On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> comex recused: 27 Feb 2009 15:22:49 GMT
> Assigned to ehird: 27 Feb 2009 15:22:49 GMT
I'm not going to CoE this, but please, Murphy, make it show case
transfers. Maybe a check for matching recuse/ass
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> "intent" was too overloaded, but "advanced" isn't in the ruleset (yet) :).
... it's "advance notice", isn't it?
--
Taral
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On 2009-02-28, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> I submit the following proposal, Nothing Original, AI-3:
>
> --
>
> Create a Rule with the following text and a power of 3:
>
>Goethe CAN cause this rule to amend itself by announcement.
>
>
comex wrote:
> I win by Junta.
I've updated this to the Hall of Fame web page. Please remind me to
fix it if it's later determined to have failed for some reason.
> I destroy all my Rests. (This is 6 notes' worth; I spent 7 on the
> original scam.)
Likewise the draft Insulator's report (which
Goethe wrote:
> Notice of Violation:
> Actor: ehird.
> Action: Failure to publish a an apology explaining eir error, shame,
> remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement, ASAP after
> being sentenced to GUILTY/APOLOGY in CFJ 2347.
> Rule violat
ehird wrote:
> I initiate a criminal CFJ against myself for violating rule 101 by
> failing to be a pink elephant.
> Arguments: I did it. I accept full responsibility for my breach of the
> rules. I am guilty.
> Arguments: According to Goethe, if you admit you breached the rules
> you're guilty, r
ehird wrote:
> I initiate a criminal CFJ against myself for violating rule 101 by
> failing to be a pink elephant.
> Arguments: I did it. I accept full responsibility for my breach of the
> rules. I am guilty.
> Arguments: According to Goethe, if you admit you breached the rules
> you're guilty, r
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 13:35 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> It was created by the edited proposal 6072, when it was enacted, to
>>> replace the repealed rule 2238. (CFJs have just ruled that the proposal
>>> was successfully edited, and that the Agoran Decisi
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> Actually, that was proposal 6084 that would have repealed it, so comex
> got the amendment in first; it's just that there was a subsequent mess
> of CFJs, as always, and it seems e held off on setting off the win until
> after it was settled, so
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 14:06 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 13:47 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
> >> comex wrote:
> >>
> >>> I create 7 E notes in the AFO's possession. This fails, because the
> >>> AFO is not a player. Oh well.
> >> I'm surprised you didn't re-regi
ais523 wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 13:47 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> comex wrote:
>>
>>> I create 7 E notes in the AFO's possession. This fails, because the
>>> AFO is not a player. Oh well.
>> I'm surprised you didn't re-register the AFO while you were at it.
>
> The AFO doesn't really work
Goethe wrote:
> (4) if the action is to be performed with Advanced Notice,
> then it has any number of supporters or objectors,
> including zero.
"then no additional restrictions are placed on the number of
supporters or objectors."
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 13:47 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
> comex wrote:
>
> > I create 7 E notes in the AFO's possession. This fails, because the
> > AFO is not a player. Oh well.
>
> I'm surprised you didn't re-register the AFO while you were at it.
The AFO doesn't really work if any of its partne
comex wrote:
> I create 7 E notes in the AFO's possession. This fails, because the
> AFO is not a player. Oh well.
I'm surprised you didn't re-register the AFO while you were at it.
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 13:35 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > It was created by the edited proposal 6072, when it was enacted, to
> > replace the repealed rule 2238. (CFJs have just ruled that the proposal
> > was successfully edited, and that the Agoran Decision on it successfully
> > enacted the edit
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
>>1) Without N Objections:
>> defaults N=1 and D=4
>> minimums N>=1 and D>=4
>
> Works reasonably well, though we should probably say that N
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
>1) Without N Objections:
> defaults N=1 and D=4
> minimums N>=1 and D>=4
Works reasonably well, though we should probably say that N and D are
numbers so we don't decide that they're llamas or something. :)
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Er, I'm lost now. How/when was r2241 created again? -G.
P6072 created it, since R2238 had already repealed itself earlier.
