ehird wrote:
On 14 January 2012 20:22, Ed Murphy wrote:
{The statement "Amend Rule /yy" is equivalent to "Amend Rule
IFF its revision number is yy."}
NotCoE: I doubt the {}s are part of the CFJ.
Thanks, fixed in database.
omd wrote:
Proposal: The rule already says that N is 1 unless otherwise specified (AI=3)
Amend Rule 1728 by removing:
("Without Objection" is shorthand for this method with N = 1.)
and by removing:
("With Support" is shorthand for this method with N = 1.)
But then only "Witho
omd wrote:
This doesn't work because Rule 105 prevents persons from making Rule
Changes. In general, what is this supposed to fix?
FYI for 441344: the usual workaround is "any player CAN by announcement
cause this rule to repeal itself".
441344 wrote:
I retract case 3147. I retract case 3149. I submit as gratuitous
Ineffective for 3147, as a judge has already been assigned.
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 9:37 PM, ais523 wrote:
> "a is true IFF b is true", as a hypothetical, can be invalidated by
> anything that's a hypothetical b but not an a, no matter how unlikely,
> surely?
There's no rule that says judgements should ignore the possibility of
rule changes but allow for
On 01/14/2012 08:37 PM, ais523 wrote:
> On Sat, 2012-01-14 at 21:31 -0500, omd wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 8:29 PM, ais523 wrote:
>>> * or commonly referred to as /yy
>>> The second is impossible in the current ruleset; the third isn't, as
>>> although no rule is currently commonly
On Sat, 2012-01-14 at 21:31 -0500, omd wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 8:29 PM, ais523 wrote:
> > * or commonly referred to as /yy
> > The second is impossible in the current ruleset; the third isn't, as
> > although no rule is currently commonly referred to with a name of that
> > form,
On 15 January 2012 00:46, FSX wrote:
> I submit a proposal called "Poppycock" with the text "Repeal rules 2339 and
> 2351."
They were just created not long ago for Agora's 18th birthday. Why
repeal them when they're just beginning to be used in practice?
Maybe it would be better that Agora was not actually a person at all. I don't
see why it has to be one.
On Jan 14, 24 Heisei, at 7:06 AM, 441344 <441...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I submit a promise with title {Anyone Can Mislead The Leader} and
> conditions {The president has taunted the police, and
On 14 January 2012 21:30, 441344 <441...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Any player CAN, with Agoran Consent, cause Agora to post a blog post
> (specifying its title, text, and list of categories) or comment
> (specifying its text) to BlogNomic.
Not really. If this was done, then Agora's gamestate would ce
My mistake; I hadn't noticed that a judge had been assigned to 3147.
On 1/14/12, omd wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 5:02 PM, 441344 <441...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I retract case 3147. I retract case 3149.
>
> You can't retract 3147 as it has already had a judge assigned to it.
>
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 5:02 PM, 441344 <441...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I retract case 3147. I retract case 3149.
You can't retract 3147 as it has already had a judge assigned to it.
On 14 January 2012 20:22, Ed Murphy wrote:
> {The statement "Amend Rule /yy" is equivalent to "Amend Rule
> IFF its revision number is yy."}
NotCoE: I doubt the {}s are part of the CFJ.
On Sat, 2012-01-14 at 12:31 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 2012-01-14 at 12:23 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
> >> [Disclaimer: This case may not exist.]
> >
> > If CFJ 3146 doesn't exist, I call it.
> >
> > [Can't resist an opportunity to make even more ambiguity…]
>
> NttPF (wh
ais523 wrote:
On Sat, 2012-01-14 at 12:23 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
[Disclaimer: This case may not exist.]
If CFJ 3146 doesn't exist, I call it.
[Can't resist an opportunity to make even more ambiguity…]
NttPF (which may or may not have been intentional).
On Sat, 2012-01-14 at 12:23 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
> [Disclaimer: This case may not exist.]
If CFJ 3146 doesn't exist, I call it.
[Can't resist an opportunity to make even more ambiguity…]
--
ais523
I wrote:
teucer wrote:
Sorry, that was 441344; for some reason, I thought e had re-registered
with this implicit nickname, rather than that a first-time player had
registered.
teucer wrote:
I initiate an inquiry CFJ on the statement {No actions were performed
by announcement due to the first 6 lines of the above-quoted message}
with arguments {Any specification of an action in those lines is
unclear due to, if those lines are an encoded message rather than just
gibber
18 matches
Mail list logo
