On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 8:35 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 7:31 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 5:16 PM, Pavitra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Saturday 18 October 2008 05:32:11 pm Ed Murphy wrote:
If I have less than two
{This is a public contract known as The Agoran Fast Food Society.
Parties to this contract are known as Artisans. The Muckle is a
person, originally Warrigal. If the Muckle is not an active player, or
has been the Muckle for the last 30 days, any Artisan can cause any
Artisan to become the Muckle.
On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 12:43 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ivan Hope wrote:
>> To add to the confusion, I now wish to be known as Warrigal.
>>
>> --Ivan Hope CXXVII
>
> That's going to be a bit confusing. Mind if we call you New-Bruce
> for short?
Yes, because New-Bruce is not short
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 10:42 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 4:46 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Arguments: No rule said I didn't have a full
>> set of ribbons, so it was up to me to decide that I did.
>
>
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 4:55 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 2:46 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I have a full set of ribbons. Therefore, I destroy one ribbon of each
>> color in my possession, satisfying the Winning Condition
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 11:01 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 10:48 AM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Even without that, the arguments against things spontaneously coming
>> into power like that are unbreakably strong.
>
> How
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 5:17 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As a new player bonus, you get a White Ribbon; you also start out with a
> caste of Epsilon, which lets you vote once on any proposal. (As the game
> goes on, you should be able to find ways to get yourself multiple votes
> on som
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 8:17 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 6:13 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 17:08, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 17:56, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I join
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 2:18 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 12:16 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> 4. (Score=5, Owner=null) Thrice ea
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 4. (Score=5, Owner=null) Thrice each week, each party CAN increment or
> decrement the score of a section of this contract by 1.
>
> 6. (Score=5, Owner=null) Once each week each party CAN add a new
> section to this contract
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 8:06 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Kyle is hereby defined as a non-registered entity on whose behalf I
>> can act by announcement. Kyle degregisters.
>
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 11:29 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think you should probably also make ratification self-ratifying; that
> is, ratifications self-ratify as having worked. Otherwise, we could end
> up in meta-ratification mixups...
It would be weird if all self-ratifications we
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 11:18 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 8:09 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Without objection, I intend to ratify the excerpted report.
>>
>> Without objection, I ratify the excerpted report
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 10:42 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 20:09 -0400, ihope wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 4:18 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 2:26 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 1:12 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 21:58, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> (Also, psst: you're supposed to be voting LLAMA votes only, not SELL.
>> Post a sell ticket and vote LLAMA (endorse fi
My suggestions:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * A change to the exchange rate for a currency
> * Any action the RBOA can perform as a person
Replace the second one with "sending a message on behalf of the RBOA",
as, for one, players technically need no
On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 10:12 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 19:12, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 4:39 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Oops. With the consent of a majority of Llamas, I
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 6:51 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11 Oct 2008, at 23:28, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> I call for judgement on the following statement, barring Ivan Hope:
>> "If Ivan Hope takes actions in the PerlNomic game which cause em to
>> become an active player of Perl
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 4:05 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Proto-Proposal: Embassies
>
> Amend Rule 2200 (Nomic Definitions) by appending this text:
>
> An embassy is a partnership player whose contract designates
You mean "registered partnership"?
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
Yay, wrong forum.
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 10:23 AM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> RFC 12: "Every player has a number of AP, which is initially 7 and
> never more than 7. Every midnight UTC, every player gets an AP, unless
> this would put them above 7 AP. Subgame actions
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 8:24 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can you re-post the agreement so I can read it over? (Somwhere I lost
> which was the final copy)
>
> BobTHJ
Here you go:
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 6:39 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree
On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 6:51 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ivan Hope wrote:
>> A valid vote cast by a Llama of LLAMA (X), where X resolves to FOR or
>> AGAINST, is a party vote toward FOR or AGAINST, respectively. A party
>
> "is a party vote toward X"
Is that better beyond being a bit
On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 1:35 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 1:25 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Rule 1698, "Agora Is a Nomic", effectively states that it is possible
>> to make arbitrary rule changes and/or adopt arbitr
On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 10:53 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 11:41 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I submit the following proposal, Partner Responsibility, AI-2:
>>
>> --
>> Amend Rul
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 7:23 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Contract
>> Changes can be performed with the consent of a majority of Llamas;
>> this is the only way a person can join this contract.
