On Tue, 23 Feb 2010, comex wrote:
> I announce the ceremonial shelling of the palace.
>
> Since I did not Form a Government, the coup is a chicken coup.
> Therefore, the following obligation applies:
>
> When a chicken coup is begun, the Admiral of the Navy SHALL, if
> possible, and as s
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010, comex wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 9:05 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Heh. I may write a cron job for an unlucky recipient, but how is this
>> different then when a person becomes an officer just before the end
>> of a week with a report due? (i.e. DISCHARGE is appropriate
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 9:05 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Heh. I may write a cron job for an unlucky recipient, but how is this
> different then when a person becomes an officer just before the end
> of a week with a report due? (i.e. DISCHARGE is appropriate if warning
> is less than 4 days, and ce
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010, comex wrote:
> Admiral of the Navy is not an office, but it is a "position" (R2255),
> so I argue that this obligation falls under the same class as office
> duties. By CFJ 2674 and, indirectly, CFJ 1702, obligations follow the
> office, so whoever owns Admiral of the Navy in
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:09 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On 02/23/2010 05:54 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>>
>> I become active. I change my Chamber to Purple.
>
> I become active.
>
> I CFJ, II=1 {My Title is Purple}
>
> Is attempting to change a switch I don't have but with the same value as one
> I have suf
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 7:04 PM, comex wrote:
> Hear ye, hear ye! ais523 is now the speaker.
>
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> I come off hold.
>
> Hear ye, hear ye! coppro is now the Speaker.
>
>> I Form a Government:
>> c. - Chief Whip
>> Yally - Cabinet Secret
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> This too fails for the reasons I quoted on c.'s post.
Oh. You're right. Guess I'm bad at getting things right the first time.
--
-c.
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 6:54 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On 02/23/2010 05:50 PM, comex wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 7:33 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>>>
>>> I Form the following Government:
>>>
>>> Minister without Portfolio - Murphy
>>> Justiciar - ais523
>>> Chief Whip - comex
>>> Admiral of the Na
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I Form the following Government:
>
> Minister without Portfolio - Murphy
> Justiciar - ais523
> Chief Whip - comex
> Admiral of the Navy - Tiger
> Majority Leader - coppro
>
> I go on hold.
>
> -coppro
This fails. You didn't assign Cabinet Secre
On 02/23/2010 12:39 PM, David Nicol wrote:
Question: what support if any do the rules currently have for
non-agoran entities? And if support exists, are any agorans in the
mood to sponsor a non-agoran entity (like, a corporation) in some way?
Please respond with specific proposals off-list, gener
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010, David Nicol wrote:
> Question: what support if any do the rules currently have for
> non-agoran entities? And if support exists, are any agorans in the
> mood to sponsor a non-agoran entity (like, a corporation) in some way?
> Please respond with specific proposals off-list, g
Question: what support if any do the rules currently have for
non-agoran entities? And if support exists, are any agorans in the
mood to sponsor a non-agoran entity (like, a corporation) in some way?
Please respond with specific proposals off-list, general answers on.
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Interesting. But I can think of at least one half-parsing of R106 so
> that this bug isn't there (I'll think about it a bit and read it back
> and forth before posting, I'm not wholly convinced either way).
>
> Since rulesets don't ratify, if
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010, ais523 wrote:
> I must come clean on this, now it's relevant; the whole argument is
> moot, due to another scam I inserted in the ruleset a while back (and
> again, never got a chance to use). The current first paragraph of rule
> 106 implies that when a proposal takes effect,
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Ooh another fun "Proposal != Decision to adopt said Proposal" bug.
> Well-spotted. Is this really the first time it's mattered for a veto
> move? -G.
FWIW, that text has only been there since last August (P6414); before, it read:
Det
On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 08:39 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Ooh another fun "Proposal != Decision to adopt said Proposal" bug.
> Well-spotted. Is this really the first time it's mattered for a veto
> move? -G.
I've known about this one for months, but never successfully thought of
a way to scam it.
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010, comex wrote:
>> I CFJ on the following sentence. Proposal 6632 successfully amended Rule
>> 2282. I bar c. from being judge.
>
> Why would it? AI of the decision is only linked to AI of the proposal
> at initiation:
>
> Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agora
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 11:10 PM, Aaron Goldfein
wrote:
>> On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Ed Murphy
>> wrote:
>> > ID: 6632
>> > Title: Second Class Players Do Not Earn Ergs
>> > Amend the text in rule 2282 reading:
>>
>> Amendment fails due to insufficient power.
>
> I CFJ on the following se
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:44 PM, Aaron Goldfein
wrote:
> [As of now, players can easily submit any proposal as II=0 to avoid
> paying the fee associated with making it Distributable.]
Yes, but several people will vote against it for that reason.
--
-c.
19 matches
Mail list logo
