On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 22:44, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 23:32, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> That's what I'd expect in this form given that expecting people to
>> know how to program usually isn't considered unreasonable. But, of
>> course, ther
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 23:32, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's what I'd expect in this form given that expecting people to
> know how to program usually isn't considered unreasonable. But, of
> course, there are practical problems with doing any-language-you-want
> (do you have a
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 16:26, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 25, 2008, at 4:41 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>
>> == Equity Case 2255 ==
>>
>>The buggy automated WRV enforcement e-mail should not have been
>>sent.
>>
>> ==
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 22:19, Jamie Dallaire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 3:26 AM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 23:53, Pavitra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> > I would have more interest if it was in a toy language like Befunge.
>
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 3:26 AM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 23:53, Pavitra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > I would have more interest if it was in a toy language like Befunge.
> >
>
> I don't think that would help that much. The interesting part of the
> pr
On Tuesday 25 November 2008 10:52:57 am Alex Smith wrote:
> I CFJ on the statement "The Ambassador CAN flip Wooble's
> Recognition to Friendly without objection.".
>
> It is a philosophical question whether or not humans are defined in
> some sense by a set of explicit rules; neuroscientists and
>
On Tuesday 25 November 2008 01:27:59 pm Elliott Hird wrote:
> time, unless the winner has transferred the VP to him.
Y'know, you B players really need to get used to the way we use
pronouns around here.
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 10:36 PM, Siege <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would like to register.
Assuming you don't have any tricks up your sleeve, you're a player.
Welcome to Agora.
--Warrigal
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 10:28 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 7:22 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Also, without 3 objections, I intend to raise the Interest Rate to 1%.
>
> I object. There's absolutely no reason to increase the interest rate
> by
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 7:22 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 12:28 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I increase root's Debt by 578 by transferring 578 coins to em.
>>
>> In light of ais523's truly scary interest rate, without 3 objections,
>> I intend to r
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 9:30 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Arguably, everything comes back to bragging rights, the primary forms
> of which are "look at that (concept I got adopted / win I earned / scam
> I pulled off)"
Yet, perhaps, / wealth I created. Having enough assets to bribe
Goethe wrote:
> I'm not surprised, it's economic. it's just proof that people value VPs
> (or whatever they then become in the current arcane economy) more than
> points, or even wins. Nothing wrong with that, everything here
> is perceived value anyway. (I personally think the way to make w
Goethe wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, comex wrote:
>> My mistake, I zoop a criminal case against myself alleging that I
>> violated Rule 1742 by violating the P100 contract by causing P100 to
>> register with the same basis as another player. (To be clear, this
>> means I intend to initiate the ca
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 8:32 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A lot of the success or failure of this scam is based on the CotC's
> timing: e.g. an appeal could go through immediately while this case
> remained unassigned for nearly a week, or vice versa. So before I
> decide whether t
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, comex wrote:
> My mistake, I zoop a criminal case against myself alleging that I
> violated Rule 1742 by violating the P100 contract by causing P100 to
> register with the same basis as another player. (To be clear, this
> means I intend to initiate the case, then act on beha
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 4:03 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I intend with 2 support to appeal this. At least, I hope the rules
> aren't irrelevant.
The veracity of the Rules considered as a statement, however, is.
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, comex wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 7:50 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> E.g. it's possible to "win" by
>> constant badgering trivial contests, CFJs, etc. that you call until
>> everyone just gets bored enough to let you "have it."
>
> Still surprised that the
comex wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 6:24 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> As Defendant comex pleaded guilty, I trivially find GUILTY. Given that a
>> similar CFJ could be entered with respect to each of P2 through P99, I
>> impose a sentence of CHOKEY for 120 days.
>
> I ini
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 7:50 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> E.g. it's possible to "win" by
> constant badgering trivial contests, CFJs, etc. that you call until
> everyone just gets bored enough to let you "have it."
Still surprised that the Points for Me proposals actually passed.
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 7:30 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 7:23 PM, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I agree to the following:
>> {
>> This is a public pledge. Anyone can join or leave this contract by
>> announcement. "Zooping a CFJ" means "intending to
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, comex wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 7:00 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Fairly ironic given eir recent complaint that players
>> blatantly ignore their punishments (not that the appeal in itself would
>> be wrong to do--it's eir right to appeal).