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 13:25 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, comex wrote:
> > I cause Rule 2241 to amend itself to read:
> >
> > comex CAN cause this rule to do any of the following by announcement:
> > * amend itself
> > * make arbitrary rule changes
>
> Er, I'm los
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alex Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 12:32 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Please check the following for errors/wording improvement/bugs?
>
> It breaks badly if more than one method is specified, "With support and
> without objection" becomes rathe
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, comex wrote:
> I cause Rule 2241 to amend itself to read:
>
> comex CAN cause this rule to do any of the following by announcement:
> * amend itself
> * make arbitrary rule changes
Er, I'm lost now. How/when was r2241 created again? -G.
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 12:32 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Please check the following for errors/wording improvement/bugs?
It breaks badly if more than one method is specified, "With support and
without objection" becomes rather insane under those definitions (I
can't figure out what happens at all g
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> Please check the following for errors/wording improvement/bugs?
I think the R2124 patch (from the previous version of this proposal) was
a little hacky. Fixing it, though, probably requires reworking the
entire rule.
Replace:
Please check the following for errors/wording improvement/bugs?
Amend Rule 1728 (Dependent Actions) by replacing:
a) The rules explicitly authorize the performer to perform the
action by a set of one or more of the following methods (N
is 1 if not otherwise specified):
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> That's a good point. I could probably generalize to "N days Advanced
>> Notice" where N is between 4-13, defaulting to 4. Then put it in for
>> deputisation etc. -G.
>
> Between 2-13 you mean? O
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> That's a good point. I could probably generalize to "N days Advanced
> Notice" where N is between 4-13, defaulting to 4. Then put it in for
> deputisation etc. -G.
Between 2-13 you mean? Or even 1-13, although I can't think of
anything I'd
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Sgeo wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> A hack would be specifying the result as Without PLAYERS+1 objections
>> but that's a hack.
>>
>> -G.
>
> Isn't something like this already the case for deputization?
That's a good point. I could probably
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> "With intent."
"intent" was too overloaded, but "advanced" isn't in the ruleset (yet) :).
-G.
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> I'm trying to think of a good name for a process to add to dependent
> actions which is effectively without objections; that is, the
> player must announce intent and wait four days, but can then do it.
>
> I think this might be the right ba
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 11:26 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I'm trying to think of a good name for a process to add to dependent
> actions which is effectively without objections; that is, the
> player must announce intent and wait four days, but can then do it.
>
> I think this might be the right
I'm trying to think of a good name for a process to add to dependent
actions which is effectively without objections; that is, the
player must announce intent and wait four days, but can then do it.
I think this might be the right balance to both giving the defendant
time to respond to a case,
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Crimes committed during the voting period could also have been NoVed
> and crim-cased during the voting period, though this would be more
> difficult toward the end; I should have made the cutoff no later than
> the start of the voting period. Of course, if
Goethe wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Elliott Hird wrote:
>> 2009/2/27 Kerim Aydin :
>>> As pointed out, the previous NoV was not in fact an NoV.
>>>
>>> Notice of Violation:
>>> Actor: Â Â Â Â Â ehird.
>>> Action: Â Â Â Â Failure to publish a an apology explaining eir error,
>>> shame,
>>
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Elliott Hird wrote:
>> 2009/2/27 Kerim Aydin :
>>> Crime: Class-3 Crime of Failure to Apologize (R1504).
>>
>> Is this not also invalid per R2239?
>
> Probably. Is failure to publish something instantaneous upon the time limi
comex wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:47 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Also, I think I found a dangling reference in the FLR the other day; I
>> can't remember what it was, but it's probably a good idea to scan it
>> for references to repealed rules.
>
> Confirmed that there was a dangling referen
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Elliott Hird wrote:
> 2009/2/27 Kerim Aydin :
>>
>> As pointed out, the previous NoV was not in fact an NoV.
>>
>> Notice of Violation:
>> Actor: ehird.
>> Action: Failure to publish a an apology explaining eir error, shame,
>> remorse, and ard
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:47 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Also, I think I found a dangling reference in the FLR the other day; I
> can't remember what it was, but it's probably a good idea to scan it
> for references to repealed rules.
Confirmed that there was a dangling reference to R2193, which has
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 09:56 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
>>> I intend, without two objections, to create a Medal (as defined by the
>>> rule which will be created by my Champion's Contests proposal if it
>>> passes) in
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 10:03 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> > I intend, without two objections, to create a Medal in the possession of
> > Enigma.
