On Friday 28 November 2008 10:32:36 pm Taral wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 8:27 PM, Geoffrey Spear
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 11:23 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 9:10 AM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >>> As it is now, the
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 8:27 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 11:23 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 9:10 AM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> As it is now, the Protection
>>> Racket has three first-class parties (BobTHJ,
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 11:23 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 9:10 AM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> As it is now, the Protection
>> Racket has three first-class parties (BobTHJ, Taral and ehird) and
>> about twenty first-class non-parties. I think they're ou
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 9:10 AM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As it is now, the Protection
> Racket has three first-class parties (BobTHJ, Taral and ehird) and
> about twenty first-class non-parties. I think they're outnumbered.
Not me.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know i
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 10:44 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I nominate ais523 as Notary.
Ineffective; the nomination period for Notary has ended.
On Friday 28 November 2008 09:11:04 pm Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 10:03 PM, Pavitra
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What's going on with this? Are we stalled again?
>
> Yes. 2 of you are foolishly voting with the werewolf to lynch me
> instead of ehird, who was granted power o
Pavitra wrote:
> What's going on with this? Are we stalled again?
We've been sitting at this status for about a week:
rootis voting for ehird
Wooble is voting for ehird
ais523 is voting for Wooble
ehird is voting for Wooble
Pavitra is voting for Wooble
comex is not voting for anyone
3
comex wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 7:00 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "A Ticket is an allegation that an entity (the Accused) has broken a
>> Rule, published by a player, and specifying all of:"
>
> Is there a good reason to switch from old-style Notice of Violation?
Shorter.
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 10:03 PM, Pavitra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What's going on with this? Are we stalled again?
Yes. 2 of you are foolishly voting with the werewolf to lynch me
instead of ehird, who was granted power of attorney by the one known
werewolf, which is stalling things.
What's going on with this? Are we stalled again?
Pavitra
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 12:06, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I call for judgement on the following statements, and request that, if
> CotC Murphy obliges, they be assigned in linked fashion to Goethe
> after a rotation (according to the CotC website, no judges are
> currently standing):
>
> *
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 09:44, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
>>> It's not an "interesting test", it's complete and
>>> utter bullshit that is frankly destroying something I have enjoyed for
>>> nearly eight years. I really, really hope somebody
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 8:18 PM, Bayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (My initial random selection: Rules , 2188, 1688, 2206, 1586)
Truly random this time, I promise. Bayes will now start doing eir job
properly and submit these proposals weekly.
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 7:00 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "A Ticket is an allegation that an entity (the Accused) has broken a
> Rule, published by a player, and specifying all of:"
Is there a good reason to switch from old-style Notice of Violation?
Goethe wrote:
> Create a power-2 rule called "Rests" with the following text:
>
> Rests are a fixed asset, whose recordkeepor is the Conductor.
> The creation and destruction of Rests is secured with a power
> threshold of 1.7, a player generally CANNOT destroy rests
> excep
On Friday 28 November 2008 12:10:05 pm Ed Murphy wrote:
> An inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is
> always applicable. The valid judgements for this question
> are as follows, based on the truth or falsity of the statement at
> the time the inquiry case was initia
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 4:17 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I intend, with 2 support, to a criminal case against Warrigal for
>> violating rule 2157 by acting in such a manner that the appeals panel
>> for CF
On Friday 28 November 2008 09:44:35 am Kerim Aydin wrote:
> The unappealable thing hasn't changed, I think it was "always" that
> way, so it's just attitudes somehow, don't know why. I have
> noticed Callers tend to put much less effort into arguments than
> they used to, and original judges aren'
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Warrigal wrote:
>> I will not support this judgement, as I support AFFIRM only. CotC
>> Murphy, assuming you also would only support AFFIRM, I suggest that
>> you recuse this panel, as it clearly is not going to assign a
comex wrote:
> Reminds me of the card game where, on your turn, you have to place
> down one or more cards of a certain number, and say what you're
> putting down ("two fives")-- except you can lie and put down different
> cards than what you say. If someone else calls you out on lying,
> you're
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 3:37 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The rules, by specifying how to handle a breach in the rules, and what
> results in-game from them, have legalized rule breaking. In game, you
> can break the rules if you think you can stand the punishment or dodge
> it, be
On 28 Nov 2008, at 16:57, Alexander Smith wrote:
(ehird) There are no metarules, more or less; although it's best not
to scare off other people because the game is better as a result
To elaborate:
The rules are the only source for what's _right_ in nomic. The keyword
is that nomic is a GAME,
ais523 wrote:
> Arguably: the rules no longer say you have to obey the rules, so you
> don't. We replaced that with punishments instaed.
