On Thu, 17 Sep 2009, Pavitra wrote:
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> It's not R1728 intent unless you specify the "method and value for N"
>> for each method. If you do state Method and N, however, you've begun a
>> legal process called a "dependent action". You've become an initiator.
>> It is a multipa
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> It's not R1728 intent unless you specify the "method and value for N"
> for each method. If you do state Method and N, however, you've begun a
> legal process called a "dependent action". You've become an initiator.
> It is a multipart action, but starting the process and ta
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 8:23 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Wooble wrote:
>
>>> 6497 O 0 1.0 BobTHJ Advertising Anarchy
>> AGAINST * 2
>
> Your VLOP is 1 due to coppro's recent Win by Clout.
I'm pretty sure I still have an extra vote as Chief Whip.
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 8:34 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> If I am a player, I deregister. (was not planning on playing until after
> my vacation next week at the earliest, and ais523's mousetrap is making
> me nervous).
Come back soon! I'm no good as an anti-scamster.
--
-c.
c-walker wrote:
>> 6495 D 1 3.0 coppro FIXME
> AGAINST
These are all ineffective, you were still inactive at the start of
the voting period.
Wooble wrote:
>> 6497 O 0 1.0 BobTHJ Advertising Anarchy
> AGAINST * 2
Your VLOP is 1 due to coppro's recent Win by Clout.
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009, ais523 wrote:
> (For instance, suppose
> I had, instead, said "I think that 4 days from now it might be a good
> idea to amend the Cookie Jar into a mousetrap"; would that be intent?
> Pretty much any sane Agoran would say no, thus showing that a statement
> of intent (in the
Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
2009/9/17 Jonatan Kilhamn :
Erm, my report doesn't say anything about that directly, it only says
which government cards were destroyed. However, I thought I was clear
enough in my response to the d...@nomic roll. Here it is again:
Committee, 3 Roll Call, 2 Distrib-u-Mati
Pavitra wrote:
> I vaguely remember a CFJ semi-recently about publishing NoVs, and
> whether someone was naturally capable of publishing an NoV since it was
> just a block of text and people can publish things, or if an otherwise
> unremarkable block of text was infused with the NoV-nature by the
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 5:35 PM, ais523 wrote:
> (An even more
> surprising example: suppose we abolished the proposal system and instead
> had a "change the rules via Agoran Consent" rule. Oops, rule 1698 stops
> this; intent isn't an action, so there's no combination of /actions/
> that can chan
ais523 wrote:
> Support is defined in much the same terms as intent by the rules; and it
> at least is clearly an announcement, due to the MMI terms used to
> describe it (a rule saying that something CANNOT be done under certain
> circumstances implies that that thing is an action due to the
> def
2009/9/17 Jonatan Kilhamn :
> Erm, my report doesn't say anything about that directly, it only says
> which government cards were destroyed. However, I thought I was clear
> enough in my response to the d...@nomic roll. Here it is again:
>
> Committee, 3 Roll Call, 2 Distrib-u-Matic, Debate-o-matic
2009/9/17 Sean Hunt :
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 8:19 AM, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 17:50, Pavitra wrote:
=== CFJ 2677 (Interest Index = 2)
The cards named in the above message were destroyed due to
C-walker's s
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 8:19 AM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 17:50, Pavitra wrote:
>>> === CFJ 2677 (Interest Index = 2)
>>>
>>> The cards named in the above message were destroyed due to
>>> C-walker's self-auditing.
>>>
>>> ===
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Pavitra wrote:
> Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
>> 2009/9/17 Geoffrey Spear :
>>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 3:43 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2683
= �Criminal Case 2683 �==
ais523 wrote:
> Further arguments:
> {{{
> A person SHALL NOT make a public statement on a matter relevant
> to the rules unless e reasonably believes that it is true (or,
> in the case of a public statement that one performs an action,
> that is effective).
