This time's economy is indeed the first time we've ever charged for CFJs
in history, I'm going with the spirit of the experiment but just as happy to
take it out again (preferably bringing in Blots as a replacement).
Meantime, is 2 per week (free) for a non-player about a good compromise?
On M
On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 at 21:56 Gaelan Steele wrote:
> Honestly, I’m not sure there’s any reason we should cater to non-players.
> If you want to play the game, be a player.
>
> Gaelan
>
I'm inclined to agree with this in general, but CFJs are a notable
exception, because otherwise deregistration s
Honestly, I’m not sure there’s any reason we should cater to non-players. If
you want to play the game, be a player.
Gaelan
> On Nov 26, 2017, at 6:48 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2017, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Nov 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
>
>>> b) Without 2 O
making all non-player cfjs dependent actions is not optimal.
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 1:48 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2017, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Nov 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
>
>> > b) Without 2 Objections. Players SHOULD object unless paying
>> > with shinie
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Nov 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > b) Without 2 Objections. Players SHOULD object unless paying
> > with shinies is a significant barrier to the Caller's
> > ability to seek a resolution to the controversy.
>
> I might not be cal
Yeah, sorry. Right. I just needed to CoE though to stop self-ratification.
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 at 21:04 VJ Rada wrote:
>
>> A document is only doubted when there's a CoE or a CFJ specifically
>> identifying and disputing the document. A pendi
> On Nov 26, 2017, at 1:09 PM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>
> I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
> Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
> pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the
> quorum is 8.0, the voting method i
On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 at 21:04 VJ Rada wrote:
> A document is only doubted when there's a CoE or a CFJ specifically
> identifying and disputing the document. A pending CFJ from before a
> report does not dispute it.
>
No, but it's a reportor's responsibility and prerogative to interpret the
rules
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
You can either deny it or publish a revision. You should do neither,
but note that you will eventually have to choose one if the cfj isn't
judged w/in the next 7 days, which it won't be.
No, point 2.3 of rule 2201 allows em to cite an already existing CFJ.
A doubt is an explicit public challenge via one of the following
methods, identifying a document and explaining the scope and
nature of a perceived error in it:
1. An inquiry case, appropriate for questions of legal
interpretation.
2. A claim o
I assume that G. registered first because since I became Registrar all new
additions have been in chronological order, before that things were
alphabetical.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Nov 26, 2017, at 9:10 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
>
> That'
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
I destroy 20 notes and trade them for shinies. I create and pend with
shinies the following two proposals.
ITYM "bills".
Greetings,
Ørjan.
On Sun, 26 Nov 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
//
ID: 7982
Title: Referee Reform Fix
Adoption index: 1.7
Author: V.J. Rada
Co-authors:
At the end of rule 2478 "Viglilante Justice", add a new
paragraph with the text "The Referee CAN
You can either deny it or publish a revision. You should do neither,
but note that you will eventually have to choose one if the cfj isn't
judged w/in the next 7 days, which it won't be.
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Telnaior wrote:
> I'm pretty sure I have to respond to this by saying this Co
On Sun, 26 Nov 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
Create a power-1 rule titled "Auction Initiation"
{
An entity authorized by a rule or contract to initiate an Auction CAN do so
by announcement. If the rule or contract specifies that that entity MUST do
so, that entity SHALL do so i
That's almost, but not quite chronological order of registration, why not
fix that?
(You'd need to check who of Cuddlebeam and G. registered first, I guess.)
Greetings,
Ørjan.
On Sun, 26 Nov 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
Players (16) (Rule 869, self-ratifying)
Player
On Sun, 26 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
I retreat Re-opening the Door.
ITYM "retract".
Greetings,
Ørjan.
A document is only doubted when there's a CoE or a CFJ specifically
identifying and disputing the document. A pending CFJ from before a
report does not dispute it.
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Madeline wrote:
> No, pending CFJ.
>
>
>
> On 2017-11-27 12:58, VJ Rada wrote:
>>
>> did you do the
No, pending CFJ.
On 2017-11-27 12:58, VJ Rada wrote:
did you do the ones where e used eir favours to bribe every
politician, even ones from other parties?
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Madeline wrote:
I did those.
On 2017-11-27 12:51, VJ Rada wrote:
um i meant aris's actions sure the
_>
On 11/26/2017 8:51 PM, VJ Rada wrote:
um i meant aris's actions sure they're basically the same person right?
