Elliott Hird wrote:
> 2009/7/16 Taral :
>> In an Equitable sense, I believe it actually does. If you both entered
>> into the contract without any intention that it have any effect on
>> you, it may not even be a contract.
>
> Oh, we knew it'd have effects; we just didn't care because we were
> bu
Roger Hicks wrote:
> Thinking about how to automate this is giving me a headache. Your
> logic seems sound however (apart from coppro's addition)
>
> BobTHJ
The good news is that you don't have to.
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 22:19, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> [BobTHJ and coppro, your opinion on this sequence and logic is very welcome]
> [Also, this is a little odd at bootup, but I think more normal afterwards]
>
> The list of champion awards since March 1 (eldest to youngest) is as follows:
>
> 1. ai
Roger Hicks wrote:
> If you give me 24 hours I'll have an interface (if you prefer)
> available for your use to deal cards that will integrate with my
> recordkeeping. I also noticed that players who did not appear on the
> Conductor report (because they had no notes) never got their 2 initial
> de
Roger Hicks wrote:
> I'm not desperate to be Anarchist, but I do intend to recordkeep for
> all cards (even if it is secondary to the primary officer's
> recordkeeping). I also intend to make my dealing system available to
> all Dealors if they wish to use it.
>
> BobTHJ
I don't really want to tr
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 20:09, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Here is my unofficial list of office priorities. If anyone has any
> objections, please list them very specifically. The intent is to allow
> BobTHJ and myself to assign deals as appropriate for these so that we
> can get Cards into the intended sta
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 12:37 AM, Sgeo wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 11:16 PM, comex wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 5:37 PM, comex wrote:
>>> Starting tomorrow I will be unable to send or receive messages for two
>>> weeks. Accordingly, I go on hold. After publishing this week's SLR
>>> I'l
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 11:16 PM, comex wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 5:37 PM, comex wrote:
>> Starting tomorrow I will be unable to send or receive messages for two
>> weeks. Accordingly, I go on hold. After publishing this week's SLR
>> I'll resign Rulekeepor; if anyone wants to keep track o
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> [BobTHJ and coppro, your opinion on this sequence and logic is very welcome]
> [Also, this is a little odd at bootup, but I think more normal afterwards]
>
> The list of champion awards since March 1 (eldest to youngest) is as follows:
>
> 1. ais523
> 2. G.
> 3.
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 19:33, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Thu, 16 Jul 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> I come off hold. I Form a Government as follows:
>>
>> I CFJ on: {{c. is Justiciar.}}
>>
>
> Gratuitous: When Wooble went on hold, e ceased to be on the List of
> Succession. When e came off hold,
[BobTHJ and coppro, your opinion on this sequence and logic is very welcome]
[Also, this is a little odd at bootup, but I think more normal afterwards]
The list of champion awards since March 1 (eldest to youngest) is as follows:
1. ais523
2. G.
3. OscarMeyr
4. ais523
5. root
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 19:50, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Roger Hicks wrote:
>> All activity related to cards since their inception is available for
>> perusal at my web-interface: http://nomic.bob-space.com/agoralog.aspx
>>
>> It is still rather rough at the moment. Changes to account for ehird's
>> sugge
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 12:25 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I agree with c. here; rule changes have a special standard and absolute
> and precise specification is required. I screwed up. -G.
On my part, I apologize that I have to leave in the middle of what
looks like some controversy over the rulese
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 9:30 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>
>> So both eir recent governments failed, correct?
>
> The Major Arcana rule was never created, so yes either way.
>
Why don't you actually read the proposal? They were platonically created
in the ha
Here is my unofficial list of office priorities. If anyone has any
objections, please list them very specifically. The intent is to allow
BobTHJ and myself to assign deals as appropriate for these so that we
can get Cards into the intended state. I've also included II and some
notes on the high-pri
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 9:30 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> So both eir recent governments failed, correct?
The Major Arcana rule was never created, so yes either way.
Roger Hicks wrote:
> All activity related to cards since their inception is available for
> perusal at my web-interface: http://nomic.bob-space.com/agoralog.aspx
>
> It is still rather rough at the moment. Changes to account for ehird's
> suggestions as well as a text-only version for recordkeepor
2009/7/16 Taral :
> In an Equitable sense, I believe it actually does. If you both entered
> into the contract without any intention that it have any effect on
> you, it may not even be a contract.
