On Fri, 9 Jan 2009, Warrigal wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 11:17 PM, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
>> On Jan 8, 2009, at 10:08 PM, comex wrote:
>>> Is it even possible to have fractional assets?
>>
>> Why not? I don't see anything in R2166 specifying a MUQ for assets.
Except that by R2166 single "a
OscarMeyr wrote:
> On Jan 8, 2009, at 10:08 PM, comex wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 10:02 PM, Taral wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:29 PM, Ed Murphy
>>> wrote:
As the act in question is noncompliance with a CFJ ruling, I intend
with 2 support to fine the ninny 3.4 Rests. I
Siege wrote:
> I object to my own deactivation (Siege). I'm here, just biding my time.
Ominous!
Wooble wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
>> On Dec 22, 2008, at 8:48 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>>
>>> This message serves to initiate the Agoran Decision to choose the
>>> holder of the Conductor office. The eligible voters are the active
>>> players, the vote coll
On Jan 8, 2009, at 10:08 PM, comex wrote:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 10:02 PM, Taral wrote:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:29 PM, Ed Murphy
wrote:
As the act in question is noncompliance with a CFJ ruling, I intend
with 2 support to fine the ninny 3.4 Rests. If this support is not
met, I will fine
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
>
> On Dec 22, 2008, at 8:48 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>
>> This message serves to initiate the Agoran Decision to choose the
>> holder of the Conductor office. The eligible voters are the active
>> players, the vote collector is the IADoP,
I object to my own deactivation (Siege). I'm here, just biding my time.
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 2:04 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 23:08 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
> > I cause the AFO to publish this.
> >
> > Registrar's Census
> I'm going a bit further with deactivation than normal
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 10:02 PM, Taral wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:29 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> As the act in question is noncompliance with a CFJ ruling, I intend
>> with 2 support to fine the ninny 3.4 Rests. If this support is not
>> met, I will fine the ninny 1.7 Rests.
Is it even possi
Elysion wrote:
> A pretty self-explanatory subject line...
We're in a night phase, and private choices have not yet been completed.
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 8:45 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Judge OscarMeyr's Arguments:
>
> I do not see any Conductor's reports in my archives for the month
> between 17 November and 14 December. I uphold the first three NoVs;
> I reject the fourth one, as it applies to the week beginning 17
> November.
A pretty self-explanatory subject line...
--
Elysion
On Jan 8, 2009, at 7:18 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Charles Schaefer wrote:
(btw, w1n5t0n, I'm just teasing a bit... it's something that's
abundantly
*not* clear in the SLR).
-G.
You know, in B Nomic, we repeal rules when we're done with them.
--
w1n5t0n aka
Charles Schaefer
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Charles Schaefer wrote:
>> (btw, w1n5t0n, I'm just teasing a bit... it's something that's abundantly
>> *not* clear in the SLR).
>>
>> -G.
> You know, in B Nomic, we repeal rules when we're done with them.
> --
> w1n5t0n aka
> Charles Schaefer
Y'all are welcome to try.
On 8 Jan 2009, at 21:48, Pavitra wrote:
This is obviously a scam. The judicial system has recently been
subjected to rampant corruption; giving it actual power over the
gamestate would be catastrophic.
Let's also stop proposals changing the rules.
On 8 Jan 2009, at 21:27, Charles Schaefer wrote:
You know, in B Nomic, we repeal rules when we're done with them.
Agora is rather heavily steeped in tradition.
On 8 Jan 2009, at 21:27, Charles Schaefer wrote:
Goethe's CFJ
Mine.
On Thursday 08 January 2009 06:40:49 Alex Smith wrote:
> The basic ideas of the proposal are to ensure that after a case is
> resolved and finally judged, the controversy about it is
> uncontroversially resolved, with the rules modified to ensure that
> the same controversy does not occur again and
2009/1/6, Kerim Aydin :
>
>
> On Wed, 7 Jan 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> > There is, it's in the FLR. The problem is someone keeps telling new
> > players to read the SLR instead, which by definition doesn't contain
> > FAQs. The FLR's much more useful to get an overview of what the rules
> > mean...
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> I call for judgement on the statement {{{If a rule were created with the
> text {{Wooble SHALL NOT Dance a Powerful Dance. Neither sentence of this
> rule has an effect.}}, then it would be ILLEGAL for Wooble to Dance a
> Powerful Dance.}}}
Trivial refutati
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 3:53 PM, Charles Schaefer
wrote:
> He just can't Dance a Powerful Dance to the business list. It's kind of hard
> to dance to (on) a public forum anyway.
Agora's scope is not limited to its fora.
Anyone who's ever seen me dance will vote FOR this proposal, and
immediately
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, comex wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Charles Schaefer
> wrote:
>> Sorry for clogging the Judicial system. I wasn't aware that this had already
>> been addressed. TWICE.
