DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2436 remanded to Taral by Murphy, coppro

On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Taral wrote: > I apologize for being late on this -- it's a very complex issue and > I'm very busy IRL at the same time... Er, I don't think I'm going to get to this before the overtime period runs out. I recuse myself from CFJ 2436 with sincere apologies. I tran

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2496-98 assigned to ais523

Quazie wrote: > On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 12:32 AM, Quazie wrote: >> Gratuitous arguments: >> I wrote every other word of the CFJ, gwen wrote every other word of >> the cfj. �We both clicked the mouse button together to send the >> message. >> > > the above arguments were for 2496 and only 2496. gw

DIS: Proto: Dependent judgements

Amend 591 by inserting at the end of list of judgements: * IFF , appropriate if is a non-empty proper subset (the gearbox) of the set of valid judgements on an open or suspended judicial question (the hinge), IFF is not in the gearbox and TRUE would be appropriate i

Re: DIS: Judicial archives

Pavitra wrote: > Murphy, you said a while back that you haven't entered all the old cases > into the database largely because it would be necessary to do so for > each case individually, by hand. Is that inconvenience because of the > lack of batch-mode tools to process the CFJs, or because the ca

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2482 assigned to ais523

On Mon, 4 May 2009, Benjamin Caplan wrote: > Considering the relative difficulty with which the present judicial > panel was assembled, unless someone can find either a logical fallacy in > the arguments here presented or a relevant judicial precedent implying > FALSE, I recommend a ruling of AFFI

DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2436 assigned to Rodlen

I somehow end up with this one. Heh. Well, this is going to be tough. How does kicking Comex out of the PNP for a few months sound to you all? -- --Rodlen

DIS: Judicial archives

Murphy, you said a while back that you haven't entered all the old cases into the database largely because it would be necessary to do so for each case individually, by hand. Is that inconvenience because of the lack of batch-mode tools to process the CFJs, or because the cases aren't available in

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2482 assigned to ais523

Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Mon, 4 May 2009, Ian Kelly wrote: >> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 12:25 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >>> Note that R1482 doesn't explicitly define precedence when there's no >>> conflict, so precedence is not defined in the rules, so a "rules are >>> silent" argument can be made on eit

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Office Report

>> > I have no such option. >> > >> > I do? > Pic or it didn't happen signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: i register

Elliott Hird wrote: > On 2009-05-05, Quazie wrote: >> i am a separate person from quazie and i register at this e-mail >> address with a nickname of 'gwen.' >> > Not possible. You need an email. E has one: quazieno...@gmail.com. The requirement, I believe, is "capable of communicating by email i

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Office Report

If you're posting from a bananaphone it's already plaintext. Otherwise yep. If you want a monospaced font userscripts.org "gmail monospaced" On 2009-05-05, Aaron Goldfein wrote: > On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 10:18 PM, Elliott Hird < > penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> Sure you do. >> On 20

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Office Report

On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 10:18 PM, Elliott Hird < penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Sure you do. > On 2009-05-05, Aaron Goldfein wrote: > > On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Roger Hicks wrote: > > > >> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 19:31, Kerim Aydin > wrote: > >> > > >> > On Mon, 4 May 2009, Aaro

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Office Report

Sure you do. On 2009-05-05, Aaron Goldfein wrote: > On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Roger Hicks wrote: > >> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 19:31, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> > >> > On Mon, 4 May 2009, Aaron Goldfein wrote: >> >> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 8:20 PM, Kerim Aydin >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Well, the vast

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Office Report

On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Roger Hicks wrote: > On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 19:31, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > On Mon, 4 May 2009, Aaron Goldfein wrote: > >> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 8:20 PM, Kerim Aydin > wrote: > >> > >> Well, the vast majority of players use gmail, according to the > Registrar'

DIS: Re: BUS: i register

On 2009-05-05, Quazie wrote: > i am a separate person from quazie and i register at this e-mail > address with a nickname of 'gwen.' > Not possible. You need an email.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: gwen's pledge

On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 9:37 PM, Rodlen wrote: > > > On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 6:35 PM, Quazie wrote: >> >> i pledge that any future e-mail i send to agora will be signed with >> 'gwen' to minimize confusion. >> >> -gwen > > Seriously, get your own email address.  For the good of all. > But this sort