>
> Can I join?
That depends on how early your clade diverged from mine according to
my Agoran
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 8:34 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I guess we can say "Any Llama can cause any Llama who is not an active
> player to become inactive." right at the end of the last paragraph.
...
I guess we can say "Any Llama can cause any Llama who
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 7:58 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 16:54, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 7:43 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> You probably want a means to shed inacti
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 7:43 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 16:31, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 7:30 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> {The name of this contract is "The Llama Party
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 7:30 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> {The name of this contract is "The Llama Party." This is a public
> contract. Parties to this contract are known as Llamas. Any person CAN
> join this contract with the consent of a majority of Llamas. A
{The name of this contract is "The Llama Party." This is a public
contract. Parties to this contract are known as Llamas. Any person CAN
join this contract with the consent of a majority of Llamas. Any Llama
CAN leave this contract by announcement.
A valid vote cast by a Llama of LLAMA (X), where
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 1:01 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:33 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Not least because you, er, didn't actually send the message in 1993.
>
> I wish ehird had tried that. E would have sent the message before eir birth.
I don't li
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1 Oct 2008, at 23:27, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> If I'm not mistaken, BAYES actually stands for "BAYES is not an acronym."
>
> BAYES stands for BAYES: Acronym? You Egg! Shenanigans...
It's a Calvin and Hobbes-style acronym for t
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 1:11 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 5727 D 1 2.0 Ivan Hope CXXVIILegal Tender
> AGAINST (at least allow currencies the chance to opt out)
Legal tender assets are defined by the currency's backing document,
not by the legal tender assets' backing document. T
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 5:29 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ivan Hope, tusho, I inform you of equity case 2119 and invite you to
> submit arguments regarding the equitability of the situation.
>
> http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2119
I hereby submit an argument regar
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 12:43 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 12:58 AM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I believe precedent is that if a disclaimer implies that something may
>> not actually be true, it's not an ann
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 1:27 AM, Ben Caplan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 27 September 2008 06:20:41 pm comex wrote:
>> We have no Rule
>> 400
>>0, so I think we're safe.
>
> Interesting. I read "4E83" to mea
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 12:08 AM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "not necessarily true" doesn't imply automatically false, does it?
I believe precedent is that if a disclaimer implies that something may
not actually be true, it's not an announcement.
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 5:16 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-09-27 at 17:13 -0400, ihope wrote:
>> I can testify that ais523 has access to [EMAIL PROTECTED] currently,
>> though comex and I both have the power to send email from that address
>> as we
Will one of the Normishites please vote for and activate
update-index-html as soon as possible? Thanks.
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
I will not be casting votes of SELL (2VP); since I'm a Slave, anyone
can do that for me, and I think it's a reasonable assumption that if
nobody does so, nobody wants it done, so I shouldn't be punished if
the votes are never cast.
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 9:59 PM, Ben Caplan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Proto-proto: Make power ordinal rather than cardinal, and organize the
> ruleset by power. Occasionally we would have rules like "rules below
> this one can be changed with AI >= 2". Early (powerful) rules would
> include "def
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 9:26 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 6:34 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I still have a strong feeling that Agora needs some sort of safety valve
>> to escape from situations where the normal proposal system doesn't work,
>>
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 9:16 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I humbly request for a list of those obligations of mine that are public.
I believe your only obligations are to act in accordance with the
contracts you're a party to (see one of ais523's Notary reports); to
judge, if
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 7:30 PM, Ben Caplan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 20 September 2008 05:53:58 pm Ian Kelly wrote:
>> No, it has the problem that anybody with 12 friends can do anything
>> they want.
