Arnold Bros (est. 1905) wrote:
> All of the following votes are cast A(g64,g64) times.
Show-off.
Quazie wrote:
> 6249 Committees 2.0 D 3.0 2 Wooble
> FOR
>
> 6251 Decriminalize restricted actions D 3.0 1 Murphy
> AGAINST
Please include something like "6250: no vote" in cases like this, it
makes things marginally easier when recording votes.
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 20:29, Ed Murphy wrote:
> I harvest 106 (recently-amended rule number) for 8 random crops.
>
Any chance for a current SoA report?
BobTHJ
coppro wrote:
> Create a new power-1 rule reading as follows:
> {{
> The Herald SHALL, as soon as possible after the enactment of this
> rule, initiate an Agoran Decision to award ais523 a degree for eir
> thesis on the ruleset, as specified in rule 1367. When e does so,
>
ais523 wrote:
> I tried to post a thesis to the public forum recently but it was held
> for approval due to being too long. Until it turns up, have a version
> sent as a compressed attachment to save on size. I hereby publish the
> document attached to the email as a thesis, if possible. (Otherwis
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Alex Smith wrote:
>> I tried to post a thesis to the public forum recently but it was held
>> for approval due to being too long. Until it turns up, have a version
>> sent as a compressed attachment to save on size. I hereby publish the
>> document attached
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Ian Kelly wrote:
> Really, the idea that R2105 (The Map of Agora) has been a traditional
> target of scamsters is a bit exaggerated. Here's the full history.
>
> The map was created by Maud's proposal 4735. This wasn't the result
> of a scam or anything, but people were itc
Really, the idea that R2105 (The Map of Agora) has been a traditional
target of scamsters is a bit exaggerated. Here's the full history.
The map was created by Maud's proposal 4735. This wasn't the result
of a scam or anything, but people were itching a bit for a map, and
voters liked the propos
Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> 6256 Inactivity is unpopularD 2.0 1 coppro
> AGAINST [inactives are preferred for promotions too?]
No, it simply allows me to demote inactives multiple times during a cycle.
comex wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 6:16 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> 6246 Fix Office InterestO 1.0 1 Wooble
> CoE: Wooble submitted this, not coppro who's listed as the author later. FOR
Hrm... this is indeed the case. I appear to have accidentally created a
new propo
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> I tried to post a thesis to the public forum recently but it was held
> for approval due to being too long. Until it turns up, have a version
> sent as a compressed attachment to save on size. I hereby publish the
> document attached to the emai
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 6:44 PM, Sgeo wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
>> I tried to post a thesis to the public forum recently but it was held
>> for approval due to being too long. Until it turns up, have a version
>> sent as a compressed attachment to save on size. I
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> I tried to post a thesis to the public forum recently but it was held
> for approval due to being too long. Until it turns up, have a version
> sent as a compressed attachment to save on size. I hereby publish the
> document attached to the emai
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 6:29 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> 6240 The Power of Capitalization, and I mean... D 3.0 1 Quazie
> AGAINST - Don't force the Rulekeepor to do this emself; these could all
> be Cleanliness changes. I also don't want any unintended effects.
For reference: (and I'm not sure w
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> 6254 Mitigate point scams O 1.0 1 root
> AGAINST x 2 - there's no requirement this would have to be used for
It's not intended for scams only.
-root
coppro wrote:
> I also have explict consent from Quazie privately to reduce the penalty
> Rests to 2 from 4. I make all these amendments, making the text of
> 3-Scroll Rodney as follows:
NttPF.
Quazie wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> Quazie wrote:
>>> I join the above contract
>> Hrm... typo. I intend, without objection from a party to it, to replace
>> the ordinal 13 with 12 in 3-Scroll Rodney.
>>
>> I intend, without objection from a party to it, to replac
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Proposal: Scam tolerance
> (AI = 1.7, please)
>
> ais523 is a co-author of this proposal.
>
> Amend Rule 2169 (Equity Cases) by appending this text:
>
> For the purpose of an equity case regarding a scam, it is
> generally equitable to let the sca
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> Heh, I have a proposal in the pool to achieve more or less exactly the
> same effect, at the moment. Mine tries to fix the immediate aftermath of
> the scams win, though (restoring the points of players whose points were
> unintentionally reset)
On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 15:04 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
> The unnecessary score reset has been bugging me, especially with a
> second one looming around the corner when comex manages to get rid of
> eir rests. I don't think it merits something as complex as equity,
> though.