Oh, we knew it'd have effects; we just didn't care because we were
busy giggling about it.
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
> So both eir recent governments failed, correct?
Ah yes, just checked; any speaker activity e tried after e went on hold
and came back would have failed.
I'll try to assemble a full "list of succession" history tomorrow to
confirm the
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jul 2009, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> Tiger - July 6
>> c. - July 6 (and previously on Jun 24)
>> Wooble - July 6
>> ais523 - July 6 (twice)
>> coppro - June 24
>
> Ah, but here's the thing. Wooble has been on the "last 5" list continuously
> since... well, for a while.
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009, Roger Hicks wrote:
> Tiger - July 6
> c. - July 6 (and previously on Jun 24)
> Wooble - July 6
> ais523 - July 6 (twice)
> coppro - June 24
Ah, but here's the thing. Wooble has been on the "last 5" list continuously
since... well, for a while. So e was "added" to that list
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 14:08, comex wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Taral wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Roger Hicks wrote:
I intend (with 2 support) to appeal. A request to set a rule AI to 2
seems fairly unambiguous to
coppro wrote:
> Roger Hicks wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 14:08, comex wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Taral wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> I intend (with 2 support) to appeal. A request to set a rule AI to 2
> seems fairly unambiguous to
All activity related to cards since their inception is available for
perusal at my web-interface: http://nomic.bob-space.com/agoralog.aspx
It is still rather rough at the moment. Changes to account for ehird's
suggestions as well as a text-only version for recordkeepor copy/paste
use are in the wo
On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 14:48 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 14:46, Sean Hunt wrote:
> > AI is a term defined and used in many places in the rules. There is no
> > qway to say that setting a rule's AI is unambiguously setting a rule's
> > power. My interpretation would be that it
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 14:46, Sean Hunt wrote:
> AI is a term defined and used in many places in the rules. There is no
> qway to say that setting a rule's AI is unambiguously setting a rule's
> power. My interpretation would be that it simply sets its AI. The
> alternative interpretation, which i
Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 14:08, comex wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Taral wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Roger Hicks wrote:
I intend (with 2 support) to appeal. A request to set a rule AI to 2
seems fairly unambiguous to me as a request to se
On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 19:18 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote:
> 2009/7/16 Taral :
> > By the initiator's own admission, e did not envision anything by the
> > contract. I proto-judge {The parties to (2008-11-22-ehird) SHALL act
> > to terminate it ASAP.}
> >
> > Comments?
>
> That parenthical was a joke;
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 14:08, comex wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Taral wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Roger Hicks wrote:
>>> I intend (with 2 support) to appeal. A request to set a rule AI to 2
>>> seems fairly unambiguous to me as a request to set power to 2.
>>
>> I sup
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Taral wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> I intend (with 2 support) to appeal. A request to set a rule AI to 2
>> seems fairly unambiguous to me as a request to set power to 2.
>
> I support. More common sense please.
Rule 217 only goes
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 13:48, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Thu, 16 Jul 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> The issue indeed is CFJ-worthy. I wondered this exact question at the time
>> I published the card holder list, and can see arguments both ways, in that
>> the "list of the last 5 champions" certainly a
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Elliott
Hird wrote:
> That parenthical was a joke; are you seriously suggesting that being
> reckless absolves us of the obligations?
In an Equitable sense, I believe it actually does. If you both entered
into the contract without any intention that it have any ef
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> I believe that would make coppro the speaker as of the adoption of the
>> cards proposal...
HALT. *Within* the proposal, proposal cards were created *before* the
Speakership was redefined. So the card creation was in relation to the
*old* speaker.
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> The issue indeed is CFJ-worthy. I wondered this exact question at the time
> I published the card holder list, and can see arguments both ways, in that
> the "list of the last 5 champions" certainly arbitrarily existed as a
> platonic entity (to which peop
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009, Roger Hicks wrote:
> Since the Coda proposal defined a new list, members were only added to
> the list at the time the proposal was adopted. As a result here is the
> list of succession (in order of most recent champion to least recent):
First, we're a few hours away from se
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 13:28, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 09:05, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> I come off hold. I Form a Government as follows:
>>
>> Minister without Portfolio: c.