>
> Three times now, and if I am ever elected CotC, I will make certain to
> assign Michael Norris
2009/1/8, Alex Smith :
>
> I submit a proposal (AI=1, II=0, Title="Paradoxical Dancing"), with the
> text {{{Create a power-1 rule with the text {{Wooble SHALL NOT Dance a
> Powerful Dance. Neither sentence of this rule has an effect.}}.}}}
>
> I call for judgement on the statement {{{If a rule wer
2009/1/8, Geoffrey Spear :
>
> the Dice Server hates Contracts
Are we sure that the dice server is not ehird?
--
> w1n5t0n aka
> Charles Schaefer
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Charles Schaefer
wrote:
> Sorry for clogging the Judicial system. I wasn't aware that this had already
> been addressed. TWICE.
Three times now, and if I am ever elected CotC, I will make certain to
assign Michael Norrish CFJs as soon as possible so they can't be
r
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> IANAJ, but I do have an opinion on this too actually. There was sufficient
> (intentionally-created) unclarity in an action attempt that could be mapped
> onto either deregistration (R754i) or UNDAD (per contract you had clear
> knowledge of) s
2009/1/8, comex :
>
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 1:57 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2331
> >
> > == CFJ 2331 ==
> >
> >The current Speaker is Michael Norrish.
> >
> >
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Elliott Hird wrote:
> On 8 Jan 2009, at 19:21, Taral wrote:
>
>> An unfortunate typo. R754(i).
>
> Degregister is defined by the UNDAD which I knew very well about. There is
> sufficient ambiguity, and the CFJ judgment recently passed on the matter by
> Goethe agrees.
>
> I b
On 8 Jan 2009, at 19:21, Taral wrote:
An unfortunate typo. R754(i).
Degregister is defined by the UNDAD which I knew very well about.
There is sufficient ambiguity, and the CFJ judgment recently passed
on the matter by Goethe agrees.
I believe I am now an UNDAD party.
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:25 AM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
>
> On 8 Jan 2009, at 07:08, Ed Murphy wrote:
>
>> Mon 29 Dec 22:52:22 ehird deregisters (disputed, CFJ 2323)
>
> Honestly... I clearly said degregister.
An unfortunate typo. R754(i).
--
Taral
"Please let me know if there's any further troub
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> As long as you're copying Oracularities from 4E B, why not also copy the
> way they take effect when the case can no longer be appealed?
Oracularities were originally just Proposals tied to a Question, which
were automatically destroyed if the A
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 09:10 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
>>> comex and I weren't scamming the paragraph you were scamming, in that
>>> case. The takes-precedence paragraph (the second-last) includes
>>> "requires", as do
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 09:10 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> > comex and I weren't scamming the paragraph you were scamming, in that
> > case. The takes-precedence paragraph (the second-last) includes
> > "requires", as does the third paragraph; however, our scam
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> comex and I weren't scamming the paragraph you were scamming, in that
> case. The takes-precedence paragraph (the second-last) includes
> "requires", as does the third paragraph; however, our scam was based on
> the paragraph and subsections between those, w
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> I initiate an inquiry CFJ with II 2 into the statement {{If a player
>> gives consent for other players to act on eir behalf without creating or
>> modifying a contract for the purpose, such consent actually does allow
>> those players to act on eir behalf.}
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 08:55 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
> As long as you're copying Oracularities from 4E B, why not also copy the
> way they take effect when the case can no longer be appealed? (Though
> B's time limit there was four days rather than two weeks, so maybe the
> judge can implement eir
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 08:49 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> ugh. I'm now so convinced my scam didn't work I can't quite stand to
> not post the argument and see wrong ones. Sorry if this spoils some
> fun, here's the argument, any refutations?
>
> The section of the Holiday rule in question is only
ais523 wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 08:36 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Counterargument: act-on-behalf doesn't require a contract, it only
>> requires consent. The intent behind this case was to determine
>> whether Wooble's request constituted implicit consent (I expect not,
>> but this will set
ehird wrote:
> On 8 Jan 2009, at 08:32, Ed Murphy wrote:
>
>> * RBoA (Treasurer)
>> * PBA (Coinkeepor)
>
> If you're gonna do that, pick _one_ bank...
No.
ais523 wrote:
> * OBVIOUS, appropriate if the statement was uncontroversially true
Should be OBVIOUSLY.
> When a judge assigns a positive or negative judgement, e SHALL in the
> same message submit a proposal (known as the case's Standardisation
> Proposal) which would, if adopted:
>
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
>> Gratuitous arguments: There blatantly isn't an act-on-behalf here,
>> because there's no way a contract with ehird as its only party can allow
>> em to act on behalf of Wooble. However, the judge should probably look
>> at if Wooble's request
ugh. I'm now so convinced my scam didn't work I can't quite stand to
not post the argument and see wrong ones. Sorry if this spoils some
fun, here's the argument, any refutations?
The section of the Holiday rule in question is only triggered if a
Rule "requires" something be done by a certain
woggle wrote:
>>a) The Rules Committee, consisting of the Rulekeepor, the
>> Promotor, the Assessor, the Grand Poobah, the Speaker,
>> and the Anarchist.