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Madeline wrote:
Uh, which one are you referring to?
On 2017-11-27 12:45, VJ Rada wrote:
I don't think ATMunn's actions were super-conditiona
did you do the ones where e used eir favours to bribe every
politician, even ones from other parties?
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Madeline wrote:
> I did those.
>
>
>
> On 2017-11-27 12:51, VJ Rada wrote:
>>
>> um i meant aris's actions sure they're basically the same person right?
>>
>> On
I did those.
On 2017-11-27 12:51, VJ Rada wrote:
um i meant aris's actions sure they're basically the same person right?
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Madeline wrote:
Uh, which one are you referring to?
On 2017-11-27 12:45, VJ Rada wrote:
I don't think ATMunn's actions were super-con
um i meant aris's actions sure they're basically the same person right?
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Madeline wrote:
> Uh, which one are you referring to?
>
>
>
> On 2017-11-27 12:45, VJ Rada wrote:
>>
>> I don't think ATMunn's actions were super-conditional?
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12
Uh, which one are you referring to?
On 2017-11-27 12:45, VJ Rada wrote:
I don't think ATMunn's actions were super-conditional?
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Telnaior wrote:
The two mega-super-conditional actions I'm not gonna count barring a CFJ >_>
I award VJ Rada 3 NPR favours for bein
I don't think ATMunn's actions were super-conditional?
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Telnaior wrote:
> The two mega-super-conditional actions I'm not gonna count barring a CFJ >_>
> I award VJ Rada 3 NPR favours for being the Advisor of the Drunk.
> I award Aris 3 OOS favours for being the Ad
VJ Rada didn't throw down enough to beat you in the first place, only
tie you :P
On 2017-11-27 12:36, ATMunn wrote:
How come I get to be advisor anyway?
On 11/26/2017 8:28 PM, Madeline wrote:
This fails because row-echelon politicians can only be influenced in
even amounts (but you get to be
How come I get to be advisor anyway?
On 11/26/2017 8:28 PM, Madeline wrote:
This fails because row-echelon politicians can only be influenced in even
amounts (but you get to be advisor anyway)
On 2017-11-27 11:00, ATMunn wrote:
I use 3 participation favours to influence John Johnson, then ad
I agree. Although I don't really think of myself as a *new* player anymore,
I've only been here for a bit over 2 months. I really haven't read many old
CFJs, and it would probably be good for me to do that.
On 11/26/2017 8:01 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
I mean independently. Sor
This fails because row-echelon politicians can only be influenced in
even amounts (but you get to be advisor anyway)
On 2017-11-27 11:00, ATMunn wrote:
I use 3 participation favours to influence John Johnson, then advise him.
:P
On 11/26/2017 4:52 PM, VJ Rada wrote:
I use 2 participation fav
Yup - and him drawing Host was the most hilarious thing.
On 2017-11-27 11:52, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
Is that a Tom Scott reference?
On 11/26/2017 06:51 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 at 17:20 Kerim Aydin wrote:
I award 3 Favours in the Party holding Justice to:
On Sun, 26 Nov 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 at 19:31 Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > > My memory is that there are a few out there, that amount to "if it's
> > > within a reasonable effort for the typical Agoran to resolve a conditional
Justice favors from your blue carding, ironically.
There are several reasons I did this, despite being so opposed to scams in
general:
* It did not involve breaking any rule.
* It was reasonably contained (and I fully intend that any fix proposal
reset my invalid influences)
* It did not involve
I mean independently. Sort of a: If you are new, here are the most
important CFJs to read.
On 11/26/2017 07:59 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 at 19:57 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Maybe we should compile a list of the best judge
On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 at 19:57 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Maybe we should compile a list of the best judgements to read.
The FLR annotations are supposed to be that, but they've been ferociously
unmaintained.
Maybe we should compile a list of the best judgements to read.
On 11/26/2017 07:17 PM, VJ Rada wrote:
> eh, they help. only as precedent to apply to future cfjs. but there
> are big ones that matter (remember when everyone was messing around in
> other languages?)
>
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 11:16
No, I think you need to state it per decision.
On 11/26/2017 07:03 PM, ATMunn wrote:
> Well, I stated it in one of the decisions, but not for the other. Is
> it still fine since it would be the same for both, and they're in the
> same message?