>
> Proposal: Mitigate po
On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 13:29 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Goethe wrote:
>
> > Actually you're right. This doesn't work in that it means one could
> > litigate
> > perfectly legal backstabbing, reducing someone else's caste, etc. which we
> > don't want. I think a more appropriate way would be to s
Goethe wrote:
> Actually you're right. This doesn't work in that it means one could litigate
> perfectly legal backstabbing, reducing someone else's caste, etc. which we
> don't want. I think a more appropriate way would be to say that:
>
> "After a finding of Guilty, in place of a Sentence, a
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> Proposal: Generalize equity
>>> (AI = 1.7, please)
>>>
>>> Amend Rule 2169 (Equity Cases) by appending this text:
>>>
>>> An equity case CAN be initi
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Proposal: Generalize equity
>> (AI = 1.7, please)
>>
>> Amend Rule 2169 (Equity Cases) by appending this text:
>>
>> An equity case CAN be initiated identifying the ruleset in place
>> of
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Proposal: Generalize equity
> (AI = 1.7, please)
>
> Amend Rule 2169 (Equity Cases) by appending this text:
>
> An equity case CAN be initiated identifying the ruleset in place
> of a contract. For the purpose of such a case, the rule
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009, Quazie wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Also (just to note) I think that if you perform something obviously
>> illegal to win the game from scratch...
Quazie wrote:
> What if there was a de-contest-ation. The removal of yourself from
> all con
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Quazie wrote:
> I submit a proposal, entitled "In the future, I want my stuff back:
If I come back in time I would vote against this in principle. I'd
also object to every attempt to reclaim stuff unless it was due to
accidental bug-induced involuntary deregistration (which
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 9:27 AM, Quazie wrote:
> When I became a player is relevant, and what constitutes a valid
> registration is relevant.
So the judgements should be left alone, since that's what they
currently determine.
-root
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 11:23 AM, comex wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
>>> I intend to appeal this judgement with 2 Support. CFJ 2471 is
>>> trivially true, as I am currently a player and it is after I sent that
>>> message. I believe I didn't CFJ on what I wanted t
Quazie wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Quazie wrote:
>> I submit a proposal, entitled "In the future, I want my stuff back, a
>> more general solution", AI =2 with the following body:
>>
>> In R2166 replace the following paragraph:
>>
>> Each asset has exactly one owner. If an asse
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
>> I intend to appeal this judgement with 2 Support. CFJ 2471 is
>> trivially true, as I am currently a player and it is after I sent that
>> message. I believe I didn't CFJ on what I wanted to.
>
> I interpreted "after" as "due to", but I shoul
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 07:25 -0700, Rodlen wrote:
>>
>> DARGH!
>>
>> Recognizing that there were six violations of the rule, therefore
>> allowing a punishment for each, I opine AFFIRM.
>>
> Does the subject line or who's-assigned-to-what list g
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Quazie wrote:
> with:
>
> Each asset has exactly one owner. If an asset would otherwise
> lack an owner, it is owned by the Lost and Found Department. If
> an asset's backing document restricts its ownership to a class
> of entities, t
On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 07:25 -0700, Rodlen wrote:
>
> DARGH!
>
> Recognizing that there were six violations of the rule, therefore
> allowing a punishment for each, I opine AFFIRM.
>
Does the subject line or who's-assigned-to-what list give enough context
to determine which appeal this is about,
woggle wrote:
> This should avoid taking precedence over a higher- or lower-class crime
> defined by the rule that contains the MAY.
What would be better is a general precedence rule for actions violating
multiple rules, either to make explicit or to alter the current "only
one (of the players' c
Quazie wrote:
> I intend to appeal this judgement with 2 Support. CFJ 2471 is
> trivially true, as I am currently a player and it is after I sent that
> message. I believe I didn't CFJ on what I wanted to.
Interpreting "after" as a gloss for "as a result of" may be
acceptable shorthand for thes
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 09:33 -0400, Quazie wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 7:22 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
>> > I judge CFJ 2471 FALSE. An announcement about the past that does not
>> > fall into any of the categories in rule 869 is just a true sta
On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 09:33 -0400, Quazie wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 7:22 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
> > I judge CFJ 2471 FALSE. An announcement about the past that does not
> > fall into any of the categories in rule 869 is just a true statement,
> > not a registration action.
>
> I intend to a
On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 07:04 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 1:40 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> > I spend C D E to flip j's caste to Alpha.
>
> That's a lot to spend to ensure that a player who's abandoned the game
> gets to be Epsilon in a couple of days.
Err... C D E doesn't eve
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 1:40 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I spend C D E to flip j's caste to Alpha.
That's a lot to spend to ensure that a player who's abandoned the game
gets to be Epsilon in a couple of days.
40 matches
Mail list logo