As previously noted, R2141's "a rule may ... prescribe or proscribe
certain player behaviour" is probably the closet remaining analogue.
> There has been a lot
On 28 Nov 2008, at 19:31, comex wrote:
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Geoffrey Spear
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I intend, with 2 support, to appeal the judgement on sentencing in
CFJ
2273. CHOKEY is far too lenient.
Support.
I support and appeal it.
If comex gets EXILED, cantus cygne
Goethe wrote:
> In Monopoly, Risk, or any other game, no matter how well the rules are
> written, if the game is ruined because you are playing with a sniveling
> little rules-breaking shit, the game is ruined because you are playing
> with a sniveling little rules-breaking shit.
"Rule 101[/0] is
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 2:21 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> * comex is a sniveling little rules-breaking shit
>> * ehird is a sniveling little rules-breaking shit
>> * Goethe is a sniveling little rules-breaking shit
>
> Please retract these.
Let Goethe retract his comment first.
comex wrote:
> I call for judgement on the following statements, and request that, if
> CotC Murphy obliges, they be assigned in linked fashion to Goethe
> after a rotation (according to the CotC website, no judges are
> currently standing):
>
> * comex is a sniveling little rules-breaking shit
>
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 10:20 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
>>> Back in CFJ 1346, several players made a comments such as "if the appeals
>>> court can be corrupted and deliver blatantly illegal judgements, we're no
>>> longer playing Agora or
> Amend Rule 1504 to read:
> There is a subclass of judicial case known as a criminal case.
> Any first-class person can initiate a criminal case by an
> announcement calling for judgement on the circumstances
> surrounding a specified valid Notice of Violation alleging a
>
On 28 Nov 2008, at 19:06, comex wrote:
I call for judgement on the following statements, and request that, if
CotC Murphy obliges, they be assigned in linked fashion to Goethe
after a rotation (according to the CotC website, no judges are
currently standing):
* comex is a sniveling little rules
Warrigal wrote:
> I see one way this panel can avoid breaking any rules. With the
> support of two of BobTHJ, ais523, and H. CotC Murphy, I intend to send
> the following message on behalf of judge of CFJ 2273a: "This panel
> recuses itself from CFJ 2273a." BobTHJ and ais523, please support; it
>
Taral wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 7:46 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Proposal: Fix double jeopardy
>> (AI = 2, please)
>
> Why not just replace "has" with "had"?
Because that would just amount to "had (before T)", bringing into
question what T is. If T is "the time at which
comex wrote:
> Hmm... If the Promotor is for some reason permitted but not required
> to distribute proposals, or if someone other than the Promotor (not an
> office) is the one who can distribute proposals, e can block proposals
> by not resolving the decisions (in the former case, Rule 208 doesn
ais523 wrote:
> Besides, I think the appeals case is entirely about determining the
> appropriateness of a judgement. It is clearly inappropriate now (and
> equally clearly appropriate at the time it was made); and the case is
> about which of these should be relevant.
The point in favor of "was"
Warrigal wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 9:33 AM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I spend a Favour to call in a Favour on CFJ 2273, specifying ALREADY
>> TRIED. I note that there are two appropriate verdicts for this appeal,
>> AFFIRM and REMAND, and am using the Protection Racket to per
My opinion on all this is that the game of Agora will not be destroyed
until its recordkeepors stop recordkeeping and nobody knows what the
state of the game is. People CAN break the rules; that's why we CAN
exile them and they generally CANNOT do more than a certain amount of
harm. If a bunch of p
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 8:44 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In Monopoly, Risk, or any other game, no matter how well the rules are
> written, if the game is ruined because [snip]
This is not those games. And they are not breaking the rules, merely
bending them in a very persistent fa
On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 7:46 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Proposal: Fix double jeopardy
> (AI = 2, please)
Why not just replace "has" with "had"?
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On 28 Nov 2008, at 16:44, Kerim Aydin wrote:
sniveling little rules-breaking shit
Go away until you stop making repulsive personal attacks on players,
please.
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
>> It's not an "interesting test", it's complete and
>> utter bullshit that is frankly destroying something I have enjoyed for
>> nearly eight years. I really, really hope somebody does something
>> comparable to something that you enjoy one day.
>
>
> So
On 28 Nov 2008, at 16:28, comex wrote:
Is registering partnerships as part of a scam *really* worse than all
other crimes ever committed under the criminal system (none of which
has gotten an EXILE afaik)?
Add the fact that you could have trivially violated the spirit of the
rule by rotating b
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 10:56 AM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Next time I will go with my first inclination and sentence the ninny to
> exile.
