2009/3/27 Geoffrey Spear :
> published by a sniveling little rules-breaking shit
Jackass.
> I have no doubt it contains at least 5 self-serving scams.
I've read it and it doesn't. comex has been very clear that he
wouldn't abuse a high-profile office in such a way.
2009/3/26 Ed Murphy :
> Rodlen wrote:
>
>> Oh right, and I had better hail Eris.
>>
>> Hail Eris.
>>
>> There.
>
> I yell CREAMPUFF.
>
I support.
(Is this Mornington Nomic all of a sudden?)
--
-Tiger
On 3/26/09 2:12 PM, comex wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>
>> I initiate an equity case regarding the PerlNomic Partnership, the
>> parties to which are Dvorak, RainerWasserfuhr, Wooble, ais523, comex,
>> ihope. The state of affairs not envisioned by the contra
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> I initiate an equity case regarding the PerlNomic Partnership, the
> parties to which are Dvorak, RainerWasserfuhr, Wooble, ais523, comex,
> ihope. The state of affairs not envisioned by the contract was
> comex's willful use of the Partner
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Taral wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> Oh, you're right. Taral, how hard would it be to allow overriding
>>> the usual Reply-To: by, say, including {{{ Reply-To: ais...@foo.bar }}}
>>> somewhere within the first 5 lines of
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 3:18 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I firmly believe that the publication of a false fact is inherently
> misleading. If it is done purposefully, it is purposefully misleading.
>
> I do see your argument. What you claim is that you published a document,
> and that it's not your
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Oh, you're right. Taral, how hard would it be to allow overriding
> the usual Reply-To: by, say, including {{{ Reply-To: ais...@foo.bar }}}
> somewhere within the first 5 lines of the body?
I dunno. What's the use-case here?
--
Taral
"Please
Rodlen wrote:
> Oh right, and I had better hail Eris.
>
> Hail Eris.
>
> There.
I yell CREAMPUFF.
Goethe wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Goethe wrote:
>>
>>> But if it's found that assets that we've treated as fungible are
>>> not in fact fungible, then all attempts to destroy rests, at least,
>>> have failed. Right?
>> The self-ratification of the March 15 report has papere
ais523 wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 13:21 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> 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
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, comex wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Attempts to ratify a deliberately inaccurate gamestate are inherently
>> misleading. This may be EXCUSED if the gamestate can't be reconstructed
>> (so there's a reason for it), but otherwise it is not.
Charles Reiss wrote:
> Actually, let's try this again.
>
> I retract all my votes on the decision to adopt proposal 6167.
>
> I submit the following ballot:
> {
> decision to adopt proposal 6167: AGAINST
> }
>
> -woggle
>
woggle's got the right idea here.
I retract all my votes on the decisio
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 8:56 AM, The PerlNomic Partnership <
perlno...@nomictools.com> wrote:
> This distribution of proposal 6167 initiates the Agoran
> Decisions on whether to adopt it. The eligible voters for ordinary
> proposals are the active players, the eligible voters for democratic
> pro
2009/3/26 The PerlNomic Partnership :
> NUM C I AI SUBMITTER TITLE
> 6167 D 1 3.0 comex Foo
I vote AGAINST this proposal.
--
-Tiger
On Thu, 2009-03-26 at 10:13 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I object to the intent. I vote AGAINST 6167. I raise the point
> that a record of votes is part of resolving a decision, but not actually
> part of anyone's Report as far as I can tell (that must be explicitly
> defined as being part of a Re
2009/3/26 Taral :
> Proposal: Real Officers
> AI=2
>
> Make any office currently held by a second-class person vacant.
>
> Amend rule 1006 (Offices) by replacing "player" with "first-class player".
Aw, then we can't play the Bayes Anarchist Algorithm contest :-P
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, Elliott Hird wrote:
> 2009/3/26 Kerim Aydin :
>> I guess my options are ignore one out of three, response to all and
>> get annoyed/frustrated/exhausted, or just deregister for a time and
>> take a breath. Not sure which is best right now.
>>
>> -Goethe
>
> 's just a game.
>
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-03-26 at 09:39 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
>> I submit the following Proposal, "enough again already", AI-2:
>>
>> --
>> [The PNP was the last partnership which seemed to just
2009/3/26 Kerim Aydin :
> I guess my options are ignore one out of three, response to all and
> get annoyed/frustrated/exhausted, or just deregister for a time and
> take a breath. Not sure which is best right now.
>
> -Goethe
's just a game.
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Repeal Rule 2145 (Partnerships).
FOR, vehemently so.
