On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 11:35 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Sean Hunt wrote:
>> I CFJ the statement {This statement is FALSE.}
> I CFJ the statement {Immediately after this case is assigned to a judge,
> the set of appropriate judgments for this case is a subset of {FALSE,
> UNDECIDABLE}.}
Probably also
Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> I CFJ the statement {This statement is FALSE.}
>
> UNDECIDABLE. Note that this is not eligible to become a tortoise,
> since it is not about the possibility or legality of a rule-defined
> action.
>
> -root
I know.
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I CFJ the statement {This statement is FALSE.}
UNDECIDABLE. Note that this is not eligible to become a tortoise,
since it is not about the possibility or legality of a rule-defined
action.
-root
Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> Admittedly I haven't been around for a long time and wouldn't know what
> customarily is considered a watcher. And since the rules provide no
> definition of a watcher, I am forced to come up with my own definition
> based on common sense. That is, in my opinion, a watcher i
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 9:49 PM, Elliott Hird <
penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 2009-04-13, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 9:03 PM, Sgeo wrote:
> >
> >> > WATCHERS (3)
> >> >
> >> > Nickname E-mail address Requested
> >> >
> >>
> -
Sean Hunt wrote:
> 6196 pragmatic ribbons D 2.0 1 Wooble
FOR
> 6197 Refactor contracts D 2.0 1 Murphy
FOR
> 6198 Depower winningD 2.0 1 Murphy
FOR
> 6199 Ancient history is low-priorityD 2.0 1
On 2009-04-13, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 9:03 PM, Sgeo wrote:
>
>> > WATCHERS (3)
>> >
>> > Nickname E-mail address Requested
>> >
>>
>> > Davedavidn
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 9:03 PM, Sgeo wrote:
> > WATCHERS (3)
> >
> > Nickname E-mail address Requested
> >
>
> > Davedavidni...@gmail.com 06 Jan 03
> WATCHERS (3)
>
> Nickname E-mail address Requested
>
> Dave davidni...@gmail.com 06 Jan 03
> Phlogistique noe.rubinst...@gmail.com 16
On Sun, 2009-04-12 at 23:01 +0100, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-04-12 at 22:51 +0100, Alex Smith wrote:
> > This is a list of public contracts. This may possibly omit certain
> > previously untracked pledges which were made public by proposal (by root
> > and Iammars). I'm also not entirely sur
On Sun, 2009-04-12 at 22:51 +0100, Alex Smith wrote:
> This is a list of public contracts. This may possibly omit certain
> previously untracked pledges which were made public by proposal (by root
> and Iammars). I'm also not entirely sure whether G1/G2/G3 still exist,
> or were terminated. See htt
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-04-12 at 13:53 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
>> > Almost certainly Murphy; IIRC, the first time a-b broke was after I
>> > joined, and Murphy's been CotC continuously ever since.
>>
On Sun, 2009-04-12 at 13:58 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
> Also, note that the other two panelists have judged AFFIRM and
> REASSIGN. If you enter an OVERRULE judgement, the overall result will
> be REMAND, which would be rather odd.
Well, not really. I can't think of any sensible way to average AFFIRM
On Sun, 2009-04-12 at 13:53 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> > Almost certainly Murphy; IIRC, the first time a-b broke was after I
> > joined, and Murphy's been CotC continuously ever since.
>
> We've certainly had downtimes before then. I think the
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> I agree with Goethe's Gratuitous arguments in that even if a game action is
> twice permitted by the rules, it is unnecessary to explicitly denote which
> individual instance of allowance permitted the rule. Had the different forms
> of empo
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> Almost certainly Murphy; IIRC, the first time a-b broke was after I
> joined, and Murphy's been CotC continuously ever since.
We've certainly had downtimes before then. I think there was one not
long after *I* first joined.
-root
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-04-12 at 14:40 -0400, comex wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
> > > I call for judgement on the statement "agora-business is a public
> > > forum".
> > >
> > > Arguments:
> > > a-b has been down twice
On Sun, 2009-04-12 at 14:40 -0400, comex wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
> > I call for judgement on the statement "agora-business is a public
> > forum".
> >
> > Arguments:
> > a-b has been down twice before. Arguably, while a forum is inaccessible
> > it isn't actual
On Sun, 2009-04-12 at 11:22 -0500, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> What's the problem with the formatting?
Here's a literal excerpt from your report:
Randy Olshawmoronservi...@gmail.com06 Apr 09
N
Rodlen rod
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-04-11 at 20:40 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
> > Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> > > Registrar's Census
> > I intend, without objection, to ratify the most recently published
> > Registrar's report (as of the time I perform the action) provided
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-04-10 at 23:39 -0500, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> > Given that http://irc.freenode.net:6667/#%23nomic is no longer
> > accessible, it will no longer be considered a forum.
>
> It is accessible; and forums don't become deforumed just b
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 9:40 AM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> Proposal: Fixing Rule 2150 Bug (AI = 3, II = 0):
>
> As Rule 2150 goes on to further disambiguate between biological persons and
> non-biological persons, it seems inaccurate to reference ALL persons as
> being strictly biological.
>
> Chang
On Sat, 2009-04-11 at 20:40 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> > Registrar's Census
> I intend, without objection, to ratify the most recently published
> Registrar's report (as of the time I perform the action) provided it has
> not had a CoE or inquiry case levied against it. The s
On Sat, 2009-04-11 at 12:46 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> root wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 9:17 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> >> root wrote:
> >>
> >>> I have a multiplication mill and a division mill. Whenever any farmer
> >>> transfers me three crops with clear instructions for milling two of
>
On Fri, 2009-04-10 at 23:39 -0500, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> Given that http://irc.freenode.net:6667/#%23nomic is no longer
> accessible, it will no longer be considered a forum.
It is accessible; and forums don't become deforumed just because they're
temporarily inaccessible. (a-b and a-d have gone
25 matches
Mail list logo
