2008/12/10, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
>
> Anyone want to take over Notary now that it's been caught up?
>
Sure.
--
Charles Schaefer
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 9:12 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2295
>
> = Criminal Case 2295 =
>
>BobTHJ failed to assign prerogatives for December in a timely
>fashion before
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 5:32 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I inform the PerlNomic Partnership of the following criminal cases
> against it, and invite it to rebut the argument for its guilt. (I
> don't think it's capable of sending arbitrary messages in a timely
> fashion, so I also u
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 5:58 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 12:15 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> == CFJ 2299 ==
>>
>>Pavitra has won on or about December 3rd, 2008.
>
> As no arguments have
test
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 16:09, The PerlNomic Partnership
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The PNP withdraws one 4 crop from the PBA for ^8.
> The PNP withdraws one 4 crop from the PBA for ^9.
> Using a Addition Mill, the PNP mills 4 + 4 = 8.
> The PNP deposits one 8 crop into the PBA to gain ^26.
> The
Gratuituous arguments on CFJ 2307:
The PerlNomic Partnership contract includes this clause:
{{{
5. The PerlNomic Partnership shall act by using the mechanisms of the
PerlNomic game to send messages to the appropriate Agoran fora. This
is the only mechanism by which the PerlNomic Partnershi
woggle wrote:
> I believe Warrigal is the Executor of the quoted message from the PNP
> (based on http://nomic.info/perlnomic/log.txt ).
Gratuituous evidence: Relevant line of the log cited by woggle:
Tue Dec 9 20:38:54 2008 - update_agora.cgi: ihope sent a message with
subject 'PNP Parties Ch
On 10 Dec 2008, at 21:22, comex wrote:
Please retract this.
No. It didn't work.
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 3:45 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10 Dec 2008, at 20:37, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Rule 2124 doesn't explicitly state that the objection must be posted
>> after the announcement of intent.
> I object to all future dependent actions.
Please retract this.
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 3:31 PM, Joshua Boehme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's worth something like 5-6 Chits.
4.92795 chits.
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 13:34, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10 Dec 2008, at 20:31, Roger Hicks wrote:
>
>> SELL(1VP - AGAINST) - This should have addressed the issue of the Note
>> Exchange in the process. If it did I would vote for it.
>
> That can be handled via the Note Exchange.
Wooble wrote:
> it does if you can actually preemptively support dependent actions,
> which you probably can't.
Rule 2124 doesn't explicitly state that the objection must be posted
after the announcement of intent.
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 20:28:32 +
Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10 Dec 2008, at 20:26, Roger Hicks wrote:
>
> > As required by this sentence I destroy one coin in my possession.
>
>
> I would recommend judges to fine more like 10 coins in future, 1 coin is
> near-worthless.
It'
On 10 Dec 2008, at 20:31, Roger Hicks wrote:
SELL(1VP - AGAINST) - This should have addressed the issue of the Note
Exchange in the process. If it did I would vote for it.
That can be handled via the Note Exchange.
On 10 Dec 2008, at 20:31, Roger Hicks wrote:
6017 D 1 3.0 Elysion Resurrect Rule 2140
SELL(1VP - PRESENT)
For what it's worth, I will repeat the vote invalidation to handle
the case of the Scam working, so all you're doing is either a no-op
or getting a duplicate rule.
On 10 Dec 2008, at 20:26, Roger Hicks wrote:
As required by this sentence I destroy one coin in my possession.
I would recommend judges to fine more like 10 coins in future, 1 coin is
near-worthless.
If trying to make a nomic into a protectorateship, would the
following be sufficient, despite its obfuscation?
{{NOMIC NAME recognizes a relationship with Agora where it is
Protectorate and accepts any agreements required to receive such a
status from Agora.}}
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 2:27 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 2:23 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 10:17 AM, Elliott Hird
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 10 Dec 2008, at 17:31, Roger Hicks wrote:
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 2:23 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 10:17 AM, Elliott Hird
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On 10 Dec 2008, at 17:31, Roger Hicks wrote:
>>>
I (if possible) pre-emptively support any judgment of REMAND or REASSIG
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 2:23 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 10:17 AM, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 10 Dec 2008, at 17:31, Roger Hicks wrote:
>>
>>> I (if possible) pre-emptively support any judgment of REMAND or REASSIGN.
>>
>> nttpf
>
> dhtbttpf
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 10:17 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10 Dec 2008, at 17:31, Roger Hicks wrote:
>
>> I (if possible) pre-emptively support any judgment of REMAND or REASSIGN.
>
> nttpf
dhtbttpf
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further troub
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 9:21 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I intend, with the support of 2 of {BobTHJ, root, Murphy} to cause the
>> panel to judge AFFIRM, accepting the trial judge's arguments as a good
>> faith attempt to resolve the case.
