On 10 Oct 2008, at 15:58, comex wrote:
I object. If you want to leave in a huff, do it the proper way
(R1789).
I do not. I am trying, through the mechanism of Agoran Consent, to
determine
whether I am welcome or not.
--
ehird
nd out what's being voted
on)
*sigh*.
What, you don't have numerical indices?
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr
He's talking about, you know... reading your votes.
--
ehird
such,
completion of full activation for the duration of the contracted term
will terminate previous obligations.
Good luck, UNDEAD, I think this time we may need it.
What.
--
ehird
test
--
ehird
PROTECTED] with a subject of "subscribe"
and a body
of "subscribe" (without quotes in both instances).
(Actually, I think the previous paragraph is irrelevant - a web
browser is
required to view Public Displays. Still, for completeness...)
I initialize the Pause.
--
ehird
On 9 Oct 2008, at 14:59, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
I withdraw my intent to appeal, and submit the following proposal:
Whereas these rules serve only to further scams,
Rules 2192 and 2193 are hereby repealed.
--Wooble
They are used for scams != they are only for scams
--
ehird
On 8 Oct 2008, at 20:27, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Nor did I agree to a published pledge. You explicitly CANNOT agree
by silence. -G.
Yes you can. Equity judgements.
--
ehird
contract was published in the voting period.
--
ehird
On 8 Oct 2008, at 03:22, Taral wrote:
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 2:22 PM, ehird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But it's not a public forum.
On whose authority?
I believe that is the right question posed the wrong way. On whose
authority is it a public forum?
The rules, at least b
ot Bayes to supply context and reply to the thread, could
you do too?
--
ehird
test
--
ehird
On 7 Oct 2008, at 22:16, Taral wrote:
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 2:11 PM, ehird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Nah, he knew about Agora and the public-forumness.
And I clarified that he was now a player, but I think he already
kinda knew.
But it's not a public forum.
On whos
On 7 Oct 2008, at 22:09, Taral wrote:
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 1:19 PM, ehird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
#really-a-cow:
I register as oklopol.
oklocod: welcome to Agora!
!
...what just happened? :)
Someone should tell him that he's been tricked. :D
Nah, he knew about Ag
On 7 Oct 2008, at 20:12, Zefram wrote:
ehird wrote:
Don't be so sure...
Is that a threat to falsify your log?
-zefram
No... because you actually said that you came off hold.
others can back me up.
--
ehird
On 7 Oct 2008, at 19:37, Ed Murphy wrote:
Zefram wrote:
I hereby vote:
5764 O 1 1.0 ais523 That's enough for now
FOR
Can't, you're inactive.
Don't be so sure...
--
ehird
.
--
ehird
, and the vote collector
is the Assessor. The valid options on each decision are FOR, AGAINST,
and PRESENT.
NUM C I AI SUBMITTER TITLE
5764 O 1 1.0 ais523 That's enough for now
AGAINST*42, broken
--
ehird
oops
Begin forwarded message:
From: ehird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 7 October 2008 17:28:31 BDT
To: ehird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: fora
On 7 Oct 2008, at 17:27, ehird wrote:
On 7 Oct 2008, at 17:16, Ed Murphy wrote:
I issue a standing request (until I
On 7 Oct 2008, at 17:16, Ed Murphy wrote:
I issue a standing request (until I withdraw it) to post such logs
at least once daily.
Will http://91.105.115.57:/logs.xml suffice? (Note: Is rendered
nicely
via CSS - not a raw XML dump.)
--
ehird
o set it up until
tomorrow evening.
-root
I could set up a webserver pointing to my copy of the logs if anyone
wishes.
--
ehird
n a decent position to put a bot
on that channel and have it re-send to a-b periodically?
I shall publish recent logs on request to a-d.
--
ehird
On 7 Oct 2008, at 16:42, Ian Kelly wrote:
Burying hidden actions in large amounts of text is the oldest scam in
the book. It's not interesting at all.
-root
The publicforuming, however, is.
--
ehird
On 7 Oct 2008, at 16:36, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
I nominate root, Murphy, and Wooble as Registrar.
--Wooble
Would you prefer a game where there were no interesting scams at all?
--
ehird
Endless Repeals: 2136.3
AGAINST*2 (14% sure)
--
bayes 2008-10-07 13:59:41 +0100
Hoorah, the new format works.
P.S. its proposing feature has been retired until we figure out a
clever way
of proposing might-actually-pass proposals.
--
ehird
On 6 Oct 2008, at 19:13, Ian Kelly wrote:
I for one have no objection to mistreating partnerships that spam the
game with useless proposals. :-)
-root
That was testing. It will only propose once a week in future.
--
ehird
ains the entire ruleset via custom.
--
ehird
On 6 Oct 2008, at 17:27, Kerim Aydin wrote:
That's a Grand Poobah decision/policy, feel free to vote em out of
office if you don't like it... -Goethe
Which is exactly what me and comex are doing.
--
ehird
k this might be intentional? Just flip to Alpha
last and then they become the Poobah? 1 rotation per cycle?
--
ehird
On 6 Oct 2008, at 15:37, Bayes wrote:
bayes 2008-10-06 15:37:09 +0100
This is a version, by the way, not a timestamp.
--
ehird
d to Alpha, e becomes the Grand Poobah
Infinite loop.
Er, no?
--
ehird
On 5 Oct 2008, at 22:01, Roger Hicks wrote:
I could have easily been bribed to prefer certain partnerships when I
was Poobah.
BobTHJ
Bribery is even worse.
--
ehird
s a partnership".
--
ehird
; otherwise, FOR.