> I think the speaker would be a better fit in administration.
The Speaker is included here because e can affec
ais523 wrote:
> Gratuitous arguments: There blatantly isn't an act-on-behalf here,
> because there's no way a contract with ehird as its only party can allow
> em to act on behalf of Wooble. However, the judge should probably look
> at if Wooble's request to ehird was R2164/3 para 2 consent to all
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 9:49 PM, comex wrote:
>> I intend to appeal this judgement with two support.
>> Arguments: This deserves a REASSIGN under the corruptive self-interest
>> clause.
>
> Granted writing a quick judgment right before the Holiday deadl
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 07:53 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> I flip my judicial rank to 3. I object to each of the below intents
>> (for at least as long as it might take others to respond). -Goethe
> Many of them are on already-assigned cases, but that's prob
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 07:53 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I flip my judicial rank to 3. I object to each of the below intents
> (for at least as long as it might take others to respond). -Goethe
Many of them are on already-assigned cases, but that's probably a wise
idea anyway.
Hmm... Agora shou
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Elliott Hird wrote:
> On 8 Jan 2009, at 14:24, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>> TRUE.
>
> What's your opinion on whether I'm an UNDAD party?
Do I need to have one?
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Warrigal wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:50 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
>> On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 23:08 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> Mon 5 Jan 21:32:10 Warrigal becomes a senator
>> Something's gone badly wrong here. How did Warrigal manage to last long
>> enough to become a Senat
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 10:21 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> I object to the inactivation of OscarMeyr and Pavitra, each of whom is
> clearly active, to save them the trouble.
Ugh, sorry. I skimmed through the messages far too quickly...
--
ais523
On 8 Jan 2009, at 14:24, Kerim Aydin wrote:
TRUE.
What's your opinion on whether I'm an UNDAD party?
On 8 Jan 2009, at 07:08, Ed Murphy wrote:
Mon 29 Dec 22:52:22 ehird deregisters (disputed, CFJ 2323)
Honestly... I clearly said degregister.
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> If you're gonna do that, pick _one_ bank...
IIB plz kthx
On 8 Jan 2009, at 08:32, Ed Murphy wrote:
* RBoA (Treasurer)
* PBA (Coinkeepor)
If you're gonna do that, pick _one_ bank...
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:50 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 23:08 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Mon 5 Jan 21:32:10 Warrigal becomes a senator
> Something's gone badly wrong here. How did Warrigal manage to last long
> enough to become a Senator without accidentally deregistering emsel
I've been thinking a lot about CFJs and how they work. Inquiry CFJs have
been much the same for a while, and I reckon it's time for a radical
shakeup. This proto is based partly on BlogNomic and partly on B's 4th
Era, with some of my own ideas added in. This is a protoproto really, it
isn't tidying
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 9:49 PM, comex wrote:
> I intend to appeal this judgement with two support.
> Arguments: This deserves a REASSIGN under the corruptive self-interest clause.
My scam's success hinges entirely on whether preemptive objections
work, whether Goethe's scam worked is irrelevant t
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 00:32 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Create a rule titled "Committee Membership" with Power 2 and this text:
>
> The following committees exist, consisting of at least the
> following members:
>
> a) The Rules Committee, consisting of the Rulekeepor, the
>
On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 23:18 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
> For castes, see the Grand Poobah's report.
> For inactive and non-first-class players, see the Registrar's report.
> For players in the chokey, see the CotC's report.
This boilerplate probably needs changing. Chokey's now done in terms of
Rests.
On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 23:14 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Text of adopted proposals:
>
> }{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
>
> Proposal 6027 (Democratic, AI=2.0, Interest=1) by Elysion
>
>
> Amend rule 2124 (Agoran Satisfaction) by appending the following
> sent
On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 23:08 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Mon 5 Jan 21:32:10 Warrigal becomes a senator
Something's gone badly wrong here. How did Warrigal manage to last long
enough to become a Senator without accidentally deregistering emself
again?
--
ais523
On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 20:13 -0500, Sgeo wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 9:45 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 21:22 -0500, comex wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 9:05 PM, Charles Schaefer
> >> wrote:
> >> > Inquiry CFJ: {The current Speaker is Michael Norrish.}
> >>
> >> See CFJs
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 00:32, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Proto-Proposal: Committees
> (AI = 3, II = 2, please)
>
> Create a rule titled "Committees" with Power 3 and this text:
>
> Each rule is assigned to zero or more committees. Changing
> whether a rule is assigned to a committee is secured
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 10:49 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2325
>
> = Criminal Case 2325 =
>
>j violated Rule 2170 by selecting (in B Nomic) a nickname that
>has generally been used to refe
Proto-Proposal: Committees
(AI = 3, II = 2, please)
Create a rule titled "Committees" with Power 3 and this text:
Each rule is assigned to zero or more committees. Changing
whether a rule is assigned to a committee is secured, with a
power threshold equal to that rule's power.
64 matches
Mail list logo
