On 04/21/2014 12:26 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
AGAINST. Under current rule allowing vacancy grabbing, makes for
trivial wins with a race.
Worse, it's possible to win arbitrarily many times in the same message.
On 02/13/2014 09:57 PM, omd wrote:
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:53 PM, Brian Blomlie wrote:
I register.
Welcome!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpQw3WLP3E4
That reminds me, has there been an intersection of ponies and nomic yet?
On 02/12/2014 08:42 PM, omd wrote:
Rule 2125's capital SHALL NOT appears to be only interpretable as an
attempt to criminalize interpreting the rules in a particular way,
rather than to define the 'correct' interpretation.
This argument hinges on a common-language definition of "interpreting".
On 02/01/2014 12:27 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 11:46 PM, Geoff Schmidt wrote:
word that appears neither in the Short Logical Ruleset nor in all Scrabble
The SLR is not a unique document; you would have to go with "most
recently published SLR" (which might open it up to scamm
On 01/01/2014 12:36 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
One version I had, that I liked, removed a huge amount of legalese (e.g.
edge cases). That might be a way to go...
Of course, a lot of that stuff is blocking known scams.
> I submit the following proposal, Proxy Voting, AI-3:
> --
> Create the following Rule, "Proxy Voting", power-3:
>
> If a player (the Shareholder) holds a controlling interest in
> another player (the Subject), and both
On 01/27/2013 06:48 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> I become active.
> I submit a proposal, "cleanup", AI 3:
> {{{
> Repeal rule 754.
> }}}
> I become inactive.
>
> First off, I promise in the ordinary-language sense that I don't
> currently have a scam in mind involving this; I haven't tried to think
> o
On 01/20/2013 07:01 PM, woggle wrote:
> On 1/16/13 1:03 PM, Pavitra wrote:
>> As each Slave Golem is an entity with zero Props, and zero is less than
>> nine, each Slave Golem is a Marine under the last sentence of R2376.
>>
>>
>> For each person other than mys
On 01/18/2013 11:33 AM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Pavitra
> wrote:
>> On 01/17/2013 03:36 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
>>>> 7330 1.0 Ordinary Pavitra Oops
>>> FOR
>>>> 7332 1.0 Ordinary Machiavelli Lesser oops
On 01/17/2013 03:36 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
>> 7330 1.0 Ordinary Pavitra Oops
> FOR
>> 7332 1.0 Ordinary Machiavelli Lesser oops
> AGAINST
These votes together imply that if you can't get rid of SC2 altogether,
then you'd rather have a broken version t
On 01/16/2013 03:33 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-01-16 at 15:03 -0600, Pavitra wrote:
>> As each Slave Golem is an entity with zero Props, and zero is less than
>> nine, each Slave Golem is a Marine under the last sentence of R2376.
>>
>>
>> For each pe
On 01/16/2013 03:03 PM, Pavitra wrote:
> As each Slave Golem is an entity with zero Props, and zero is less than
> nine, each Slave Golem is a Marine under the last sentence of R2376.
>
>
> For each person other than myself (hereafter $PERSON), I do the following:
> {
>
http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1260
On 11/07/2012 02:51 AM, Klaus Herrmanns wrote:
> So what was the consensus at the time about this message?
>
> Although the game allows actions in languages other than English, does this
> include self-invented code languages? In the annota
On 11/06/2012 02:06 PM, ais523 wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-11-06 at 07:47 -0600, Pavitra wrote:
>> CFJ stands for "Call for Judgement". It's a request for an official
>> ruling on some aspect of the game that may be unclear or controversial.
>
> It's also a user
CFJ stands for "Call for Judgement". It's a request for an official
ruling on some aspect of the game that may be unclear or controversial.
On 11/05/2012 10:30 PM, Max Schutz wrote:
> now what is cfj
>
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 11:19 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 5 Nov 2012, omd w
Also:
On 11/05/2012 11:58 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Proposal: Lexicon (AI=1)
> {{{
> Enact a new power-0.5 rule entitled "The Dictionary":
R2141:
Every rule has power between one and four inclusive. It is
not possible for a rule to have a power outside this range.
> The Dictionary
On 11/05/2012 11:41 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Probably another good place to add a shorthand for "transfer a promise
> from the tree and then cash it".
