On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 7:02 PM, comex wrote:
> CFJ: It is possible to change the contestmaster of a contest through a
> contract-defined dependent action.
>
> Arguments: Although Rule 2136 authorizes an existing contest to change
> its contestmaster, Rule 1728 reads:
>
> A person CAN perform
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 6:55 PM, comex wrote:
> I transfer one coin to the entity formerly known as Rule 2184. :P
Fails; the entity formerly known as Rule 2184 is not a Comrade.
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, comex wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Seems to be a part of Zefram's mass generalizations. Although even
>> with the distinction, when something ceases to be a rule, it pretty
>> much no longer exists in legal Agoran terms (at least in normal
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, comex wrote:
> Whether or not I attempted to repeal a rule, repealing doesn't destroy
> the thing but merely cause it to "cease to be a rule", which
> definitely counts as modifying an aspect of it. By Rule 105 it's
> impossible to actually destroy a rule at power < 3.
Ah, I
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, Sgeo wrote:
>> I win by Junta.
>
> Iff this works, and comex has no Rests, and previous assumptions of
> wins are correct:
>
> comex gains the Patent Title of Champion, for Winning by Junta. comex
> gains the Patent Title of Minister without Portfolio. The title of
> Minister
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> You'll probably kill me for this, but even if it worked, you'll
> probably have to CFJ on whether this was a win announcement.
It's not, but a win announcement isn't required to win by Junta.
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> comex wrote:
>
>> I cause Rule 2238 to destroy Rule 2140 (Power Controls Mutability).
>
> Oh, honestly. Surely existence is a "substantive aspect" of an
> instrument, thus triggering R2140(c) and blocking this.
Destroying something is not alter
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, comex wrote:
>> I win by Junta.
>
> You'll probably kill me for this, but even if it worked, you'll
> probably have to CFJ on whether this was a win announcement.
>
> I submit the following Proposal, "I did so win", AI-2:
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
> When a rule's text comes to have the exact form " more persons> CAN cause this rule to make arbitrary rule changes
> by announcement."
When a clause in a rule's text, not the whole text. -G.
comex wrote:
> I cause Rule 2238 to destroy Rule 2140 (Power Controls Mutability).
Oh, honestly. Surely existence is a "substantive aspect" of an
instrument, thus triggering R2140(c) and blocking this.
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, comex wrote:
> * destroy arbitrary entities
> I cause Rule 2238 to destroy Rule 2140 (Power Controls Mutability).
Heh heh.
Pro: "Destroy" is not very strongly regulated and not secured, etc.
Anti: "Destroy" in the context of a Rule is a very reasonable synonym
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> Hmm... there are probably far more than two interpretations of what's
> going on, just as in the previous one-hit wonders scam. I think it may
> be a good step to identify what exactly they are.
There are a couple orthogonal issues here. The first is whet
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> At this point, I'm more curious to see whether the escalation worked,
> rather than eager to prove that it worked. I like scams, but I don't
> like trying to convince people that scams worked when they blatantly
> didn't. As for this one, I don't know; I st
On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 14:23 +, Elliott Hird wrote:
> I leave the AAA zombification contract.
No you don't, that requires a week's notice.
--
ais523
On Wed, 2009-02-11 at 21:37 -0500, Warrigal wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> > I call for judgement on the statement "Rule 2211 is a proposal."
> >
> > Arguments: the precedent of the famous CFJ 1656 implies that rule 2211
> > is a proposal (it states that anything mat
15 matches
Mail list logo
