DIS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 6051-6055

> 6051 D 1 2.0 Goethe Durn Furriners FOR > 6052 D 1 2.0 Murphy Easier hermitage FOR > 6053 D 2 3.0 Murphy Committees AGAINST > 6054 D 1 2.0 Wooble Fix SILENCE FOR > 6055 O 0 1.0 Wooble [Anarchist] Repeal The Repeal-o-Matic FOR * 3

DIS: Re: BUS: Farming

On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 7:23 PM, Charles Reiss wrote: > I PBA-withdraw 2 7 crops. > > I mill 7 + 3 = X. > I mill 8 - 9 = X. > I mill 8 - 9 = X. > I mill 4 * 8 = X. > I mill 7 / 4 = X. > I mill 7 / 4 = X. > I mill 7 / 4 = X. The PBA had no 7 crops, but you had enough for this all to work when you d

DIS: Re: BUS: PBA non-report

On 12 Jan 2009, at 09:39, Alex Smith wrote: I PBA-deposit all my PV. (Note that the backing document for PV may have "may"? No, it did.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Speaker

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009, Alex Smith wrote: > Somebody did just that, in B. I proposed replacing it with Agora's > ruleset (but not gamestate). Those should be signs of how messed up B is > at the moment... It would be interesting to see what an independent group (note: B's not, but may be enough so)

Re: DIS: Proto: A radical inquiry CFJ change

On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 3:57 AM, Alex Smith wrote: >> (Otherwise it could be interpreted as giving the judge the choice of >> true or false in the case of negative judgements. And we wouldn't >> want that, now would we?) > We may as well do, although a judge submitting a proposal that was > direct

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2326 judged GUILTY / SILENCE (3.4 or 1.7) by OscarMeyr

On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 4:10 AM, Alex Smith wrote: > Might be good to get the Rulekeepor to clean the rule, though. I'm not sure that counts as a spelling and/or grammar correction.

DIS: Re: BUS: Watcher WoodsPam

On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 4:32 AM, Alex Smith wrote: > I support. (Yes, I know this doesn't do anything, but IIRC it's > possible.) AOL!

DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2312 judged GUILTY / SILENCE (3) by OscarMeyr

> Accordingly, I find Defendant root GUILTY and sentence the ninny to > SILENCE of 3 Rests, one for each upheld NoV. I'm treating this as creating 1 Rest in root's possession; I believe R1504 is sufficiently unambiguous in stating that a number equal to the breached rule's power is created, so eve

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A trivial paradox?

On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 4:07 AM, Alex Smith wrote: > It's pretty rare for them to actually work; even the Gnarly Contract > (the only recent one I can remember working) needed two tries. Also, can > we please fix that loophole, now? (I submitted a proposal to fix it, but > IIRC it was voted down.)

DIS: Re: BUS: PBA non-report

On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 4:39 AM, Alex Smith wrote: > When the backing document for props was decontractised by proposal (N.B. > we since altered the gamestate to what would have happened if it wasn't, > but the change nevertheless occurred), props continued to be tracked > informally: they were re

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Full Logical Ruleset

On Fri, 2009-01-09 at 09:31 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 com...@gmail.com wrote: > > THE FULL LOGICAL RULESET > > > [Note (28 June 2007): A rendering of the escutcheon of Agora is at > > .] > > Note: broken link. > The picture's on

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Activity check

On Fri, 2009-01-09 at 11:16 -0500, comex wrote: > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 10:58 PM, Siege wrote: > > I object to my own deactivation (Siege). I'm here, just biding my time. > > NttPF I won't resolve that particular intent after such a good-faith (if slightly scary) attempt to object to it. -- ai

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Speaker

On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 20:20 -0500, Benjamin Schultz wrote: > 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. >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2326 judged GUILTY / SILENCE (3.4 or 1.7) by OscarMeyr

On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 23:06 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > 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 R

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A trivial paradox?

On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 13:17 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > 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

Re: DIS: Proto: A radical inquiry CFJ change

On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 15:48 -0600, Pavitra wrote: > 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 e

Re: DIS: argument against

On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 09:27 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > 2. Since these clauses are only triggered when the rules make a > future event (including a time limit) contingent on a past event This is the crux of the matter, I think. The question is about what happens if something is a time limit but no