I suggest "to 'invoke' a promise".
On 11/05/2012 11:58 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Proposal: Lexicon (AI=1)
> {{{
> Enact a new power-0.5 rule entitled "The Dictionary":
> The Dictionary is a list of common terms and shorthands used in
> playing Agora and their definitions. A player CAN add a definition to
> the Dictionary with 2 s
On 10/11/2012 03:50 AM, Arkady English wrote:
>> 1. A new round of Brainfuck Golf. Timing set up to garner more
>> entries.
>>
>
> Pardon my ignorance, but what is this? Or is it playing code golf in
> an obscure language, because I'm up for that!
That's what it is.
On 09/28/2012 04:29 PM, Craig Daniel wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 5:23 PM, omd wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> Is "Abraham Lincoln" the name of a person? Yes it is.
>>
>> I'd say it's arguable - well, maybe a clearer example, since dead
>> persons can be con
On 08/24/2012 03:31 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Pavitra wrote:
>
>> On 08/24/2012 01:32 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>>> Proposal: Fuel Up (AI=1)
>>> {{{
>>> Award sufficient props to each first-class player such that all
>>> first-class players have at least 14
On 08/24/2012 01:32 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Proposal: Fuel Up (AI=1)
> {{{
> Award sufficient props to each first-class player such that all
> first-class players have at least 14 props.
> }}}
I think that the intent is
{
For some constant K, award K props to each first class player; choose
the s
On 08/13/2012 10:33 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> FKA441344 wrote:
>
>> I submit a proposal with title {No Zero Length Reports}, adoption
>> index 3, and text
>
> Create a new rule with title "No News Is Some News" and this text:
>
>If the rules define a report as including a list, then while t
On 08/12/2012 11:23 AM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> If I am an active player, I cause myself to cease to be one.
Fails due to ambiguity.
On 07/25/2012 12:30 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> and not involving self-reference or mutually recursive
> references.
Doesn't rule out loops of length 3 and up.
On 07/17/2012 06:31 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Machiavelli wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 4:59 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> On Tue, 17 Jul 2012, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jul 2012, moonroof wrote:
> Cipher?
announcement, publish a Cypher for the classified parameter in
>>
On 07/13/2012 05:22 PM, Craig Daniel wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 6:02 PM, moonroof wrote:
>> Oh, and if it is not too much trouble, I would like to change my nickname
>> from WoodsPam to moonroof. (I am known as moonroof on BlogNomic).
>
> CFJ: It's not too much trouble. (Hey, we just had an
On 06/30/2012 12:53 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> I create a slave golem named "Our Lady of Perpetual Responsibility".
>
> I cause OLoPR to submit 10,000 promises with text "I perform the
> specified action" and condition for non-destruction "10,000 > 9,000".
>
> I transfer OLoPR to itself.
(This messa
> ehird 4
> FKA441344 14
Shouldn't Eileen have some rubles?
On 06/26/2012 09:22 AM, Noé Rubinstein wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 2:01 AM, Aaron Goldfein
> wrote:
>> For each player, I intend, without objection, to deregister em.
>
> I abject.
I separate.
On 06/25/2012 02:24 PM, Noé Rubinstein wrote:
> The game is slow enough nowadays for me not to mind giving it a go; I
> would hate for my first time to be unambiguous, though, so here I go.
>
> Also, the usual CFJ.
AGAINT
On 06/24/2012 07:19 PM, omd wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Aaron Goldfein
> wrote:
>> For each player, I intend, without objection, to deregister em.
>
> I object to all of these, as you could do those players the favor of
> naming them so they can more easily determine whether they'r
On 06/23/2012 03:56 AM, Eric Stucky wrote:
> On Jun 21, 2012, at 7:29 PM, Henri Bouchard wrote:
>
>> Also, how do I start a new bullet list in the message list?
>>
>> -- -Henri
>
> Like that :)
I think e's asking how to reply to a thread without creating a new one.
On 06/21/2012 04:21 PM, Henri Bouchard wrote:
> Do I need to know all the rules to play?
No.