Re: DIS: Audit

Pavitra wrote: > More practicably, I'd really like to see the missing logs from the > beginning of the game filled in. Blob's thesis archive includes some old summaries: ftp://ftp.cse.unsw.edu.au/pub/users/malcolmr/nomic/articles/agora-theses/lib-vlad.html ftp://ftp.cse.unsw.edu.au/pub/users/mal

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Office Report

On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 19:31, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Mon, 4 May 2009, Aaron Goldfein wrote: >> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 8:20 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> Well, the vast majority of players use gmail, according to the Registrar's >> report. >> > > Yet, all other people's reports are readable, in

Re: DIS: Audit

Elliott Hird wrote: > Anyone crazy enough to read all of the message archive we can scavenge > (long-term) to make sure we're in the right gamestate? ;-) If anyone were, I would vote for em to receive a Doctorate of Nomic History. Possibly also a Win by Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder. More pract

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: i register

On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 9:34 PM, Rodlen wrote: > > > On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Quazie wrote: >> >> i am a separate person from quazie and i register at this e-mail >> address with a nickname of 'gwen.' > > Err...uh... > > I CfJ on the following statement: > > "Two players may play Agora usin

DIS: Re: BUS: gwen's pledge

On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 6:35 PM, Quazie wrote: > i pledge that any future e-mail i send to agora will be signed with > 'gwen' to minimize confusion. > > -gwen > Seriously, get your own email address. For the good of all. -- --Rodlen

DIS: Re: BUS: i register

On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Quazie wrote: > i am a separate person from quazie and i register at this e-mail > address with a nickname of 'gwen.' > Err...uh... I CfJ on the following statement: "Two players may play Agora using the same email address." -- --Rodlen

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Office Report

On Mon, 4 May 2009, Aaron Goldfein wrote: > On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 8:20 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Well, the vast majority of players use gmail, according to the Registrar's > report. > Yet, all other people's reports are readable, in general. I personally prefer to make my reports etc. accessi

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Office Report

On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 8:20 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Mon, 4 May 2009, Aaron Goldfein wrote: > > On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 8:09 PM, Kerim Aydin > wrote: > >> > >> You can see the effects in the archives; > >> compare > >> > >> > http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2491-92 assigned to Yally

On Mon, 4 May 2009, Aaron Goldfein wrote: >> Speaking of which, as much as I love a test case, I COE on the most >> recent Registrar's Report which is missing someone who shall remain >> nameless. -Goethe >> >> To the best of my knowledge, denied. > Oh, sorry, my browser makes the archive's vers

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Office Report

On Mon, 4 May 2009, Aaron Goldfein wrote: > On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 8:09 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> You can see the effects in the archives; >> compare >> >> http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2009-May/006244.html >> with >> >> http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mail

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Office Report

Yally wrote: > What do you mean it doesn't line up correctly? http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2009-May/006244.html

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Office Report

On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 8:09 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Mon, 4 May 2009, Sean Hunt wrote: > > Aaron Goldfein wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 7:52 PM, Kerim Aydin >> > wrote: > >> > >> > >> On Mon, 4 May 2009, Aaron Goldfein wrote: > >>> > >> > ---

DIS: Re: BUS: Ratifications

coppro wrote: > I intend, without objection, to ratify the most recently-published > CotC's report (as of this intent) in its full scope. I object. The report in question was missing Pavitra's posture (it was supine at the time).

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Office Report

On Mon, 4 May 2009, Sean Hunt wrote: > Aaron Goldfein wrote: >> >> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 7:52 PM, Kerim Aydin > > wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, 4 May 2009, Aaron Goldfein wrote: >>> >> --- >>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2482 assigned to ais523

Quazie wrote: > I stand. Ineffective, you can't stand except by sitting and getting rotated. > I increase my rank to at least 2. Ineffective, not specific enough.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Office Report

On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 8:04 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: > Aaron Goldfein wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 7:52 PM, Kerim Aydin > > wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 4 May 2009, Aaron Goldfein wrote: > > > > > > ---

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Office Report

Aaron Goldfein wrote: > > > On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 7:52 PM, Kerim Aydin > wrote: > > > On Mon, 4 May 2009, Aaron Goldfein wrote: > > > --- > > Accountor Wooble 15 Mar 09