>
> If I am not a member of Enigma, I join Enigma.
>
> I object to the proposed change in the Enigma contest text
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 12:50 PM, comex wrote:
> The judgement that ruled that the rule exists was published two days
> ago, before which I thought it probably didn't, and we haven't even
> reached the appeals deadline. I'm kind of conservative with this and
> I don't believe Zefram ever recorded
2009/2/27 Kerim Aydin :
>
> As pointed out, the previous NoV was not in fact an NoV.
>
> Notice of Violation:
> Actor: ehird.
> Action: Failure to publish a an apology explaining eir error, shame,
> remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement, ASAP after
>
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 09:56 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> > I intend, without two objections, to create a Medal (as defined by the
> > rule which will be created by my Champion's Contests proposal if it
> > passes) in the possession of Enigma.
>
> I Object.
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> I intend, with Support, to publish an NoV accusing H. Rulekeepor comex
> of violating Rule 2215, a Power 1 Rule, by publishing a copy of the
> ruleset which doesn't include the rule created by P6072, in an attempt
> to mislead the other play
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, comex wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 12:39 AM, Sgeo wrote:
>>> [stuff]
> Whether or not someone confessing to breaking the rules should be
> considered guilty prima facie, this isn't that case. Goethe, if you
> don't want the judge to have to look the case up, why did your
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 12:03 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Given that if e'd put the rule in, we would have accused em of trying
>> to ratify a scam or something, I'd say all these fall into "dammed if
>> e does, dammed if e doesn't", in other words, R150
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 12:03 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Given that if e'd put the rule in, we would have accused em of trying
> to ratify a scam or something, I'd say all these fall into "dammed if
> e does, dammed if e doesn't", in other words, R1504(e). -G.
The Ruleset doesn't self-ratify and c
ais523 wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 08:47 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> I support both of these. I, for one, think that any alleged ambiguity
>> in the state of the rules should be reported prominently (possibly by
>> adding a separate include-file directive to the top of the code that
>> auto-gen
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:34 PM, comex wrote:
>> THE SHORT LOGICAL RULESET
>
> I publish an NoV accusing comex of violating R2223, a Power-2 Rule, by
> failing to amend the rule created by P6072 as soon as possible after
> it was enacted to remove eir
ais523 wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 15:05 +, Alex Smith wrote:
>> Ah, good point. Probably the first intent will fail then, though. (It
>> would definitely fail if someone forms a contract that defines "Medal"
>> in the meantime.) The second intent should still succeed, though.
>
> Ah, I se
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 08:52 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 13:33 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
> >> Proposal: Support Plutocracy
> >> (AI = 2, please)
> >>
> >> Create a rule titled "Support Plutocracy" with Power 2 and this text:
> >>
> >> A player CAN, with
2009/2/27 Ed Murphy :
> Denied:
My mind, 'tis slipping.
ehird wrote:
> 2009/2/27 Ed Murphy :
>> ais523 wrote:
>>
I register with the name "ehird".
>>> H. Insulator Murphy / H. Herald Sgeo, how many Rests does ehird have at
>>> the moment?
>> 5.
>
> CoE: 4, according to last Insulator report.
Denied:
> Insulator's Fnord Report
>
> Date of this
ais523 wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 13:33 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Proposal: Support Plutocracy
>> (AI = 2, please)
>>
>> Create a rule titled "Support Plutocracy" with Power 2 and this text:
>>
>> A player CAN, with 4 support, change a democratic decision
>> with Adoption Index l
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 08:47 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Wooble wrote:
>
> > I intend, with Support, to publish an NoV accusing H. Rulekeepor comex
> > of violating Rule 2215, a Power 1 Rule, by publishing a copy of the
> > ruleset which doesn't include the rule created by P6072, in an attempt
> > to
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> I think the above notice might be invalid; isn't Failure to Apologise a
> defined Crime?
Indeed, I missed that. -g.