If you want to be engage in certain optional aspects of play, such as
being a judge, or writing proposals, or exploiting loopholes in the
rules, then it would probably be helpful to have a cursory acquain
On 06/14/2012 11:14 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Proposal: Art (AI=1)
> {{{
> Enact a new rule entitled 'The Poets Laureate' reading
> Any person with the patent title Poet Laureate MAY write poetry.
> }}}
>
> (cf. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-1/page-29.html )
>
> -scshunt
Pretty su
Not CoEing because I'm not sure, but shouldn't Eileen have a nonzero
number of rubles?
On 06/09/2012 06:04 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 10:34 AM, Elliott Hird
> wrote:
>> On 9 June 2012 06:06, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
>>> So, I just realized the rules never took notice of proposal 6671, adopted on
>>> March 22, 2010 and affecting Rule 1367. This also means that parts
On 06/08/2012 11:09 PM, Elliott Hird wrote:
> Arguments: I sent this message to a-d.
I sent this message to a-d.
No you don't. Either e successfully retracted the case, in which case
you can't possibly re-retract an already-retracted case, or else e
failed to do so, in which "what e just did" is a null action and
therefore you didn't do anything either.
On 06/03/2012 09:01 PM, com...@gmail.com wrote:
> I do
In theory, there's a governmental structure with laws and stuff. That
should be compatible-in-principle with nomic warfare.
I'm not convinced that war is the way to go, though. I'd rather try
asking nicely first.
On 06/01/2012 11:43 AM, com...@gmail.com wrote:
> But I've been sitting in the aeric
On 06/01/2012 10:23 AM, Elliott Hird wrote:
> They're really boring. Can't we just invade?
Not easily. They're also really big.
I seem to remember that the last time we tried to open diplomatic
relations with the Aerican Empire, we were rejected on the grounds that
we were a game rather than a nation. Their website now says: "...the
Empire welcomes contact with any and all states, whether they are
soverign states, political
On 05/28/2012 09:29 PM, omd wrote:
>>> 7246 3 omd Adoption reassociation
>> AGAINST
>
> Why?
Because it looks like a trivial rewording to no effect, which makes me
suspect a scam.
Please note that Proposals 7242 and 7243 are identical. Proposal 7220
has a different list of authors but is otherwise also identical.
> }{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
>
> Proposal 7220 (AI=2, Ordinary) by omd, Murphy
> Effective ballot fees
>
> Change the
On 05/23/2012 07:35 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> It's 2012 and we're still having this argument?
Technology changes. We weren't on such small screens ten years ago.
On 05/12/2012 04:06 PM, Pavitra wrote:
>> 7229 2 Murphy Bully pulpit
> AGAINST; this would make the Speaker criminally liable for failure to
> gather Agoran Consent
On 05/13/2012 12:39 PM, FKA441344 wrote:
>> 7229 2 Murphy Bully pulpit
> ENDORSE Pavitra
In
On 05/13/2012 12:32 AM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 1:09 AM, ais523 wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 2012-05-13 at 01:04 -0400, Sean Hunt wrote:
>>> On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 12:44 AM, omd wrote:
I transfer 1 ruble to my Speaker Account.
I cause the President to flip the Speed
On 04/09/2012 11:25 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Yally wrote:
>
>> I became active on this date at this time.
>
> I'm interpreting this as a reasonably obvious typo for "become".
Gratuitous: "a" and "o" are adjacent on Dvorak but not Qwerty.
On 04/08/2012 11:40 PM, omd wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 12:16 AM, John Smith
> wrote:
>> Arguments: Cashing a promise causes its text to be effectively
>> published by its author; it doesn't actually cause them to send a
>> message. The person who most directly caused the message to be
>> sen
On 03/25/2012 10:44 PM, Mister Snuggles wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 12:13 AM, omd wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:04 PM, John Smith
>> wrote:
>>> CfJ, inquiry: "The Executor of the message quoted in the evidence
>>> cannot be determined with reasonable effort except by judicial
>>> decl
On 03/23/2012 03:52 PM, Tanner Swett wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Trying to define an obvious concept here, does recursion work, can
>> this be written better?
>>
>> A golem can either have a Boss, be Emancipated, or be in Storage.
>>
>> If a golem has no
On 03/23/2012 12:53 PM, Elliott Hird wrote:
> On 23 March 2012 17:13, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Trying to define an obvious concept here, does recursion work, can
>> this be written better?