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Office Report

On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 7:52 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Mon, 4 May 2009, Aaron Goldfein wrote: > > --- > > Accountor Wooble 15 Mar 0920 Apr 091 > > Ambassador ais52312 Jan 09 17 Mar 09 1 > > What's the

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Office Report

Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Mon, 4 May 2009, Aaron Goldfein wrote: >> --- >> Accountor Wooble 15 Mar 0920 Apr 091 >> Ambassador ais52312 Jan 09 17 Mar 09 1 > > What's the deal with reports with minimal levels

DIS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Office Report

On Mon, 4 May 2009, Aaron Goldfein wrote: > --- > Accountor Wooble 15 Mar 0920 Apr 091 > Ambassador ais52312 Jan 09 17 Mar 09 1 What's the deal with reports with minimal levels of information that don't e

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Office Report

Aaron Goldfein wrote: > On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 7:37 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: >> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 8:30 PM, Aaron Goldfein >> wrote: >>> Accountor Wooble 15 Mar 0920 Apr 091 >> CoE: I resigned as Accountor. >> > > when? April 28, 16:06 UTC

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Office Report

On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 7:37 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 8:30 PM, Aaron Goldfein > wrote: >> Accountor      Wooble   15 Mar 09    20 Apr 09    1 > > CoE: I resigned as Accountor. > when?

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2482 judged TRUE by ais523

Aaron Goldfein wrote: > On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: >> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2482 >> >> === CFJ 2482 (Interest Index = 2) >> >>The right of participation in the fora (Rule 101) takes >>precedenc

DIS: Re: BUS: Cleaning

On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote: > On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 2:55 PM, Geoffrey Spear > wrote: > > On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Rodlen wrote: > >> I intend to, without objection, clean rule 2247 (The Janitor), by > replacing > >> "one more" in the second sentence with "one or

DIS: Audit

Anyone crazy enough to read all of the message archive we can scavenge (long-term) to make sure we're in the right gamestate? ;-)

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2482 judged TRUE by ais523

2009/5/5 Aaron Goldfein : > I intend, with two support, to appeal this judgment due to a conflict > of interest. > It is objectively true.

DIS: Re: BUS: long enough I guess

On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > I register. > > I sit up.  I set my judicial rank to 3. > > Yally's registrar's report is unfortunate.  Not only was my name > missing (no history) but my deregistration date wasn't recorded. > I feel like I was caught in a Stalinist purge

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Two ratification proposals

On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 4:44 PM, comex wrote: > On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Elliott Hird > wrote: > > Awesome > > > > Sent from a biological organism capable of communicating via email in > English > > Yeah, really > > Sent from a device with power 1 > Interesting... Sent by a thing that ha

DIS: Re: BUS: Two ratification proposals

2009/5/4 Sean Hunt : > I submit the following proposal, entitled {I Fone}, II=0 > > {{{ > Create a new power-1 rule with the following text: > >      If a public message claims to have been sent from a particular >      device or class of device, that claim is self-ratifying. > }}} Awesome Sent f

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Generalize win storage

That still might be insufficient incentive for a MwoP who's second or third in rotation -- e could extend eir term by waiting for a few more players to win, get emself pushed down near the end, and /then/ win eir way back up to the top of the queue. Also, this way rewards and MwoPs more attentive

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Research

On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 5:35 PM, Ian Kelly wrote: >> The first CFJ deals with the retroactivity of ratification. If >> ratification is truly retroactive, Rodlen would have held the office >> since April 26th, and would qualify for the Ribbon. If it merely changes >> the instantaneous gamestate to b

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Two ratification proposals

On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: > Ian Kelly wrote: >> >> Why? >> > For fun! > Sent from an email factory. Trapped in Enveloppe Header Conveyor module. Please send help.

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Scorekeepor] Medals

On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 6:43 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > Recordkeepors can create assets arbitrarily, but not choose who gets > them. (I suspect this is a really old holdover from the old asset > rules.) As a result, they're unowned assets and the LFD gets them. Only assets whose backing documents are

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Just CfJing something involving janitors

On Mon, 4 May 2009, comex wrote: > On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 6:55 PM, Rodlen wrote: >> I CfJ on the following statement: >> >> "A proposal that fixes an obvious grammatical error that completely changes >> the meaning of a rule counts as modifying a substantive aspect of the >> meaning of the rule."

