comex wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 8:50 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Amend Rule 2186 (Victory) by replacing this text:
>>
>> Winning Conditions and Losing Conditions exist only as defined
>> by rules.
>>
>> with this text:
>>
>> A Winning (Losing) Condition is a c
...you know, I'm beginning to wonder if literally including the entire
initial ruleset was a bad idea. I think that's more than half of it.
--Historian Warrigal
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 8:50 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Amend Rule 2186 (Victory) by replacing this text:
>
> Winning Conditions and Losing Conditions exist only as defined
> by rules.
>
> with this text:
>
> A Winning (Losing) Condition is a condition defined as such
Proto-Proposal: Definition of definitions
(AI = 3, please)
Amend Rule 754 (Definition Definitions) by appending this text to
section (2):
A clause of the form "X is/are Y", where X and Y are both
nouns or noun phrases, SHOULD be interpreted as "X is/are
defined as Y
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 2:59 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 23 Nov 2008, at 19:40, Warrigal wrote:
>> I would intend to make the new USD Vouchers an Eligible Currency with
>> the support of The People, but given that that didn't work last time,
>> I'd like to know why first.
>
> W
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 2:58 PM, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Would you cut it out with trying to EXILE Warrigal all the time for
>> obvious sarcasm/jokes?
>
> As soon as e stops sending obvious sarcasm to
Pavitra wrote:
> On Saturday 22 November 2008 05:15:23 pm Warrigal wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 5:28 PM, Elliott Hird
>>
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I agree to the following:
>>> {{{
>>> Raargh! A public contract identifying itself as such.
>>> A pledge is a low-priority off
On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 14:50:00 -0700
"Ian Kelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 8:51 AM, Joshua Boehme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 23 Nov 2008 00:00:16 -
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >> I PBA-deposit all the assets I recently withdrew in the message titled
> >>
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 8:51 AM, Joshua Boehme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 23 Nov 2008 00:00:16 -
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> I PBA-deposit all the assets I recently withdrew in the message titled
>> "Bank run, part 1" (I believe this gets me ^667).
>
> Until woggle's amendment is adopt
On Sunday 23 November 2008 02:43:59 pm Elliott Hird wrote:
> On 23 Nov 2008, at 20:29, Pavitra wrote:
> > On Sunday 23 November 2008 01:59:13 pm Elliott Hird wrote:
> >> On 23 Nov 2008, at 19:40, Warrigal wrote:
> >>> I would intend to make the new USD Vouchers an Eligible
> >>> Currency with the s
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 2:58 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Would you cut it out with trying to EXILE Warrigal all the time for
> obvious sarcasm/jokes?
As soon as e stops sending obvious sarcasm to the PF as purported Game Actions.
On 23 Nov 2008, at 20:29, Pavitra wrote:
On Sunday 23 November 2008 01:59:13 pm Elliott Hird wrote:
On 23 Nov 2008, at 19:40, Warrigal wrote:
I would intend to make the new USD Vouchers an Eligible Currency
with the support of The People, but given that that didn't work
last time, I'd like to
On Sunday 23 November 2008 01:59:13 pm Elliott Hird wrote:
> On 23 Nov 2008, at 19:40, Warrigal wrote:
> > I would intend to make the new USD Vouchers an Eligible Currency
> > with the support of The People, but given that that didn't work
> > last time, I'd like to know why first.
>
> Why should i
On 23 Nov 2008, at 19:40, Warrigal wrote:
I would intend to make the new USD Vouchers an Eligible Currency with
the support of The People, but given that that didn't work last time,
I'd like to know why first.
Why should it be?
On 23 Nov 2008, at 19:20, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
I intend, with 2 support, to initiate a criminal CFJ, alleging
Warrigal violated R2215 in the above-quoted message. I recommend
EXILE.
Would you cut it out with trying to EXILE Warrigal all the time for
obvious sarcasm/jokes?
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 2:20 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 12:38 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Canids 1 through 100 register. Context: Canids 1 through 100 are
>> canids I saw once. They all asked me to act on their behalf to
>> register. There
On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 14:13:34 -0500
Joshua Boehme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 09:06:48 -0700
> "Roger Hicks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 07:23, Joshua Boehme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > (Again, these are maximally severable, and my Coin
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 12:38 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Canids 1 through 100 register. Context: Canids 1 through 100 are
> canids I saw once. They all asked me to act on their behalf to
> register. Therefore, I can.
I intend, with 2 support, to initiate a criminal CFJ, alleging
War
On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 09:06:48 -0700
"Roger Hicks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 07:23, Joshua Boehme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > (Again, these are maximally severable, and my Coin and Chit estimates are
> > provided only for convenience.)
> > I PBA-withdraw a 7 Crop (
On Sunday 23 November 2008 09:51:25 am Joshua Boehme wrote:
> On 23 Nov 2008 00:00:16 -
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I PBA-deposit all the assets I recently withdrew in the message
> > titled "Bank run, part 1" (I believe this gets me ^667).