Wooble wrote:
> I intend, with Support, to publish an NoV accusing H. Rulekeepor comex
> of violating Rule 2215, a Power 1 Rule, by publishing a copy of the
> ruleset which doesn't include the rule created by P6072, in an attempt
> to mislead the other players as to its existence. It's extremely
2009/2/27 Ed Murphy :
> ais523 wrote:
>
>>> I register with the name "ehird".
>> H. Insulator Murphy / H. Herald Sgeo, how many Rests does ehird have at
>> the moment?
>
> 5.
CoE: 4, according to last Insulator report.
ais523 wrote:
>> I register with the name "ehird".
> H. Insulator Murphy / H. Herald Sgeo, how many Rests does ehird have at
> the moment?
5.
> (And ehird: you should have waited a couple of days before
> reregistering, you'd only have had half as many...)
E would have had 2.
> This meets
> de
2009/2/27 Kerim Aydin :
> Notice of Violation:
> Actor: ehird.
> Action: Failure to publish a an apology explaining eir error, shame,
> remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement, ASAP after
> being sentenced to GUILTY/APOLOGY in CFJ 2347.
> Rule
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 15:05 +, Alex Smith wrote:
> Ah, good point. Probably the first intent will fail then, though. (It
> would definitely fail if someone forms a contract that defines "Medal"
> in the meantime.) The second intent should still succeed, though.
Ah, I see what was going on. CFJ
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 10:00 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
> > On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 09:51 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> >> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 9:49 AM, Aaron Goldfein
> >> wrote:
> >> > A player CAN, with 2 support, change an ordinary deci
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 09:51 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 9:49 AM, Aaron Goldfein
>> wrote:
>> > A player CAN, with 2 support, change an ordinary decision to be democratic
>> > provided the voting of the people has no
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 08:54 -0600, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 8:49 AM, Aaron Goldfein
> wrote:
> Proposal: Democracy When Reasonable (AI = 2, II = 0)
> {
> Change the text of rule 2142, Support Democracy from:
> A player CAN, with 2 suppor
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 09:51 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 9:49 AM, Aaron Goldfein
> wrote:
> > A player CAN, with 2 support, change an ordinary decision to be democratic
> > provided the voting of the people has not already commenced
>
> The voting of the people commence
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 9:49 AM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> A player CAN, with 2 support, change an ordinary decision to be democratic
> provided the voting of the people has not already commenced
The voting of the people commences when the decision is created.
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 14:44 +, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 09:41 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:34 PM, comex wrote:
> > > THE SHORT LOGICAL RULESET
> >
> > I publish an NoV accusing comex of violating R2223, a Power-2 Rule, by
> > failing to amend th
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 9:40 AM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> Except couldn't there be some weird loop where some decide to change a
> decision to ordinary and then others decide to change it back.
Yes, but once the voting period ends the pro-Ordinary faction would
win once P6116 passes.
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 09:41 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:34 PM, comex wrote:
> > THE SHORT LOGICAL RULESET
>
> I publish an NoV accusing comex of violating R2223, a Power-2 Rule, by
> failing to amend the rule created by P6072 as soon as possible after
> it was enacte
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 6:04 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 13:33 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
> > Proposal: Support Plutocracy
> > (AI = 2, please)
> >
> > Create a rule titled "Support Plutocracy" with Power 2 and this text:
> >
> > A player CAN, with 4 support, change a democr
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 08:14 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 7:48 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
> > I intend, without two objections, to create a Medal in the possession of
> > Enigma.
>
> I object. I don't trust the contestmaster of Enigma not to form a scam
> alliance with comex a
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 12:39 AM, Sgeo wrote:
>> [stuff]
>
> As far as I remember, my confession was not that I violated a rule,
> just that I failed to throughly consider the consequences of not
> reading the ruleset during read the ruleset week.
This-- and e contested the NoV (as far as I can s
On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 13:33 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Proposal: Support Plutocracy
> (AI = 2, please)
>
> Create a rule titled "Support Plutocracy" with Power 2 and this text:
>
> A player CAN, with 4 support, change a democratic decision
> with Adoption Index less than 3 to be ordin
On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 17:56 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, comex wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 8:32 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >> Notice of Violation:
> >> Actor: ehird.
> >> Action: Failure to publish a an apology explaining eir error,
> >> shame,
> >>
73 matches
Mail list logo