DIS: Re: BUS: Generalize win storage

On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 6:59 PM, Benjamin Caplan wrote: > I submit the proposal "Privilege of the Champion", AI=2 II=2: How about we just add an incentive for existing MwoPs to win-- reset them to the beginning of the MwoP rotation-- and call it a day?

DIS: Re: BUS: Just CfJing something involving janitors

On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 6:55 PM, Rodlen wrote: > I CfJ on the following statement: > > "A proposal that fixes an obvious grammatical error that completely changes > the meaning of a rule counts as modifying a substantive aspect of the > meaning of the rule." > > Just for clarity. Gratuitous: Rule

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Conductor] Lead Sheet

Rodlen wrote: > Does giving your judgment in time on an appeals panel get you a note? No, the panel gives judgement, and there's no Note reward for giving an opinion. (This prevents leaning players from making spurious appeals in hopes of being rewarded for trivial AFFIRMs.)

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2482 assigned to ais523

root wrote: > TTttPF. > > On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 4:36 PM, Ian Kelly wrote: >> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: >>> coppro wrote: >>> I support and do so. >>> H. Justiciar root, any preference on this one? >> Sure, I make CFJ 2482a hot. >> >> There should be a lukewarm optio

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Conductor] Lead Sheet

Rodlen wrote: > Does giving your judgment in time on an appeals panel get you a note? > > -- > --Rodlen I don't believe so, though R2126 says "published at least one on-time judgment", whatever that means.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Research

Rodlen wrote: > I have to wonder how I got involved in this, though. > -- > --Rodlen I just picked a player out of a hat.

DIS: Re: OFF: [Conductor] Lead Sheet

Does giving your judgment in time on an appeals panel get you a note? -- --Rodlen

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Scorekeepor] Medals

On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 18:39 -0400, comex wrote: > On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 5:18 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > > It would be a different issue if root were Insulator, I imagine; in that > > case it might have been ambiguous whether root or the L&FD got the > > resulting Rest. > > I don't believe the Insul

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2482 assigned to ais523

Ian Kelly wrote: > On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: >> coppro wrote: >> >>> I support and do so. >> H. Justiciar root, any preference on this one? > > Sure, I make CFJ 2482a hot. > > There should be a lukewarm option, indicating no preference but > allowing the CotC to go ahead a

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Research

I have to wonder how I got involved in this, though. -- --Rodlen

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Scorekeepor] Medals

On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 5:18 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > It would be a different issue if root were Insulator, I imagine; in that > case it might have been ambiguous whether root or the L&FD got the > resulting Rest. I don't believe the Insulator is allowed to create rests in the LFD's possession.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2482 assigned to ais523

On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: > coppro wrote: > >> I support and do so. > > H. Justiciar root, any preference on this one? Sure, I make CFJ 2482a hot. There should be a lukewarm option, indicating no preference but allowing the CotC to go ahead and assign a panel. -root

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2490 assigned to comex

root wrote: > On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: >> [This is what happens when you forget to disqualify.] > > Yeah, I'm bad about that. But why didn't you just assign it to Yally > (or somebody else who was standing at the time)? At this point, > either comex will recuse emself a

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: No forced championship wins

Alex Smith wrote: > I may quite possibly try. One timing advantage for me (if I get a degree > from my thesis) is that I can get the Birthday ribbon, win by > Renaissance, then get a Birthday ribbon again, to avoid having to wait > an entire year. I might end up doing the same thing.

DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2490 assigned to comex

On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: > [This is what happens when you forget to disqualify.] Yeah, I'm bad about that. But why didn't you just assign it to Yally (or somebody else who was standing at the time)? At this point, either comex will recuse emself and you'll have to reassi

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2482 assigned to ais523

coppro wrote: > I support and do so. H. Justiciar root, any preference on this one?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: No forced championship wins

On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 16:08 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 4:05 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: > > Ian Kelly wrote: > >> Renaissance is storable indefinitely. > >> > >> -root > > But you can't accumulate it - you can't build up to another one while > > you have one stored. > > True, altho

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: No forced championship wins

On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 4:05 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: > Ian Kelly wrote: >> Renaissance is storable indefinitely. >> >> -root > But you can't accumulate it - you can't build up to another one while > you have one stored. True, although I find it difficult to imagine anybody winning by Renaissance *twi

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: No forced championship wins

On Mon, 4 May 2009, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Alex Smith wrote: >> If it is, we should probably generalise it even further, causing all win >> conditions to give people medals, and letting them cash them in for wins >> any time they feel like it (whilst running the cleanu

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Two ratification proposals

Ian Kelly wrote: > On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 4:02 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: >> I submit the following proposal, entitled {I Fone}, II=0 >> >> {{{ >> Create a new power-1 rule with the following text: >> >> If a public message claims to have been sent from a particular >> device or class of devic

DIS: Re: BUS: Two ratification proposals

On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 4:02 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: > I submit the following proposal, entitled {I Fone}, II=0 > > {{{ > Create a new power-1 rule with the following text: > >      If a public message claims to have been sent from a particular >      device or class of device, that claim is self-rati

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: No forced championship wins

Ian Kelly wrote: > On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Alex Smith wrote: >> If it is, we should probably generalise it even further, causing all win >> conditions to give people medals, and letting them cash them in for wins >> any time they feel like it (whilst running the cleanup instantly). Why >>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: No forced championship wins

On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > If it is, we should probably generalise it even further, causing all win > conditions to give people medals, and letting them cash them in for wins > any time they feel like it (whilst running the cleanup instantly). Why > should champion's conte

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Research

Ian Kelly wrote: > On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Benjamin Caplan wrote: >> From R1551 (Ratification): >> � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �Nevertheless, the ratification of a >> � � �public document does not invalidate, reverse, alter, or cancel >> � � �any messages or actions, even if they were u

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: No forced championship wins

On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > If it is, we should probably generalise it even further, causing all win > conditions to give people medals, and letting them cash them in for wins > any time they feel like it (whilst running the cleanup instantly). Why > should champion's conte

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: No forced championship wins

On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 15:43 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote: > I submit the following proposal, titled "No forced championship wins": > > {{{ > Amend Rule 2242 by replacing this text: > > Upon a win announcement that a specified non-contest player owns > a Medal, that player satisfies the Winn

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Research

On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Benjamin Caplan wrote: > Ian Kelly wrote: >> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: >>> The second deals with the paradoxability of ratification. Regardless of >>> the outcome of the first CFJ, the second is potentially paradoxical, >>> unless the ratific

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Research

Ian Kelly wrote: > On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: >> The second deals with the paradoxability of ratification. Regardless of >> the outcome of the first CFJ, the second is potentially paradoxical, >> unless the ratification doesn't consider its own effect part of the >> things to

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Scorekeepor] Medals

On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 3:18 PM, comex wrote: > I don't like my notes wasted :| Boo hoo. I don't like my medals wasted. -root

DIS: Re: BUS: Research

On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: > I CFJ {If the next Registrar's report did not list me as a player, and I > subsequently ratified it using the mechanism specified in R2202 > (Ratification Without Objection), I would be able to go off hold.} Er. When did you go on hold to begin

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Scorekeepor] Medals

Alex Smith wrote: > On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 16:14 -0500, Benjamin Caplan wrote: >> root generally CANNOT create rests by announcement except in eir own >> possession. Hence, eir "I create a rest" unambiguously means "I create a >> rest in my possession". >> > It would be a different issue if root we

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Scorekeepor] Medals

On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 16:14 -0500, Benjamin Caplan wrote: > comex wrote: > > On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 4:48 PM, Ian Kelly wrote: > >>> I spend G#G# to destroy root's Rest. > >> > >> I create a rest. > > > > In whose possession? > > > > This is a Win Announcement. root has a Medal. > > root genera

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Scorekeepor] Medals

On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Benjamin Caplan wrote: > root, I suggest you create some more rests to make forcing wins at you > more expensive. It would also make it more expensive for me to use it when I want to. I think one is ideal. -root

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Scorekeepor] Medals

comex wrote: > On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 4:48 PM, Ian Kelly wrote: >>> I spend G#G# to destroy root's Rest. >> >> I create a rest. > > In whose possession? > > This is a Win Announcement. root has a Medal. root generally CANNOT create rests by announcement except in eir own possession. Hence, eir

