On Thursday, February 14, 2019 12:16 AM, D. Margaux
wrote:
> So, under this language if you believe no rule violation occurred, I think
> you MUST declare shenanigans. Right?
Yes, and I did!
On Thursday, February 14, 2019 12:27 AM, D. Margaux
wrote:
> Wait... hmm... so you’re saying it’s bo
I could submit the essays here first if that is preferred but it would
really just feel like I’m changing the order of what I’d like to do anyways
- Submit to Agora->Post elsewhere
- Post elsewhere->submit to Agora.
They both (to me) feel very much the same. I can understand how it could
appear m
On Wed, 13 Feb 2019, James Cook wrote:
I was unable to subscribe jc...@cs.berkeley.edu to the Agora lists (except
tue), but was able to subscribe falsifi...@gmail.com. Is this a common
problem?
It's not a problem for me (assuming you received this message) but thought
I'd mention it in case oth
H. Judge Aris, reminder: this is due tomorrow.
Gaelan
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Kerim Aydin
> Subject: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJs 3705 and 3706 judged FALSE
> Date: February 7, 2019 at 6:17:48 PM PST
> To: agora-busin...@agoranomic.org
> Reply-To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org
>
>
>
In terms of the common definition for "declare", it makes perfect sense.
In fact I called a CFJ on a similar issue (substituting "state" for
"declare") a couple weeks back, but I'm realizing it's not in the Gazette.
D. Margaux, did the following CFJ get missed or am I just not finding the
assi
Thanks, G.
When I was initially planning this, I thought I remembered Rule 478
being power=4 and having some strong wording to the effect that
players can participate in the fora, and thought I could make a case
that a lower-powered rule like 2125 can't limit a player's ability to
do anything syno
Wait... hmm... so you’re saying it’s both shenanigans and you’re imposing a
fine for it? Can you do that? Weird!
> On Feb 13, 2019, at 7:16 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Feb 13, 2019, at 7:01 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>>
>> In this case, I believed no rule violation occurred. Therefo
> On Feb 13, 2019, at 7:01 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> In this case, I believed no rule violation occurred. Therefore I COULD, and
> did, announce Shenanigans regardless of whether or not a rule violation
> actually occurred, and doing so discharged my obligations under R2478. (It is
>
You adopted the reasons, but arguably not the judgement. Could you say that
you judge it FALSE, just in case?
-Aris
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 3:54 PM D. Margaux wrote:
>
> I adopt the below reasons as my final judgment In this CFJ.
>
> I earn 5 coins and award myself 3 PLA favours for issuing the
> On Feb 13, 2019, at 6:01 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> Neither of these interpretations imposes any obligation on any player to
> re-enact repealed rules. Therefore, for each player other than Gaelan, I
> announce the below-quoted Pointing of Gaelan's Finger at that player to be
> Shen
On Wednesday, February 13, 2019 7:39 PM, D. Margaux
wrote:
> I’d probably vote for this [proposal to revoke degrees]. I was mostly
> interested in scamming the indigo ribbon.
Likewise! If anything I support the revocation of my degree, since it means I
can be re-awarded it in the future (makin
The standards can be degree-specific, too. If we follow the U.S. model, "an
essay that I've written before with a few extra comments after review" is
probably about right for an Associates degree but not anything higher.
On 2/13/2019 2:03 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
We have had some theses IIRC
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CQeezCdF4mk
On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 at 23:08, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> For each player, I point my finger at that player for failing to reenact
> rule 2452 (“Trust Tokens”) with the same ID number and the next change
> identifier, in violation of rule 105.
>
> Gaelan
>
>
We have had some theses IIRC where someone wrote an extensive reply to someone
and decided to tack on a “I submit this for a degree” (in the same message).
But that’s not exactly the same thing
Gaelan
> On Feb 13, 2019, at 12:23 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> To satisfy the "The Herald SHOULD coo
> On Feb 13, 2019, at 3:23 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> To start, a process question for people in general: Does this meet
> the "original" criterion in R1367, as it was clearly written for
> another purpose?
I think the thesis itself must be an “original” creation; that is, the work
must be
Well I'll just have to disagree with you there (does anyone have that
lovely link to that old post "Agora's product is our history"?).
Especially as "got away with it" included "the Herald noticed, but
wanted to see if it was a substantial part of the scam, and it was
really hard for em to refrain
It wasn’t really a scam in the end, just apathy.
In my honest opinion I believe they got it fairly though. I’m not going to
strongly oppose or support an intent to change it. Aren’t normal scam wins
a subversion of what “winning” is too? Its all pretty subjective in end,
and I personally don’t car
I’d probably vote for this. I was mostly interested in scamming the indigo
ribbon.
Now if only I can come up with a way to scam a magenta ribbon before Agora’s
birthday...
> On Feb 13, 2019, at 1:50 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> Just a little comment on the below - I was seeing this as part of
Just a little comment on the below - I was seeing this as part of the
contest so was purposefully not objecting (I did the same for Gaelan's
apathy intent). To my knowledge, Degrees have never been scammed and
it would be great (speaking wearing my Herald's hat) to keep that
record "clean" and ref
Victory by apathy, by apathy, I guess lol.
On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 at 15:54, D. Margaux wrote:
> I thought for sure people would object and that I wouldn’t be able to
> execute these intents without the aid of the contract scam... but somehow,
> no one seems to have objected to these intents?
>
> So
On 2/13/2019 8:05 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
>> Further, the provisions (text) of an agreement CANNOT be amended
>> without providing all parties to the agreement a reasonable
>> opportunity to review the potential amendments.
>
> Note that the above clause isn’t as significant a pr
Seems like a good idea. Some suggested edits are added in capital letters
below.
> On Feb 13, 2019, at 10:55 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Create the following Rule, "No Mousetraps", at Power 3.1:
> Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a person CANNOT be bound to
> abide by any agr
On Wed, 2019-02-13 at 07:55 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Create the following Rule, "No Mousetraps", at Power 3.1:
Should be above ratification, below precedence between rules. That
would imply a power of 3.2.
--
ais523
On 2/13/2019 7:29 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
Aand that's that.
Oh well, even if the scam didn't work in the end, at least it stimulated some
interesting philosphical discussion :P
-twg
Yeah, I really did think the argument was plausible at first, but the
various routes in assuming it
Aand that's that.
Oh well, even if the scam didn't work in the end, at least it stimulated some
interesting philosphical discussion :P
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Wednesday, February 13, 2019 3:16 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> I judge CFJ 3708 as follows:
>
> When a person be
Welcome, Falsifian! Good test of new rule - nice beginning!
In general, when a rule says "a Player CAN [verb] with Agoran Consent", it
means that e does whatever [verb] is using the Agoran Consent method; that
is, the "actual" actions the player takes are following the R1728 procedure.
Similar
26 matches
Mail list logo
