Enable JS.
On 2009-03-11, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 23:29 +, Alex Smith wrote:
>> On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 15:50 +, Alex Smith wrote:
>> > I intend, with Agoran Consent, to make Einos
>> > (http://einos-nomic.blogspot.com/) a protectorate.
>>
>> I confirm, as Ambassador, that
On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 23:29 +, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 15:50 +, Alex Smith wrote:
> > I intend, with Agoran Consent, to make Einos
> > (http://einos-nomic.blogspot.com/) a protectorate.
>
> I confirm, as Ambassador, that Einos meets the conditions to be a
> Protectorate.
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Goethe wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 11 Mar 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 09:58 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
ais523 wrote:
> Also, I have a much better idea. Get the PNP to join the contest and
> make a guess that's the amount it's dis
Goethe wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Mar 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
>> On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 09:58 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> ais523 wrote:
>>>
Also, I have a much better idea. Get the PNP to join the contest and
make a guess that's the amount it's distributing, immediately before the
distribut
On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 20:11 +0100, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
> 2009/3/11 Alex Smith :
> > On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 19:49 +0100, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
> >> I agree to this contract.
> >> (or is that how you say when you want to join the contest?)
> > Yep, that's correct. It isn't a contest yet, just an o
2009/3/11 Alex Smith :
> On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 19:49 +0100, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
>> I agree to this contract.
>> (or is that how you say when you want to join the contest?)
> Yep, that's correct. It isn't a contest yet, just an ordinary contract
> atm; however, it's clearly intended to become a c
On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 19:49 +0100, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
> I agree to this contract.
> (or is that how you say when you want to join the contest?)
Yep, that's correct. It isn't a contest yet, just an ordinary contract
atm; however, it's clearly intended to become a contest, and there's an
intent t
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 09:58 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> ais523 wrote:
>>
>>> Also, I have a much better idea. Get the PNP to join the contest and
>>> make a guess that's the amount it's distributing, immediately before the
>>> distribution (maybe in the same
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
>
>> Also, I have a much better idea. Get the PNP to join the contest and
>> make a guess that's the amount it's distributing, immediately before the
>> distribution (maybe in the same message?)
>
> Anyone tries any funny stuff get
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> The CotC can bypass the 5-a-week restriction (obviously).
Read the contest.
2009/3/11 Ed Murphy :
>> The CotC could pull of a
>> similar trick if e wasn't the contestmaster.
>
> How? It's keyed on initiating cases, not assigning them.
>
The CotC can bypass the 5-a-week restriction (obviously).
On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 09:58 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
>
> > Also, I have a much better idea. Get the PNP to join the contest and
> > make a guess that's the amount it's distributing, immediately before the
> > distribution (maybe in the same message?)
>
> Anyone tries any funny stuf
ais523 wrote:
> Also, I have a much better idea. Get the PNP to join the contest and
> make a guess that's the amount it's distributing, immediately before the
> distribution (maybe in the same message?)
Anyone tries any funny stuff gets slapped with an equity case, hard.
> The CotC could pull o
2009/3/11 Alex Smith :
> Wouldn't work, you'd have non-contestants bribed to mess with it. (I
> recall ehird spamming CFJs to influence the AAA whilst believing emself
> not a party to it.)
I was a party to it, except I forgot. Oops.
On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 15:49 +, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 11:44 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> > > Even with multiple contestants capable of gaming it? I considered
> > > withdrawing my agreement and re-posting with a AAA-s
On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 11:44 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> > Even with multiple contestants capable of gaming it? I considered
> > withdrawing my agreement and re-posting with a AAA-style "contestants
> > SHALL NOT submit spam proposals / cases
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Even with multiple contestants capable of gaming it? I considered
> withdrawing my agreement and re-posting with a AAA-style "contestants
> SHALL NOT submit spam proposals / cases", but let's see how it plays
> out as is.
How about "contestant
comex wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 9:18 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> 4) The distribution of a proposal is a point-worthy event (counting
>> at most 5 proposals per author per week) for the X axis.
>
> Huh? So distributions are counted only if they have at least one
> non-excess proposal?
E
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 7:10 PM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> 2009/3/10 Ed Murphy :
>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2402
>>
>> = Criminal Case 2402 =
>>
>> Taral violated R2234, a power-2 rule, by not awarding me points
>>
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 9:18 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> 4) The distribution of a proposal is a point-worthy event (counting
> at most 5 proposals per author per week) for the X axis.
Huh? So distributions are counted only if they have at least one
non-excess proposal?
> 5) The initiation of a
On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 08:04 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I agree to these terms.
NttPF. (In other words, you sent to a-d, rather than a-b, by mistake;
don't worry, everyone does it.)
Note that there is judicial precedent that unlike other actions, it's
often possible to agree to a contract in a disc
Ed Murphy wrote:
> I agree to the following:
>
> 1) The name of this public contract is The Cookie Jar.
>
> 2) Any party to this contract CAN amend it without party objection.
>
> 3) For each event defined by this contract as point-worthy:
>
> a) Once per week, each contestant CAN by
22 matches
Mail list logo