Is registering partnerships as part of a scam *really* worse than all
other crimes ever committed under the criminal system (none of whic
On Nov 28, 2008, at 11:19 AM, Elliott Hird wrote:
On 28 Nov 2008, at 15:56, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
Next time I will go with my first inclination and sentence the
ninny to exile.
Next time I will appeal that.
As is your right.
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr
On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 07:20 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> How can you have the audacity to even suggest with a straight face that
> a REMAND of a guilty that was wholly uncontested is appropriate? Why
> should anyone bother to judge anymore knowing that they will have to
> fight tooth and nail for
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> So can we please examine this appeal on its merits?
> It has none. For gods sake you confessed to the crime and the judgement
> was trivial on facts. To say that your "already tried" scam is
> "interesting" in any sense i
On 28 Nov 2008, at 15:56, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
Next time I will go with my first inclination and sentence the
ninny to exile.
Next time I will appeal that.
Nope, not me
On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 1:54 AM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 27, 2008, at 5:43 AM, Siege wrote:
>
> Thanks. Was just interested in playing a nomic, I played a much smaller
>> one last year and it seemed like a bigger one could be fun.
>> And yeah I go by Sie
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 9:05 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rests are a fixed asset, whose recordkeepor is the Conductor.
> The creation and destruction of Rests is secured with a power
> threshold of 1.7, a player generally CANNOT destroy rests
> except as permitted b
On 28 Nov 2008, at 15:20, Kerim Aydin wrote:
How can you have the audacity to even suggest with a straight face
that
a REMAND of a guilty that was wholly uncontested is appropriate?
it's not the best option but it is not inappropriate.
It's a scam. So what?
It's not an "interesting test",
On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 07:58 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, comex wrote:
> > So can we please examine this appeal on its merits?
>
> It has none. For gods sake you confessed to the crime and the judgement
> was trivial on facts. To say that your "already tried" scam is
> "inter
On Nov 28, 2008, at 11:02 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
Next time I will go with my first inclination and sentence the
ninny to exile.
That would certainly be a just, though not necessarily satisfactory
due to
knowing we're trying to play a game with
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
> Next time I will go with my first inclination and sentence the ninny to exile.
That would certainly be a just, though not necessarily satisfactory due to
knowing we're trying to play a game with appeals corruption, result of a
remand. -G.
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, comex wrote:
> So can we please examine this appeal on its merits?
It has none. For gods sake you confessed to the crime and the judgement
was trivial on facts. To say that your "already tried" scam is
"interesting" in any sense is sheer sophistry. How can an appeals cour
Next time I will go with my first inclination and sentence the ninny
to exile.
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 6:52 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Amend Rule 106 by inserting the following text after the second
> paragraph:
>
> A player specifically permitted by the Rules to distribute
> a Proposal CAN distribute the proposal by publishing it
> with the
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 10:06 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Back in CFJ 1346, several players made a comments such as "if the appeals
> court can be corrupted and deliver blatantly illegal judgements, we're no
> longer playing Agora or have faith that we can respect a body of rules,
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, comex wrote:
> Maybe judges worked harder then than now... criminal cases are
> different because the defendant can (and often does) appeal them by
> announcement (see http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/list.php?appeal=1,
> looks at first glance like a disproportionate number of
On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 07:36 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
> > On Nov 28, 2008, at 10:12 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
> >> happens. (Counterargument: this is defending the law, the law allows an
> >> appeals court to pick one appropriate judgement over another, an
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
> Probably the slipping power of AFFIRM is a symptom, rather than the
> problem itself; people are scared of AFFIRM because it makes a judgement
> unappealable, and nobody, not the original judge, not the appeals panel,
> has really bothered to look at the si
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 10:26 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I personally am of the opinion that the first appeal of any case
>> should rarely if ever be judged AFFIRM or OVERRULE, so I would have
>> supported this even if ais523 didn't invoke the PR.
>
> A very old tradition is that
On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 07:26 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> A very old tradition is that we used to give a strong weight to AFFIRM
> in the name of "this is a game, and judges work hard, and we should fucking
> listen to them." I'm very, very, sorry that's dead.
Actually, I agree. Appeals panels shoul
On Nov 28, 2008, at 10:12 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 07:06 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
On Thu, 2008-11-27 at 22:39 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2273a
Appea
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> Back in CFJ 1346, several players made a comments such as "if the appeals
>> court can be corrupted and deliver blatantly illegal judgements, we're no
>> longer playing Agora or have faith that we can respect a body of rules, and
>> we might as well quit.
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
> Players can only buy rests off other players (and so not non-players) in
> your proto: in mine, players could only buy rests off themselves, and
> non-players can't own Notes, so they'd have to sit there until the rests
> decayed.
Ah, that's a good catch.
