On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 4:23 PM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 15:07 -0700, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > I post a Buy Ticket, with a cost of 189 coins, specifying an action of
>> > transferring 215 co
Goethe wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Goethe wrote:
>>> For buying votes typod by a number, it might depend on whether you quoted
>>> the posted sell ticket or just announced that you bought it without context?
>>> An ID-number mistake, where ID-numbers are the primary means of
On Thursday 20 November 2008 08:34:08 pm comex wrote:
> Sure, Murphy and root obviously
> intended to make the decisions to adopt the proposals Democratic,
> not the proposals themselves, but Agora is not in the habit of
> interpreting messages to mean what the sender meant. In fact,
> quite the o
On Wednesday 19 November 2008 06:37:52 pm comex wrote:
> Proto-proto:
> The initiator of a CFJ is generally the person who initiated
> it. However, the CotC CAN create an inquiry case by announcement
> identifying any person as its initiator, as well as a subclass and
> all parameters general
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I post a Buy Ticket, with a cost of 189 coins, specifying an action of
> transferring 215 coins to me within the next 2 weeks.
191 coins within one week, and you've got a deal.
-root
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Goethe wrote:
>> For buying votes typod by a number, it might depend on whether you quoted
>> the posted sell ticket or just announced that you bought it without context?
>> An ID-number mistake, where ID-numbers are the primary means of identifying
>> propo
Goethe wrote:
> For buying votes typod by a number, it might depend on whether you quoted
> the posted sell ticket or just announced that you bought it without context?
> An ID-number mistake, where ID-numbers are the primary means of identifying
> proposals (CFJ I-forget-which) is in fact a s
comex wrote:
> Maybe this is Agoran custom. Well, B's custom of extremely literal
> interpretations has yielded a culture of conservatism-- scamming is
> considered rude.
I don't know which instance of B you're playing, but the one I'm
playing has been hit with so many scams since the adoption o
comex wrote:
> Proposal: No fora spam (AI=3)
> {
> Amend Rule 478 (Fora) by appending the paragraph:
> Spamming any Public or Discussion Forum, in the absence of a
> clear and present need for such spam in accordance with the best
> interests of the game, is prohibited.
> }
May
On 21 Nov 2008, at 20:45, Warrigal wrote:
I increase root's Debt by 580 by transferring 580 coins to em.
2008-11-21 20:45 -- Warrigal transfers ^580 to root. (fails, only has
^578)
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 8:33 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 5:57 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It is unreasonable to extrapolate the chamber of a proposal (as
>> distinguished from its decision) from AI, as AI serves no purpose
>> chamber-wise other than
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008, comex wrote:
> I actually didn't expect that the clause would generate so much
> controversy.
It hasn't really... that's just me. :)
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 12:47 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 12:27 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Oh, what the hey. I join the Agoran Loan Service. I request a loan
>> of 1000 coins or less.
>
> Meh, why owe a coin of debt I don't have to. I cance
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There are essentially two situations in which an anti-scam judge might
> deliver a pro-scam judgement: when the anti-scam interpretation would
> set a precedent contrary to the best interests of the game, or when
> the scam is
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 12:41, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 21 Nov 2008, at 19:18, Roger Hicks wrote:
>
>> so it's probably best not to stockpile them.
>
>
> Ooh! Attack of the FUD ghouls!
>
> FYI, PBA rates can be manually adjusted and we can amend the
> contract.
>
> And it might
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 12:40, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 21 Nov 2008, at 18:45, Roger Hicks wrote:
>
>> and I promise to think about fixing this problem Real Soon Now (TM).
>
>
> When you have thought about it, will you think about deciding on a
> timeframe for the actual fix? An
On 21 Nov 2008, at 19:18, Roger Hicks wrote:
so it's probably best not to stockpile them.
Ooh! Attack of the FUD ghouls!
FYI, PBA rates can be manually adjusted and we can amend the
contract.
And it might be worth waiting until "the future" before saying
random stuff about it.
On 21 Nov 2008, at 18:45, Roger Hicks wrote:
and I promise to think about fixing this problem Real Soon Now (TM).
When you have thought about it, will you think about deciding on a
timeframe for the actual fix? And then think about fixing it? :P
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 12:10, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 6:50 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I PBA-deposit a 1 crop. I PBA-withdraw an X crop (how ridiculous is
>> it that this is a better deal than milling 0-1?)
>
> Not ridiculous at all.
>
I ha
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 6:50 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I PBA-deposit a 1 crop. I PBA-withdraw an X crop (how ridiculous is
> it that this is a better deal than milling 0-1?)
Not ridiculous at all.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trou
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You know, maybe we're putting a little *too* much weight on precedent
>> over judge's discretion? I think a better way to do it is put more
>> weight on sustaining original judge's arguments (even if we disagree with
>> the
I apologize in advance for the glut of spam that is about to hit the
list from my automated recordkeeping system, and I promise to think
about fixing this problem Real Soon Now (TM).
BobTHJ
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 18:15, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 11:44, 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.
>>
> From your report:
>
> 2008-11-18 19:3
On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 10:33 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
> >> Scams are and have been rendered ineffective for the most trivial
> >> reasons (annotations, decrease by -1), yet anti-scams with glaring
> >> mistakes are considered effective?
> > This is actually
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
>> Scams are and have been rendered ineffective for the most trivial
>> reasons (annotations, decrease by -1), yet anti-scams with glaring
>> mistakes are considered effective?
