On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 9:21 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> comex wrote:
>>
>> asset creation and destruction have the same weight? What if widgets
>> are a class of position cards and a rule (over which R1551 takes
>> precedence) says they can't be created?
>
> This one at least, is clear. R1551 takes p
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 9:37 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Again, these are arguably problems with the current version of the
> rule as well. It might well be better to specify that any portion of
> the gamestate disclaimered in the document doesn't change.
I would vote for this-- something like "the g
c. wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 5:17 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> [If e.g. a report saying "X has either Y or Z widgets" is ratified, then
>> if X had Y widgets, then e still does; if X had Z widgets, then e still
>> does; if X had neither Y nor Z widgets, then that needs to be sorted out
>> by ot
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 5:17 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> [If e.g. a report saying "X has either Y or Z widgets" is ratified, then
> if X had Y widgets, then e still does; if X had Z widgets, then e still
> does; if X had neither Y nor Z widgets, then that needs to be sorted out
> by other means, but th
comex wrote:
asset creation and destruction have the same weight? What if widgets
are a class of position cards and a rule (over which R1551 takes
precedence) says they can't be created?
This one at least, is clear. R1551 takes precedence.
-coppro
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 8:12 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Is this for 2696 or 2698 or both? I'm throwing it in as gratuitous
> arguments (already have done for Pavitra and 2706).
That was 2696; I didn't notice the linked case 2698. For the record I
would have judged trivially TRUE, with the caveat th
R2215: s/that is effective/that it is thereby effective/
There are still 10 inquiry cases and 3 criminal cases requiring
judges, and we have all of 5 active non-supine players. Anyone
else want to jump in before the next rotation?
c. wrote:
> Heh, here's mine:
Is this for 2696 or 2698 or both? I'm throwing it in as gratuitous
arguments (already have done for Pavitra and 2706).
Mostly in case it affects c.'s mirror:
* matters.interest is now null for CFJs pre-dating IIs
* viewcase.php and format.php both display II whenever it's non-null
(Previously, these were "1" and "not equal to 1" respectively.)
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 7:47 PM, Pavitra wrote:
> Ed Murphy wrote:
>> I recuse Pavitra from CFJs 2704 and 2706 and make em supine.
>
> Sorry about that, everyone.
>
> I might as well post my incomplete attempt at working through 2706:
Heh, here's mine:
There is definitely something of a conflict
Ed Murphy wrote:
> I recuse Pavitra from CFJs 2704 and 2706 and make em supine.
Sorry about that, everyone.
I might as well post my incomplete attempt at working through 2706:
I accept the arguments by ehird and G. to the
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> I recuse c. from CFJs 2696 and 2698 and make em supine.
crap. I was going to make a big long judgement, even
this is why I'm a terrible judge.
--
-c.
coppro wrote:
> Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Also, oi, another revision to the Assessor scripts (albeit a
>> minor one).
>
> I do not believe that the effect on a programmer's ability to program
> the game state should be a valid reason why Agora should choose to
> support/oppose a given rules change. I
Tiger wrote:
> Savage: (Voting Limit: 0)
> -
> ə
> coppro
> The LNP
> The Normish Partnership II
> *The People's Bank of Agora
> IBA
CoE: The LNP was allegedly deregistered on Sat 10 Oct 12:35:05 UTC.
coppro wrote:
>> 6520 O 1 1.0 ais523 Open-ended duties are bad
> FOR x 12
>> 6521 O 0 1.0 BobTHJ Flag Anarchy
> FOR x 12
According to my records, your caste is Savage, and Wooble is
Chief Whip. If you play cards to change your voting limit,
please remind me to add some/
I wrote:
> Pavitra wrote:
>
>> Note that both of the above CFJs are Disinterested. I believe that this
>> is appropriate, since they appear to be trivially UNDECIDABLE and FALSE
>> respectively.
>
> Crap, how did I miss this change? Will review archives and patch the
> DB; the possibly-affected
Ed Murphy wrote:
Also, oi, another revision to the Assessor scripts (albeit a
minor one).
