On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 14:56, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I transfer a coin to this judgment.
>
Fails. The PBA restricts coin ownership to members.
BobTHJ
On Dec 7, 2008, at 3:22 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
Sgeo wrote:
You missed awarding Murphy..
IMO, any awards other than upgrading the three existing Heroes should
be done as separate proposals.
I can live with this: Adopt the Order of the Hero and upgrade the
existing Heroes, then separate
>> Tue 2 Dec 23:27:07 Unnamed pledge created by Warrigal
>>> I publicly pledge that if I get elected, I'll sort this out so that
>>> harblcat, Siege and Charles get an equal chance.
>
> Having received no objection, I terminate this contract.
This is also a Grand Poobah pledge, isn't it?
--Warr
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 8:36 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 7:58 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In the future, I may CFJ on the statements "It is a being.", "It is a
>> referent.", "It is a concept.", and "It is an object."
>
> In the future, I loo
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 8:28 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And rightly so. "It" might be "the king of England", for all we know.
The fact that he's hypothetical doesn't make him any less of a king, or... yeah.
--Warrigal
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 7:58 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In the future, I may CFJ on the statements "It is a being.", "It is a
> referent.", "It is a concept.", and "It is an object."
In the future, I look forward to appealing any judgment on these that
isn't IRRELEVANT or UNDETERMINE
Warrigal wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 8:11 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 8:01 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 7:58 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I CFJ on the statement "It is a thing."
>>> I retract this. I CFJ on
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 8:11 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 8:01 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 7:58 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I CFJ on the statement "It is a thing."
>>
>> I retract this. I CFJ on the statement "It i
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 8:01 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 7:58 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I CFJ on the statement "It is a thing."
>
> I retract this. I CFJ on the statement "It is a thing.", barring Murphy.
>
> --Warrigal, attempting to change the
On 7 Dec 2008, at 23:27, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Y'know, it's not confusing at all if you use "" like e did.
I used "" _without the quotes_, i.e. .
On Sun, 7 Dec 2008, comex wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 1:41 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Argument: Long-standing game custom has important entities, especially
>> players, referred to by some title, especially a player's nickname. Using a
>> null string as such a title
Using the definition of 'each' as "every one individually," I consider
that the sentence:
"Per clause 5a, I award floor(60/3) = 20 points (in Agora) and a
silver Trophy (in B, which may or may not work) to each of ais523,
Pavitra, and comex."
is a sentence containing three separate, ordered actio
On 7 Dec 2008, at 21:56, Elliott Hird wrote:
I transfer a coin to this judgment.
Not that I can do that, of course.
Sgeo wrote:
> You missed awarding Murphy..
IMO, any awards other than upgrading the three existing Heroes should
be done as separate proposals.
On 7 Dec 2008, at 18:53, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
* Chuck Carroll's title of Hero is upgraded to Grand Hero of Agora
Nomic, for [[what did he do?]].
Wrote the initial ruleset.
* Douglas Hofstadter's title of Hero is upgraded to Grand Hero of
Agora Nomic, for [[what did he do?]].
iirc, Nom
OscarMeyr wrote:
> * Chuck Carroll's title of Hero is upgraded to Grand Hero of Agora
> Nomic, for [[what did he do?]].
Serving as Rulekeepor for about eight years.
> * Douglas Hofstadter's title of Hero is upgraded to Grand Hero of
> Agora Nomic, for [[what did he do?]].
Popularizing the g
ehird wrote:
> I retract this CFJ and CFJ on the statement "Warrigal MAY transfer
> assets".
Gratuituous: None of us have access to a proof or disproof of the
Riemann hypothesis, so by Rule 2197 ("its permissibility cannot be
determined with certainty at the time it is attempted") Warrigal's
a
comex wrote:
> I zoop a criminal case against ehird for violating Rule 2170 by
> selecting the confusing nickname .
Ineffective, the Z House only has one party. (ehird, you should
probably split up the criminal part and the appeal part; I wouldn't
attempt to terminate the criminal part, as presu
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 1:53 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Draft 2, incorporating various suggestions.
>
> Changes:
> 1. Made two degrees of the Order.
> 2. Loosened the restriction on player status.
> 3. Increased the AI of the proposal so that it would have enough power to
>
On 7 Dec 2008, at 19:01, Zefram wrote:
UNDETERMINED seems eminently appropriate.
Yay, unknown gamestate.
On Sun, 7 Dec 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
> I intend, with two support, to appeal CFJ 2292 as it seems to imply that what
> is "actually" true is irrelevant.
Oh ehird, ehird, ehird. You've fallen victim to one of the classic
Agoran blunders (the most well-known is ISIDTID, but only *slightly*
le
Elliott Hird wrote:
On 6 Dec 2008, at 23:43, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
I doubt that works, but I object anyway.
I should hope that you object to every future without-objection
action to continue your wonderful crusade of obstructionism.
I object to that hope.
--
--
0x44;
On Sun, 7 Dec 2008, Warrigal wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 1:24 AM, Charles Schaefer
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 2008/12/6, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 10:20 AM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If I can, I join the above contract.
I imagine this is co
Elliott Hird wrote:
>I CFJ on the statement "Warrigal is a party to the Wormhole".
UNDETERMINED seems eminently appropriate. Though I'd be tempted to
plump for FALSE, on the grounds that the Riemann hypothesis is true (go
ahead, prove me wrong). OTOH, given that we all know that the truth of
the
Draft 2, incorporating various suggestions.
Changes:
1. Made two degrees of the Order.
2. Loosened the restriction on player status.
3. Increased the AI of the proposal so that it would have enough
power to do itself.
4. Proposed awarding HAN to Zefram, and spelled out the citations
for u
On Dec 5, 2008, at 9:10 PM, Warrigal wrote:
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 7:40 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Warrigal, I suggest amending your pledge to include reversing The
List
after each round of caste changes.
OscarMeyr and similar people, would you object if I tried to amend my
p
On 7 Dec 2008, at 18:12, Elliott Hird wrote:
PARADOX
By which I mean UNDECIDABLE
ehird wrote:
> I intend, with two support, to appeal CFJ 2292 as it seems to imply
> that what is "actually" true is irrelevant.
If you're only CFJing on "X stated that e did Y", then it /is/
irrelevant whether e actually did Y (i.e. whether the statement is
true); it only matters whether e cla
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 12:14 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2298
>
> == CFJ 2298 ==
>
>Pavitra has a Violet ribbon.
>
> ===
On 7 Dec 2008, at 05:16, comex wrote:
For every Rest currently owned by a person, create two more rests in
eir possession.
I hate my life. :P
30 matches
Mail list logo