>
> On 11/26/2017 6:55 PM, VJ Rada wrote:
>> Nope. I j
Sorry. I missed it too.
On 11/26/2017 06:55 PM, VJ Rada wrote:
> Nope. I just can't read. Judge it SHENANIGANS folks.
>
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 10:54 AM, ATMunn wrote:
>> I forgot it again? .-.
>>
>>
>> On 11/26/2017 5:35 PM, VJ Rada wrote:
>>> I point the finger at ATMunn for failing to state
Is that a Tom Scott reference?
On 11/26/2017 06:51 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 at 17:20 Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>>
>> I award 3 Favours in the Party holding Justice to:
>>
>> - Alexis for CFJ 3603.
>> - Alexis for CFJ 3604.
>> - Aris for CFJ 3605.
>>
>> -G.
>>
> I spend 3 Favours
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 at 19:31 Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> > My memory is that there are a few out there, that amount to "if it's
> > within a reasonable effort for the typical Agoran to resolve a conditional
> > with information available at the time of the a
On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 at 19:31 Kerim Aydin wrote:
> My memory is that there are a few out there, that amount to "if it's
> within a reasonable effort for the typical Agoran to resolve a conditional
> with information available at the time of the attempt, it works." I'll
> try to hunt the archive t
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 at 19:22 Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> > Well, if you read only the Rules, you'd wonder why everyone keeps doing
> > things with if/then clauses, because strictly speaking there's nothing
> > that allows them, and the Fora clause on "announ
On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 at 19:22 Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Well, if you read only the Rules, you'd wonder why everyone keeps doing
> things with if/then clauses, because strictly speaking there's nothing
> that allows them, and the Fora clause on "announcement" pretty much
> implies that conditionals don'
Well, if you read only the Rules, you'd wonder why everyone keeps doing
things with if/then clauses, because strictly speaking there's nothing
that allows them, and the Fora clause on "announcement" pretty much
implies that conditionals don't work, at all (except for voting),
because that rule st
Watching the actions of the past week, including extensive use of
conditionals, e.g.:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2017-November/037396.html
makes me feel like we've suddenly allowed beyond-a-reasonable-effort
hard-to-interpret conditionals that we didn
eh, they help. only as precedent to apply to future cfjs. but there
are big ones that matter (remember when everyone was messing around in
other languages?)
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Corona wrote:
> Actually, I'll gladly accept failure, since you sent your bidding
> message after me, and
Actually, I'll gladly accept failure, since you sent your bidding
message after me, and I would have wasted favors had this worked.
(Also, are historical CFJs a required read for playing Agora now?)
On 11/26/17, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> I'm generally philosophically opposed to arbitrarily complex act
when did you get all these npr favours? are those economic?
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> I spend 24 NPR favors to gain 16 influence over Mad Cap'n Tom. I advise em.
>
> I spend 10 NPR favors to gain 10 influence over Politician
> McPoliticianface. I advise em.
>
> I sp
I'm generally philosophically opposed to arbitrarily complex actions taken
"by announcement".
CFJ 1774 is, I think, the strongest precedent we have here. The CFJ is
clear that you can't, by default, take an action by announcement
ambiguously; the use of shorthands (and, by extension, conditionals)
I thought about including a simple backup clause, but I ran out of time.
On 11/26/17, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 at 18:58 Corona wrote:
>
>> The following 5 paragraphs apply to all actions taken in this message,
>> other text to the contrary notwithstanding:
>>
>
> I'm willing to a
On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 at 18:58 Corona wrote:
> The following 5 paragraphs apply to all actions taken in this message,
> other text to the contrary notwithstanding:
>
I'm willing to argue that most of this message fails due to being too
complicated to resolve, but I'm gonna sit this one out and let
Well, I stated it in one of the decisions, but not for the other. Is it still
fine since it would be the same for both, and they're in the same message?
On 11/26/2017 6:55 PM, VJ Rada wrote:
Nope. I just can't read. Judge it SHENANIGANS folks.
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 10:54 AM, ATMunn wrote:
I certainly don't want it.
On 11/26/2017 6:53 PM, VJ Rada wrote:
it's not that hard guys. @trigon @atmunn @telnaior etc.
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
Anyone at all? Perhaps one of the candidates for Referee? I will resign the
office before any further obligations come
balloons actually happen automatically instead of needing the clork to
trigger them so this could lead to a long chain of dependencies.
