Within the next day or two, I'm going to try to email as many players
listed in the Registrar's report as I can.
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 8:15 PM, omd wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 8:09 PM, Aaron Goldfein
> wrote:
> > I just emailed Peter Suber, inviting him to our events and asking for any
>
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 8:09 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> I just emailed Peter Suber, inviting him to our events and asking for any
> commentary he might have. I will forward any response I receive.
Any others? Michael Norrish, some of the other initial players
(perhaps other than Steve and David
On Jun 17, 2013 11:03 PM, "omd" wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 7:36 PM, Kerim Aydin
wrote:
> > PROTO (omd, scshunt, pls comment!).
> >
> > I'n not convinced by the above explanation. I think it is more
reasonable
> > to say that ratifying a non-player into office would add inconsistencies
>
I just emailed Peter Suber, inviting him to our events and asking for any
commentary he might have. I will forward any response I receive.
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 6:31 AM, Charles Walker <
> charles.w.wal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 7:36 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> PROTO (omd, scshunt, pls comment!).
>
> I'n not convinced by the above explanation. I think it is more reasonable
> to say that ratifying a non-player into office would add inconsistencies
> and by R1551 would simply fail. Your thoughts on t
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> I object to any intents to make me inactive.
Would you mind voting on distributions, then?
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 6:31 AM, Charles Walker
wrote:
> On 9 May 2013 01:13, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
>
>> If such a proposal were to pass, I would gladly volunteer to serve as the
>> officer. Additionally, I think we ought to start planning specific events
>> for the vigintennial. Otherwise, I ima
Rule 103, if interpreted in modern Agoran terminology, to the best of
my understanding, does not mean that Michael Norrish could possibly
take hold of the office of Speaker, it means that he is and always has
been the Speaker and every other Speaker has been an impostor.
According to CFJ 2154, Mich
I join Agora XX.
On Mon, 17 Jun 2013, omd wrote:
> and ratification "cannot add inconsistencies between the gamestate and
> the rules", so scshunt and I concluded that the minimal modification
> required to make the IADoP's reports "as true and accurate as
> possible" would be making scshunt a player.
PROTO (om
On Mon, 17 Jun 2013, omd wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 9:27 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > but I have missed the context on why this was happening; i.e. what
> > different reports were ratifying em in and out of the game? Sorry
> > if I missed an obvious explanation on the list somewhere.
>
>
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jun 2013, omd wrote:
>> Incidentally, if G. rules that Proposal 7441 did not fail quorum,
>
> Incidentally, omd, did you note my earlier request to you on the
> case (if speed is of the essence...)
Just responded :)
On Mon, 17 Jun 2013, omd wrote:
> Incidentally, if G. rules that Proposal 7441 did not fail quorum,
Incidentally, omd, did you note my earlier request to you on the
case (if speed is of the essence...)
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 9:27 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> but I have missed the context on why this was happening; i.e. what
> different reports were ratifying em in and out of the game? Sorry
> if I missed an obvious explanation on the list somewhere.
Gratuitous: The reports I used for those dates
On 17/06/2013 8:29 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 8:26 PM, Fool wrote:
Meaning you'd actually prefer it on agora-discussion? It seems to me the
discussion forum is busier, but I defer to you guys.
Or if you meant not on agoranomic.org at all, I'll GTFO :)
-Dan
I'd rather a DF
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 8:26 PM, Fool wrote:
> Meaning you'd actually prefer it on agora-discussion? It seems to me the
> discussion forum is busier, but I defer to you guys.
>
> Or if you meant not on agoranomic.org at all, I'll GTFO :)
>
> -Dan
I'd rather a DF than a PF because if you choose a
On 17/06/2013 8:21 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Fool wrote:
I designate the agora-business mailing list for playing this game
(rule 107). If this causes annoyance to the non-players we can move.
Please. Anywhere but a public forum.
-scshunt
Meaning you'd actually p
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Fool wrote:
> I designate the agora-business mailing list for playing this game
> (rule 107). If this causes annoyance to the non-players we can move.
Please. Anywhere but a public forum.