I do not believe that the effect on a programmer's ability to program
the game state should be a valid reason why Agora should choose to
support/oppose a given rules change. I haven't taken it into accou
Pavitra wrote:
> Note that both of the above CFJs are Disinterested. I believe that this
> is appropriate, since they appear to be trivially UNDECIDABLE and FALSE
> respectively.
Crap, how did I miss this change? Will review archives and patch the
DB; the possibly-affected CFJs are 2689-90,92-96
Pavitra wrote:
> Roger Hicks wrote:
>> I humbly request the CotC refuse the excess cases initiated above.
>
> That would effectively dismiss some of the charges; should the CotC have
> the power to arbitrarily impose an upper limit on the severity of
> criminal punishment? That sounds like a job
Sgeo wrote:
> [[A player CAN publish a Notice of Violation (with N support,
> where N is the number of valid un-Closed Notices of Violation e
> previously published during the same week, or by announcement if
> N is zero) alleging that a single entity (the Accused) has
> br
Walker wrote:
> Chamber is a proposal switch, possessed only by proposals which
> are in the proposal pool or have an ongoing Agoran Decision to
> adopt them, tracked by the Promotor, with values Green
> (default), Red and Purple. In the same message in which a player
>
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Proposal: Protect intent
>
> Amend Rule 2215 (Truthiness) by appending this text:
>
> The above notwithstanding, a person stating that e intends to
> perform an action in the future does not thereby violate this
> rule, as such a
Walker wrote:
> NomicWiki has been updated as per my Ambassador duties. Any comments
> or requests for addition to the page are welcome.
Oh, and AgoraTheses should include
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2007-November/008338.html
for a Bachelor of Nomic
Walker wrote:
> NomicWiki has been updated as per my Ambassador duties. Any comments
> or requests for addition to the page are welcome.
PerlNomic no longer participates. LiveNomic used to (I assume the
recent claim to terminate/deregister the LNP were effective).
"The FRCommittee awards points
Roger Hicks wrote:
> I humbly request the CotC refuse the excess cases initiated above.
That would effectively dismiss some of the charges; should the CotC have
the power to arbitrarily impose an upper limit on the severity of
criminal punishment? That sounds like a job for the judge to me. I
reco
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 13:59, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Roger Hicks wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 13:45, Sean Hunt wrote:
>>>
>>> I publish an NoV alleging that BobTHJ violated Rule 2230, a Power-2
>>> Rule, by failing to announce publicly the validity of the NoV identified
>>> as #1 in eir repo
Roger Hicks wrote:
I contest all of these. Borrowing from the practice of the previous
Insulator Murphy (a practice which was discussed on the lists and
mutually agreed upon to be valid) I announced the validity of these
NOVs as part of the weekly Insulator report.
BobTHJ
You did until you swi
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 12:55, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Roger Hicks wrote:
>>
>> For the week beginning Oct 12. Unless I recorded the date wrong you
>> assumed the office of Janitor shortly before the new-week rollover:
>>
>> Sun, 11 Oct 2009 19:33 - coppro assumes the office of Janitor
>>
>> BobTHJ
>
>
Roger Hicks wrote:
For the week beginning Oct 12. Unless I recorded the date wrong you
assumed the office of Janitor shortly before the new-week rollover:
Sun, 11 Oct 2009 19:33 - coppro assumes the office of Janitor
BobTHJ
That was Walker.
-coppro
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 12:49, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Roger Hicks wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 11:35, Sean Hunt wrote:
>>>
>>> pidge...@gmail.com wrote:
Acting on behalf of Grand Poobah (if required): {
coppro is dealt the following card(s) from the deck of Government:
Lob
Roger Hicks wrote:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 12:10, Charles Walker
wrote:
coppro wrote:
Charles Walker wrote:
BobTHJ wrote:
ais523
Majority Leader
Total: 1, Hand Limit: 5
Major Arcana cards do not affect Hand Limits.