Y'be voting AGAINST there, it has yonder non-breaking spaces.
ehird
On 5 Oct 2008, at 15:03, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
Demoted to Epsilon: Bayes (not first class), cdm014 (inactive).
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
Grand Poobah OscarMeyr
Why do we punish partnerships with an iron first again?
--
ehird
power greater than its own. A "substantive" aspect of
an instrument is any aspect that affects the instrument's
operation.
--
is power 3. Thus AI=3 proposals are ominipotent.
--
ehird
On 5 Oct 2008, at 14:28, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
On Oct 5, 2008, at 9:15 AM, ehird wrote:
Proposal: Let's Get Our Names Right, Shall We? (AI=3)
As the rule indicates, it is power 4. An AI=3 proposal shouldn't
affect it, unless someone snuck something in.
Last I checked AI=3
On 4 Oct 2008, at 23:55, ehird wrote:
Hummm. 'sabug, I'll fix it tomorrow.
--
ehird
Hooray, all fixed.
('AGAINST', 0.63848244470276394)
and
('AGAINST', 0.55858365302709867)
are its two real votes, respectively, btw, although it has no way of
retracting vote
On 4 Oct 2008, at 23:53, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 2:13 PM, ehird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 4 Oct 2008, at 19:07, Taral wrote:
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 5:52 AM, ehird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
What comes next? o.o or O.O?
O.O of course.
--
Taral <[
On 4 Oct 2008, at 23:24, ehird wrote:
On 4 Oct 2008, at 23:22, Bayes wrote:
Bayes votes as follows:
5740 PRESENT*2 (0.5)
5742 PRESENT*2 (0.5)
--
bayes 2008-10-04 23:21:33 +0100
... Well ain't that something.
--
ehird
Hummm. 'sabug, I'll fix it tomorrow.
--
ehird
-class players, and the vote collector
is the Assessor.
NUM C I AI SUBMITTER TITLE
5740 O 1 1.0 Pavitra More Reasonable Monster Deputy v.2
This proposal has some weiird non-unicode chars. :\
--
ehird
On 4 Oct 2008, at 23:22, Bayes wrote:
Bayes votes as follows:
5740 PRESENT*2 (0.5)
5742 PRESENT*2 (0.5)
--
bayes 2008-10-04 23:21:33 +0100
... Well ain't that something.
--
ehird
On 4 Oct 2008, at 19:07, Taral wrote:
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 5:52 AM, ehird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What comes next? o.o or O.O?
O.O of course.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
o.o
--
ehird
On 4 Oct 2008, at 19:22, Dvorak Herring wrote:
I leave the Bayes Contract.
--
Dvorak Herring
Hooray! Thanks. Nothing personal, but now it can operate :-P
--
ehird
On 4 Oct 2008, at 16:03, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 8:26 AM, ehird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
To elaborate since you might not understand being new:
Next time to the Public Forum.
Actually, "not to the public forum." "next time..." would require an
On 4 Oct 2008, at 00:31, ehird wrote:
On 4 Oct 2008, at 00:01, Dvorak Herring wrote:
I leave the Bayes Contract.
nttpf
--
ehird
To elaborate since you might not understand being new:
Next time to the Public Forum.
You sent it to a-d, but things only happen to a-b. :-P
--
ehird
On 4 Oct 2008, at 03:03, Taral wrote:
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 2:12 PM, ehird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Why O.o?
(I'm younger than ihope, if "O.o" means "you are young". :-P)
o.O
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if
On 4 Oct 2008, at 00:01, Dvorak Herring wrote:
I leave the Bayes Contract.
nttpf
--
ehird
nging the rules.
-woggle
We'd need a Customkeepor (defined by custom, naturally.)
--
ehird
etc. still exist, which sets the
precedent for lots of other things still existing, too.
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
Brilliant. Retaining the game as custom via 217.
This is Goethe's position amplified a million times.
I wholeheartedly support.
--
ehird
On 3 Oct 2008, at 21:58, Taral wrote:
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 3:40 AM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And though we are both 15 years old, Agora is younger than me, alas.
O.o
Why O.o?
(I'm younger than ihope, if "O.o" means "you are young". :-P)
--
ehird
e: all the 'can join by announcement' clauses.
--
ehird
t restrict me from retracting such votes myself).
--
ais523
This is the authority on which I changed the vote, Murphy.
--
ehird
On 3 Oct 2008, at 00:30, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 4:36 PM, ehird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Are these valid?
It's impossible to cast a negative number of votes. Other than that,
the ones that aren't in excess of your voting limit would appear to be
valid.
off the fountain
AGAINST*-3, AGAINST*4
5730 D 0 2.0 comex Fix the ratification error
FOR
Are these valid?
--
ehird
butor and/or another
mail guru (I am not one myself).
"1 July 2008 00:00:00 +" would be a reasonable timestamp.
--
ehird
On 2 Oct 2008, at 18:08, Zefram wrote:
comex wrote:
I wish ehird had tried that. E would have sent the message before
eir birth.
Woo, we have a player younger than the game? Now Agora's really
grown up.
-zefram
I seem to recall ihope is 15, I don't know if e's o
On 2 Oct 2008, at 18:01, comex wrote:
I wish ehird had tried that. E would have sent the message before
eir birth.
I asked ais523 about that, and probably if that kind of time-travel
did work,
it'd just be an email from a non-person.
On 1 Jul 2008, at 01:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I CFJ on the statement: {This CFJ was initiated or will be
initiated at midnight, 1 July 2008.}
Oh my, Murphy, you're a bit late with this one...
58 matches
Mail list logo
