On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 9:27 PM, Warrigal wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 8:34 PM, Sean Hunt
> wrote:
>> I change my nickname to 'The Robot'.
>>
>> -coppro
>
> I publish a Notice of Violation accusing coppro of violating rule 2170
> (power 3) by changing eir nickname to "The Robot", a confusing
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 12:07 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> I should look this up, but note that we have in the past accepted
>> dictatorship rules of the form "[player name] CAN do whatever by
>> announcement" without any special explicitness, and currently have a
>> (non-scam) rule that mentions Taral
omd wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Michael Norrish
> wrote:
>> I think I remember something similar. Â I certainly wrote a judgement that
>> defeated such an attempt. Â I used the "Alice Through the Looking Glass"
>> argument that being called something, and having something as a name
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Taral wrote:
> I can put a shorter session timeout on the smtpd...
For the record, the emails were received in this order:
Aug 26 17:55:00 yzma postfix/cleanup[16068]: 717A0812E5:
message-id=
Aug 26 17:55:00 yzma postfix/cleanup[16047]: 2CB1C812E4:
message-id=
-
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 4:49 PM, ais523 wrote:
> You can start sending the email, but stop halfway through, and later on,
> finish sending the email (and you don't need to have specified all the
> content of the email by this point). For some reason, the timestamp
> given is the timestamp when you
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010, ais523 wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-08-26 at 23:32 +0100, ais523 wrote:
> > NoV: coppro violated the power-1 rule 2215 by stating that e changed eir
> > nickname, when in common usage people are still calling em "coppro"
> > rather than "The Robot" and thus "The Robot" is not eir ni
On Thu, 2010-08-26 at 19:41 -0400, omd wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > I'm not sure how the "received by" agoranomic date can be before you sent
> > it,
> > unless someone has their clock wrong. That agoranomic date is consistent
> > with the time my server recei
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Michael Norrish
wrote:
> I think I remember something similar. I certainly wrote a judgement that
> defeated such an attempt. I used the "Alice Through the Looking Glass"
> argument that being called something, and having something as a name are not
> necessarily
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I'm not sure how the "received by" agoranomic date can be before you sent it,
> unless someone has their clock wrong. That agoranomic date is consistent
> with the time my server received it a few mins later and the time I saw it
> a few minut
On Thu, 2010-08-26 at 16:34 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> The document declared its own name in its content, so that is its name
> to itself. I readily admit that this does not *absolutely guarantee*
> that it has that name in Agoran Legal Practice. However, we have
> accepted almost every self-n
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010, ais523 wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-08-26 at 16:16 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > Gratuitous:
> > The datestamps showing up in my mailbox are:
> > Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 17:48:22 -0500 (CDT)
> > Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 17:49:45 -0500 (CDT)
> >
> > which are past, and match the time
On 27/08/10 04:35, Kerim Aydin wrote:
The more I think of it, the more surprised I am that I can't remember
anyone trying this scam. We've had plenty of attempted hardcodings of
players into rules/proposals (e.g. "G. can amend this rule") or "comex
is hereby awarded X") but I can't remember anyo
On Thu, 2010-08-26 at 16:16 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Gratuitous:
> The datestamps showing up in my mailbox are:
> Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 17:48:22 -0500 (CDT)
> Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 17:49:45 -0500 (CDT)
>
> which are past, and match the time received by agoranomic.org in timezone as
> well as
On 08/26/2010 05:06 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010, Sean Hunt wrote:
On 08/26/2010 11:11 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I submit the following 3-line public document, TheRobot.
10 PRINT "I AM THE ROBOT. I DO THE ROBOT DANCE."
20 REM G. MAY MODIFY THIS DOCUMENT BY ANNOUNCEMENT
30 GOTO 10
G. wrote:
> The more I think of it, the more surprised I am that I can't remember
> anyone trying this scam. We've had plenty of attempted hardcodings of
> players into rules/proposals (e.g. "G. can amend this rule") or "comex
> is hereby awarded X") but I can't remember anyone trying to change
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On 08/26/2010 11:11 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > I submit the following 3-line public document, TheRobot.