>
> good faith attempt does not apply an
On 10 Dec 2008, at 19:02, Ed Murphy wrote:
IMO, becoming an active player of PerlNomic constitutes sufficiently
"explicit, willful consent" to satisfy R101(iii), whereas merely
making
an announcement does not. Similarly for the others. (I would cite
CFJ
1290, but the standard at that time
Warrigal wrote:
> "This is a public contract and a pledge known as Wooble's Mousetrap.
> Parties to this contract are known as Mice. Every player who makes an
> announcement (other than an announcement of eir deregistration) is a
> Mouse; no other persons are Mice. Mice SHALL do anything Warrigal
On 10 Dec 2008, at 17:31, Roger Hicks wrote:
I (if possible) pre-emptively support any judgment of REMAND or
REASSIGN.
nttpf
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 10:15, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 2:46 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2282a
>>
>> Appeal 2282a
>
> I in
> NUM C I AI SUBMITTER TITLE
> 6014 O 1 1.7 Goethe Re-streamline Appeals
> 6015 D 1 2.0 WarrigalMake notes not annoying
> 6016 D 1 3.0 OscarMeyr Order of the Hero
> 6017 D 1 3.0 Elysion Resurrect Rule 2140
I vote SELL(2VP) on all of these.
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 9:19 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10 Dec 2008, at 14:10, comex wrote:
>
>> What happened to the old one?
>
> Power Controls Mutability? The scam? Vote invalidation?
The only way Power Controls Mutability is gone is if the original
annotation proposal pas
On 10 Dec 2008, at 14:51, Joshua Boehme wrote:
Wow, the bank rates are almost rational...
Wowzers. :P
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 9:05 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10 Dec 2008, at 14:00, Warrigal wrote:
>> A player plays Bolero by making an announcement (other than an
>> announcement of eir deregistration)."
>
> This is where it fails.
>
> Well, it also fails in that contracts are e
On 10 Dec 2008, at 14:18, Warrigal wrote:
"playing Bolero therefore indicates that one agrees to this contract."
No dice.
On 10 Dec 2008, at 14:10, comex wrote:
What happened to the old one?
Power Controls Mutability? The scam? Vote invalidation?
C'mon...
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 9:05 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10 Dec 2008, at 14:00, Warrigal wrote:
>> A player plays Bolero by making an announcement (other than an
>> announcement of eir deregistration)."
>
> This is where it fails.
>
> Well, it also fails in that contracts are e
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 8:19 AM, Joshua Boehme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I submit the following proposal.
>
>
> Proposal: Resurrect Rule 2140 (AI=3)
What happened to the old one?
On 10 Dec 2008, at 14:03, comex wrote:
I agree to the following pledge:
{
This is a pledge, and a public contract, called "Looping". Nobody can
join this contract. comex CAN amend, terminate, or leave this
contract by announcement. The Notary CAN terminate this contract by
announcement. To l
On 10 Dec 2008, at 14:00, Warrigal wrote:
A player plays Bolero by making an announcement (other than an
announcement of eir deregistration)."
This is where it fails.
Well, it also fails in that contracts are explicitly restricted
in Agora. But if it was a real game, that'd be where it fails.
On 10 Dec 2008, at 13:19, Joshua Boehme wrote:
I submit the following proposal.
You know, the appeals processes aren't done.
I'll return it if the scam is judged to have worked myself,
and if it didn't, it was never repealed.
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 7:29 AM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If you're not a member of the Partnership, the PNP CANNOT act by your
>> actions using the mechanisms of the game and thus did not publish that
>> message.
>
> How do you conclude that?
You quoted it yourself:
"The PerlNomic P
On 10 Dec 2008, at 04:46, Warrigal wrote:
I zoop a criminal case against the PerlNomic Partnership for violating
Rule 2215 by announcing that I am a party to it in the quoted message.
You ARE a party to it.
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 7:26 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 7:02 AM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> the PNP? (It was: "The PerlNomic Partnership shall act by using the
>> mechanisms of the PerlNomic game to send messages to the appropriate
>> Agoran
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 7:02 AM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> the PNP? (It was: "The PerlNomic Partnership shall act by using the
> mechanisms of the PerlNomic game to send messages to the appropriate
> Agoran fora. This is the only mechanism by which the PerlNomic
> Partnership may act."
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 12:19 AM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gratuitous arguments:
>
> I believe Warrigal is the Executor of the quoted message from the PNP
> (based on http://nomic.info/perlnomic/log.txt ).
You are correct, but I don't believe that makes any non-GUILTY
judgement a
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 11:46 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I zoop a criminal case against the PerlNomic Partnership for violating
> Rule 2215 by announcing that I am a party to it in the quoted message.
I intend, with 2 support, to initiate a criminal CFJ against Warrigal
for violating
44 matches
Mail list logo
