Sgeo wrote:
>> Sat 13 Dec 17:20:43 People's Bank of Agora will become a senator
>
> The PBA is not a first-class player.
Admitted, corrected in next draft (and likewise for Bayes). Also, the
Left Hand was still in the list of inactive players.
> Sat 13 Dec 17:20:43 People's Bank of Agora will become a senator
The PBA is not a first-class player.
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 11:28, Sgeo wrote:
> I PBA-deposit 1 F# credit for ^25
This one failed (the others were OK).
BobTHJ
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Warrigal wrote:
> Active would be "X wins the game"; passive would be "the game is won
> [by X]". "To win the game" is an infinitive which has no subject and
> is therefore neither active nor passive.
"To win the game" is an active infinitive. A passive infinitiv
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 11:16 AM, comex wrote:
>> and by replacing this text:
>>
>> This is the only way to win the game
>>
>> with this text:
>>
>> The game CANNOT be won in any other way
>
> I still object to this clause, under the argument that active verbs
> are generally better than
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 5:35 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
> With support from Elysion and Murphy, I send the following message on
> behalf of the judicial panel in CFJ 2276a:
> {{{
> There is only one interpretation of rule 2126, 2156, 683
> and 754 that does not lead to a contradiction, which obeys
> th
ais523 wrote:
> Also, it is a very bad idea to put SHOULDs into the rules which cause
> things other than players or people to carefully consider their actions.
Interpretation is performed by people.
> (I remember when I submitted the RBoA as a proposal with the wrong II,
> thus causing it to br
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 2:01 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Basically, it's because I agree with your premise that I disagree with
> your conclusions. If contracts are primordial entities, then their
> interaction with agora is not as an intrinsic extension of Agoran Rules,
> but in how they as indepen
On 12 Dec 2008, at 19:41, Roger Hicks wrote:
Except the problem here is that by removing everything but the
definition you have suddenly removed any value that VP once had. Sure
the banks (due to not being able to instantly react to this change)
will still buy them, but really all you are doing
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 12:33, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> On 12 Dec 2008, at 19:21, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>
>> I object. This proposal lets the indebted parties off the hook for
>> value they got out of the VM without having to give anything of value
>> to the other parties in return.
>
> I think we s
On 12 Dec 2008, at 19:21, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
I object. This proposal lets the indebted parties off the hook for
value they got out of the VM without having to give anything of value
to the other parties in return.
I think we should cut them some slack. After all, this removes
indebtedness
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008, comex wrote:
> I disagree with your arguments fundamentally-- I think that
> contracts=agreements are primordial entities whose intrinsic scope is
> equal to the Rules'; the Rules merely recognize them and bless them
> with certain properties. Without an explicit clause to th
On Fri, 2008-12-12 at 08:53 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
>
> > This breaks a huge number of rules. "[...] for which the question of
> > veracity is defined as UNDECIDABLE" in rule 2110 is one of the most
> > obvious, but the word "is" is common enough that nounphrase is
> > nounphrase i
ais523 wrote:
> This breaks a huge number of rules. "[...] for which the question of
> veracity is defined as UNDECIDABLE" in rule 2110 is one of the most
> obvious, but the word "is" is common enough that nounphrase is
> nounphrase is a very common combination to find in all sorts of rules.
> "Ea
comex wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 2:55 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>a) "X is/are Y"
>>b) "Y is/are known as X"
>
> "Any biological organism that is generally capable ... is a person"
> might fall under this. Probably doesn't, but there are other
> situations where phrasin
On Fri, 2008-12-12 at 08:41 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
> ehird wrote:
>
> > On 12 Dec 2008, at 06:54, Ed Murphy wrote:
> >
> >> Proposal: Undo the scam already
> >
> > This wasn't actually the scam, you know; just the backup.
>
> It's the only part of the scam that worked, assuming that CFJ 2282
ehird wrote:
> On 12 Dec 2008, at 07:55, Ed Murphy wrote:
>
>> Proposal: Definition of definitions
>
> Where's the hidden dictatorship?
Well, I'm not going to /tell/ you, now am I?
(I hid "Murphy Wins" in the middle of a long proposal almost twelve
years ago, but it was caught and rejected.)
ehird wrote:
> On 12 Dec 2008, at 06:54, Ed Murphy wrote:
>
>> Proposal: Undo the scam already
>
> This wasn't actually the scam, you know; just the backup.
It's the only part of the scam that worked, assuming that CFJ 2282
is affirmed on appeal (I'm giving root some more time to weigh in).
BobTHJ wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 01:35, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Proposal: Complex scoring
>> (AI = 2, please)
>>
> There is no provision to convert over the current contests to the new
> scoring method. Each will have to be manually changed. Is this what
> you intended?
Implicitly, each curr
BobTHJ wrote:
> {
> Per the PRS agreement, I attempt to revoke 5 points from ais523
> }
> Reason: Requested PRS Investment
>
> {
> I attempt to revoke 3 points from ais523. If that is successful, I create a
> Digit Ranch (7) in eir possession.
> }
> Reason: Attempted to purchase a Ranch
Since y
On Fri, 2008-12-12 at 11:16 -0500, comex wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 2:55 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> >a) "X is/are Y"
> >b) "Y is/are known as X"
>
> "Any biological organism that is generally capable ... is a person"
> might fall under this. Probably doesn't, but there
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 4:46 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
> The script assumes that ehird's PBA report is up to date. That has
> proven an incorrect assumption recently, such that we'll have to do some
> actions by hand to get its random-crops-obtained-by-mistake count down
> and its coin count up.
Why
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 2:55 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>a) "X is/are Y"
>b) "Y is/are known as X"
"Any biological organism that is generally capable ... is a person"
might fall under this. Probably doesn't, but there are other
situations where phrasing clearly not intended to
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 1:56 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> So, if the phrase is part of a contract, is it more like a Rule or
> a player's statement? It is in fact somewhere in between. In
> particular, while the text of a contract is judicable as a logical
> and legal construct, the Rules do not gra
On 12 Dec 2008, at 09:35, Alex Smith wrote:
I definitely object to this one on general principles (I think it was
Zefram who explained that a ratification error in the SLR can be
reported in the FLR and you still have a complete history of the game
whilst changing the rules in both, but changing
On 12 Dec 2008, at 07:55, Ed Murphy wrote:
Proposal: Definition of definitions
Where's the hidden dictatorship?
On 12 Dec 2008, at 06:54, Ed Murphy wrote:
Proposal: Undo the scam already
This wasn't actually the scam, you know; just the backup.
On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 16:23 -0700, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 16:09, The PerlNomic Partnership
> 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 depo
On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 21:52 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
> I transfer a 0 ranch to the AFO.
> The AFO transfers a 7 ranch to me.
As if the AFO didn't have enough zeroes already?
--
ais523
On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 19:03 -0500, comex wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 5:32 PM, Ed Murphy 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 messag
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 01:35, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Proposal: Complex scoring
> (AI = 2, please)
>
There is no provision to convert over the current contests to the new
scoring method. Each will have to be manually changed. Is this what
you intended?
BobTHJ
31 matches
Mail list logo
