get an HTML interfacey thingy to that.
Speaking of which, the Conductor report has moved to
http://agora.periware.org/conductor/report/ (the previous loc
Goethe wrote:
> The CotC CAN declare a potential CFJ statement as Malformed by
> an announcement specifying eir reasons for doing so. E SHOULD
> only do so if the construction or means of calling the potential
> CFJ created substantial uncertainty as to its status as a CFJ.
>
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> I'm so disappointed that I won't get to vote for you as CotC later
>> today. Demanding that a CFJ with no statement is accepted is exactly
>> the sort of attitude we all want in a CotC.
>
> Actually, I did accept it. On further reflection:
Proto (AI=2?)
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 6:06 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> TRUE, I believe. along with the denying.
No, I did not assign a judgement. I was assigned to judge the motion,
not the question.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give y
ehird wrote:
> On 19 Nov 2008, at 17:47, Ed Murphy wrote:
>
>> I really don't see someone with a long history of attempting scams
>> being
>> voted into the office that decides who gets first shot at adjudicating
>> the success or failure of scams. Of course, this may change as the
>> player p
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 11:11 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> root wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 9:54 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I spent Db Db D to gain a C note.
>>
>> Fails. Surely you meant to write "Eb Db D".
>
> The order shouldn't matter (IIRC ais523 o
root wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 9:54 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I spent Db Db D to gain a C note.
>
> Fails. Surely you meant to write "Eb Db D".
The order shouldn't matter (IIRC ais523 once tried to spend a chord
listed in second-inversion order, which failed only b
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 9:54 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I spent Db Db D to gain a C note.
>
> Fails. Surely you meant to write "Eb Db D".
(9) A player CAN spend three Notes to gain a Note whose pit
Wooble wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 11:21 AM, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Murphy, if you reject this as ambiguous I will eat your soul because my
>> intent
>> is clear.
>
> I'm so disappointed that I won't get to vote for you as CotC later
> today. Demanding that a CFJ with
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 9:54 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I spent Db Db D to gain a C note.
Fails. Surely you meant to write "Eb Db D".
-root
On 19 Nov 2008, at 17:47, Ed Murphy wrote:
I really don't see someone with a long history of attempting scams
being
voted into the office that decides who gets first shot at adjudicating
the success or failure of scams. Of course, this may change as the
player population does.
FYI, I would
Wooble wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Actually, I did accept it. On further reflection:
>
> I nominate Zefram as CotC.
I can understand your disagreements with my performance of the office,
but could you at least nominate someone active?
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 12:50 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I nominate Murphy as CotC so he can have a few days while I write
> a superior interface and demonstrate my amazing speed of assignment.
Fails, e is already a consenting nominee in the current nomination period.
ehird wrote:
> Also, I decline my self-nomination for CotC. Want to get scripts running
> first.
I really don't see someone with a long history of attempting scams being
voted into the office that decides who gets first shot at adjudicating
the success or failure of scams. Of course, this may ch
ehird wrote:
> On 19 Nov 2008, at 14:03, comex wrote:
>
>> How was it judged?
>
>
> TRUE, I believe. along with the denying.
The history backs this up. Dunno why the summary omits Kelly's
judgement (it doesn't do that for other ancient appealed cases); I'll
look into it later.
Context: At t
ehird wrote:
> Also, I request a copy of the Werewolves contract test from whoever has
> it, as ais523 appears to be very behind on it too.
AFAIK, my message "Prep for Werewolves session #2" on November 11 was
accurate at the time; I then applied three patches on November 16.
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 08:44, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 19 Nov 2008, at 15:36, Roger Hicks wrote:
>
>> Just because the PBA has self-adjusting rates doesn't make them right.
>
> It makes them righter, in general, instead of arbitrarily set.
>
>> Take a look at my recent deposit
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 11:21 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Murphy, if you reject this as ambiguous I will eat your soul because my
> intent
> is clear.
I'm so disappointed that I won't get to vote for you as CotC later
today. Demanding that a CFJ with no statement is accepted is
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 11:21 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Murphy, if you reject this as ambiguous I will eat your soul because my
> intent
> is clear.
Ineffective because the subject line of a message has no effect on
actions in it. I don't know why you can't just call the CFJ n
On 19 Nov 2008, at 16:06, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
PBA's rate change algorithm isn't impartial, it's just an arbitrary
way of adjusting. It seems unlikely to me that the objective value of
a 0 crop decreases by 25% any time someone deposits one in one bank
but doesn't change at all if they deposit
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 10:44 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's not easy to determine what's a good or bad rate unless you have
> something impartial monitoring their value somehow (PBA).
PBA's rate change algorithm isn't impartial, it's just an arbitrary
way of adjusting. It see
On 19 Nov 2008, at 15:36, Roger Hicks wrote:
Just because the PBA has self-adjusting rates doesn't make them right.
It makes them righter, in general, instead of arbitrarily set.
Take a look at my recent deposit of PV, for an example.
You misunderstand: the point is that the PBA is structu
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 16:26, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 18 Nov 2008, at 23:09, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>
>> This would lead to deliberately driving down the rate to sell them
>> cheaply first.
>
> On the other hand, the RBoA's rates are almost always wrong, it keeps
> being scamme
On 19 Nov 2008, at 14:03, comex wrote:
How was it judged?
TRUE, I believe. along with the denying.
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 11:36 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Indeed, but as a part of the text it would no longer be an annotation.
I disagree with you, but that interpretation's fine. In that case,
the added text was a historical annotation before I added it to a
Rule, so Rule 1051 l
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 7:04 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1234 judged by Taral
> == CFJ 1234 ==
> Assigned to Taral: 21 Aug 2000 03:29:12 GMT
How was it judged?
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 11:46 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 18 Nov 2008, at 16:41, Zefram wrote:
>> Elliott Hird wrote:
>>> Therefore, Agora acknowledges that a nomic ruleset can have a
>>> jurisdiction
>>> larger than the domain of the game it defines the rules for.
>>
>> Not in
On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 19:19 -0500, Joshua Boehme wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 15:41:11 -0500
> comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I cause Rule 1367 to amend itself by adding the following historical
> > annotation:
> > {
> > Note: comex CAN, and has been able to for the past several months,
>
39 matches
Mail list logo