>
> Looks OK to me, except that your self-ownership thing is borked: your
> recursion rules only apply if that
On 03/05/2012 12:21 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Transfer "half from each first-class person rounded down,
> and half from each golem rounded up?"
I like this last one.
> 7164 2 Murphy, etc. Grumpy Old Men
FOR
> 7166 3 omd, etc. We've all been ignoring this
AGAINST
> 7167 2 441344fixing another problem with WotE
Risky, but the ruleset doesn't *currently* have any cases of "without
[] Objection[s]". FOR.
> 7168 1.7 G.Dignified Sil
On 01/30/2012 06:14 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012, Pavitra wrote:
>> On 01/30/2012 05:00 PM, omd wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 4:31 AM, 441344 <441...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> #ELECTIONS###
On 01/30/2012 05:26 PM, ais523 wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-01-30 at 18:23 -0500, omd wrote:
>> TTttPF != NttPF.
>
> Wait, is it even possible to TTttPF someone else's message?
Why not?
On 01/30/2012 05:00 PM, omd wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 4:31 AM, 441344 <441...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> #ELECTIONS#
>
> On each election I vote conditionally for the candidate whose name is
> closest to the first word of the primary
On 01/30/2012 04:28 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Wooble wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Geoffrey Spear
>> wrote:
>>> For each of the following players, I intend, without objection, to
>>> deactivate em:
>>>
>>> Arkady
>>> Benu
>>> pikhq
>>> Roujo
>>> Walker
>>> Wooble
>>
>> Having receive
On 01/29/2012 11:59 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jan 2012, Pavitra wrote:
>> Similar remarks apply for "Tavros Nitram", "Pavitra", and "Goethe". (I
>> don't recall whether G. changed eir name before or after the current
>> name ru
gt;>
>> —Machiavelli
>
> No, but it has been generally used to refer to another entity within
> the past three months.
Similar remarks apply for "Tavros Nitram", "Pavitra", and "Goethe". (I
don't recall whether G. changed eir name before or after the cur
On 01/28/2012 04:56 PM, Tanner Swett wrote:
> Suppose that we say that the alleged CFJ 3134 was not successfully
> called. The precedent that this sets is that, in general, it is not
> possible to prosecute John Does. This really isn't that bad, though,
> for two reasons. One, it is impossible to t
On 01/26/2012 01:26 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Just thought of this one, I CFJ on:
>If a report that contains a "recent history" section is ratified, it
>also ratifies the fact that any missing events pertaining to that
>report, that might have otherwise occurred between the earlies
On 01/26/2012 01:07 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 2:59 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> * EXCLUSION, appropriate for rule breaches by a non-player. When
>> a judgement of EXCLUSION has been in effect continuously for
>> one week, the ninny CANNOT register for one mont
On 01/24/2012 08:13 PM, Tanner Swett wrote:
> No vote; the FLR isn't loading for me
Looks okay to me. I'm reading at http://agora.qoid.us/current_flr.txt
and I've temporarily pasted a copy to
http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=gW2P23Vs if that helps.
On 01/22/2012 03:28 PM, 441344 wrote:
> I intend to deputise for Horton to publish Horton's weekly report for
> the week Mon. 23 - Sun. 29.
> I intend to deputise for the Promotor to publish the Promotor's report
> for the week Mon. 16 - Sun. 22 and distribute the proposals currently
> in the prop
On 01/18/2012 04:14 PM, 441344 wrote:
> *Pavrita
Probably effective anyway.
> Golem by announcement, specifying it's Alarm.
its Alarm.
> Decreasing the Alarm
> of a Clock Golem is
> secured.
Can I increase the Alarm of someone else's Clock Golem, since it's not
secured?
> The Golemkeepor's
>
On 01/17/2012 06:27 PM, Arkady English wrote:
> And the thing here is that total votes DO matter. There are Tv = Vf+Va
> voters, so if 1 person votes against (i.e. Va = 1) the highest
> possible adoption index that could be reached is (T-1). Thus by
> setting the adoption index greater than (T-1) a
On 01/17/2012 05:03 AM, Arkady English wrote:
> On 15 January 2012 15:24, Tanner Swett wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 9:15 AM, 441344 <441...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Amend Rule 1950 by replacing the text
>>> {
>>> Adoption index is a switch possessed by Agoran decisions, whose value is
>>> ei
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 01/13/2012 06:08 PM, Elliott Hird wrote:
> On 13 January 2012 20:07, 441344 <441...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I declare intent to, with Agoran Consent, cause the President to taunt
>> the police specifying 6.