>
> Isn't this true of the proposal system in general, for sufficiently
> large va
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 6:53 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 4:34 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I still have a strong feeling that Agora needs some sort of safety valve
>> to escape from situations where the normal proposal system doesn't work,
>> maybe
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/9/16 ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> It is sometimes appropriate.
>>
>> --Ivan Hope CXXVII
>>
>
> Alright. So... why did you say it wasn't? :P
Because I believed it was never appropriate at the time.
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 8:43 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/9/16 ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> No longer necessary, as CFJ 2107 is done.
>>
>> --Ivan Hope CXXVII
>>
>
> And? I would still like an answer.
It is sometimes appropriate.
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 7:05 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> This equation
>> terminates when Ivan Hope CXXVII possesses 50 Vote Points.
>
> How many VP does Ivan Hope CXXVII have now?
Zero, last time I checked.
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 11:31 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I ask that the Notary please attempt to terminate the Agoran Proposal
> Awards and the Protection Racket (since neither of these have seen
> much use).
I think the Protection Racket could continue to have use.
--Ivan Hope
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 8:29 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 8:06 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> See CFJ 2077.
>
> Ceasing to be a player doesn't cause you to stop being a party to any
> contract that's
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 6:15 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-09-08 at 16:03 -0400, ihope wrote:
>> I agree to all contracts I am currently a party to.
> I can't figure out what this does, if anything. Would someone care to
> help me out?
See CFJ 2077.
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 10:14 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 6:35 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 9:35 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> == Equity Case 2108 ==
>>
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Proposal, AI=3, "The First Speaker":
> Amend Rule 104 to read:
>
> The Speaker for the first game was Michael Norrish.
>
> E shall forever be known as First Speaker Michael.
If I'm not mistaken, rule 10
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 7:15 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think I made any commentary to agora-business (check
> agora-discussion archives for my brief old considerings). But
> basically, the record in 2107a suggested to me that the GUILTY
> judgment was believed correct by
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 7:02 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sep 8, 2008, at 6:55 PM, ihope wrote:
>
>> I CFJ on the following: The Speaker for the first game shall be
>> Michael Norrish. I CFJ on the following: The Speaker for the current
>>
I vote:
> 5688 O 1 1.0 Wooble Torches and Pitchforks
AGAINSTx1627
> 5689 D 0 3.0 The Monster The First Monster
FORx1627
> 5690 O 1 1.0 rootThe Angry Mob
AGAINSTx1626, SELL (1VP)
> 5691 O 1 1.0 comex The Kindly Mob
AGAINSTx1626, FORx1
> 5692 O
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 4:53 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 4:41 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I submit the following proposal, titled "R.I.P.", with adoption index
>> 1 and interest index 0: "Award a win to Rand
Also, claim of error:
> Caller: Goethe
> Barred: Ivan Hope
>
> Judge: Wooble
> Judgement: GUILTY
You left out the FINE part.
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 10:53 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd be willing to support REASSIGN for CJFs 2086-87.
I also recommend REASSIGN. Cases of ambiguity are precisely where
UNDECIDABLE is *not* appropriate, and the judge doesn't seem to know
this.
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 3:33 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/9/5 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Proto: It Takes Two to Tango (AI=1.7)
>>
>> [ Generalizes the features of pledges to all contracts. Also adds a
>> small amount of red tape to pledge creation, by requiring the
>>
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Proposal 5677 (Ordinary, AI=1.5, Interest=0) by Ivan Hope CXXVII
> none
>
> In rule 2198, remove the phrase "if, before the dependent action is
> resolved, no party blocks the change by announcement" and append "Any
> party to
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 7:22 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/9/3 Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> We really should define contracts to require that they at least
>> potentially place obligations on people. In RL contract law, this
>> thing wouldn't be a contract.
