On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> root wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>>> Ed Murphy wrote:
== CFJ 2418 ==
Spent assets are destroyed, unless they are specified as being
>>
Ian Kelly wrote:
> By "lack of a reason to find otherwise", are you intentionally
> excluding CFJ 1854?
>
> -root
Yes, because the text of rule 2126 defining spending assets was added
after CFJ 1854 was resolved, meaning that it has been superseded
(indeed, the CFJ dealt with that specific rule).
root wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> == CFJ 2418 ==
>>>
>>> Spent assets are destroyed, unless they are specified as being
>>> transferred to a different owner than their previous
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 12:42 PM, comex wrote:
> I CFJ on the statement: { A rule was amended in the message in which
> this CFJ was called. }
Ugh. This is why I voted AGAINST.
--
Taral
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Ed Murphy wrote:
>> == CFJ 2418 ==
>>
>> Spent assets are destroyed, unless they are specified as being
>> transferred to a different owner than their previous owner.
>
> The only
The following proto-proposal is named {Contractual Offices} with
Adoption Index 3 (text in square brackets is annotations and not part of
the actual proposal):
{{{
Create the following 2-power rule named {Contractual Offices}:
{{
A contract may define an office. Such an office is called a
On Mar 16, 2009, at 4:42 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
I have castes as follows, please let me know of any errors:
Alpha: Goethe
Beta: Billy Pilgrim
Gamma: j, OscarMeyr, Pavitra, Taral, woggle, Wooble
Delta: cmealerjr, Murphy
Epsilon: BobTHJ, comex, coppro, Craig, Dvorak Herring, ehird,
On Mar 16, 2009, at 12:16 AM, Warrigal wrote:
I register.
Using the ordinary language definition of "deregister", I deregister
from the Small Partial Mousetrap.
If everything goes horribly, this will be my shortest playerhood yet.
--Warrigal
Welcome back, Warrigal!
-
Benjamin Schultz
On Mar 15, 2009, at 12:57 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I submit the following proposal, No choice, no vote AI-3:
-
0scarMeyr and Wooble are coauthors
^^
Letter O, not number 0, if you please.
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
wrote:
>> This fails as it is inadequate to clearly identify either Rule 2148
>> (The Ambassador) or Rule 2185 (Foreign Relations).
>
> Well, dang. If anyone cares (you should care since you voted for it) I
> meant the Ambassador one, so it's the nu
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 12:34 PM, comex wrote:
>> Proposal 6137 (Ordinary, AI=1.0, Interest=0) by Tiger
>> Ambassador Anarchy
>> Repeal Rule 2148 (Foreign Relations)
>
> This fails as it is inadequate to clearly identify either Rule 2148
> (The Ambassador) or Rule 2185 (Foreign Relations).
Well,
Warrigal wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> I publish an NoV accusing Warrigal of violating R2215, a power-1 rule,
>> by claiming that the text containing the rules of B Nomic that e
>> published was a pledge with the intent of misleading the other players
>> into
Goethe wrote:
> Reminds me, as promised: I spend D F# A to increase ais523's caste by 1.
I've updated this to the Assessor DB.
On Mon, 2009-03-16 at 13:06 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
>
> > I'm very disappointed that you didn't find a way to escalate that to
> > power 3. What a waste of a good scam!
>
> I could have added "rules with lower Power take precedence over rules
> with higher Power", but then you wou
ais523 wrote:
> I'm very disappointed that you didn't find a way to escalate that to
> power 3. What a waste of a good scam!
I could have added "rules with lower Power take precedence over rules
with higher Power", but then you would have hit me.
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 3:15 PM, comex wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> Note: the text e published is a private contract whose parties are the
>> players of B Nomic, but we certainly haven't unanimously agreed to
>> make it a public contract.
>
> Is the wiki inco
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> Note: the text e published is a private contract whose parties are the
> players of B Nomic, but we certainly haven't unanimously agreed to
> make it a public contract.
Is the wiki incorrect? A search shows no mention of Agora in it,
where
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Warrigal wrote:
>> I believe precedent is that flipping a certain Agoran switch (namely,
>> Citizenship) is not the same as an explicit, willful agreement to be
>> bound by the rules. I see no reason the sam
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Warrigal wrote:
> I believe precedent is that flipping a certain Agoran switch (namely,
> Citizenship) is not the same as an explicit, willful agreement to be
> bound by the rules. I see no reason the same shouldn't be true of
> becoming a player of B.
Rule 1-4: "
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-03-16 at 10:25 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> In the example ais523 gives for points, the difference matters for
>> it depletes a reserve of points awardable for a particular contest.
>> However, that means the consequences differ. In the curren
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 8:46 AM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> Hm, why?
'cuz I'm lazy.
--
Taral
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 8:46 AM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> The contract does not permit him to leave.
Attempting to, then. Either way, I'm not recording a deregistration.
--
Taral
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> Ambiguous actions are normally taken to fail. I'm not sure whether the
> action Murphy tried was ambiguous enough to cause it to fail, but it
> certainly isn't completely clear-cut. Rule changes are held to a higher
> standard, as is shown by this quote fro
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 12:25 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I CFJ on the following: There is at least one player who is currently the
> ambassador (as the term "the ambassador" is used in the Rules).
>
> Arguments:
>
> R2148 has been repealed.
Gratuitous: As Rulekeepor, I am assuming that the repeal
On Sun, 2009-03-15 at 16:21 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> ais...@normish.org wrote:
>
> > As permitted by the rule created by proposal 6130, I cause
> > Rule 2223 (Win by Junta) to amend itself to change its text
> > to "Any non-player partnership whose basis contains no other
> > members but ais523,
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 11:16 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I intend, with support of the People, to amend the PBA as follows in
> four days:
> {{
> Change section 12 to read {The Coinkeepor is coppro.}
>
> Add a new section, reading
> {Each Comrade should endeavour to assist the Coinkeepor in producing
2009/3/16 Warrigal :
> It's yet another of my schemes to give Agora a fungible, liquid,
> relatively stable currency.
Ah.
I'm not sure I think it's interesting enough.
2009/3/16 Taral :
> On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 8:16 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> I intend, with support of the People, to amend the PBA as follows in
>> four days:
>> {{
>> Change section 12 to read {The Coinkeepor is coppro.}
>>
>> Add a new section, reading
>> {Each Comrade should endeavour to assist th
2009/3/16 Taral :
> On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 9:16 PM, Warrigal wrote:
>> Using the ordinary language definition of "deregister", I deregister
>> from the Small Partial Mousetrap.
>
> Registrar's note: I read this as leaving some kind of contract, not
> deregistering from the game.
The contract doe
2009/3/16 Sean Hunt :
> That shouldn't stop me from agreeing to it, but if you wish to be pedantic:
No, it really should.
> I create and agree to a contract with the following text:
Wasn't it terminated by proposal?
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 11:19 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Sean Hunt wrote:
>> I intend, without objection by any party to The Cookie Jar, to amend
>> paragraph 5 by replacing "The initiation of a judicial case" with "The
>> initiation of a judicial case by a player" four days from this message.
>
> I h
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 9:22 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> What about having the resolution of the proposal count as the win
> announcement?
The idea is that the player's own action should always cause the win,
so e can take care of eir Rests and not have to worry about timing
issues.
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 11:24 PM, Warrigal
> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 12:14 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> > The provision about rests is unnecessary; as the Agora Corporation is a
> > second-class person.
>
> Indeed. Let's make it "Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the
> voting limit of Ag
33 matches
Mail list logo