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 11:01 AM, VJ Rada wrote:
> u know i was going to do my scam but i completely forgot about it and
> then there are now two other scam thin
u know i was going to do my scam but i completely forgot about it and
then there are now two other scam things of c.
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 11:00 AM, ATMunn wrote:
> I use 3 participation favours to influence John Johnson, then advise him.
>
> :P
>
>
> On 11/26/2017 4:52 PM, VJ Rada wrote:
>>
>>
Nope. I just can't read. Judge it SHENANIGANS folks.
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 10:54 AM, ATMunn wrote:
> I forgot it again? .-.
>
>
> On 11/26/2017 5:35 PM, VJ Rada wrote:
>>
>> I point the finger at ATMunn for failing to state quorum.
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 9:23 AM, Publius Scribonius Schol
I forgot it again? .-.
On 11/26/2017 5:35 PM, VJ Rada wrote:
I point the finger at ATMunn for failing to state quorum.
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 9:23 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
wrote:
In the future, please provide the quorum.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti.
it's not that hard guys. @trigon @atmunn @telnaior etc.
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> Anyone at all? Perhaps one of the candidates for Referee? I will resign the
> office before any further obligations come due; I'm not willing to do the
> work and am only holding onto it
Anyone at all? Perhaps one of the candidates for Referee? I will resign the
office before any further obligations come due; I'm not willing to do the
work and am only holding onto it to deny it from VJ.
On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 at 18:56 Alexis Hunt wrote:
> I don't actually.
>
> I create the following proposal
> Title: Bribery
> AI: 1
> Text: {Make each player who voted unconditionally FOR this proposals
> win the game except V.J. Rada, then make V.J. Rada win the game.}
I'm not sure if a Proposal can directly award a win without a Rule.
>From R2449:
When the
Here from R2449:
The Herald is then authorized to
award those persons the Patent Title of Champion.
Here from Rule 649:
Awarding or revoking a Patent Title is secured. A person permitted
and enabled to award (revoke) a Patent Title SHALL do so in a
timely fashion af
Well, it's confusing.
Even if the Ribbon win didn't work, e *could* have successfully awarded me
the Champion for that Victory Election win - if it worked it's definitely
overdue! Re-assigning that CFJ next.
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> e never raised the banner. and the herald certai
On Sun, 26 Nov 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> Actually no, it is for you raising the banner, but depending on the result I
> will change
> that. Quick question: Have you been keeping the GH repo up to date for the
> Herald?
I never raised the banner, which is why I was asking.
I misinterpreted the following statement: "[And now, a Petard-Hoist rather than
a banner-raising..]"
Currently, the office of Herald is vacant, so it need not be overdue for me to
deputise.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Nov 26, 2017, at 5:23 PM,
In the future, please provide the quorum.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Nov 24, 2017, at 8:52 PM, ATMunn wrote:
>
> right.
>
> CoE: The campaign proposal decision has to be in the same message as the
> main decision.
>
> I accept my CoE hereby
e never raised the banner. and the herald certainly isn't OVERDUE 4 a
thing that happened an hour ago allowing you to deputise. rules plz.
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 9:21 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
wrote:
> Actually no, it is for you raising the banner, but depending on the result I
> will
Well, CAN is not capitalised in that rule, so we use common language
definitions.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Nov 26, 2017, at 4:56 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, 26 Nov 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
>> This doesn't ma
Actually no, it is for you raising the banner, but depending on the result I
will change that. Quick question: Have you been keeping the GH repo up to date
for the Herald?
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Nov 26, 2017, at 4:53 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote
On Sun, 26 Nov 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> This doesn't matter here because the exact phrasing of the proposal was
> that we earned it, not that we became eligible for it.
Rule 2438 doesn't use "earned" that way. We "earned" it by the proposal,
which means that for the next
On Sun, 26 Nov 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> I deputise for the Herald to give G. the title of Champion.
>
This is the uncertain Champion award for the Victory Election CFJ you
just recused yourself from, I'm guessing? (just trying to keep track
of dependencies!)
I favour this CFJ.
Gotta get those justice favours.
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 8:46 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> I award a Black Ribbon to each of the following persons:
> Aris
> ATMunn
> Corona
> G.
> o
> PSS
> Telnaior
> VJ Rada
> 天火狐
>
> [And now, a Petard-Hoist rather than a banner-raising..]
>
This doesn't matter here because the exact phrasing of the proposal was
that we earned it, not that we became eligible for it.