>
> Well, I think it
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 7:35 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ivan Hope wrote:
>
>>> 5682 D 0 2.0 ais523 Eligible Monsters
>> FORx1622
>>
>>> 5683 D 1 2.0 Wooble Fix Elections
>> FORx1622
>>
>>> 5684 D 0 2.0 Wooble Correct Ribbons
>> FORx1622
>>
>>>
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 11:02 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 10:39 AM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The judgement of FINE on the question on sentencing is still in
>> effect, as I never appealed it. Since it has not been
was not harsh
> enough. A sentence of APOLOGY seems a little silly this far from the
> event. A sentence like EXILE - 1 second wouldn't be helpful because
> ihope already took the asset-loss penalties. And Ivan Hope's voting
> limit is currently 1 and likely to remain so for a w
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 3:25 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ivan Hope CXXVII 0
> tusho0
I am proud to be one of the two first-class players with no ribbons at all.
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
inactive. I shutdown. i powerup. i level. I enbiggen. I break a
> world record. i speak. i act?
ihope.
--ihope127
Adoption index 1.5, interest index 0 (or 1 or something):
In rule 2198, remove the phrase "if, before the dependent action is
resolved, no party blocks the change by announcement" and append "Any
party to the contract CAN object to this dependent action." to the
last paragraph.
Rule 2124 wouldn't
On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 8:46 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's relying on the assumption that the PNP, being a player, CAN
> perform Agoran actions that are possible by announcement by sending a
> message. The contract itself doesn't need to specify that, IMO, and
> really couldn
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 11:51 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
>
>> The PerlNomic Partnership votes as follows. Each vote is made a
>> number of times equal to the PerlNomic Partnership's EVLOD on each
>> ordinary decision listed below. Each decision is ide
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/8/5 ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Evidence: In the game in question, I have fatally died, meaning it is
>> now impossible for me to ascend. Therefore, I would be GUILTY, if this
>> we
On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With 2 support, I intend to initiate a criminal case against ihope for
> violating rule 1742.dmission, has not ascended the game and is not currently
> performing the action of
This fails, as you specified
On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 12:57 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> WOIITT pledge #21 (unless Ivan Hope CXXVII wants to make my life easy by
> just leaving it).
Or you want to make your own life easy by not tracking it?
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 10:12 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Normally I would like to give ihope the benefit of the doubt, because
> people should not be penalized for stating their opinions about a
> controversy. But it is true that ihope used this statement,
> unquali
On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 10:56 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/7/27 Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> The action in question clearly could not have been taken through email. As
>> the Defendant has not attempted to eliminate the subject, the attempted
>> action was false.
Power-3 proposal:
{In Rule 2170, "Who Am I?", put the following before the last paragraph:
"A person can act on behalf of another person (the Absentee) to send a
message if and only if the Absentee consents to this. The Absentee
agreeing to (or being, in the case of partnerships) a contract
allow
On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ivan Hope wrote:
>
>> I agree to the following: {This is a pledge. Ivan Hope CXXVII can
>> leave this contract by announcement. The Beast is a fixed asset. Ivan
>> Hope CXXVII can cause it to be owned by anyone by announcement.
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 6:53 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I cfj on the following statement "If an entity is not elgible to own a
> particular type of asset, then they own zero of that asset"
>
> I argue true, though ehird seems to thing otherwise.
No need to CFJ on it, in my opinion. Th
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 12:51 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Proto-proto:
>
> Scale appeal judgements to make OVERRULE and AFFIRM only appropriate
> on a first appeal on matters of no controversy (such as when the judge
> admits they made an error in their judgment). Make REMAND more
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 6:56 PM, Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 6:23 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I try one more time, and then give up if i fail
>>
>> Without 3 objections I intend to chagne the RBOA contract as follows:
>
> Is "to chagne" a term of ar
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 8:19 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008, ihope wrote:
>> Arguments: After reading Rule 591, "Inquiry Cases" (where does Rule
>> 1503 come in?), I had forgotten about the "logically undecidable" part
&g
With two support, I intend to sigh.
