On Sun, 7 Nov 2010, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 12:12 AM, omd wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 12:09 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >> AI=Mutable
> >
> > Hmm...
>
> I'm treating that as submitting an AI-1 proposal, as I don't believe
> one CAN set a proposal's AI to an impossible
On Sunday, November 7, 2010, comex wrote:
> NttPF
Also, the voting period is over because I did, in fact, successfully
rubberstamp those proposals.
On 10-11-07 05:23 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
You still have a voting limit of zero due to Rests, so these would
have been ineffective even if they hadn't been NttPF.
These were cleared when the Rebellion wiped them.
-coppro
coppro wrote:
> On 10-11-07 10:00 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2891
>>
>> == Criminal Case 2891 (Interest Index = 0) ===
>>
>> Warrigal violated committed the Class-2 Crime of Restricted
>> Behavior by violati
coppro wrote:
> On 10-10-31 01:34 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> This distribution of proposals 6870-6876
>> initiates the Agoran Decisions on whether to adopt them. The eligible
>> voters are the active players at the time of this distribution, and
>> the vote collector is the Assessor. The valid
Wooble wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 3:25 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> I believe omd's announcement of shelling the palace had no effect,
>> as e was no longer Crown Prince at the time due to my becoming
>> Speaker a few days earlier. omd then moved the player above em
>> (Yally) down one position,
NttPF
On Sunday, November 7, 2010, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On 10-10-31 01:34 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>
> This distribution of proposals 6870-6876
> initiates the Agoran Decisions on whether to adopt them. The eligible
> voters are the active players at the time of this distribution, and
> the vote
NttPF
On Sunday, November 7, 2010, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On 10-11-07 09:39 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>
> Ugh, you're right. I transfer a prop from myself (for getting
> 6864 and 6865 mixed up) to coppro (for pointing it out).
>
> 6864 still failed quorum (and would have failed even if I had
> voted FOR
On 10-11-07 09:39 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
Ugh, you're right. I transfer a prop from myself (for getting
6864 and 6865 mixed up) to coppro (for pointing it out).
6864 still failed quorum (and would have failed even if I had
voted FOR it, actually I probably would have voted PRESENT).
CoE on my pre
On 10-11-07 10:00 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2891
== Criminal Case 2891 (Interest Index = 0) ===
Warrigal violated committed the Class-2 Crime of Restricted
Behavior by violating rule 2125, because rule 1006
On 10-10-31 01:34 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
This distribution of proposals 6870-6876
initiates the Agoran Decisions on whether to adopt them. The eligible
voters are the active players at the time of this distribution, and
the vote collector is the Assessor. The valid options on each decision
ar
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 2:39 PM, John Smith wrote:
> This is a Win Announcement. CfJ 2878 has continuously been a tortoise for no
> greater than four and no less than two weeks.
I claim that this is not a win announcement, because CFJ 2878 is not
on the legality of an action: it is, effectively,
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 1:34 PM, ais523 wrote:
> Surely the common-sense interpretation is that e reserves the right to
> change the AI later, e.g. via veto?
I wouldn't say so; "A=Y" is only equivalent to "A is Y" in very
awkward speech, and game custom suggests e was attempting to use
Mutable as
On Sun, 2010-11-07 at 13:42 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> > This message serves to initiate the Agoran Decision to choose the
> > holder of the Fearmonger office. The vote collector is the IADoP and
> > the eligible voters are the active
On Sun, 2010-11-07 at 13:29 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 12:12 AM, omd wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 12:09 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >> AI=Mutable
> >
> > Hmm...
>
> I'm treating that as submitting an AI-1 proposal, as I don't believe
> one CAN set a proposal's AI to
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 12:12 AM, omd wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 12:09 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> AI=Mutable
>
> Hmm...
I'm treating that as submitting an AI-1 proposal, as I don't believe
one CAN set a proposal's AI to an impossible value.
On Sun, 2010-11-07 at 13:15 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> I'm a bit behind on recordkeeping because of the devnull nethack
> tournament, but I'll try to get all of my reports published by the
> time they're due later today.
We should totally contestify that, especially as at least two Agorans
are
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 3:34 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Sun 31 Oct 19:22:27 G. moves Murphy to top
> Sun 31 Oct 21:17:42 Tiger becomes inactive
> Thu 4 Nov 16:35:32 omd moves player above em (Yally) down one
> List of Succession as of now:
>
> 5 Murphy
> 10 Wooble
> 7 G.
> 5 coppro
> 5 ai
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 3:25 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> I believe omd's announcement of shelling the palace had no effect,
> as e was no longer Crown Prince at the time due to my becoming
> Speaker a few days earlier. omd then moved the player above em
> (Yally) down one position, thus becoming Crown
On Sun, 07 Nov 2010 01:18:28 -0700, Ed Murphy
wrote:
>> 6863 O 1 2.0 coppro Be Exact
> AGAINST, announcing the amount should be SHALL
>> 6864 O 1 3.0 coppro Urgency simplified
> already failed quorum (the down side of urgent proposals is that they
> can fail quorum faste
Bucky wrote:
> It appears that omd's judgment on CfJ 2878 has self-ratified. Rule 2201
> (Self-ratification) does not consider an appeal to be a challenge to a
> judicial declaration. (The CfJ itself is 'suspended', but that isn't
> relevent)
>
> Also, note that the definition of "tortoise"
21 matches
Mail list logo