On 11/26/2017 04:46 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> I award a Black Ribbon to each of the following persons:
> Aris
> ATMunn
> Corona
> G.
> o
> PSS
> Telnaior
> VJ Rada
> 天
Everyone should vote against proposal 7983. It solves a typo, but it
increases the reward levels and does not give rewards for only casting
one vote.
On 11/26/2017 04:09 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
> Decision of whether to adopt it, an
>the following ist item to the end:
hmmm.
I vote as follows
7982* V.J. Rada 1.7 Referee Reform Fix V.J. Rada 1 sh.
FOR
7983* Telnaior, [1] 1.0 SBOTGT [2] Telnaior1 AP
FOR
7984* Aris, [3] 2.6 Contract Flexibility Act Aris1 AP
FOR
79
I favor this one.
On Sun, 26 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> I spend a shiny to create the following contract, entitled "No
> Self-Indulgence":
> {{{
> Alexis SHALL NOT pend any proposal e authored.
> Alexis CAN revoke this contract by announcement.
> }}}
>
> I submit the following proposal:
> P
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> So that's it: G. wins by ribbons (when e logs on). Congratulations.
Well it was a fair deal - it gave quite a few people the same part of
the same win condition - just happened to be last piece needed in
my case. (Probably a bit of a "scam" in that it only
y'all need to remember parties exist: they're a good mechanic, and
everyone has 4 hours or so to bribe some politicians this week.
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 6:40 AM, VJ Rada wrote:
> Oi! I point the finger at PSS for not awarding legislation favours. Again.
>
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 6:38 AM, VJ R
So that's it: G. wins by ribbons (when e logs on). Congratulations.
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 3:04 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
wrote:
> I resolve the decision(s) to adopt proposal(s) 7973-7980 below.
>
>
>
> [This noti
Per rule 591, CFJs are based on the time they are called.
On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 at 13:22 ATMunn wrote:
> You withdrew the proposal and contract though right? Wouldn't it be false
> then since you can't pend a proposal that doesn't exist? Or would the CFJ
> be judged from when you called it?
>
> On
You withdrew the proposal and contract though right? Wouldn't it be false then
since you can't pend a proposal that doesn't exist? Or would the CFJ be judged
from when you called it?
On 11/26/2017 1:12 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
I spend a shiny to create the following contract, entitled "No
Self-I
I don't really like the look of 7983 and 7889, I think something like this
would work better:
-
Somehow Both Of ... [2]
ADoP Obligation ... [6]
or alternatively:
SBotGT [2]
AOC [6] (or ADoPOC [6])
On 11/26/2017 3:24 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:
Does this look fine?
-Aris
Welcome back!
On 11/26/2017 4:40 AM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
Darn, nobody deregistered me. Can’t make CFJs about that then. If I’m a zombie
with a master other than Gaelan, I flip my master switch to Gaelan.
Gaelan
On Nov 26, 2017, at 1:28 AM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
I’ve been looking to get bac
I only went after the really-obviously-super-inactives, and I think I
found some message from you sometime in last month when I checked.
On 2017-11-26 20:40, Gaelan Steele wrote:
Darn, nobody deregistered me. Can’t make CFJs about that then. If I’m a zombie
with a master other than Gaelan, I
I still do that in my Monthly report.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Nov 26, 2017, at 1:43 AM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 9:11 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>> I vote as follows:
>>
>>> ID Author(s)AI Title
Completely unintended, actually.
Gaelan
> On Nov 26, 2017, at 1:43 AM, VJ Rada wrote:
>
> One day after your yellow card expired, nice.
>
> Welcome back.
>
>> On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 8:40 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>> Darn, nobody deregistered me. Can’t make CFJs about that then. If I’m a
>>
One day after your yellow card expired, nice.
Welcome back.
On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 8:40 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> Darn, nobody deregistered me. Can’t make CFJs about that then. If I’m a
> zombie with a master other than Gaelan, I flip my master switch to Gaelan.
>
> Gaelan
>
>> On Nov 26, 201
I retract "clear statement rule"
On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 7:24 PM, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> Does this look fine?
>
> -Aris
>
> ---
> I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
> Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
> pool. For this decision, the vot
Does this look fine?
-Aris
---
I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the
quorum is 5.0, the voting method is AI-majority and the valid options
87 matches
Mail list logo