> This is actually something that annoys me too. I suppose arguably R217
> provide
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I deregister Teh Clthohed Mna.
>
> It already deregistered in June, no?
err, yes, apparently. For some reason I've still been tracking its 0 ribbons.
BobTHJ wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 07:33, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Coalition is a clique switch, tracked by the Notary, with a set
>> of possible values which consists of the set of cliques, with a
>> default value of the clique itself. A clique's coalition CAN
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008, comex wrote:
> Scams are and have been rendered ineffective for the most trivial
> reasons (annotations, decrease by -1), yet anti-scams with glaring
> mistakes are considered effective?
Burden of proof does tend to lie with scammers against what Agora
generally "intended and
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> People who talk to me informally will know that I often informally refer
> to the AI of a rule, which is equally incorrect.
And equally, a Proposal which purported to set a Rule's AI would be ineffective.
Upon review of the
I submit the following list of attempts to make things democratic as
evidence in CFJ 2274. Most such attempts have correctly referred to
Agoran decisions.
May 21 BUS: Farming/Democracy
Wooble:
I intend, with 2 support, to change the decision to adopt Proposal
5520 to Democratic.
Jun 30 BUS:
On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 12:59 -0500, comex wrote:
> I myself was around only during the most recent R106 definition of
> O/P, but yes, I think that the older the concept has existed, the more
> people might have been players while it was defined...
>
> For one thing... I personally actually did get
Wooble wrote:
> I deregister Teh Clthohed Mna.
It already deregistered in June, no?
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 12:26 PM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 4. In a later email, comex used, as eir argument, a version of the
>> Rule by Swann (I think?) that had been out of the ruleset for years.
>> I really, really find it hypocritical that -- if I've been following
>> arguments
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 12:42 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 07:33, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Coalition is a clique switch, tracked by the Notary, with a set
>> of possible values which consists of the set of cliques, with a
>> de
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
>> 2. In any case, I was comparing comex's Feb 08 dates with your arrival.
>> I should note that, if some cleanup/fix proposal to remove old language
>> was something you personally had a hand in, shouldn't you personally
>> be well aware of the situation an
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 07:33, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Coalition is a clique switch, tracked by the Notary, with a set
> of possible values which consists of the set of cliques, with a
> default value of the clique itself. A clique's coalition CAN be
> flipped by
On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 09:07 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I was mixing a response to two separate posts by comex, sorry that they
> were muddled, but they weren't lies. Some points/clarifications:
>
> 1. The Feb '08 change predates you and ehird, personally as players, if
> I read the registrati
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008, comex wrote:
> Remember, this is a situation
> where the "old rule" (not really that old, tbh) would have satisfied
> the literal meaning of the intent and the new rule does not.
Overall, I'm happy to go along with your contention that old rules
which are no longer in the
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008, comex wrote:
> And all that has to exist is ambiguity.
We don't use theoretical ambiguity as in "it's possible somewhere
that someone could have misinterpreted it" but practical ambiguity
"a reasonable player would have found it ambiguous". Other than
someone who sees it,
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
> Even more importantly, Rule 2126/52 said "VVLOP" until 21 June 2008;
> that definitely isn't ancient history. I amended it to "VVLOD" in rule
> 2125/53 myself. "*that happened before you registered in the game and
> you never saw*"? I fixed it myself! Of co
Proto: An unoriginal proposal (AI=2)
[Voting Credits are back, but now they're liquid and not restricted to
Players, and are used to affect XVLOD-- extra voting limit on ordinary
decisions.]
Create the following Power=2 Rule, titled "Voting Credits":
Voting Credits (VCs) are a class of liqu
On 21 Nov 2008, at 16:01, comex wrote:
(*I* was a player then, and so were Murphy and root, dunno about
ais523)
ais523 = april/may this year
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 10:29 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let me get this straight--- you and ehird honestly and truly believe
> that a change *that happened before you registered in the game and
> you never saw* can be reasonably confused with an old rule? (Apologies
> if I've go
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 11:00 AM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I shouldn't have taken Goethe on trust that it's a very old change,
> either... Goethe, I sort-of would have expected comex to lie about old
> rules, but you?
Wait, what? When have I ever lied about old rules?
(and ffs, I
On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 15:49 +, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 07:29 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
> > > I support. If someone says something not in the rules with an intent to
> > > perform an action, normally it is reasonable to presume they me
On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 07:29 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
> > I support. If someone says something not in the rules with an intent to
> > perform an action, normally it is reasonable to presume they meant the
> > correct version not the incorrect version (per R7
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
> I support. If someone says something not in the rules with an intent to
> perform an action, normally it is reasonable to presume they meant the
> correct version not the incorrect version (per R754); however, if the
> rules in question have recently change
On Thu, 2008-11-20 at 15:41 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> And R754 says "if it says it is, it is"
Very short digest of this disagreement for those watching: as far as I
can tell, it doesn't.
--
ais523
On 21 Nov 2008, at 13:25, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
e doesn't get a say?
No. :P
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 8:32 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rule 104 (power 1):
>
> "The Speaker for the first game shall be Michael Norrish."
e doesn't get a say?
On 21 Nov 2008, at 07:36, Sgeo wrote:
e.g., Prices are determined exclusively by buyers and sellers (more
buys -> higher price etc.)
Gee, what does that remind me of? :P
51 matches
Mail list logo
