On Fri, 2017-06-16 at 02:34 -0400, 天火狐 wrote:
> I don't see how something like the following in the appropriate forum
> wouldn't successfully give a card, assuming that it was issued in the right
> time frame: "I issue Donald Trump a Green Card for breaking his pledge to
> direct his secretary of t
I don't see how something like the following in the appropriate forum
wouldn't successfully give a card, assuming that it was issued in the right
time frame: "I issue Donald Trump a Green Card for breaking his pledge to
direct his secretary of the treasury to label China a currency manipulator."
M
On Fri, 2017-06-16 at 02:08 -0400, 天火狐 wrote:
> > I don’t think I can do anything about this, formally, since you’re still
>
> not a player, but if you insist I can put together a theory under which
> this should be carded.
>
> CFJ 1709 states that non-players are still bound to contracts if they
> I don’t think I can do anything about this, formally, since you’re still
not a player, but if you insist I can put together a theory under which
this should be carded.
CFJ 1709 states that non-players are still bound to contracts if they are
party to it, with the implication that non-players mus
> On Jun 16, 2017, at 1:32 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>> charged with keeping a perfect and omniscient watch over the activities
>> of Agora. Even had I been a present and obedient servant, I am only human,
>> and my watch must fail.
>
> When I was refe
You're gonna break that pledge, aren't you?
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 20:23 Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > Secretary's Weekly Report
>
> I pledge that I SHALL NOT deny any CoE concerning this alleged report.
>
> I note that I do NOT give any willful consent to
On Fri, 16 Jun 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> charged with keeping a perfect and omniscient watch over the activities
> of Agora. Even had I been a present and obedient servant, I am only human,
> and my watch must fail.
When I was referee, I would constantly issue myself green cards for
failure
He pledged to conduct a lottery according to the rules which contain a
provision for being changed. That's absolutely acceptable.
On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2017, at 5:40 PM, CuddleBeam wrote:
>
> > With an emulation of 2 Agoran Support, I'm going to add
On Jun 15, 2017, at 5:40 PM, CuddleBeam wrote:
> With an emulation of 2 Agoran Support, I'm going to add to the "rules" of the
> lottery the following:
>
> - Purchasers of a HAFL Ticket must also choose a 5-number string for their
> ticket, which is that "ticket's number" (which defaults to be
On Fri, 16 Jun 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-06-15 at 20:04 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > This logic (the Secretary's Report can only be published by the
> > Secretary) would still break the whole purpose of allowing anyone to
> > do it in times when the Secretary is uncertain, I think.
On Thu, 2017-06-15 at 20:04 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> This logic (the Secretary's Report can only be published by the
> Secretary) would still break the whole purpose of allowing anyone to
> do it in times when the Secretary is uncertain, I think.
Well, you could do it via RWO if you know that
On Fri, 16 Jun 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-06-15 at 18:23 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 16 Jun 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> > > there's at least one error in it. Thus, in order to block ratification,
> > > I picked the mistake in the report that was a) most clearly a mistake,
Unless "e SHALL either impose summary judgement on a player" means he must
only do it to one player to be absolved of this rule.
The card rules are badly written.
On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 11:51 AM, V.J Rada wrote:
> Fun fact about cards "
>
> As part of the Referee's weekly duties, e SHALL
Fun fact about cards "
As part of the Referee's weekly duties, e SHALL either impose
Summary Judgment on a player or truthfully announce that e
believes that there are no rules violations in the preceding
Agoran week for which a Card has not already been issued."
conflicts
On Jun 15, 2017, at 7:14 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
>> On Thu, 2017-06-15 at 07:49 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> Secretary's Weekly Report
>>
>> Just to make absolutely sure:
>>
>> CoE: You are not the Secretary.
>
> C'mon now. You just said yourself that t
On Fri, 16 Jun 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> there's at least one error in it. Thus, in order to block ratification,
> I picked the mistake in the report that was a) most clearly a mistake,
> and b) hardest for you to correct.
But I don't need to correct that for this particular self-ratification
I'm not interpreting any rules, simply the pledge which CB made,
inexplicably allowing others to change the rules of eir own pledge (does
this even work if e doesn't pledge it personally?). I'm also aware of CFJ
3468 in which the caller said that "Agoran support" could be interpreted in
two ways: "
On Thu, 2017-06-15 at 16:14 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> > On Thu, 2017-06-15 at 07:49 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > > Secretary's Weekly Report
> >
> > Just to make absolutely sure:
> >
> > CoE: You are not the Secretary.
>
> C'mon now. You just said
On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
I also object.