>
> I supplant.
This fails because you are not the Speaker.
On 01/13/2012 04:01 PM, Arkady English wrote:
> How about we put to the test:
>
> CFJ: {The statement "Amend Rule /yy" is equivalent to "Amend Rule
> IFF its revision number is yy.}
Missing trailing quote.
On 01/08/2012 11:51 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 00:49, Pavitra wrote:
>
>> On 01/08/2012 11:30 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 00:28, Craig Daniel wrote:
>>>
>>>> I intend to become a player in four weeks'
On 01/08/2012 11:30 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 00:28, Craig Daniel wrote:
>
>> I intend to become a player in four weeks' time.
>>
>> - teucer
>>
>>
> Too bad. Welcome to Agora.
Nope.
A first-class person CAN (unless explicitly forbidden or
prevented by the rules
On 12/21/2011 06:32 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> (Thanks to Bucky for discussing this with me.)
>
> CFJ (barring Bucky): With no changes to rule 2333, nor to other rules
> that would change how rule 2333 is interpreted, if a contestmaster
> announces that one or more persons "win the contest", and then
On 12/21/2011 11:30 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2011, Pavitra wrote:
>> On 12/20/2011 04:22 PM, John Smith wrote:
>>>> This message is a Delve, satisfying the Goals 2205 and 2338.
>>>
>>> The only Delve was cashing a promise, which relied c
Please note the upcoming holiday, which will end at 00:01 09 January
2012. Any game events that would otherwise occur during the holiday
instead occur at 00:01 12 January 2012.
On 12/20/2011 04:22 PM, John Smith wrote:
>> This message is a Delve, satisfying the Goals 2205 and 2338.
>
> The only Delve was cashing a promise, which relied critically on
> 2338. You could have submitted the same judicial arguments even if
> Rule 2205 did not exist.
I could have published t
On 12/14/2011 09:29 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> I cash the Promise (2011-04-24 omd).
>
> I believe this has been shown to fail since it was not done (and
> indeed cannot be done) simultaneously with the judgment.
The promise says "has just assigned a judgement", which I assumed meant
earlier in the s
On 12/12/2011 02:47 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 03:39, Pavitra wrote:
>> On 12/12/2011 02:33 AM, ais523 wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 02:28 -0600, Pavitra wrote:
>>>> It might make the owner of a rule able to destroy that rule by
>>&
On 12/12/2011 02:33 AM, ais523 wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 02:28 -0600, Pavitra wrote:
>> It might make the owner of a rule able to destroy that rule by announcement.
>
> Only if that rule's owner had positive power.
Nope. R2166 has positive power. (paragraph 6)
On 12/12/2011 01:52 AM, ais523 wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 07:46 +, Alex Smith wrote:
>> I intend, without objection, to transfer rule 2166 from the Lost and
>> Found department to myself.
>>
>> (This works because rules fulfil the definition of assets; they exist
>> only because they're rul
On 12/11/2011 10:57 AM, Elliott Hird wrote:
> On 11 December 2011 07:07, Mister Snuggles wrote:
>> coe: i should not be on this list.
>>
>> mister snuggles
>
> Whoever is doing this, stop it. However much you find mister snuggles
> annoying, this is bad form.
>
> (My remarks stand even if whoeve
On 12/09/2011 08:06 PM, woggle wrote:
> On 12/9/11 5:44 PM, Mister Snuggles wrote:
>> arkady hereby goes idle.
>> ais523 hereby goes idle.
>> benu hereby goes idle.
>> g. hereby goes idle.
>> murphy hereby goes idle.
>> omd hereby goes idle.
>> pavitr
On 12/09/2011 01:29 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 9:30 PM, omd wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Mister Snuggles wrote:
>>> i support this proposal wholeheartedly.
>>
>> If I am Mister Snuggles, I intend, with Agoran Consent, to deregister.
>
> I support and do so.
