On Mon, 29 Dec 2008, comex wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Mine is semantically and logically 100% accurate, in that the CFJ
>> statement "a Notice of Intent is required to be posted before the time
>> a matching w/o Objection action is performed" would be judged
comex wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Mine is semantically and logically 100% accurate, in that the CFJ
>> statement "a Notice of Intent is required to be posted before the time
>> a matching w/o Objection action is performed" would be judged TRUE based
>> on R172
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Mine is semantically and logically 100% accurate, in that the CFJ
> statement "a Notice of Intent is required to be posted before the time
> a matching w/o Objection action is performed" would be judged TRUE based
> on R1728. This matches the
On Mon, 29 Dec 2008, comex wrote:
> I disagree... if you require that an action be done four days earlier
> than X, you are not requiring that it be done "prior to" X, but prior
> to (four days before X). If I advise you, new to the Agoran ruleset,
> that you have to resolve dependent actions ear
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 10:44 AM, comex wrote:
> I disagree... if you require that an action be done four days earlier
> than X, you are not requiring that it be done "prior to" X, but prior
> to (four days before X). If I advise you, new to the Agoran ruleset,
> that you have to resolve dependen
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 10:28 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> It's because the Intent is, in fact, in the words of R1769, simply
> required before the dependent action attempt. The fact that it is
> required 4 days before means that it's also required 3 days before,
> 2 days before, etc. or any time bet
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
> What's important here is that the time limit to perform an action (in
> this case, intention to perform a dependent action; although this is not
> normally considered a future event, the (including the time limit to
> perform an action) overrides this) is
On Sun, 2008-12-28 at 11:56 -0500, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
> This contract has the same basis as W30 1 through W30 37. The W30
> contracts all fail, if I understand the contract rules correctly.
They aren't partnerships.
--
ais523
On Sun, 2008-12-28 at 11:53 -0500, comex wrote:
> [Summary: More y-points for me, to a total of 640, then a win
> announcement.]
Just a quick explanation of why this works, but Goethe's attempt at the
same scam earlier didn't. It's all in the timing.
The Holidays rule says:
{{{
If some Rule
On Dec 28, 2008, at 11:52 AM, comex wrote:
[Summary: In five contracts, I award ais523 50 + 50i points. Then, in
several contracts, ais523 awards me a lot of y-points.]
I hereby publish the following contract's text and membership, making
it public:
{{{
This is a public contract.
comex CAN act
10 matches
Mail list logo
