DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2537 assigned to OscarMeyr

On Fri, 5 Jun 2009, Ed Murphy wrote: > = Criminal Case 2537 = > >Wooble violated R2202 and committed the Class-8 Crime... > Er, looks like arguments leaped in from a dif

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2480 judged NOT GUILTY by Taral

On Fri, 2009-06-05 at 23:21 -0700, Rodlen wrote: > Okay, I hereby consent to that rest destruction stuff. Oh dear, now we're going to have an argument about what "unanimous Support of the panel's other members" in rule 2157 means. Just to make things unambiguous, could you "intend, with unanimous p

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Speedy trials?

ehird wrote: > 2009/6/5 Kerim Aydin : >> On Fri, 5 Jun 2009, Elliott Hird wrote: >>> 2009/6/5 Ed Murphy : "Legitimately" as in you overlooked a message? http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2009-May/006402.html >>> Arguments on yonder CFJ: Yes; I do look

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2480 judged NOT GUILTY by Taral

On Fri, 2009-06-05 at 23:14 -0700, Rodlen wrote: > I do that rest destruction stuff. Unfortunately, you need the support of the other two panelists. Intend to do it, and you can do it if the other two agree. (Which they have to; Agora is weird and/or strange sometimes. They have to do it, but you

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2480 judged NOT GUILTY by Taral

Rodlen wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 11:09 PM, Alex Smith > wrote: > > On Fri, 2009-06-05 at 23:02 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: > > = Criminal Case 2480 > = > > Appeal: 2

DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2480 judged NOT GUILTY by Taral

On Fri, 2009-06-05 at 23:02 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: > = Criminal Case 2480 = > Appeal: 2480a > Decision: REMAND > > Judge: Taral > Judgement:

DIS: Re: BUS: NoVs

On Fri, 5 Jun 2009, Aaron Goldfein wrote: > I publish an NoV alleging that Murphy violated Rule 1868, a power-2 rule, by > failing to assign a judge to CFJ 2547 as soon as possible. Looks like I spoke too soon if it's been a week... -G.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Two Actions

On Sat, 6 Jun 2009, Alex Smith wrote: > On Fri, 2009-06-05 at 22:43 -0500, Aaron Goldfein wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 10:38 PM, Kyle Marek-Spartz >> wrote: >>> I understood that. To clarify: How soon after a player CFJs is the >>> CFJ typically listed on the CotC page? >> When Murphy sees th

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: IADoP CAN and SHALL

On Fri, 5 Jun 2009, Sgeo wrote: > On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 7:32 PM, comex wrote: >>      A player CAN flip a specified proposal to Distributable by >>      spending 1 Note. >> >> I spend a G# note to make this Distributable.  I flip my key to G. >> > I really don't like this. It makes it difficult

DIS: Re: BUS: [IADoP] CotC Election

G. wrote: > On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Elliott Hird wrote: >> Irresistable. I transfer a prop from G. to Murphy (sorry, nothing personal). > > If I have not already done so this week, I transfer a from coppro to > ehird because ditto. -G. You did transfer one from coppro to ais523 on June 1 for nickna

DIS: Re: BUS: Senators

Yally wrote: > I intend, without 2 objections, to flip the II of the Promotor office > to 3. Distributability on its own, IMO, warrants this change; > messages like this one make it even more appropriate. > > > I object. Any particular reason?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Two Actions

On Fri, 2009-06-05 at 22:43 -0500, Aaron Goldfein wrote: > On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 10:38 PM, Kyle Marek-Spartz > wrote: > > I understood that. To clarify: How soon after a player CFJs is the > > CFJ typically listed on the CotC page? > When Murphy sees the message and updates his website. Yep, AFA

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Two Actions

On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 10:38 PM, Kyle Marek-Spartz wrote: > On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 10:32 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > > On Fri, 2009-06-05 at 22:27 -0500, Kyle Marek-Spartz wrote: > >> What is the usual turn around time on CFJs being listed on the CotC > page? > > > > It varies a lot. CFJs have been tu

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Two Actions

On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 10:32 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > On Fri, 2009-06-05 at 22:27 -0500, Kyle Marek-Spartz wrote: >> What is the usual turn around time on CFJs being listed on the CotC page? > > It varies a lot. CFJs have been turned around within a few minutes > before; sometimes they take several

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Two Actions

On Fri, 2009-06-05 at 22:27 -0500, Kyle Marek-Spartz wrote: > What is the usual turn around time on CFJs being listed on the CotC page? It varies a lot. CFJs have been turned around within a few minutes before; sometimes they take several weeks. (Even over a month on occasion, if the CotC's slow a

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: IADoP CAN and SHALL

On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 7:55 PM, Sgeo wrote: > I really don't like this. It makes it difficult for new players to > start submitting proposals, No. It means that new players have to convince someone else to make their stuff Distributable. -- Taral "Please let me know if there's any further troub

