Goethe wrote:
> I personally didn't believe it possible without legislation, but then
> I found Zefram's judgement in CFJ 1719 to be extraordinarily thorough
To save a lookup, this was the CFJ that found that Peekee's "anyone can
send e-mail on my behalf via an unprotected web form" worked.
> an
Goethe wrote:
> [Murphy, I told you we should have specifically disabled dependent actions
> altogether for the duration... :) Though I guess you didn't disagree...
> looks like a fun two weeks to wait for the CFJs]
Is there any remaining ambiguity that would warrant violating the
prohibition
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 7:37 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Didn't we figure this particular one out back in that first CFJ
>> on whether this was possible? -G.
>
> CFJs can be decided wrongly. It's not in the best interests of the
> game for players to a
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 7:37 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Didn't we figure this particular one out back in that first CFJ
> on whether this was possible? -G.
CFJs can be decided wrongly. It's not in the best interests of the
game for players to act on behalf of others using a mechanism that
recordk
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 7:54 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> If some Rule requires that an action be done prior to a given
> time, and that given time falls during a Holiday, or within the
> 72-hour period immediately following that Holiday, then that
> action need not be done until 72
Goethe wrote:
> My suggestion: holidays: The time between Dec 24 and Jan 2 Just Does
> Not Exist. Anything happening during that time is deemed to happen
> on Jan 3 (though in the order it was sent over the holidays), and
> for duration-based-spells, er, rules, that time is just subtracted out
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008, comex wrote:
> I claim that this works because (a) preemptive objections don't work,
> and (b) I am not allowed to make arbitrary rule changes by
> announcement, merely to cause Rule 9843 to do so, so any restrictions
> imposed by Rule 9842 do not apply.
But did the ratificat
On Wed, 24 Dec 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
> On 24 Dec 2008, at 00:00, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>> 2. Having received no Objections, I ratify the following report with a
>> scope of the SLR:
>
> I see "win and fix" is a long-forgotten mantra.
I should explain that. holiday timing is an annual screwup
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> I preemptively object to all dependent actions attempted between now
> and Dec. 31, 2012.
>
> I CFJ on the following:
> {{
> It is possible for a private contract to create an ability of one
> party to act on behalf of another party.
> }}
Didn't we fig
On 24 Dec 2008, at 00:00, Kerim Aydin wrote:
2. Having received no Objections, I ratify the following report
with a
scope of the SLR:
I see "win and fix" is a long-forgotten mantra.
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 4:49 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> holiday, you can do it during the holiday or after. For example, if
> you're assigned a CFJ the day before a holiday, you are given
> permission to judge with a time limit several days past the holiday.
> But you can still judge during the hol
On 23 Dec 2008, at 22:39, Ed Murphy wrote:
Of /course/ I object!
So? I'm just trying to get a paradox. :P
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> But 4 days isn't actually a time limit for objecting! You can object
> any time after that, too. The objection is moot when the action has
> been performed, of course, but it (for example) is valid if it's made
> on day 5,6,7,8 etc.
Sorry, forgot to add
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> I think R1728(b) reasonably fits R1769's "time limit to perform an
> action". (Wooble is right, though, objections don't have a separate
> time limit.)
But 4 days isn't actually a time limit for objecting! You can object
any time after that, too. The obj
Goethe wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I agree to the following public contract. I announce my intent
to make it a Contest w/o three objections and with myself as
contestmaster (oh crud this will hit the holida
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> I agree to the following public contract. I announce my intent
>>> to make it a Contest w/o three objections and with myself as
>>> contestmaster (oh crud this will hit the holiday, no contestifying?
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 3:56 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Disagree; the time limits for objections and resolution are both
> extended to January 8, making it effectively impossible. This can
> be fixed by re-submitting intent on or after December 25.
R1728 doesn't set time limits for the action of obj
Wooble wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> I agree to the following public contract. I announce my intent
>> to make it a Contest w/o three objections and with myself as
>> contestmaster (oh crud this will hit the holiday, no contestifying?)
>
> As I read the Holiday
I object to all of these.
On 12/22/08, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Let's see which of these go through:
>
> I intend, without 3 objections, to add the Y axis to Enigma.
> I intend, without 3 objections, to add the Y axis to the FRContest.
> I intend, without 3 objections, to add the Y axis to the PRS.
> I
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 10:17, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> I intend, without 3 objections, to amend the AAA as follows:
>> {
>> In section 6a, replace "2" with "4i"
>> [[Ordinary Proposals now score Y axis points]]
>> }
>
> I object; you can't a
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 9:11 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> BTW, Any opinions on whether the PNP should attempt to distribute
> proposals manually before the Holiday starts? I think a distribution
> can't happen except by a passed proposal until Jan. 5th, but we could
> possibly distribute in the ne
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 10:26 AM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
>
> On 23 Dec 2008, at 15:20, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>
>> the compound action
>> of creating pledge-defined VP and then transforming them back to an
>> asset by terminating the pledge CANNOT modify any information for
>> which BobTHJ is required
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 7:36 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2309
>
> == CFJ 2309 ==
>
>ehird is a party to the Vote Market
R2166 reads, in part:
An asset is an entity defined as s
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 9:28 PM, comex wrote:
> Oracu-proposal (AI=1.5): Amend Rule 649 by replacing the first two
> sentences of the third paragraph of Rule 649 with:
> While a Patent Title has been awarded to (and not revoked from)
> an entity, that entity is said to Bear that Patent T
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 10:45 PM, Warrigal wrote:
>> Any Player can send a public message to Agora with support and without
>> 2 objections in 4 to 14 days.}
If that works to create a power of attorney, Agora's more broken than I thought.
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 4:17 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Warrigal wrote:
>
>> You're right. With support and without 2 objections in 4 to 14 days, I
>> intend to send the following public message to Agora on behalf of
>> DiploNomic: "With Agoran Consent, DiploNomic intends to register."
>
> NttPF.
Doe
Warrigal wrote:
> You're right. With support and without 2 objections in 4 to 14 days, I
> intend to send the following public message to Agora on behalf of
> DiploNomic: "With Agoran Consent, DiploNomic intends to register."
NttPF.
On 23 Dec 2008, at 05:22, Taral wrote:
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 8:40 PM, comex wrote:
I intend, with Agoran Consent, to unconditionally surrender to
DiploNomic.
I support.
I obect.
On 23 Dec 2008, at 03:45, Warrigal wrote:
The following proposal passed, with Warrigal voting FOR it and nobody
voting AGAINST it:
Please do not bother these mailing lists with your own nomic's
reports...
29 matches
Mail list logo
