comex wrote:
> In B Nomic, a scam has attempted to forcibly pass a Refresh Proposal
> including the following:
> {
> Create a new Essential rule titled "The Mao Protectorate" with the
> text { There exists an External Force known as the Secret Ruleset. A
> Player may take any game action authorize
I recommend that the Ambassador flip the Recognition of
Irish C Nomic (http://www.murtgetup.com/) to Neutral.
On Dec 29, 2008, at 6:49 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/paranomic-xp
http://asynchronous.org/paranomic-xp/
At the tone, the time will be 15:46:FF on Oneday, Weekcycle 012,
Yearcycle 214. Your duty cycle begins now. Greetings, Citizen.
Friend Computer! I wish to repor
http://groups.google.com/group/paranomic-xp
http://asynchronous.org/paranomic-xp/
At the tone, the time will be 15:46:FF on Oneday, Weekcycle 012,
Yearcycle 214. Your duty cycle begins now. Greetings, Citizen.
On 29 Dec 2008, at 23:08, Alex Smith wrote:
a-d
a-b, actually.
On 29 Dec 2008, at 23:01, Ed Murphy wrote:
Caller's arguments: "degregistration" was re-defined as "joining the
UNDAD contract" as recently as a couple months ago (see CFJ 2237).
It's
ambiguous whether "deregistration" or "degregistration" was meant, so
the last paragraph of Rule 2197 prev
Wooble wrote:
> Gratuitous argument: R101 takes precedence over R2197 (and the rest of
> the ruleset, pretty much); no interpretation of the rules can deprive
> a player of eir right to cease to be a player. Interpreting a typo to
> deprive one of ones rights would be a particularly bad interpret
On Mon, 2008-12-29 at 18:15 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 6:01 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> > It's
> > ambiguous whether "deregistration" or "degregistration" was meant, so
> > the last paragraph of Rule 2197 prevents it from having any effect
> > (contract-related or otherwise
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 6:01 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> It's
> ambiguous whether "deregistration" or "degregistration" was meant, so
> the last paragraph of Rule 2197 prevents it from having any effect
> (contract-related or otherwise).
Gratuitous argument: R101 takes precedence over R2197 (and the
On Mon, 2008-12-29 at 14:56 -0800, Charles Schaefer wrote:
> 2008/12/29, Elliott Hird :
> I degregister.
>
> Just to make sure, you might want to spell it correctly.
>
> I don't know why you're leaving Agora too.
This actually is a reminder of a recent scam at B. A contract by comex
de
On 29 Dec 2008, at 22:56, Charles Schaefer wrote:
Just to make sure, you might want to spell it correctly.
Hehehehehehehe...
2008/12/29, Elliott Hird :
>
> I degregister.
>
Just to make sure, you might want to spell it correctly.
I don't know why you're leaving Agora too.
--
w1n5t0n aka
Charles Schaefer
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 4:34 PM, Charles Schaefer
wrote:
> 2008/12/29, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com:
>>
>> Weekly gains (Mon 29 Dec)
>> -
>>
>> weekly duties:
>> Sgeo (Notary)
>
>
> I'm the Notary, and what about the Holiday? Can you still award notes d
2008/12/29, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com:
>
>
> Weekly gains (Mon 29 Dec)
> -
>
> weekly duties:
> Sgeo (Notary)
I'm the Notary, and what about the Holiday? Can you still award notes during
the holiday?
--
> w1n5t0n aka
> Charles Schaefer
On Mon, 29 Dec 2008, comex wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Mine is semantically and logically 100% accurate, in that the CFJ
>> statement "a Notice of Intent is required to be posted before the time
>> a matching w/o Objection action is performed" would be judged
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 1:52 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Second, Taral delivered null judgement on the grounds that accusing
> Warrigal of lying should be done via criminal case, but I believe the
> intent of this case was to explore the following issue (which Taral did
> not address): does intentiona
comex wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Mine is semantically and logically 100% accurate, in that the CFJ
>> statement "a Notice of Intent is required to be posted before the time
>> a matching w/o Objection action is performed" would be judged TRUE based
>> on R172
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Mine is semantically and logically 100% accurate, in that the CFJ
> statement "a Notice of Intent is required to be posted before the time
> a matching w/o Objection action is performed" would be judged TRUE based
> on R1728. This matches the
On Mon, 29 Dec 2008, comex wrote:
> I disagree... if you require that an action be done four days earlier
> than X, you are not requiring that it be done "prior to" X, but prior
> to (four days before X). If I advise you, new to the Agoran ruleset,
> that you have to resolve dependent actions ear
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 10:44 AM, comex wrote:
> I disagree... if you require that an action be done four days earlier
> than X, you are not requiring that it be done "prior to" X, but prior
> to (four days before X). If I advise you, new to the Agoran ruleset,
> that you have to resolve dependen
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 10:28 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> It's because the Intent is, in fact, in the words of R1769, simply
> required before the dependent action attempt. The fact that it is
> required 4 days before means that it's also required 3 days before,
> 2 days before, etc. or any time bet
21 matches
Mail list logo