> }}}
> Even if
On Thu, 2009-09-17 at 22:33 +0200, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
> 2009/9/17 comex :
> > I initiate an equity case with respect to the Cookie Jar.*
> >(...)
> > *Parties: Murphy, Billy Pilgrim, coppro, Tiger, OscarMeyr, ehird,
> > ais523, Quazie, Human Point Two, Yally, BobTHJ, allispaul, comex,
> > Woobl
ais523 wrote:
> rule 1728 makes it clear that it's effectively redefining what intent is
> in Agoran terms, from the plain English example.
No it doesn't. It says "announced intent", i.e., to publish a statement
that one intends something. It's a very different construction than
defining an action
2009/9/17 comex :
> I initiate an equity case with respect to the Cookie Jar.*
>(...)
> *Parties: Murphy, Billy Pilgrim, coppro, Tiger, OscarMeyr, ehird,
> ais523, Quazie, Human Point Two, Yally, BobTHJ, allispaul, comex,
> Wooble, c-walker
>
I left the Cookie Jar as a response to the intended scam
Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
> For each of those intents (for each of those contracts) I object.
> I deposit all my crops and WRV. I IBA-withdraw three Distrib-u-matic,
> two Committee and as many Kill Bill as I can afford.
> For each public contract that I am a party to, I leave it.
The Distrib-u-Matic
2009/9/15 Jonatan Kilhamn :
> For each of those intents (for each of those contracts) I object.
> I deposit all my crops and WRV. I IBA-withdraw three Distrib-u-matic,
> two Committee and as many Kill Bill as I can afford.
> For each public contract that I am a party to, I leave it.
>
I'd be gratef
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> Based on this judgment I deny all CoEs against the most recently
> published Insulator's Justice report and Anarchist's Change report.
> Both reports were completely accurate. Furthermore I argue for NOT
> GUILTY in related criminal CFJs brough
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Taral wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 7:39 AM, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> Since nobody responded to this inquiry I'll treat this message as if
>> it was processed on Sept 15, 00:59 UTC (this seems to be when it
>> finally cleared the list).
>
> Very Old Precedents say
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 7:39 AM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> Since nobody responded to this inquiry I'll treat this message as if
> it was processed on Sept 15, 00:59 UTC (this seems to be when it
> finally cleared the list).
Very Old Precedents say that the effective date is 2009/09/13 01:58 (TDOC).
-
On Thu, 2009-09-17 at 12:58 -0500, Pavitra wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
> > The contestmaster of a contest CAN and SHALL award and revoke
> > points as directed by that contract up so long as the total
> > number of points awarded or revoked on any axis in any week
>
> "up so long"?
>
ais523 wrote:
> The contestmaster of a contest CAN and SHALL award and revoke
> points as directed by that contract up so long as the total
> number of points awarded or revoked on any axis in any week
"up so long"?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 07:06, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 3:43 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2683
>>
>> = Criminal Case 2683 =
>>
>> Murphy violated R208, a 3-power Rule,
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 9:48 AM, ais523 wrote:
> [[Re-adds a weekly time period to the rule; it was accidentally removed
> by proposal 6369.]]
Murphy already submitted such a proposal.
--
-c.
On Thu, 2009-09-17 at 08:43 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 18:33, Sean Hunt wrote:
> > Roger Hicks wrote:
> >> ais523
> >>Absolv-o-Matic x4
> >>Drop Your Weapon x2
> >>Stool Pidgeon
> >>
> >> Lost & Found
> >>Dunce Cap
> >
> > CoE to prevent self-ratification:
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 11:57, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 19:58, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> I withdraw 2 * No Confidence for 110zm.
>> I play No Confidence, specifying the IADoP.
>> Since it's gone longest without an election, I initiate an election for
>> Insulator.
>>
> For recordkee
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 17:37, Ed Murphy wrote:
> woggle wrote:
>
>> On 9/16/09 12:08 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2688
>>>
>>> = Criminal Case 2688 =
>>>
>>> ais523 violated the Power-1 rul
31 matches
Mail list logo
