On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 7:32 PM, comex wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 7:26 PM, Charles Reiss wrote:
Anyone CAN cause this rule to amend itself by announcement.
>>> NoV: The PNP violated Rule 1607 by distributing this proposal (a
>>> mangled copy of P6069).
>>
>> I contest this. It's not cl
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 7:03 PM, comex wrote:
> I just meant that it's not doing any harm by failing to vote and thus
> diluting the power of the committee-- the reason I initially assumed
> for the inactivations.
Actually I just didn't want to track committee memberships consisting
of a bunch of
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 7:26 PM, Charles Reiss wrote:
>>> Anyone CAN cause this rule to amend itself by announcement.
>> NoV: The PNP violated Rule 1607 by distributing this proposal (a
>> mangled copy of P6069).
>
> I contest this. It's not clear to me that actually violates R1607
> (although if
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> So you just mean "it doesn't matter because TNP2 never votes on
> anything in practice, even though it could in theory"?
I just meant that it's not doing any harm by failing to vote and thus
diluting the power of the committee-- the reason I ini
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
> Note that the intent of the proposal was that contesting NoVs due to a
> belief that their punishment is unjust is valid, and a reasonable use of
> contestment. There is also precedent, in OscarMeyr punishing ehird with
> APOLOGY rather than SI
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 4:18 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> In R2158, replace every instance of "SHALL" with "SHOULD".
>
> In R2143, replace every instance of "SHALL" with "SHOULD".
Every instance? AGAINST.
--
Taral
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknow
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Goethe wrote:
> No, I'm just saying we're playing fast enough that letting high-activity
> offices (which high-priority is meant to more-or-less match) fall behind
> by as much as a quarter, or even a month, is annoying. Both catch-up
> and ongoing maintena
Goethe wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Goethe wrote:
>>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009, comex wrote:
> I would suggest formalizing the notion of recordkeepors for individual
> contracts (e.g. the AAA's SoA) and instructing the Notary to give them
> edit privs to just their own
On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 14:07 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
>
> > I vote as follows:
>
> NttPF, and please trim out the text of the proposals.
I hit send by mistake, explaining the untrimmed text, the incompleteness
of the votes, and the nttpfness.
--
ais523
ais523 wrote:
> I vote as follows:
NttPF, and please trim out the text of the proposals.
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Goethe wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009, comex wrote:
I would suggest formalizing the notion of recordkeepors for individual
contracts (e.g. the AAA's SoA) and instructing the Notary to give them
edit privs to just their own contract.
>>
>> Old A
On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 13:56 -0800, The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
> NUM C I AI SUBMITTER TITLE
I vote as follows:
> 6063 D 0 2.0 Taral NoV acceptance fix
FOR
> 6064 D 1 2.0 Wooble Adding to the Game
AGAINST; I think the rules can handle this, in that if all
Goethe wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009, comex wrote:
>>> I would suggest formalizing the notion of recordkeepors for individual
>>> contracts (e.g. the AAA's SoA) and instructing the Notary to give them
>>> edit privs to just their own contract.
>
> Old Agoran system: formalize a recordkeepor, then
comex wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> comex wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Geoffrey Spear
>>> wrote:
I intend, without objection, to make The Normish Partnership 2 inactive.
>>> I object. (This doesn't have any practical impact on committees
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009, comex wrote:
>> I would suggest formalizing the notion of recordkeepors for individual
>> contracts (e.g. the AAA's SoA) and instructing the Notary to give them
>> edit privs to just their own contract.
Old Agoran system: formalize a recordkeepor, then require they publish
t
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> 1) Spambots
Well, accounts given to any requesting player would suffice, I suppose.
> 2) Players making incorrect edits, whether through malice or accident
I think we can avoid malice on the honor system. As for accident, if
anyone messes up
comex wrote:
> Please note that the following NoVs may be invalid due to the holiday:
Validity = well-formed-ness, not correctness.
comex wrote:
> Proposal: Notary wiki (AI=2)
>
> Amend Rule 2178 (Public Contracts) by replacing:
> Changes in the text or list of parties of a public contract do
> not become effective until they are published.
>
> with:
> A wiki is a website which can be reasonably accessed an
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> comex wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Geoffrey Spear
>> wrote:
>>> I intend, without objection, to make The Normish Partnership 2 inactive.
>>
>> I object. (This doesn't have any practical impact on committees
>> AFAIK, as only p
comex wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> I intend, without objection, to make The Normish Partnership 2 inactive.
>
> I object. (This doesn't have any practical impact on committees
> AFAIK, as only players who voted count.)
Why would that be? This is just str
comex wrote:
> Proposal: Make the Conductor's job easier (AI=2, II=0)
>
> Amend Rule 2228 (Rests) by removing ", whose recordkeepor is the
> Conductor", and by adding this paragraph after the first paragraph:
>
> The Anticonductor is an office, and the recordkeepor of Rests.