>
> Metagami
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 7:23 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree to the following:
> {
> This is a public pledge. Anyone can join or leave this contract by
> announcement. "Zooping a CFJ" means "intending to initiate a CFJ,
> acting on behalf of Sgeo, comex and ehird to support th
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
> On Nov 25, 2008, at 6:46 PM, comex wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 6:24 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> As Defendant comex pleaded guilty, I trivially find GUILTY. Given that a
>>> similar CFJ could be entered with respect to eac
On Nov 25, 2008, at 6:46 PM, comex wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 6:24 PM, Benjamin Schultz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As Defendant comex pleaded guilty, I trivially find GUILTY. Given
that a
similar CFJ could be entered with respect to each of P2 through
P99, I
impose a sentence of CHOKE
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 2:03 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In light of recent events I believe that a null judgment is appropriate.
If you can get the others to agree, then fine.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
Resolved: Failure to receive a Note due to an untimely Officer's
Report is punishment sufficient to trigger R101(vi).
Discuss.
-G.
-G') Rule 2156 defines voting limit as caste, so an attempt to increase
voting limit on one proposal alone is an attempt to simultaneously
change and not-change caste, thus ineffective.
C
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ehird wrote:
>
>> On 25 Nov 2008, at 23:06, Sgeo wrote:
>>
>>> For your skill in scamming Agora to achieve a dictatorship, you have
>>> both been awarded the Patent Title of Scamster.
>>
>> courts says it don't work.
>
> [ci
ehird wrote:
> On 25 Nov 2008, at 23:06, Sgeo wrote:
>
>> For your skill in scamming Agora to achieve a dictatorship, you have
>> both been awarded the Patent Title of Scamster.
>
> courts says it don't work.
[citation needed]
On 25 Nov 2008, at 23:09, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
Dang. What's the use of that limitation?
Disqualifying everyone but a partner in crime?
On 25 Nov 2008, at 23:06, Sgeo wrote:
For your skill in scamming Agora to achieve a dictatorship, you have
both been awarded the Patent Title of Scamster.
courts says it don't work.
On Nov 25, 2008, at 2:02 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
OscarMeyr wrote:
I CFJ on the following inquiry statement, barring ehird, comex, and
Pet A:
You can only disqualify one person these days. I'm treating this as
disqualifying ehird, and failing to disqualify comex or Pet A.
Dang. What's the
comex wrote:
> Because it means that SHALLs are ignored. Since the with 2 support
> requirement was added, in several months, only three people have been
> found GUILTY of anything, one of which was a partnership: out of
> these, only ehird was actually punished (for Phill). Each of the
> other
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, comex wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 2. When you break a SHALL, you take a risk. Half the time you'd get
>> off with an Excused anyway because it was accidental. Why would anyone
>> be wanting to support criminality, unle
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2. When you break a SHALL, you take a risk. Half the time you'd get
> off with an Excused anyway because it was accidental. Why would anyone
> be wanting to support criminality, unless they had an axe to grind?
Because it
On 25 Nov 2008, at 21:48, Taral wrote:
In order to escape the mousetrap, BobTHJ suffered material costs.
Therefore, the court intends to enter the following judgement:
In light of recent events I believe that a null judgment is appropriate.
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, comex wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 4:03 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 2282: FALSE
>>
>> Even if the scam clause converting annotations into amendments
>> was added to the rules, any reasonable definition of "annotation"
>> requires that the annotation was tr
Warrigal wrote:
> I recuse myself from this. Why was I not barred, by the way? Aren't
> all parties supposed to be barred? If not, why were all these people
> barred?
You were deregistered at the time, and I generally don't bother
recording the individual disqualification of non-players (nor
seco
comex wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 4:03 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 2282: FALSE
>>
>> Even if the scam clause converting annotations into amendments
>> was added to the rules, any reasonable definition of "annotation"
>> requires that the annotation was true, which this purpor
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 4:03 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2282: FALSE
>
> Even if the scam clause converting annotations into amendments
> was added to the rules, any reasonable definition of "annotation"
> requires that the annotation was true, which this purported
> annotation was
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2276a
Gratutious arguments:
Several interpretations have been thrown out, including (extended from
Murphy's post):
+S) 2126 takes precedence, so 2156 implicitly defin
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, comex wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 3. The instant-reflexive CFJ was just being used when two people were
>> annoyed at each other. If this passes I shall prove my point. I believe
>> I have 5 CFJs permitted per week? A
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 3:32 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2274b
>
> Appeal 2274b
What happened to 2274a?
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 3:33 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rule 1664/29 (Power=2)
> Rebellion
I support reproposing this along with the recent-ish blot proto.