-scshunt
1. An accelerated game of Nomic, starting from Agora's initial
ruleset (possibly slightly modified if necessary), but made so that
timelimits are extremely short. The game would have an immutable rule
ending it within a week if it hadn't already, the winner being the
player with the most points. H
On Mon, 17 Jun 2013, omd wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 Jun 2013, Sean Hunt wrote:
> >> 7474 20 O omdRepeal unusable auctions
> >> DENOUNCE the vote cast by G. on Proposal 7481.
> >
> > Kudos for a nice quid-pro-quo setup. Though
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jun 2013, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> 7474 20 O omdRepeal unusable auctions
>> DENOUNCE the vote cast by G. on Proposal 7481.
>
> Kudos for a nice quid-pro-quo setup. Though so far, it looks
> like others are not being ni
On Mon, 17 Jun 2013, Sean Hunt wrote:
> 7474 20 O omdRepeal unusable auctions
> DENOUNCE the vote cast by G. on Proposal 7481.
Kudos for a nice quid-pro-quo setup. Though so far, it looks
like others are not being nice about letting this stub stay...
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 4:02 PM, woggle wrote:
>> == CFJ 3327 ==
>>
>> It was POSSIBLE for me to cash 'ZipZop Series G-002' when I
>> attempted to do so.
>>
>>
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Charles Walker
wrote:
> On 17 Jun 2013, at 20:19, Sean Hunt wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 1:24 AM, omd wrote:
>>> 7468 240 O scshunt Fix Bug
>>
>> I submit a proposal identical to this one and threaten to resign all
>> my offices if it does not
On 17 Jun 2013, at 20:19, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 1:24 AM, omd wrote:
>> 7468 240 O scshunt Fix Bug
>
> I submit a proposal identical to this one and threaten to resign all
> my offices if it does not pass.
Why did anyone vote against that?
-- Walker
On 9 May 2013 01:13, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> If such a proposal were to pass, I would gladly volunteer to serve as the
> officer. Additionally, I think we ought to start planning specific events
> for the vigintennial. Otherwise, I imagine I would email old players,
> telling them about the vigin
On 17 June 2013 09:35, Charles Walker wrote:
> On 17 June 2013 09:24, omd wrote:
> >
> > CFJ: It is generally possible for a party to send messages.
>
> I did actually consider a "CAN act w/o objection/ as permitted in
> constitution" clause, but thought we might need to bring back an "Acting on
On 17 June 2013 10:16, omd wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 2:11 AM, Charles Walker
> wrote:
> > I don't know what you mean by 'out of time': it's past the ASAP deadline
> but
> > the awards CAN still be made.
>
> If the time limit is already broken, I don't think the awards are
> "required by t
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 2:11 AM, Charles Walker
wrote:
> I don't know what you mean by 'out of time': it's past the ASAP deadline but
> the awards CAN still be made.
If the time limit is already broken, I don't think the awards are
"required by the Rules" any longer, so I think they would be ille
On 17 June 2013 10:07, omd wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 1:53 AM, Charles Walker
> wrote:
> > You might want to add a standard preamble saying that you award the
stated
> > proposal fees to authors of adopted proposals (and the relevant amount
to
> > co-authors).
>
> Thank you. I had entire
On 17 June 2013 06:24, omd wrote:
> x7453 2 0 O scshunt Criminal Accountability
> x7454 2 0 O WalkerContract law
> *7455 3 0 O omd We don't need judicial declarations
> x7456 3 0 O omd We don't need induction
> x7457 230 O Walker
On 17 June 2013 09:24, omd wrote:
>
> CFJ: It is generally possible for a party to send messages.
I did actually consider a "CAN act w/o objection/ as permitted in
constitution" clause, but thought we might need to bring back an "Acting on
Behalf" Rule for that, so I left it.
-- Walker
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 1:44 AM, Sean Hunt
> wrote:
> [let the Promotor choose between proposals of equal distributability,
> require distribution of distributability-0 proposals which I think was
> an oversight]
Both of these changes were supposed to be in my original proposal; I simply
forg
33 matches
Mail list logo
