On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 7:36 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> They aren't a currency, and the rules very very strongly imply that
> non-currency assets are not fungible.
Imply isn't worth the number of letters to spell it. Game custom
strongly implies that they are fungible.
--
Taral
"Please let me know
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 21:42, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I submit the following proposal, AI 1, II 0, named {coppro Discusses Too
> Much}:
> {{{
> Amend rule 1922 by adding a bullet with the following text:
> {{
> (i) All Talk, to be awarded to someone who repeatedly and
> consistency se
Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> I flip my posture to sitting.
>
> -Yally
I flip my judicial rank to Supreme.
Getting a little off topic here... Internomic gives two weeks to respond to
all submitted proposals. Don't you think the ambassador should instead be
required to submit all of Internomic's proposals for voting so that the
general Agoran population can participate in each Internomic decision?
-Yall
Taral wrote:
> What makes you think Rests aren't fungible?
They aren't a currency, and the rules very very strongly imply that
non-currency assets are not fungible.
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I withdraw the CoE, having noticed that the appeals panel can only
> destroy those Rests created with regards to the previous judgment, and
> that those Rests were never created according to the self-ratified March
> 15 Fnord!. Since Rests are no
2009/3/26 Kerim Aydin :
> well yeah, that's why I remember it... do you suppose you still have those
> particular rests?
I think I do. I hope not to in the near future, though.
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Ooh boy.
>
> But if rests are not fungible, the recordkeepor would be required to
> track each rest as a distinct thing, and attempts to destroy rests
> would have to match, e.g. "I hereby destroy the rest that was created
> when I broke rule foo." We don't do that.
>
> Ther
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009, Elliott Hird wrote:
> 2009/3/25 Kerim Aydin :
>> There was a previous time this came up, when some of ehird's rests
>> were judged
>
> ...by you :-)
well yeah, that's why I remember it... do you suppose you still have those
particular rests?
2009/3/25 Kerim Aydin :
> There was a previous time this came up, when some of ehird's rests
> were judged
...by you :-)
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Sean Hunt wrote:
>> Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> Denied. The history reflects that destruction. (The real discrepancy
>>> is the creation of those rests in the first place; it happened on March
>>> 10, but I missed including it in the March 15 report.)
>>
>> CoE:
Attempting to revive this because I think it had potential that was
never explored previously. In an effort to overcome comex's scam on
Nomic Wars II, and to combat past objections that the contract could
be used to mousetrap participants I have separated the "nomic wars"
game from the contract lan
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009, Taral wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> CoE: No CoE was submitted; the March 15 report has since self-ratified.
>> Taral has two Rests more than e should.
>
> Yay!
I don't mind this at all, but I wonder if self-ratification shouldn't
be slightly l
2009/3/25 Ed Murphy :
> You could put them on a web page and announce the URL.
>
Aaargh! Think of the archivists!
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> CoE: No CoE was submitted; the March 15 report has since self-ratified.
> Taral has two Rests more than e should.
Yay!
--
Taral
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
ais523 wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 10:16 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 2:49 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
>>> /me considers sending Enigma puzzles via private email to all
>>> contestants to avoid a repeat of this sort of thing in the future...
>> -1, if non-contestants don't see
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009, comex wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
> wrote:
>> But if I don't want to clutter the ruleset with "If Agora has not
>> joined Internomic 2, the ambassador SHALL join internomic 2 in a
>> timely fashion", how should I do?
>
> "...the ambassador SHALL
comex wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
> wrote:
>> But if I don't want to clutter the ruleset with "If Agora has not
>> joined Internomic 2, the ambassador SHALL join internomic 2 in a
>> timely fashion", how should I do?
>
> "...the ambassador SHALL join Internomic 2 in
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
wrote:
> But if I don't want to clutter the ruleset with "If Agora has not
> joined Internomic 2, the ambassador SHALL join internomic 2 in a
> timely fashion", how should I do?
"...the ambassador SHALL join Internomic 2 in a timely fashion. After
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> although I can imagine a proposal creating a
> platonic, power-1 obligation floating around in nomicspace somewhere...
It's called "Invisibilitating" and it is actually still a Crime, as
far as I know! So do it at your own risk!
-Goethe
2009/3/25 Alex Smith :
> On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 19:12 +0100, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
>> Okay, I guess I didn't really know exactly what was allowed since I
>> just read "outline changes to the gamestate". The only thing I can see
>> that would stop it is that it requires higher power than the 1 it ge
On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 19:12 +0100, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
> Okay, I guess I didn't really know exactly what was allowed since I
> just read "outline changes to the gamestate". The only thing I can see
> that would stop it is that it requires higher power than the 1 it gets
> from adoption index, bu
2009/3/25 comex :
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 9:11 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn
> wrote:
>> Add the following after the third section of rule 2148 (the ambassador):
>> "If a foreign nomic allows for one player to join on behalf of Agora,
>> only the ambassador may do so. The ambassador MAY then, without 3
>>
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Mar 2009, comex wrote:
>> Testing, sorry for the spam
>
> Uh oh... any time-sensitive cron activities coming up...
Oh I'm sorry, that came out wrong. I'm meant to be Cassandra...
BEWARE.THE IDES.OF CRON...
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009, comex wrote:
> Testing, sorry for the spam
Uh oh... any time-sensitive cron activities coming up...
On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 10:16 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 2:49 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
> > /me considers sending Enigma puzzles via private email to all
> > contestants to avoid a repeat of this sort of thing in the future...
>
> -1, if non-contestants don't see the puzzles unti
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 2:49 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
> /me considers sending Enigma puzzles via private email to all
> contestants to avoid a repeat of this sort of thing in the future...
-1, if non-contestants don't see the puzzles until it's too late, then
they have less inclination to join the c
On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 10:27 -0400, comex wrote:
> Testing, sorry for the spam
I object.
(Sorry, couldn't resist...)
--
ais523
On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 06:24 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
>
> > I intend to appeal CFJ 2426 with 2 support, because its reasoning is
> > based on that of CFJs 2424 and 2425, and they should therefore be
> > appealed as a set or not at all.
>
> ITYM 2423.
>
Oh, I misread your message, a
ais523 wrote:
> I intend to appeal CFJ 2426 with 2 support, because its reasoning is
> based on that of CFJs 2424 and 2425, and they should therefore be
> appealed as a set or not at all.
ITYM 2423.
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 9:11 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn
wrote:
> Add the following after the third section of rule 2148 (the ambassador):
> "If a foreign nomic allows for one player to join on behalf of Agora,
> only the ambassador may do so. The ambassador MAY then, without 3
> objections, take any acti
On Tue, 2009-03-24 at 18:46 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Alex Smith wrote:
> > "READ ME" by ais523:
> Oh drat, I made a mistake! New answer (suffers no ambiguities!):
>
> 8414004
>
Answers only count if submitted privately. (You've made this bad enough,
make sure that your answer officially counts a
32 matches
Mail list logo