--
Taral
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, comex wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 12:26 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
>>> Proposal 6167 (Democratic, AI=3.0, Interest=1) by comex
>>> Foo
>>>
>>> Create a Power=3 Rule which reads: { comex CAN cause this rule to amend
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-03-26 at 08:56 -0700, The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
>> Proposal pool: empty
>
> I NoV against comex for violating the power-2 rule 1742 by violating the
> PNP by causing it to fail to meet all its obligations. I contest that
>
2009/3/26 Kerim Aydin :
> Bayes has been quiet lately... are you still doing anything with it
> actively? -G.
I haven't got round to it and I plan to remove some of the more
irritating things it did before re-activating it, but I do intend to
revive it.
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 10:39 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I submit the following Proposal, "enough again already", AI-2:
>
> --
> [The PNP was the last partnership which seemed to justify
> partnerships existing. Now it is also comp
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, Elliott Hird wrote:
> 2009/3/26 Kerim Aydin :
>>
>
> Bbut Bayes!
>
Bayes has been quiet lately... are you still doing anything with it
actively? -G.
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Attempts to ratify a deliberately inaccurate gamestate are inherently
> misleading. This may be EXCUSED if the gamestate can't be reconstructed
> (so there's a reason for it), but otherwise it is not. -Goethe
You're trying to shoehorn my a
On Thu, 2009-03-26 at 09:39 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> I submit the following Proposal, "enough again already", AI-2:
>
> --
> [The PNP was the last partnership which seemed to justify
> partnerships existing. Now it is also
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 12:26 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
>> Proposal 6167 (Democratic, AI=3.0, Interest=1) by comex
>> Foo
>>
>> Create a Power=3 Rule which reads: { comex CAN cause this rule to amend
>> itself
>> by announcement. }
>
> While
2009/3/26 Kerim Aydin :
>
>
> I submit the following Proposal, "enough again already", AI-2:
>
> --
> [The PNP was the last partnership which seemed to justify
> partnerships existing. Now it is also compromised. When
> do we fin
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, comex wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 12:18 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> 1. Attempting to ratify a false fact essentially "misleads" everyone
>> in the game into accepting it as truth or effectiveness.
>> 2. In terms of double penalties, comex is wholly unrepentant on
>> repe
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 12:18 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> 1. Attempting to ratify a false fact essentially "misleads" everyone
> in the game into accepting it as truth or effectiveness.
> 2. In terms of double penalties, comex is wholly unrepentant on
> repeated uses of such tecniques.
The message
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
> Proposal 6167 (Democratic, AI=3.0, Interest=1) by comex
> Foo
>
> Create a Power=3 Rule which reads: { comex CAN cause this rule to amend itself
> by announcement. }
While I respect anyone has the right to do these things, I'm really bored o
Elliott Hird wrote:
> Comex triggered the activation himself, obviously. This is clearly not
> standard operating procedure.
That doesn't change the fact that the PNP is being sloppy.
2009/3/26 Sean Hunt :
> This is outright incorrect. No CoE is formally required due to the fact
> that it isn't self-ratifying, but this most certainly does not count as
> as fulfillment of the PNP's duties to report the Proposal Pool.
>
> This sort of thing is why I'm running for Promotor.
>
Come
The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
> Proposal pool: empty
This is outright incorrect. No CoE is formally required due to the fact
that it isn't self-ratifying, but this most certainly does not count as
as fulfillment of the PNP's duties to report the Proposal Pool.
This sort of thing is why I'm runn
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 03:04, Jonatan Kilhamn
wrote:
>> 11. (Rating=4, Owner=null) Creating a new section is a Battle Action
>> with a cost of 2.
> Exactly what is a section? I don't really get it, the rest of the
> rules imply that players create rules against each other, but what you
> can crea
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 17:35 -0600, 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, bu
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Goethe wrote:
>
>> But if it's found that assets that we've treated as fungible are
>> not in fact fungible, then all attempts to destroy rests, at least,
>> have failed. Right?
>
> The self-ratification of the March 15 report has papered over any
> errors
On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 16:54 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> 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
On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 17:35 -0600, 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 rep
On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 13:21 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> 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 sor
> 11. (Rating=4, Owner=null) Creating a new section is a Battle Action
> with a cost of 2.
Exactly what is a section? I don't really get it, the rest of the
rules imply that players create rules against each other, but what you
can create is sections. How do you get war-rules into your sections?
-
Goethe wrote:
> But if it's found that assets that we've treated as fungible are
> not in fact fungible, then all attempts to destroy rests, at least,
> have failed. Right?
The self-ratification of the March 15 report has papered over any
errors earlier than that.
ehird wrote:
> 2009/3/25 Ed Murphy :
>> You could put them on a web page and announce the URL.
>>
>
> Aaargh! Think of the archivists!
Oh, you could post them directly to a-b when it came time to report
the results.
44 matches
Mail list logo