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Two Actions

Kyle Marek-Spartz - KDØGTK On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 12:23 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Kyle Marek-Spartz wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 12:15 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >>> On Wed, 3 Jun 2009, Kyle Marek-Spartz wrote: I CFJ on the following statement: The first game of Agora

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: IADoP CAN and SHALL

On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Sgeo wrote: > On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 7:32 PM, comex wrote: > > On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Kerim Aydin > wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, 26 May 2009, Sean Hunt wrote: > >>> Aaron Goldfein wrote: > Proposal: IADoP CAN and SHALL (AI = 2, II = 1): > > >>> I

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: IADoP CAN and SHALL

On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 7:32 PM, comex wrote: > On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> On Tue, 26 May 2009, Sean Hunt wrote: >>> Aaron Goldfein wrote: Proposal: IADoP CAN and SHALL (AI = 2, II = 1): >>> I intend, with 3 support, to make the quoted proposal distributabl

Re: DIS: Another inactivity mechanism

Pavitra wrote: > I don't see the purpose of the new class of proposals. Take the other > two points (Savages CANNOT vote on democratic proposals, nonvoters CAN > be ensavaged by announcement) and add that a Savage CAN become Epsilon > by announcement provided e votes in the same message. s/a Sava

Re: DIS: Another inactivity mechanism

On Fri, 2009-06-05 at 17:24 -0700, Rodlen wrote: > I participate, but have not gotten 5 different kinds of notes that > would form the start of a major scale. So...not really. Ah, of course. I forgot you needed 5 of them -- ais523

Re: DIS: Another inactivity mechanism

On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > On Fri, 2009-06-05 at 15:05 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Fri, 5 Jun 2009, Sean Hunt wrote: > > > Here's a new inactivity idea: > > > > > > Make a new class of proposals, called plebiscite. They are otherwise > > > identical to democratic pro

Re: DIS: Another inactivity mechanism

On Fri, 2009-06-05 at 15:05 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Fri, 5 Jun 2009, Sean Hunt wrote: > > Here's a new inactivity idea: > > > > Make a new class of proposals, called plebiscite. They are otherwise > > identical to democratic proposals as the currently exist. > > Make it so that Savages canno

Re: DIS: Another inactivity mechanism

Benjamin Caplan wrote: > Kerim Aydin wrote: >> On Fri, 5 Jun 2009, Sean Hunt wrote: >>> Here's a new inactivity idea: >>> >>> Make a new class of proposals, called plebiscite. They are otherwise >>> identical to democratic proposals as the currently exist. >>> Make it so that Savages cannot vote on

Re: DIS: Another inactivity mechanism

Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Fri, 5 Jun 2009, Sean Hunt wrote: >> Here's a new inactivity idea: >> >> Make a new class of proposals, called plebiscite. They are otherwise >> identical to democratic proposals as the currently exist. >> Make it so that Savages cannot vote on democratic proposals. >> If a

Re: DIS: Another inactivity mechanism

On Fri, 5 Jun 2009, Sean Hunt wrote: > Here's a new inactivity idea: > > Make a new class of proposals, called plebiscite. They are otherwise > identical to democratic proposals as the currently exist. > Make it so that Savages cannot vote on democratic proposals. > If a player has not voted on an

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Speedy trials?

On Fri, 5 Jun 2009, Elliott Hird wrote: > 2009/6/5 Ed Murphy : >> "Legitimately" as in you overlooked a message? >> >> http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2009-May/006402.html > > Arguments on yonder CFJ: Yes; I do look hawkishly for CFJ assignments > but I may have be

DIS: Another inactivity mechanism

Here's a new inactivity idea: Make a new class of proposals, called plebiscite. They are otherwise identical to democratic proposals as the currently exist. Make it so that Savages cannot vote on democratic proposals. If a player has not voted on an election in N weeks or M proposals, any player C

DIS: Re: BUS: Speedy trials?

ehird wrote: > 2009/6/5 Geoffrey Spear : >> I publish an NoV alleging that You May Call Me Big Fucking Edward >> violated the Power 2 Rule 2158 by failing to assign a judgement to CFJ >> 2537 as soon as possible after it was assigned to em. > > I contest this as I was legitimately unaware; feel f

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Is this right?

On Fri, 2009-06-05 at 14:34 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Rodlen wrote: > > I wish for the following proposal to be placed in the pool: > > > > What embargo? > > Adoption Index: 1.0 > > > > {Repeal Rule 2207.} > > Simply clearly labeling a published body of text as

DIS: Re: BUS: Is this right?

On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Rodlen wrote: > I wish for the following proposal to be placed in the pool: > > What embargo? > Adoption Index: 1.0 > > {Repeal Rule 2207.} Simply clearly labeling a published body of text as a proposal, which you've done, looks sufficient under R106 to me. Althoug

DIS: Re: BUS: Senators

On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Charles Walker wrote: > Evidence: > R105 states: > > A variation in whitespace or capitalization in the quotation of an > existing rule does not constitute ambiguity for the purposes of this rule, > but any other variation does. Well, this might mean that even if th