On Tue, 17 Feb 2009, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
>> 6109 D 1 3.0 comex Right to vote
> PRESENT. It's unclear how this would interact with the Penrose-Banzhaf
> or Shapley-Shubik power indices.
Heh. Actually calculated these for an Agoran voting distribution
a few years ago, when trying
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 8:53 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009, The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
>> 6109 D 1 3.0 comex Right to vote
> AGAINST. (1) Gives all partnerships votes.
I actually made the proposal without thinking of that.
Goethe wrote:
>> 6115 O 1 1.0 Murphy Get on with it!
> 2xFOR (but why is ending the voting period power 1?)
R107 (Power 3) prevents ending it less than seven days after it begins.
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 6:02 PM, Alexander Smith wrote:
> Murphy wrote:
>> Amend paragraph 5 of rule 869 to read:
>>
>> A player CAN deregister by announcement. A person CANNOT
>> register within thirty days after deregistering by any means
>> that e initiated with the clear intent
On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 11:11 -0600, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
> Alex Smith wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 12:02 -0500, Sgeo wrote:
> >> I Contest this NoV on the basis that it is unclear whether it is
> >> possible to violate a SHOULD.
> >
> > I initiate a criminal case into the circumstances surrou
Alex Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 12:02 -0500, Sgeo wrote:
>> I Contest this NoV on the basis that it is unclear whether it is
>> possible to violate a SHOULD.
>
> I initiate a criminal case into the circumstances surrounding this NoV,
> to try to find out whether it is possible to violate
On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 12:02 -0500, Sgeo wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Alexander Smith wrote:
> > I NoV against Sgeo for violating rule 1750 by failing to read the
> > ruleset during Read the Ruleset week, and also failing to
> > understand or to carefully weigh the consequences of this
On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 08:42 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 6:39 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > I nominate Murphy for rulekeepor.
>
> This message serves to initiate and resolve the Agoran Decision to
> choose the holder of the Rulekeepor office. The eligible voters are
> the
2009/2/17 Kerim Aydin :
>
> I pledge that I CAN resolve any CFJ (whether assigned to me or not) by
> standing
> on my head and saying "QUACK".
>
> If asked to reconsider, I shall say "MOO".
>
> We can now repeal the judicial system, and R101(ii) will remain satisfied.
>
> -Goethe
Thanks!
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 12:54 AM, Taral wrote:
> I PBA-withdraw as many 2 crops as I can.
all 6 for ^279
> I PBA-withdraw as many X crops as I can.
6 for ^237, leaving you with ^12
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 8:37 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> [Disclaimer: Some of the following may fail due to lack of funds.]
> I PBA-withdraw a 5 crop.
> I PBA-withdraw a 5 crop.
> I PBA-withdraw a 5 crop.
> I PBA-withdraw a 5 crop.
> I PBA-withdraw a 5 crop.
> I PBA-withdraw a 5 crop.
> I PBA-withdraw
I wrote:
> There are a /lot/ of rules which assume that "is" definitions do not
> necessarily imply immutability, I think. I may go looking for more
> examples sometime. I also feel that assumptions made by the rules are
> quite a good reflection of game custom, even if they do not necessarily
> de
Goethe wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > [Yes, I'm aware of the counterargument that "defaults" *might* mean
> > another rule of lower power *might* be able to change it, but an
> > equal reading is "defaults" in this context might mean that if it is
> > not set at the time of su
Goethe wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> > CoE: Proposal 6072 has an AI of 3.
>
> It occurs to me that this is an unexplored point of failure:
> The adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1
> from 1.0 to 9.9. It may be set by the proposer at the ti
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> [Yes, I'm aware of the counterargument that "defaults" *might* mean
> another rule of lower power *might* be able to change it, but an
> equal reading is "defaults" in this context might mean that if it is
> not set at the time of submission, this is what
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> CoE: Proposal 6072 has an AI of 3.
It occurs to me that this is an unexplored point of failure:
The adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1
from 1.0 to 9.9. It may be set by the proposer at the time of
submission, o
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> I pledge that I CAN resolve any CFJ (whether assigned to me or not) by
>> standing
>> on my head and saying "QUACK".
>>
>> If asked to reconsider, I shall say "MOO".
>>
>> We can now repeal the judicial system, and R101(ii) will
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I pledge that I CAN resolve any CFJ (whether assigned to me or not) by
> standing
> on my head and saying "QUACK".
>
> If asked to reconsider, I shall say "MOO".
>
> We can now repeal the judicial system, and R101(ii) will remain satisfied.
The reason that this doesn't w
18 matches
Mail list logo