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [DM] (i)nventory

Quazie wrote: > but order HAS to matter. If i read a scroll that revokes points, > before a scroll that awards points then the revoking should happen > before the awarding correct? No. The contest is made in such a way that I'm required to perform those actions in some order at the end of the wee

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [DM] (i)nventory

On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: > Quazie wrote: >> On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 9:23 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: >>> This report is governed by 3-Scroll Rodney, ac ontest. Full text is in >>> the Notary's monthly report, though it may be slightly out of date. If >>> you need to see the curren

DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2488 assigned to root

On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2488 > > ===  CFJ 2488 (Interest Index = 2)   > >    The prohibition on excessive Notices of Violation in rule 2230 >    is ineffective due to rule 101

DIS: Re: BUS: [Cookie Jar] Report

Pavitra wrote: > [Presumably this should read "Guesses for May 11-17".] Yes, copy+paste error, corrected in draft.

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Scorekeepor] Medals

comex wrote: > 2009/5/4 Ian Kelly : >>> I'm actually mildly curious as to why you haven't done the Win >>> Announcement yet. >> I'm hoping to save it until a time when I don't already have MwoP. > > This is a win announcement: root owns a Medal. But does not win, because e has a Rest.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scrolls of Agora

On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > However, since that's defined under "unique" patent titles, there may > be an error in that only the last Maniac should have the title.  Unless > Maniac was somehow made non-unique prior to the wins. It occurs to me that there may have been Man

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scrolls of Agora

On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Alex Smith wrote: >> On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 13:45 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Kerim Aydin >>> wrote: >>> > However, since that's defined under "unique" patent titles, there >>> m

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scrolls of Agora

On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 13:45 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote: >> >> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Kerim Aydin >> wrote: >> > However, since that's defined under "unique" patent titles, there >> may >> > be an error in that only the last Maniac should ha

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scrolls of Agora

On Mon, 4 May 2009, Alex Smith wrote: > On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 13:45 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote: >> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Kerim Aydin >> wrote: >>> However, since that's defined under "unique" patent titles, there >> may >>> be an error in that only the last Maniac should have the title. >>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2488 assigned to root

On Mon, 4 May 2009, Alex Smith wrote: > On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 14:26 -0500, Benjamin Caplan wrote: >>> === CFJ 2488 (Interest Index = 2) >>> >>> The prohibition on excessive Notices of Violation in rule 2230 >>> is ineffective due to rule 101 >>> >>> =

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scrolls of Agora

On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 13:45 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote: > > On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Kerim Aydin > wrote: > > However, since that's defined under "unique" patent titles, there > may > > be an error in that only the last Maniac should have the title. > Unless > > Maniac was somehow made non-un

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scrolls of Agora

On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > However, since that's defined under "unique" patent titles, there may > be an error in that only the last Maniac should have the title.  Unless > Maniac was somehow made non-unique prior to the wins. Good catch. It was listed as unique right u

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Scorekeepor] Medals

On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 13:37 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 1:15 PM, comex wrote: > > 2009/5/4 Ian Kelly : > >>> I'm actually mildly curious as to why you haven't done the Win > >>> Announcement yet. > >> > >> I'm hoping to save it until a time when I don't already have MwoP. > >

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2488 assigned to root

On Mon, 4 May 2009, Benjamin Caplan wrote: >> === CFJ 2488 (Interest Index = 2) >> >> The prohibition on excessive Notices of Violation in rule 2230 >> is ineffective due to rule 101 >> >> ==

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Scorekeepor] Medals

On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 1:15 PM, comex wrote: > 2009/5/4 Ian Kelly : >>> I'm actually mildly curious as to why you haven't done the Win >>> Announcement yet. >> >> I'm hoping to save it until a time when I don't already have MwoP. > > This is a win announcement: root owns a Medal. Fails; I have a

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2488 assigned to root

On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 14:26 -0500, Benjamin Caplan wrote: > > === CFJ 2488 (Interest Index = 2) > > > > The prohibition on excessive Notices of Violation in rule 2230 > > is ineffective due to rule 101 > > > >

  1   2   >