> >
> > 10 PRINT "I AM THE ROBOT. I DO THE ROBOT DANCE."
> > 20 REM G. MAY MODIFY THIS DOCUMENT BY ANNOUNCEMENT
> > 30 GOTO 10
> >
> > I submit that t
On 08/26/2010 11:11 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I submit the following 3-line public document, TheRobot.
10 PRINT "I AM THE ROBOT. I DO THE ROBOT DANCE."
20 REM G. MAY MODIFY THIS DOCUMENT BY ANNOUNCEMENT
30 GOTO 10
I submit that this is the first entity within Agora that fits any
reasonable extent
On Wed, 2010-08-25 at 07:49 +, Alex Smith wrote:
> I set CFJ 2835's II to 1, then judge it FALSE. The rule is unambiguous
> (although quite possibly broken), and the caller's arguments are
> correct.
I award myself a capacitor for the farad I gained from the above-quoted
judgement.
--
ais523
On 08/26/2010 04:08 PM, Keba wrote:
Well, what's about a scam like "I change my name to Crown Prince" (or
any other Courtier)? I don't know whether the voting limits are
increased by re-naming, but at least the special duties and powers
should apply, if coppro's (or the Robot's?) scam worked.
Ma
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> Proposal 6821 (Purple, AI=2.1, Interest=1) by G.
> (coauth: coppro/The Robot)
>
> Relisting
>
> [...]
>
> Amend Rule 2255 to read:
>
> A rule with a power equal to or greater than this rule may
> associate a Position Name with a specific position on the List
I assume my email client has made a mistake, this message should just be
ignored.
--
Keba
The more I think of it, the more surprised I am that I can't remember
anyone trying this scam. We've had plenty of attempted hardcodings of
players into rules/proposals (e.g. "G. can amend this rule") or "comex
is hereby awarded X") but I can't remember anyone trying to change
their name to i
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010, com...@gmail.com wrote:
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Aug 26, 2010, at 1:11 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > I submit that this is the first entity within Agora that fits any
> > reasonable extent a common definition of a robot.
>
> Hey ehird, do you still have the source to Bay
On Thu, 2010-08-26 at 14:09 -0400, com...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Aug 26, 2010, at 1:11 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > I submit that this is the first entity within Agora that fits any
> > reasonable extent a common definition of a robot.
>
> Hey ehird, do you still have th
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 26, 2010, at 1:11 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I submit that this is the first entity within Agora that fits any
> reasonable extent a common definition of a robot.
Hey ehird, do you still have the source to Bayes?
On Thu, 2010-08-26 at 17:05 +0200, Keba wrote:
> You know that the attempt to rename the City, omd's objection to this
> attempt, the CoE and the NoV were all sent to the discussion mailing
> list and have therefore no effect?
Gah, you're right as well. I wonder how we all missed that?
--
ais52
You know that the attempt to rename the City, omd's objection to this
attempt, the CoE and the NoV were all sent to the discussion mailing
list and have therefore no effect?
--
Keba
On Wed, 2010-08-25 at 21:30 -0400, Warrigal wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 9:23 PM, Keba wrote:
> > Proposal "Rights are important" (AI=3.5, II=1, distributable via fee)
> > {{{
> > Increase the power of Rule 101 "The Rights of Agorans" to 3.5.
>
> An AI of 3 is sufficient for this, as an instr
On Wed, 2010-08-25 at 20:19 -0400, Warrigal wrote:
> Evidence: I *did* reasonably believe that that message by Alex Smith
> was not sent by em, for the simple reason that (due to a technical
> glitch, I suppose) I had not received that message from Alex Smith. Is
> it unreasonable to assume, based
29 matches
Mail list logo