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jul 20, 2008, at 8:42 PM, comex wrote:
>>
>> I initiate a criminal case accusing OscarMeyr of violating Rule 2149
>> by claiming that tusho could not have violated any rules becaus
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 2:58 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 12:15 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I object to every dependent action I can object to. I support every
>> dependent action I can support.
>
> I'm treating t
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 1:44 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I call for judgement on the following:
> ihope changed eir Registrar-recorded nickname to avpx on or
> about Jul 19th.
Isn't that undetermined until the Registrar publishes eir report, at
which time i
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 7:54 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 7. Metabankers can cease to be Metabankers with the consent of the
> holders of a majority of FPB.
I find this to be an astonishingly concise way of stating what I
originally wanted to state in the Bank of Agora but decid
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 6:11 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
I support.
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 11:57 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 8:01 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> {action="X violated Z by Y", rule=Z} -- INNOCENT
>
> This looks like UNIMPUGNED to me.
It's INNOCENT if the action, "X violated Z by Y", did not occur,
UNIMPUGN
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 7:53 PM, Ben Caplan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 14 July 2008 06:45:00 pm Quazie wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 4:39 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > b) Justiciar. Within three days after an appeal case comes
>> > to require a judge, the Justiciar CA
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 7:06 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As an aside, your statement could also be parsed as (I => (R ^ ~G)) ^
> (~I => (~R ^ G)), which is false for any assignment of I.
Assuming ^ is XOR and R and G are both false, that expression you
devised is false for all I. Th
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:51 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 9:55 PM, Ben Caplan
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sunday 13 July 2008 10:45:42 pm ihope wrote:
>>> Either the sky is always red or, if I do not hereby initiate an
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> SPLIT DECISION should be evaluated as follows:
> ---
> for (int i = 0; i < myevlod/2; i ++)
> {
> vote FOR;
> vote AGAINST;
> }
> vote PRESENT;
> ---
In other words, you vote cycle [FOR, AGAINST]?
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 3:27 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In CFJ 1695, it was ruled that not allowing partnerships to act
> infringes the right of participation in the fora of the partnership.
> This does not apply in the case of first-class players acting on
> behalf of each other, which
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 1:15 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Proposal: a probably unsuccessful attempt at deregistering ehird
> because I forgot to vote AGAINST 5582
>
> Upon the adoption of this proposal, ehird deregisters emself by announcement.
Please make it "ehird is deregistered" and
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 1:23 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IIRC, the main benefit of creating contracts using pesos (rather than
> defining their own currency) is a common exchange medium, which role
> is already filled by the RBoA to some extent. Also, the more currencies
> there are
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 8:56 AM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In the message in question, Defendant stated: "I join" and not "I am
>> registered." As e argued, a failed action is not a false statement. I
>> th
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jul 13, 2008, at 11:37 AM, Ben Caplan wrote:
>> Might be a good idea for the RBoA to set an exchange rate for pesos.
>
> With all these various currencies, maybe we should have a common measure of
> account, and revi
aying that you agree is how you
create a binding agreement. Sgeo said he agreed; since this is how you
create a binding agreement, it's now a binding agreement.
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 9:37 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 11:02 PM, ihope <[EMA
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 11:33 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ivan Hope, Sgeo, I inform you of CFJ 2067 and invite you to submit
> arguments regarding the equitability of the situation.
I ask that you include all the relevant arguments I've already made.
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 10:52 AM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I intend to deputise for the Assessor to resolve the Agoran decision
> on whether to adopt proposal 5582.
These are the votes on it, I believe:
Sgeo FOR
Goethe
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 2:49 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ivan Hope wrote:
>
>> Rule 2191: "An equity case regarding a pledge CAN be initiated by a
>> non-party, provided that all other requirements for initiating an
>> equity case are met. The initiator of such a case is considered
1 - 100 of 293 matches
Mail list logo
