On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 11:16 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> comex wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Partnerships can't initiate criminal cases, either.
>>
>> I am willing to give chits, VP, and/or crops for a pledge that you
>> will
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Partnerships can't initiate criminal cases, either.
I am willing to give chits, VP, and/or crops for a pledge that you
will accept a few more CFJs from me. (The refused ones are more
interesting than the ones that got throug
comex wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 12:33 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I initiate a criminal CFJ:
>>> - defendant: comex
>>> - rule: 2149
>>> - action: claiming in eir message with message-id
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> that e
>>> intended to appeal ehird's judgement of CFJ 1932, wh
comex wrote:
> The AFO initiates a criminal CFJ:
It can't.
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 10:01 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/7/16 Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> and, for that matter, why hasn't ##nomic registered yet?
>>
>
> ##nomic registers.
Since I'm not aware of any public partnership by that name, I'm
treating this as ineffective.
-ro
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, ais523 wrote:
> Arguably, it's possible to infer a mechanism to Dance a Powerful Dance
> from the Town Fountain. I tend to think of pretty much everything
> mentioned in the rules as potentially definable, or defined, by them.
Except R754 defers to a dictionary unless an expl
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 8:55 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 17:01 -0700, Quazie wrote:
>> E actually violated a contract instead. ##nomic was a contract
>> forbidding the eating of cake at the time (if i have my timing
>> correct).
> Actually, ##nomic still claims to
On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 17:01 -0700, Quazie wrote:
> E actually violated a contract instead. ##nomic was a contract
> forbidding the eating of cake at the time (if i have my timing
> correct).
Actually, ##nomic still claims to be a public contract forbidding the
eating of cake, but it is obviously l
On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 16:50 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Zefram wrote:
> > comex wrote:
> >> - action: claiming to dance in eir message with message-id
> >
> > The term "dance" has a specialised meaning in the context of Agora,
> > referring to a verbal (rather than kinaesthetic
On Jul 15, 2008, at 7:50 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Zefram wrote:
comex wrote:
- action: claiming to dance in eir message with message-id
The term "dance" has a specialised meaning in the context of Agora,
referring to a verbal (rather than kinaesthetic) activity. By that
2008/7/16 Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> E actually violated a contract instead. ##nomic was a contract
> forbidding the eating of cake at the time (if i have my timing
> correct).
That was after.
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 4:50 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Zefram wrote:
>> comex wrote:
>>> - action: claiming to dance in eir message with message-id
>>
>> The term "dance" has a specialised meaning in the context of Agora,
>> referring to a verbal (rather th
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 4:46 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> comex wrote:
>>- rule: 2149
>>- action: eating cake.
>
> R2149 does not regulate gustatory activity.
>
>>- rule: 2149
>>- action: claiming that eating cake is a violation of Rule 2149
E actually violated a contract instead. ##
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Zefram wrote:
> comex wrote:
>> - action: claiming to dance in eir message with message-id
>
> The term "dance" has a specialised meaning in the context of Agora,
> referring to a verbal (rather than kinaesthetic) activity. By that
> meaning, Goethe did in fact dance in that
comex wrote:
>- rule: 2149
>- action: eating cake.
R2149 does not regulate gustatory activity.
>- rule: 2149
>- action: claiming that eating cake is a violation of Rule 2149
Ah, finally, a non-trivial issue. We haven't actually established whether
the initiation of a criminal CFJ constitutes
comex wrote:
>- action: claiming to dance in eir message with message-id
The term "dance" has a specialised meaning in the context of Agora,
referring to a verbal (rather than kinaesthetic) activity. By that
meaning, Goethe did in fact dance in that message.
>- action: claiming to kill Goethe in
comex wrote:
> Well, sheesh! I've had finals for a week and I go and forget about
> some CFJs, and you initiate a criminal case? I think the CFJs might
> be equally quickly resolved if you, y'know, just reminded me about
> them.
Actually, this is a token attempt at revenge for deregistering ehird
On 19:49 Wed 02 Apr , Ed Murphy wrote:
> pikhq wrote:
>
> > I disqualify Agora Nomic from this case.
> >
> > (Agora Nomic, by rule 2145, is a partnership, and therefore a
> > person. I can disqualify any person I damned well want to. Have fun
> > judging this one!)
>
> This fails on multiple
pikhq wrote:
> I disqualify Agora Nomic from this case.
>
> (Agora Nomic, by rule 2145, is a partnership, and therefore a
> person. I can disqualify any person I damned well want to. Have fun
> judging this one!)
This fails on multiple points:
* Rule 2171 (Rules Viewed as Binding Agreement) w
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 9:24 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 15:24 Sun 30 Mar , Ed Murphy wrote:
> > Iammars wrote:
> >
> > > I initiate a criminal case on pihkq for misrepresenting Agora on the
> > > Nomic Wiki by failing to include my name in the players list.
> > >
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 9:24 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Guilty as charged.
>
> However, I would like to be a bit of a bitch:
> I disqualify Agora Nomic from this case.
>
> (Agora Nomic, by rule 2145, is a partnership, and therefore a
> person. I can disqualify any person I da
21 matches
Mail list logo