>> Majority Leader: BobTHJ
>> Cabinet Secretary: Murphy
>> Chief Whip: Wooble
>> Justiciar: ais523
>> Ad
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 09:05, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> I come off hold. I Form a Government as follows:
>
> Minister without Portfolio: c.
> Majority Leader: BobTHJ
> Cabinet Secretary: Murphy
> Chief Whip: Wooble
> Justiciar: ais523
> Admiral of the Navy: Taral
>
> I go on hold. I come off hold.
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Jul 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
>>> For each proposal currently in the Proposal Pool, I intend, without 3
>>> objections, to distribute it.
>>
>> I object. Every person is allowed one free by announcement per week
>> right now.
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I'm not anti-Distributability, I'm
> anti-the-lull-in-distribution-indirectly-caused-by-cards-through-no-fault-in-the-proposal's-design.
Maybe the proposals in the pool just aren't that good.
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> For each proposal currently in the Proposal Pool, I intend, without 3
>> objections, to distribute it.
>
> I object to all of these. I nominate myself as Promotor, but will
> drop out in favor of any pro-Distributability
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jul 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> For each proposal currently in the Proposal Pool, I intend, without 3
>> objections, to distribute it.
>
> I object. Every person is allowed one free by announcement per week
> right now. That should be plenty fast. -G.
It would be
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
> G. wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Jul 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>>> I come off hold. I Form a Government as follows:
>>> I go on hold. I come off hold. I Form a Government as follows:
>>
>> Ooh, that's a nice little bug. And a sum of unintended consequences
>> ra
G. wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jul 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> I come off hold. I Form a Government as follows:
>> I go on hold. I come off hold. I Form a Government as follows:
>
> Ooh, that's a nice little bug. And a sum of unintended consequences
> rather than just a straightforward "bad card pr
Elliott Hird wrote:
> 2009/7/16 Taral :
>> By the initiator's own admission, e did not envision anything by the
>> contract. I proto-judge {The parties to (2008-11-22-ehird) SHALL act
>> to terminate it ASAP.}
>>
>> Comments?
>
> That parenthical was a joke; are you seriously suggesting that being
2009/7/16 Kerim Aydin :
> Ooh, that's a nice little bug. And a sum of unintended consequences
> rather than just a straightforward "bad card proposal writing".
That's not possible; Wooble didn't write it.
2009/7/16 Taral :
> By the initiator's own admission, e did not envision anything by the
> contract. I proto-judge {The parties to (2008-11-22-ehird) SHALL act
> to terminate it ASAP.}
>
> Comments?
That parenthical was a joke; are you seriously suggesting that being
reckless absolves us of the ob
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 1:00 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> == Equity Case 2623 ==
>
> comex - who (dubiously) counts as the CotC when performing
> Justiciar duties - rotated the bench without intending to
> mislead others as to the pointless conce
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> I come off hold. I Form a Government as follows:
> I go on hold. I come off hold. I Form a Government as follows:
Ooh, that's a nice little bug. And a sum of unintended consequences
rather than just a straightforward "bad card proposal writing".
I
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 08:50, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> I harvest 2631, 2632, 2633, 2634, 2635 (CFJ numbers) for two WRV each,
>> using X crops as needed. If I am unable to harvest all of these
>> numbers I instead harvest as many as possible.
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> I harvest 2631, 2632, 2633, 2634, 2635 (CFJ numbers) for two WRV each,
> using X crops as needed. If I am unable to harvest all of these
> numbers I instead harvest as many as possible.
Note: the Date: header on this message is earlier than th
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 01:39, Ed Murphy wrote:
> I transfer a prop from coppro (because a prop given sarcastically
> defeats the intended purpose) to BobTHJ (for deal automation).
>
>
I have the automation in place to track Airstrip One as I did
previously. If you'd like me to take over recordkeep
Ed Murphy wrote:
> I recuse Rodlen from CFJs 2582 and 2624.
>
> I recuse allispaul from CFJ 2621 and make em supine. (Has the
> amendment passed yet to allow me to recuse em from 2610 for
> being inactive?)
>
Yes.
BobTHJ wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 19:04, comex wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 7:11 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
Can I supply a hefty bribe from my nonexistent pot of currency to make
sure that the new system is as little like the previous one as
possible?
>>> What specifical
53 matches
Mail list logo