>
> [E has en
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> 14 ais523
> 3 avpx
> 14 BobTHJ
> 4 cdm014
> 26 comex
> 2 ehird
> 3 Elysion
> 7 Goethe
> 6 harblcat
> 21 Murphy
> 12 OscarMeyr
> 2 pikhq
> 7 Quazie
> 22 root
> 3 Sgeo
> 7 Sir Toby
>
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 11:27 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> [Been meaning to call this since Rests were enacted. Seems to be suddenly
>> more pressing]
>>
>> I CFJ on the following statement: If the Rules specify that a player is
>> to receive a Note for per
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 10:04, comex wrote:
> I move to Beer Hall.
> I become Rebellious.
[snip]
>
> I publish the following.
> Each of BobTHJ, woggle, OscarMeyr violated Rule 2157 by failing to act
> collectively to ensure the panel assigned a judgement to CFJ 2027a
> ASAP [15 days, 2:29:04]
Arg
On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 11:27 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> [Been meaning to call this since Rests were enacted. Seems to be suddenly
> more pressing]
>
> I CFJ on the following statement: If the Rules specify that a player is
> to receive a Note for performing a required (i.e. a SHALL) action, an
On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 14:12 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> I contest all of these. I don't necessarily think they're all unfair
> or incorrect, but I've carefully weighed the full implications of
> doing so anyway, most of which involve me not having to count several
> hundred Rests in 4 days and
On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 13:04 -0500, comex wrote:
> ais523 violated Rule 2158 by failing to assign a judgement to CFJ 2246
> ASAP [8 days, 2:54:02]
Looking over this one, it seems I did in fact break the letter of the
rules. The context was a mousetrap scam against the Protection Racket,
where the di
Please note that the following NoVs may be invalid due to the holiday:
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 1:04 PM, comex wrote:
> Goethe violated Rule 2158 by failing to assign a judgement to CFJ 2311
> ASAP [17 days, 18:38:28]
> BobTHJ violated Rule 2158 by failing to assign a judgement to CFJ 2314
> ASAP
On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 13:30 -0500, comex wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> > Replacing VP with coins is fine. Giving all the Vote Market parties a
> > free ride for the VP they've spent is not.
>
> I've tried selling my votes several times, even for very cheap (10
> c
On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 18:08 +, Elliott Hird wrote:
> On 26 Jan 2009, at 18:04, Alex Smith wrote:
>
> > I support this appeal, as it's ridiculous that the permanent record
> > of a
> > case contains no arguments at all (from the judge or anyone else)
> > as to
> > why the judgement is corre
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> Replacing VP with coins is fine. Giving all the Vote Market parties a
> free ride for the VP they've spent is not.
I've tried selling my votes several times, even for very cheap (10
coins), but I don't believe any of my votes have ever been bo
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> I don't think they are embassies within the letter of the rules, but
> they're definitely embassies in spirit.
>
> Luckily, embassyness doesn't do anything atm, IIRC.
It affects committee membership, which I have to track.
On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 10:42 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> To avoid filing excess CFJs, I'll just ask for general opinions on
> this one: are PNP and TNP2 embassies? I'm not even sure what it would
> mean for their related nomics' rules to designate that they represent
> the nomics in Agora since
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009, comex wrote:
> Proposal: Make the Conductor's job easier (AI=2, II=0)
>
> Amend Rule 2228 (Rests) by removing ", whose recordkeepor is the
> Conductor", and by adding this paragraph after the first paragraph:
>
> The Anticonductor is an office, and the recordkeepor of Res
On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 00:02 -0800, Taral wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 12:03 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> > I award Murphy as many y-points as are specified in the contract for
> > players who did not give eligible answers (because the Notary website
> > seems out-of-date and I'm not sure how many t
On Sun, 2009-01-25 at 23:26 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Wooble wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 8:28 PM, comex wrote:
> >> On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 5:54 PM, Geoffrey Spear
> >> wrote:
> >>> comex violated R2158 (power 2) by failing to assign a judgement to CFJ
> >>> 2316 as soon as possible af
On 26 Jan 2009, at 18:04, Alex Smith wrote:
I support this appeal, as it's ridiculous that the permanent record
of a
case contains no arguments at all (from the judge or anyone else)
as to
why the judgement is correct. Just a few sentences explaining the
error
in my reasoning would have s
ehird wrote:
> On 26 Jan 2009, at 17:49, Ed Murphy wrote:
>
>> What does this have to do with the "or deregister" addendum, which you
>> specifically complained about and I specifically rebutted?
>
>
> "won't get you dinged any harder than failing to publish the report"
Please stop assuming th
On Sun, 2009-01-25 at 20:28 -0500, comex wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 5:54 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> > comex violated R2158 (power 2) by failing to assign a judgement to CFJ
> > 2316 as soon as possible after e become assigned to it as Judge.
> >
> > comex violated R2158 (power 2) by failing
On 26 Jan 2009, at 17:49, Ed Murphy wrote:
What does this have to do with the "or deregister" addendum, which you
specifically complained about and I specifically rebutted?