On 12/07/2011 03:36 PM, Elliott Hird wrote:
> On 7 December 2011 21:14, ais523 wrote:
>> I judge CFJ 3130 FALSE. Rule 754 defines difference in the type or
>> amount of whitespace as completely irrelevant in all forms of
>> communication for all purposes, so ehird's message can only be read as
>>
On 12/02/2011 08:49 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Pavitra wrote:
>
>> Horton's Promise Report
>
> Only four nines? I blame the Los Angeles wind.
I deducted one for missing last week's report.
On 11/15/2011 02:43 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, 15 Nov 2011, Pavitra wrote:
>> Proto fix: the text of a promise can create, but not cash, a promise.
>
> When written, I envisioned finite chaining should be possible and
> could be fun (think: cascad
On 11/15/2011 12:29 PM, ais523 wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 10:16 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> In that case, what do you think happens for the non-conditional case:
>>Promise 1: I sit and cash Promise 2.
>>Promise 2: I lie down and cash Promise 1.
>>I cash promise 1.
>
> Also, that
On 11/15/2011 12:16 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 15 Nov 2011, ais523 wrote:
>> On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 20:09 -0500, Sean Hunt wrote:
This falls afoul of the precedent in CFJ 2737 (itself an extension of
the precedent in CFJ 1584), for the same reason that CFJ 3121 did.
h
On 11/15/2011 12:20 PM, ais523 wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 12:14 -0600, Pavitra wrote:
>> On 11/15/2011 12:01 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> On Mon, 14 Nov 2011, Sean Hunt wrote:
>>>>> This falls afoul of the precedent in CFJ 2737 (itself an extension of
>>
On 11/15/2011 12:01 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Nov 2011, Sean Hunt wrote:
>>> This falls afoul of the precedent in CFJ 2737 (itself an extension of
>>> the precedent in CFJ 1584), for the same reason that CFJ 3121 did.
>>>
>>> http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1584
>>> http
On 11/14/2011 04:35 PM, Elliott Hird wrote:
> If we get this STM stuff, it would be interesting to make messages
> atomic by default. That would ease the burden on recordkeepors and on
> players.
I'm not convinced that it would. The boundaries between messages are
sometimes fuzzy, and people often
On 11/10/2011 01:02 PM, ais523 wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 12:59 -0600, Pavitra wrote:
>> On 11/10/2011 10:37 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> == CFJ 3123 ==
&
On 11/10/2011 10:58 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> 3121: FALSE
>
> See CFJ 2737. This attempt depends on a similar induction chain, and
> Rule 2338 doesn't explicitly state that actions-by-cashing-a-promise
> can form an infinite chain.
>
> Apart from that, I accept the gratuitous arguments, and also n
If a judgement-on-appeal really needs overturning that badly, a new
identical CFJ can be called.
On 11/07/2011 06:22 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> scshunt wrote:
>
>> Proposal: What? (AI=1)
>> {{{
>> Repeal Rule 2353 (The Conductor).
>> [All switches must be tracked]
>> }}}
>
> The point is, if we create a new switch and a new officer, but forget
> to specify that the latter tracks the former (this
On 11/07/2011 01:53 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> n Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 14:48, ais523 wrote:
>> You can't use destruction of promises, because you can't create promises
>> in other promises, and so this wouldn't be able to run forever.
>
> Yes you can.
Yup, see for example the former (2011-07-19 omd).
On 11/06/2011 09:11 PM, com...@gmail.com wrote:
> In general I think a better question is whether you can evaluate
> complex expressions with promises without requiring complicated
> naming schemes or complicated individual messages that could be
> thrown out as unclear, relying instead on emergent
On 11/06/2011 08:27 PM, Tanner Swett wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 8:41 PM, Pavitra wrote:
>>> I cash promise S, specifying promise I. Call the resulting promise C.
>> This submits a second copy of S, and assigns C as a synonym for S.
>> (Note that promises with th
This entire thing is hypothetical because it was posted to a-d.
Tanner L. Swett wrote:
> I submit the following promise, which will be called S:
> {{C
> I submit the following promise, where X is the promise specified:
> {{D
> I submit the following promise, where Y is the promise specifi
1 - 100 of 493 matches
Mail list logo
