On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 6:35 PM, comex wrote:
> RFC: If Murphy submitted a long proposal titled "Cleanup of Power=1.5
> definitions" that would cause a rule to contain the text {Murphy CAN
> cause this rule to amend itself by announcement}, that proposal would
> pass.
Dissenting opinion: I at lea
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 2:25 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> If anyone thinks it worthwhile to maintain The List for the sole
> purpose of zombifying my votes, and is willing to publish The List
> weekly and encourage its use, I'd pay a salary of the right to spend
> some of my notes on my behalf. Prior
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 9:48 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> If a rule other than 2218 defines the Winning Condition of Solitude,
> then repeal Rule 2218. Otherwise, amend it to read:
Note that Rule 2218 cannot define Winning Conditions anyway, since its
Power is only 1. (The proposal specified that it
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 9:00 PM, Ian Kelly wrote:
> With criminal charges on
> top of it, I'll probably just drop the whole thing and deregister.
Just testing the new system :p
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 3:34 PM, comex wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 8:12 PM, comex wrote:
>> I publish a NoV accusing root of violating Rule 2143 by not publishing
>> the Conductor's report last week (the week that ended an hour ago).
>> I publish a NoV accusing root of violating Rule 2143 by
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 7:23 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> 2282 may still be affirmed on appeal. But yes, for completeness:
What does CFJ 2282 have to do with Rule 2218?
RFC: If Murphy submitted a long proposal titled "Cleanup of Power=1.5
definitions" that would cause a rule to contain the text {Murphy CAN
cause this rule to amend itself by announcement}, that proposal would
pass.
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 6:11 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Proposal: Undo the rest of 5956
>
> Amend Rule 2143 (Official Reports and Duties) by replacing each instance
> of "role" with "office".
This omits Rule 2218.
2008/12/15 Geoffrey Spear :
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> ehird wrote:
>>
>>> On 15 Dec 2008, at 23:04, Roger Hicks wrote:
>>>
I (serving as language police) transfer a prop from ehird to Murphy
for a great Star Trek reference.
>>>
>>> I transfer a prop from BobT
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> ehird wrote:
>
>> On 15 Dec 2008, at 23:04, Roger Hicks wrote:
>>
>>> I (serving as language police) transfer a prop from ehird to Murphy
>>> for a great Star Trek reference.
>>
>> I transfer a prop from BobTHJ to myself for using language
>> (sp
ehird wrote:
> On 15 Dec 2008, at 23:04, Roger Hicks wrote:
>
>> I (serving as language police) transfer a prop from ehird to Murphy
>> for a great Star Trek reference.
>
> I transfer a prop from BobTHJ to myself for using language
> (specifically, the word "language").
NttPF.
On 15 Dec 2008, at 23:04, Roger Hicks wrote:
I (serving as language police) transfer a prop from ehird to Murphy
for a great Star Trek reference.
I transfer a prop from BobTHJ to myself for using language
(specifically, the word "language").
ehird wrote:
> On 15 Dec 2008, at 22:09, comex wrote:
>
>> How do you suppose? It's been judged that annotations don't work, and
>> that the democratization did work; neither was appealed. We passed a
>> useless scam proposal.
>
> Oh.
>
> Shit.
Thank you, Mr. Data, that will be all.
On 15 Dec 2008, at 22:09, comex wrote:
How do you suppose? It's been judged that annotations don't work, and
that the democratization did work; neither was appealed. We passed a
useless scam proposal.
Oh.
Shit.
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 12:28 PM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> Well, I've been thrown to the wolves. Who wants to do the honor?
You know you can avoid this by spending some coins.
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> I nominate myself as Rulekeepor.
Sorry I'm behind; I'm very busy IRL.
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 1:25 PM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> On 15 Dec 2008, at 18:00, Alex Smith wrote:
>
>> (Assuming you can't somehow leverage your dictatorship to stop it
>> passing in the first place...)
>
> of course we can.
How do you suppose? It's been judged that annotations don't work, and
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
> On 15 Dec 2008, at 15:23, Ed Murphy wrote:
>
>> I intend, without objection, to terminate The Zombie of The List,
>> quoted below:
>
> I object, Warrigal may be reelected.
If anyone thinks it worthwhile to maintain The List for the sole
purpose of zombif
On 15 Dec 2008, at 18:00, Alex Smith wrote:
(Assuming you can't somehow leverage your dictatorship to stop it
passing in the first place...)
of course we can.
On Fri, 2008-12-12 at 12:14 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
> 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 submitt
On Sat, 2008-12-13 at 18:07 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
> > 6019 O 1 1.0 Murphy Undo the scam already
> FOR x 5
ehird/comex, how much would you bribe me to cast AGAINSTx8 on this one?
(Assuming you can't somehow leverage your dictatorship to stop it
passing in the first place...)
--
ais52
On 15 Dec 2008, at 17:25, comex wrote:
Not
only would the same require many more coins on eir part, if e breaks
the Rules in any way whatsoever (say, by failing to publish a PBA
report) anyone can deregister em by announcement.
I did not publish a report last week.
Well, I've been thrown to t
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 10:36 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Proposal: Allow conversion of sentences
> (AI = 3, please)
To be fair, CHOKEY for an Epsilon is sort of a slap on the wrist-- the
only effect is that the ninny's caste can't usefully be increased.
For me, the new punishment is a reasonable com
On 15 Dec 2008, at 15:47, Ed Murphy wrote:
Why are you objecting to this one in particular? It depends on the
contract that Warrigal already terminated.
If Warrigal recreates it it will reactivate.
ehird wrote:
> On 15 Dec 2008, at 15:23, Ed Murphy wrote:
>
>> I intend, without objection, to terminate The Zombie of The List,
>> quoted below:
>
> I object, Warrigal may be reelected.
Why are you objecting to this one in particular? It depends on the
contract that Warrigal already terminate
On 15 Dec 2008, at 15:36, Ed Murphy wrote:
Proposal: Allow conversion of sentences
Agora, systematically stripping away outlaws' rights since 2008
Warrigal wrote:
> Can I participate despite my inactivity?
Yes. There's an informal standing strategy of "in the absence of other
evidence, lynch the inactive townspersons first", but those lynched
according to this strategy in session #2 (Zefram and avpx) were also
inactive in the ordinary-lang
On 15 Dec 2008, at 14:02, Elliott Hird wrote:
CFJ: I have some rests.
Arguments:
vi. Every person has the right to not be penalized more than
once for any single action or inaction.
First I was punished by the chokey, and now (for, uh, not being able
to predict the future
28 matches
Mail list logo