The following judges are late, and will probably be recused after the
next rotation:
2252 comex (if the case exists at all)
2265 comex
2270 root
2245 Taral
2255 Warrigal
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 1:34 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> CFJ 1860 is the pre-that-defintion precedent on this matter and may be
> informative.
However, CFJ 1860 was judged before nomic was explicitly defined.
Rule 1664/29 (Power=2)
Rebellion
A Call for Revolt is a notice submitted by a player (the
Agitator) which alleges, roughly, that the current government is
corrupt, oppressive and self-serving, that rather than watching
over the people it is watching the people, that action
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 3. The instant-reflexive CFJ was just being used when two people were
> annoyed at each other. If this passes I shall prove my point. I believe
> I have 5 CFJs permitted per week? And I won't need support to call criminal
On 25 Nov 2008, at 19:54, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
This message serves to resolve the Agoran Decision to choose the
holder of the Herald office.
The votes were:
For Sgeo: root, Sgeo, OscarMeyr
For ehird: Elysion
The option selected by Agora is Sgeo; e is installed as Herald.
CoE: this resolutio
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
> On 25 Nov 2008, at 19:37, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>> So, if a crime is low priority enough that you can't find two supporters,
>> why clog the courts with a CFJ process?
>
> Yay the rules are irrelevant!! Let's use telepathy to determine everyone's
> intenti
On 25 Nov 2008, at 19:37, Kerim Aydin wrote:
So, if a crime is low priority enough that you can't find two
supporters,
why clog the courts with a CFJ process?
Yay the rules are irrelevant!! Let's use telepathy to determine
everyone's
intentions? Wait, we have that, it's called equity...
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I must live in an alternate universe where some players "play the game"
>> by not even paying attention to cases going on around them. Oh, wait...
>> damn.
>
> Whereas the rest
On 25 Nov 2008, at 19:26, Elliott Hird wrote:
I publicly pledge that, where the winning bidder is defined as the
Vote Market party who, at the end of 5 days after this pledge was
made:
I terminate that pledge.
I publicly pledge that, where the winning bidder is defined as the
Vote Market part
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1234
FYI, the bug in the summary is fixed now; all judgements are displayed,
even if the judge's assignment also has a recusal or transfer tied to
it. (This should only affect old cases; currently, a remand generates
a new assignment in
OscarMeyr wrote:
> I CFJ on the following inquiry statement, barring ehird, comex, and
> Pet A:
You can only disqualify one person these days. I'm treating this as
disqualifying ehird, and failing to disqualify comex or Pet A.
> [snip]
Is there any way to guarantee that the subject of these messages be
consistent with the actual ruling?
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 08:52, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I CFJ on the statement "The Ambassador CAN flip Wooble's Recognition to
> Friendly without objection.".
>
> Arguments: This is really about whether Wooble is a nomic or not,
> phrased such that I have a miniscule chance of a ran
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I must live in an alternate universe where some players "play the game"
> by not even paying attention to cases going on around them. Oh, wait...
> damn.
Whereas the rest of us live in an alternate universe where players
bl
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
> On 25 Nov 2008, at 17:54, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>> Good plan, follow up every criminal cfj with another CFJ against
>> the caller, then of course another against *that* caller.
>
> You must live in a weird alternate universe where this happened all the
> t
> NUM C I AI SUBMITTER TITLE
> 5985 D 1 2.0 Murphy Fix VLOD increases
> 5986 D 1 2.0 Murphy Refactor duty to fill vacancies
> 5987 D 1 2.0 Wooble End the Era of Impunity
> 5988 D 1 2.0 ehird Fuck That
> 5989 D 1 2.0 Wooble
On 25 Nov 2008, at 17:54, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Good plan, follow up every criminal cfj with another CFJ against
the caller, then of course another against *that* caller.
You must live in a weird alternate universe where this happened all the
time in the past.
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 8:45 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I CFJ on the statement: The Vote Market is a contract.
>
> Arguments: That quote. :P
CFJ 1872 established that it is a contract, and it has the required
number of parties now anyway. When the contract was formed, private
pa
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 8:23 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> He has said (##nomic) that it was a private pledge that was then destroyed.
Note that I could've been lying.
On 25 Nov 2008, at 05:33, Ed Murphy wrote:
How do you know they're fake? They could be defined by a private
contract. (They're definitely not eligible, though.)
He has said (##nomic) that it was a private pledge that was then
destroyed.
64 matches
Mail list logo