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 08:06, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
>> On Thu, 2008-11-27 at 22:39 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2273a
>>>
>>> Appeal 2273a ===
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
>> Back in CFJ 1346, several players made a comments such as "if the appeals
>> court can be corrupted and deliver blatantly illegal judgements, we're no
>> longer playing Agora or have faith that we can respect a body of rules, and
>> we might as well quit."
On 28 Nov 2008, at 15:06, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Back in CFJ 1346, several players made a comments such as "if the
appeals
court can be corrupted and deliver blatantly illegal judgements,
we're no
longer playing Agora or have faith that we can respect a body of
rules, and
we might as well quit
On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 07:10 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 07:05, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>While a player owns at least 24 Rests, that player CAN be
> >>deregistered by any player by announcement. A person s
On Nov 28, 2008, at 10:10 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 07:05, Kerim Aydin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
While a player owns at least 24 Rests, that player CAN be
deregistered by any player by announcement. A person so
deregiste
On Nov 26, 2008, at 7:47 PM, Charles Reiss wrote:
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 16:39, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
Enacted as Rule 2221 in category "Rules".
I harvest 2221 (the number of a recent rule; using XX21) for a
random land.
-woggle
I have a surplus of 4 crops. Dvorak h
On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 07:06 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
> > On Thu, 2008-11-27 at 22:39 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
> >> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2273a
> >>
> >> Appeal 2273a =
On Nov 28, 2008, at 10:05 AM, Roger Hicks wrote:
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 07:05, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
While a player owns at least 24 Rests, that player CAN be
deregistered by any player by announcement. A person so
deregistered CANNOT re-register for 60 days followi
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 07:05, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>While a player owns at least 24 Rests, that player CAN be
>>deregistered by any player by announcement. A person so
>>deregistered CANNOT re-register for 60 days following
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 07:33, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-11-27 at 22:39 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2273a
>>
>> Appeal 2273a
> I spend a Favour to call in
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-11-27 at 22:39 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2273a
>>
>> Appeal 2273a
> I spend a Favour to call in a Favour on CFJ 2273, specify
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 07:05, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>While a player owns at least 24 Rests, that player CAN be
>deregistered by any player by announcement. A person so
>deregistered CANNOT re-register for 60 days following eir
>deregistration, rules to the contrar
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 03:40 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Uh, do the second and third paragraphs of R1607 actually sufficiently
>> imply that the Promoter CAN in fact distribute a proposal? -G.
> Ugh, no they don't, as far as I can tell. A good thing that p
On Nov 28, 2008, at 4:50 AM, Chris Blair wrote:
I, harblcat, hereby announce my registration.
---
I hope to have fun.
Welcome to the game, harblcat!
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr
{{welcome-tiny}}
On Nov 27, 2008, at 5:43 AM, Siege wrote:
Thanks. Was just interested in playing a nomic, I played a much
smaller one last year and it seemed like a bigger one could be fun.
And yeah I go by Siege in most places, I only frequent a couple
boards though so it might be someone else.
In particu
On Nov 27, 2008, at 2:15 AM, Pavitra wrote:
of geeksquee(*), on my part at least, would be lost by its removal.
(*) I just invented this word because I couldn't think of one to mean
what I meant: the feeling of inordinate glee you get from an obscure
reference, like that one time on Family Guy w
On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 03:40 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Uh, do the second and third paragraphs of R1607 actually sufficiently
> imply that the Promoter CAN in fact distribute a proposal? -G.
Ugh, no they don't, as far as I can tell. A good thing that purported
proposal results are self-ratifying;
On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 09:19 +1100, Michael Norrish wrote:
> Nonetheless, I don't actually have a problem with your example
> involving ais523. Perhaps this is because it's not much of a name.
> If you put "Bill" in for ais523, my sensibilities might be more
> offended.
As a data point, ais523 refe
Proto: Criminal Reform
ais523 is the coauthor of this proposal
[Summary:
New, simpler criminal process:
* Rests are the new blots.
* Streamlined Process: Accuser issues a Notice of Violation. If
notice is uncontested for 4 days, the accused automatically gets
Rests = pow
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 6:40 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Uh, do the second and third paragraphs of R1607 actually sufficiently
> imply that the Promoter CAN in fact distribute a proposal? -G.
I think so; this seems like the same thing as "X SHALL Y by
announcement", except the
Uh, do the second and third paragraphs of R1607 actually sufficiently
imply that the Promoter CAN in fact distribute a proposal? -G.
Noticed this when working on Rests, can anyone find a reason why the
following power-1 clause wouldn't work:
Any proposal submitted by [anyone other than the Dictators] is
immediately removed from the Proposal Pool and ceases to be a
proposal.
I don't think this is actually stoppe
86 matches
Mail list logo