-Aris
Your objection is also not clear whether you are objecting just to V.J
Rada's change or also to Cuddlebeam's.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 3:55 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@goog
On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
I object.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
I note that the message you quoted contains within it _two_ attempted
lottery rule changes, and you are not making it clear whether you are
objecting
On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-06-15 at 07:49 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > Secretary's Weekly Report
>
> Just to make absolutely sure:
>
> CoE: You are not the Secretary.
C'mon now. You just said yourself that the rule was designed so that
anyone could do it. CoEing t
But here it's "2 agoran support" so that should be interpreted as "the
support of 2 players" to make sense.
On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 8:55 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Agoran Support has been interpreted, if I recall correctly, as being
>
Agoran Support has been interpreted, if I recall correctly, as being equivalent
to Agoran Consent and therefore both supporters and objectors are tracked.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Jun 15, 2017, at 6:53 PM, V.J Rada wrote:
>
> I would like t
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 10:53 AM Alex Smith
wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-06-15 at 16:00 +, Quazie wrote:
> > Wow, that's broken - any public document proporting to be a report
> > self-ratifies?
>
> It's not broken, it's intentional:
>
> a) Public documents puporting to be reports are fairly obvious
Yes, they are.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Jun 15, 2017, at 12:00 PM, CuddleBeam wrote:
>
> Isn't PSS and Publius Scrib(...) the same person? (8 and 45 Shinies)
On Thu, 2017-06-15 at 16:00 +, Quazie wrote:
> Wow, that's broken - any public document proporting to be a report
> self-ratifies?
It's not broken, it's intentional:
a) Public documents puporting to be reports are fairly obvious, so if
someone makes one incorrectly or maliciously, we can just
I understand that this isn't an actual report, but in the event are going
to think it is, my balance should be 15 Shinies after updating the values
with respect to my CoE in the prior report.
天火狐
On 15 June 2017 at 10:49, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Secretary's Weekly Report
>
> Date of this report: T
Wow, that's broken - any public document proporting to be a report
self-ratifies?
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 08:28 Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, Quazie wrote:
> > Given there's no way for this report to be published by any one
> > other than the current office holder as it isn't late
Isn't PSS and Publius Scrib(...) the same person? (8 and 45 Shinies)
About the perma-banning, I'd prefer it to be encased in "subjectivity"
(versus "formality") because the more formal it is, the easier it is to
scam, and I really, really don't want to get a legitimate scam involving
perma-banning others.
On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, Quazie wrote:
> Given there's no way for this report to be published by any one
> other than the current office holder as it isn't late, I choose
> to ignore it.
Please read R2162(c) (noting shiny holdings are switches) and let me
know if ignoring it is still a preferred o
I don’t think I can do anything about this, formally, since you’re still not a
player, but if you insist I can put together a theory under which this should
be carded. nichdel’s already done most of the legwork.
This does appear to be a purported report - at least, sending a complete report
wit
Given there's no way for this report to be published by any one other than
the current office holder as it isn't late, I choose to ignore it.
But the SLR is late, so if you do the work for that I might not ;)
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 07:49 Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Secretary's Weekly Report
>
> Date
I'd support a rule to the effect of "a player can only be banned from Agora
by a power-3 (or higher) instrument". That both introduces the concept
legally and restricts without adding any other baggage.
On Jun 15, 2017 04:43, "Publius Scribonius Scholasticus" <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail
It's possibly a violation of No Faking if other people thought it was
effective.
On Jun 15, 2017 02:01, "Owen Jacobson" wrote:
>
> > On Jun 13, 2017, at 5:17 PM, V.J Rada wrote:
> >
> > "I Point My Finger at um... what's your nickname? Kerim, anyway. For
> clear reasons, let's see what happens
I agree with o, any such punishment should be administered by proposal.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Jun 15, 2017, at 4:11 AM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>
> On Jun 13, 2017, at 6:49 PM, Quazie wrote:
>>
>> Proto Proposal:
>> AI = 4
>> Title: When t
On Jun 13, 2017, at 6:49 PM, Quazie wrote:
>
> Proto Proposal:
> AI = 4
> Title: When two become one
> Rule: 'A short list of things that are too agregious to even attempt'
> Doing any of the following is `Treating Agora Right Bad Forever` and are
> bannable offenses:
> - A single person attempt
> On Jun 13, 2017, at 5:17 PM, V.J Rada wrote:
>
> "I Point My Finger at um... what's your nickname? Kerim, anyway. For clear
> reasons, let's see what happens though”
Incidentally, I’m pleased to see the finger-pointing system getting some use.
Thanks for this test case!
-o
signature.asc
38 matches
Mail list logo