>
> Until woggle's amendment is adopted, I encour
On 23 Nov 2008, at 15:55, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
The message from ehird was not posted by Pet A, but by ehird. It
seems to me that Pet A (or indeed any person) would have to post
directly from eir own email address to validly register.
Act on behalf doesn't work! YAY GAMESTATE RECALCULATI
I forgot that ranches and mills are semi-fungible. Here's a rewrite
that takes this into account.
Insert paragraph 6g with the following text:
Within one week after an existing rule is mutated (its power is
changed), a Farmer CAN once Harvest the ID number of that rule plus
any additional
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 09:32, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 09:28, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I encourage parties to the VM to cooperate in good faith to bring these
>> players out of indebtedness and servitude.
>> -
>
> I hereby announce
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 09:28, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I encourage parties to the VM to cooperate in good faith to bring these
> players out of indebtedness and servitude.
> -
I hereby announce my willingness to sell any VP in my possession in
excess of 50 at the rates sp
On Nov 23, 2008, at 11:18 AM, Roger Hicks wrote:
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 09:09, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
== Equity Case 2254
==
ehird, comex, Quazie, and myself have failed to meet their
obligations per section 10 of
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 09:09, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> == Equity Case 2254 ==
>
>ehird, comex, Quazie, and myself have failed to meet their
>obligations per section 10 of the Vote Market agreement.
>
> =
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 07:23, Joshua Boehme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> (Again, these are maximally severable, and my Coin and Chit estimates are
> provided only for convenience.)
> I PBA-withdraw a 7 Crop (^-14)
> I RBOA-withdraw a B Credit (-55 Chits)
According to my records, the PBA is out
On 23 Nov 2008 00:00:16 -
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I PBA-deposit all the assets I recently withdrew in the message titled
> "Bank run, part 1" (I believe this gets me ^667).
Until woggle's amendment is adopted, I encourage all Comrades to deposit large
quantities of assets close to midnigh
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 05:16, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 23 Nov 2008, at 06:09, Roger Hicks wrote:
>
>> I object, primarily because I don't want to adjust my recordkeeping
>> scripts.
>
> Suber has some words to say for you. (Along the lines of "since nomic is
> fluid
> any scrip
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 08:33, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Someone please send me the Vote Market agreement. I need to review the
> contract before I write up my ruling.
> -
> Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
> OscarMeyr
>
CURRENT TEXT OF THE VOTE MARKET AGREEMENT
---
As tossed around last week, here's a concept to allow changing a
Digit Ranch seed:
Insert paragraph 6g with the following text:
Within one week after an existing rule is mutated (its power is
changed), a Farmer CAN once Harvest the ID number of that rule plus
any additional crop other than
On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 23:09:13 -0700
"Roger Hicks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 19:19, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I intend, with the support of the people, to amend the PBA by
> > replacing section 17 with:
> > {{
> > 17. Every midnight (UTC) that the PBA ha
On 23 Nov 2008, at 06:09, Roger Hicks wrote:
I object, primarily because I don't want to adjust my recordkeeping
scripts.
Suber has some words to say for you. (Along the lines of "since nomic
is fluid
any scripts used must be fluid too")
But regardless, I'm happy with changing _my_ script
Sgeo wrote:
> I intend to deputize for Herald to announce the awarding of Three
> Months Long Service to ais523 and BobTHJ, and Six Months Long Service
> to Wooble, and that ais523 has received the Patent Title Champion
> twice.
Twice more, you mean. I had it twice already.
--
ais523
<>
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 23:53, Pavitra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 22 November 2008 08:58:16 am Joshua Boehme wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 00:24:52 -0500
>>
>> "Jamie Dallaire" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Cross posting because I figure there could be interest on both
>> > sides. I
On Saturday 22 November 2008 05:15:23 pm Warrigal wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 5:28 PM, Elliott Hird
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I agree to the following:
> > {{{
> > Raargh! A public contract identifying itself as such.
> > A pledge is a low-priority office whose report incl
On Sunday 23 November 2008 02:08:23 am Roger Hicks wrote:
> it is fixed now. Each
> auto-generated action will now be accompanied by a reason (see the
> last couple auto-generated mails). In addition, if there are
> multiple events queued the system will send them all out in one
> e-mail instead of
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 00:53, Pavitra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would have more interest if it was in a toy language like Befunge.
>
Befunge would be fun
BobTHJ
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 9:58 AM, Joshua Boehme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 00:24:52 -0500
> "Jamie Dallaire" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Cross posting because I figure there could be interest on both sides. If
> > need be this can be a Werewolves-like endeavour.
> >
> > W
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 01:04, Pavitra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 21 November 2008 12:45:57 pm Roger Hicks wrote:
>> 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 R
On Friday 21 November 2008 12:45:57 pm Roger Hicks wrote:
> 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
You might consider temporarily rerouting
41 matches
Mail list logo