"won't get you dinged any harder than failing to publish the report"
ehird wrote:
> On 26 Jan 2009, at 07:05, Ed Murphy wrote:
>
>> Gratuituous: Failing to deregister won't get you dinged any harder
>> than failing to publish the report, so this is no worse than a
>> straightforward "ehird SHALL publish on time" etc. (and technically
>> better, as it gives you an
ehird wrote:
> On 26 Jan 2009, at 17:27, Ed Murphy wrote:
>
>> Gratuituous: You could have asked comex to agree to amend Bayes to
>> let
>> it perform its duties under manual control during server outages.
>
> We already can, but SHOULD NOT.
IMO a server outage is sufficient grounds to overr
Wooble wrote:
> I intend to deputize for the Notary to publish eir reports.
>
> H. Notary Website Administrator Murphy, can I get editing privs on the wiki?
Sure, create an account and let me know the name.
Taral wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 12:03 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
>> I award Murphy as many y-points as are specified in the contract for
>> players who did not give eligible answers (because the Notary website
>> seems out-of-date and I'm not sure how many that is).
The website was last update
On Sun, 2009-01-25 at 14:32 -0800, Charles Reiss wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 07:50, comex wrote:
> > Vote Points are worthless and nobody knows how many anyone has.
> > Perhaps more importantly, the VM doesn't need its own currency
> > anymore: there is a viable alternative currency (coins) t
On 26 Jan 2009, at 17:27, Ed Murphy wrote:
Gratuituous: You could have asked comex to agree to amend Bayes to
let
it perform its duties under manual control during server outages.
We already can, but SHOULD NOT.
On 26 Jan 2009, at 17:22, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Except that Rule 1504 contains a standard for what an apology must
contain (remorse etc., and the word "apology" has a standard english
meaning, neither of which are true for the term "Cantus Cygnus", so
your
text was not an Apology by either the
ehird wrote:
> On 26 Jan 2009, at 07:14, Ed Murphy wrote:
>
>> Parties of Bayes, I inform you of this equity case (2351) and invite
>> you to submit arguments regarding the equitability of the situation.
>
> I did it, as getting my server running again is one of my least
> priorities out-of-game
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> I submit the following AI-2 proposal entitled "Adding to the Game":
> {{
> Goethe is a co-author of this proposal.
>
> In R2158, replace every instance of "SHALL" with "SHOULD".
>
> In R2143, replace every instance of "SHALL" with "SHOULD".
> }}
I woul
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009, Elliott Hird wrote:
> On 26 Jan 2009, at 08:21, Taral wrote:
>
>> I suggest you look at Rule 1504 a little more closely.
>
> CFJ: {{
> If I submitted "The following is my Cantus Cygneus: {pigs
> are delicious!!}" to the Registrar, it would be a Cantus
> Cygneus
> }}
>
> (I arg
To avoid filing excess CFJs, I'll just ask for general opinions on
this one: are PNP and TNP2 embassies? I'm not even sure what it would
mean for their related nomics' rules to designate that they represent
the nomics in Agora since their rules are code and have no place for
such abstractions.
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 11:35 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> I published NoVs accusing players of violating rules in the past week,
> none of which were made for personal reasons. comex responded by
> digging up violations that occurred months ago, including violations
> by panels that e didn't accu
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 6:50 AM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> I would stop comex doing such things, but I'd have to have his consent
> to act on behalf of Bayes.
You consented to cause Bayes to accept the nomination. I don't
believe you have any outstanding intents to act on behalf of Bayes, so
I'm not
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 6:34 AM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> I did it, as getting my server running again is one of my least
> priorities out-of-game ATM. I would implore an Agoran court not to
> obligate me to take out of game actions such as putting up a server.
I would be happy to run Bayes on anoth
On 26 Jan 2009, at 11:40, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
I suggest the parties to Bayes stop putting obligations on it that it
can't perform.
I would stop comex doing such things, but I'd have to have his consent
to act on behalf of Bayes.
On 26 Jan 2009, at 07:05, Ed Murphy wrote:
Gratuituous: Failing to deregister won't get you dinged any harder
than failing to publish the report, so this is no worse than a
straightforward "ehird SHALL publish on time" etc. (and technically
better, as it gives you an additional option, though
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 2:17 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Gratuituous: The backing document of props had been restored to legal
> standing by the time this CFJ was initiated. If ais523 wanted to ask
> whether props remained an asset while it lacked such standing, e should
> have done so.
I believe ei
On 26 Jan 2009, at 04:35, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
I published NoVs accusing players of violating rules in the past week,
none of which were made for personal reasons. comex responded by
digging up violations that occurred months ago, including violations
by panels that e didn't accuse the other
On 26 Jan 2009, at 03:35, Ed Murphy wrote:
and while I just need to record that they happened, the Conductor
has to
record whether they were contested and/or CFJed, and the Rests thereby
produced.
I intend, without objection, to flip the Interest Index of the
Office of
Conductor to 2.
I
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 7:03 AM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> My apology:
I suggest you look at Rule 1504 a little more closely.
--
Taral
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
60 matches
Mail list logo
