On Wed, 2009-09-09 at 23:19 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
>
> > This message serves to make votes on behalf of the PerlNomic
> > Partnership (a public contract).
>
> I haven't seen anyone attempt to cause the PNP to re-register, so
> these are ineffective. Please let
The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
> This message serves to make votes on behalf of the PerlNomic
> Partnership (a public contract).
I haven't seen anyone attempt to cause the PNP to re-register, so
these are ineffective. Please let me know if I missed something.
Pavitra wrote:
Sean Hunt wrote:
Roger Hicks wrote:
I appeal the sentence of this case. DISCHARGE would be more
appropriate based upon my previous comments.
BobTHJ
You now have two appeals going. Yay.
-coppro
No, the first one fizzled.
R1504, last paragraph, second sentence "Unless otherwi
Pavitra wrote:
Sean Hunt wrote:
Proposal 6478 (Democratic, AI=2.0, Interest=1) by Pavitra
AGAINST. This completely devalues MWoP and makes no effort to
destroy/replace it, and also doesn't deal with elections that cause a
candidate to be elected, but don't have an outcome because no Decision
On Wed, 2009-09-09 at 22:00 -0500, Pavitra wrote:
> I submit the following proposal and make it Distributable:
> AI=2 II=0 "MWoP Assumption Fix"
> {{
> Ratify the following document: {Proposal 6478 passed.}
At power 2?
--
ais523
On Wed, 2009-09-09 at 20:50 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
> > Proposal 6481 (Democratic, AI=2.0, Interest=1) by Wooble
> FOR if the PNP includes the text "comex", AGAINST otherwise.
I'm not at all convinced that vote will resolve to anything but PRESENT.
--
ais523
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 23:07, Pavitra wrote:
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Rule 1079/4 (Power=1)
>> Definition of "Random"
>
> I transfer a prop from myself to G. for digging up this very useful
> precedent.
>
Fails. G. isn't registered.
BobTHJ
On Wed, 9 Sep 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> I could find no criminal CFJs against officers for late reports during
> their first week in the archive.
By the way, with this low sample size, if there are NoVs that were closed
without going to criminal trial (either contested or mea culpas) those
2009/9/9 comex
>
> Sent from my bananaphone
>
> On Sep 9, 2009, at 3:31 PM, Elliott Hird
> wrote:
>
fatal corruption error segfault
>> 2012/12/21 comex :
>>>
>>> I'd
>>> appreciate suggestions on reducing the suggestions aspect..
>
(We are doing avant garde art, right?)
On Wed, 9 Sep 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> However, there were 2 cases (CFJ 2348, CFJ 2379) where the holder of a
> low-priority office was accused of failing to report during eir first
> month in the office; both resulted in SILENCE. The firs
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 9, 2009, at 3:31 PM, Elliott Hird > wrote:
2009/9/9 comex :
I'd
appreciate suggestions on reducing the weird/confusing aspect..
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Here, there's a consensus is no dinging at less than 4 days, dinging
> after 7 days, but there's probably very few/no cases raised one way or
> the other in the 5-7 day range. The question is, is this because we
> don't punish, or because office
On Wed, 9 Sep 2009, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 12:49, comex wrote:
>> You keep making that claim. I personally think that this custom doesn't
>> apply when the officer has "most of" a week (+ the election period) to
>> prepare a report, but neither of us has evidence. If you giv
2009/9/9 comex :
> FWIW, you can deposit these and withdraw other assets from the IBA (has lots
> of cards at the moment). See iba.qoid.us for an up-to-date report. I'd
> appreciate suggestions on reducing the weird/confusing aspect..
2009/9/8 ais523 :
> Because the banks are kind-of weird to un
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 12:49, comex wrote:
> You keep making that claim. I personally think that this custom doesn't
> apply when the officer has "most of" a week (+ the election period) to
> prepare a report, but neither of us has evidence. If you give some, I think
> it would help your case.
>
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 9, 2009, at 12:55 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
I appeal this case. By custom Agora has permitted new officers a full
ASAP period to fulfill outstanding obligations.
You keep making that claim. I personally think that this custom
doesn't apply when the officer has
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Charles
Walker wrote:
> I spend Distrib-u-matic to make the proposal No Vacancy v.2 Distributable.
Fails; was already made Distributable on 1 Sept.
On Wed, 9 Sep 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Sep 2009, Pavitra wrote:
>> Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> - If you take a legal/decision standpoint (where legally a decision
>>> must be made based on uncertain data - see particularly natural
>>> resource management for situations like this - a cou
Sean Hunt wrote:
> Roger Hicks wrote:
>> I appeal the sentence of this case. DISCHARGE would be more
>> appropriate based upon my previous comments.
>>
>> BobTHJ
>
> You now have two appeals going. Yay.
>
> -coppro
No, the first one fizzled.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signatu
On Wed, 9 Sep 2009, Pavitra wrote:
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> - If you take a legal/decision standpoint (where legally a decision
>> must be made based on uncertain data - see particularly natural
>> resource management for situations like this - a court CAN
>> determine a likely outcome and ma
Roger Hicks wrote:
I appeal the sentence of this case. DISCHARGE would be more
appropriate based upon my previous comments.
BobTHJ
You now have two appeals going. Yay.
-coppro
On Wed, 9 Sep 2009, comex wrote:
>> - If you take a Bayesian standpoint (with the process probabilities
>> as your priors) you come to the conclusion that 1/Nth of each
>> possible types of N cards were destroyed. Since this is
>> IMPOSSIBLE (a higher-powered rule prevents destroying fractions
Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 16:43, Charles Reiss wrote:
>> On 9/5/09 8:09 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2674
>>>
>>> == �Criminal Case 2674 (Interest Index = 2) �===
>>>
>>> � � BobTHJ violated Rule 2143,
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> This favors the
> spirit and some precedents but very much ignores the language.
Which of course would flagrantly violate R217s1, though as ais523 points
out IMPOSSIBLE and/or ILLEGAL things do occasionally ratify for the sake
of convenience.
It would be nice not to rely on t
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 16:43, Charles Reiss wrote:
>> On 9/5/09 8:09 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2674
>>>
>>> == Criminal Case 2674 (Interest Index = 2) ===
>>>
>>>
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 9, 2009, at 11:44 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
- If you take a Bayesian standpoint (with the process probabilities
as your priors) you come to the conclusion that 1/Nth of each
possible types of N cards were destroyed. Since this is
IMPOSSIBLE (a higher-powered rule
On Wed, 2009-09-09 at 08:44 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> - If you take a legal/decision standpoint (where legally a decision
> must be made based on uncertain data - see particularly natural
> resource management for situations like this - a court CAN
> determine a likely outcome and make it
On Wed, 9 Sep 2009, Pavitra wrote:
> The question then is: does the mathematical meaning (R754(3)) of
> "random" imply that the random choice is made platonically and
> invisibly, or does it leave that to "other Agoran legal documents"
> (R754(4)), arguably including former Rules and probably incl
On Sep 8, 2009, at 7:28 AM, ais523 wrote:
Because the banks are kind-of weird to understand right now, let's
settle for some old-fashioned haggling.
I'm willing to consider trading the following cards for something of
roughly equal value:
Distrib-u-matics
Kill Bills (redundant for me atm)
Rol
29 matches
Mail list logo