They do, however, BobTHJ's reports are somewhat misleading as they imply
Roger Hicks wrote:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 11:35, Sean Hunt wrote:
pidge...@gmail.com wrote:
Acting on behalf of Grand Poobah (if required): {
coppro is dealt the following card(s) from the deck of Government:
Lobbyist
}
Reason: Janitor weekly salary
Fails, I wasn't the Janitor for last week
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 12:10, Charles Walker
wrote:
> coppro wrote:
>> Charles Walker wrote:
>>> BobTHJ wrote:
ais523
Majority Leader
Total: 1, Hand Limit: 5
>>>
>>> Major Arcana cards do not affect Hand Limits.
>>>
>> They do, however, BobTHJ's reports are somewhat misleadin
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 11:35, Sean Hunt wrote:
> pidge...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Acting on behalf of Grand Poobah (if required): {
>> coppro is dealt the following card(s) from the deck of Government:
>> Lobbyist
>> }
>> Reason: Janitor weekly salary
>
> Fails, I wasn't the Janitor for last week
coppro wrote:
> Charles Walker wrote:
>> BobTHJ wrote:
>>>
>>> ais523
>>> Majority Leader
>>> Total: 1, Hand Limit: 5
>>
>> Major Arcana cards do not affect Hand Limits.
>>
> They do, however, BobTHJ's reports are somewhat misleading as they imply
> that hand limits are on a per-deck basis, which
Charles Walker wrote:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 2:38 AM, Roger Hicks wrote:
ais523
Majority Leader
Total: 1, Hand Limit: 5
Major Arcana cards do not affect Hand Limits.
They do, however, BobTHJ's reports are somewhat misleading as they imply
that hand limits are on a per-deck basis, which t
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 2:38 AM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> ais523
> Majority Leader
> Total: 1, Hand Limit: 5
Major Arcana cards do not affect Hand Limits.
--
Charles Walker
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 12:17 PM, comex wrote:
> When a judicial question is applicable and open, and its case
> has a judge assigned to it, the judge CAN assign a valid
> judgement to it by announcement, and SHALL do so as soon as
> possible, unless e is recused from the case
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 10:12, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> Irrelevant. The audit rule specifically attempts to address what would
>> occur if there is no auditing entity (and by this we can only infer
>> that the author's intent was non-person e
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 12:12 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> Irrelevant. The audit rule specifically attempts to address what would
>> occur if there is no auditing entity (and by this we can only infer
>> that the author's intent was non-perso
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> Irrelevant. The audit rule specifically attempts to address what would
> occur if there is no auditing entity (and by this we can only infer
> that the author's intent was non-person entity). Since it would be
> impossible for the Accountor to
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 09:34, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> Address: what if the auditing entity is a non-person?
>
> A non-person shouldn't be able to hold one of the Dealor offices or
> take an action such as playing a Penalty Box card. If it
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 09:26, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 11:02 AM, comex wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 6:18 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>>> It matters when the person we elect as recordkeepor uses someone
>>> else's broken program and an annoying act-on-behalf system to a
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> Address: what if the auditing entity is a non-person?
A non-person shouldn't be able to hold one of the Dealor offices or
take an action such as playing a Penalty Box card. If it can, that's
a bug.
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 09:27, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> When any other entity is audited the auditing entity (or the Accountor
>> if the auditing entity is a non-person) CAN and SHALL as soon as
>> possible (by announcement)
>
> I don't think
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> When any other entity is audited the auditing entity (or the Accountor
> if the auditing entity is a non-person) CAN and SHALL as soon as
> possible (by announcement)
I don't think the current rule is ambiguous at all. And making it so
you c
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 11:02 AM, comex wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 6:18 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> It matters when the person we elect as recordkeepor uses someone
>> else's broken program and an annoying act-on-behalf system to avoid
>> doing the job at all.
>
> then surely we can elect
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 6:18 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> It matters when the person we elect as recordkeepor uses someone
> else's broken program and an annoying act-on-behalf system to avoid
> doing the job at all.
then surely we can elect someone else as recordkeepor?
--
-c.
On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 11:50 PM, comex wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> Perhapsmy program can be easily changed, though this really has
>> nothing to do with automation, it has to do with how I (a human
>> person) interpreted the rule.
>
> Suber's point was tha
50 matches
Mail list logo
