comex wrote:
> On 5/9/08, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> and so should be EXCUSED.
>
> I apologize for the overlong quotation (forgot to trim) and do end the
> pre-trial phase of Wooble's CFJ.
At the time of the above announcement, there were two criminal cases
(1935 and 1942) initiated by
2008/5/10 Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Quoted for great justice. At the time the contract in question was
> joined (by each of its parties), there was no way for any party to
> avoid violating it. Everyone involved knew exactly what they were
> getting into.
>
> Pavitra.
>
However, there was
On Friday 9 May 2008 8:29:54 Ed Murphy wrote:
> There may still be some gray area, but this recent sequence of events is
> not it.
Quoted for great justice. At the time the contract in question was
joined (by each of its parties), there was no way for any party to
avoid violating it. Everyone invo
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 7:29 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There may still be some gray area, but this recent sequence of events is
> not it. In particular, in the following hypothetical cases, I think
> EXCUSED would be appropriate:
>
> 1) I join Contracts X and Y, which initially do
Pavitra wrote:
> On Friday 9 May 2008 10:18:15 Elliott Hird wrote:
>> The Argument:
>>
>> I should not be found GUILTY because the contract obligated
>> its parties to not be party to it, and therefore the contract
>> obligated its parties to break the rules. Therefore, since I
>> could not have d
ehird wrote:
> The Metagoracontractian Metareligion's commandments:
>
> 1. A member of the Metagoracontractian Metareligion
>must obey the commandments of the Metagoracontractian
>Metareligion.
> 2. A member of the Metagoracontractian Metareligion
>must be a member of the Metagoracont
On Friday 9 May 2008 6:27:08 Elliott Hird wrote:
> 2008/5/10 Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > The issue is not whether you have been in existence forever, but
> > whether you have been a member of the chain forever. Let's assume you
> > have always been bound by the conditions, even before the
>
2008/5/10 Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The issue is not whether you have been in existence forever, but
> whether you have been a member of the chain forever. Let's assume you
> have always been bound by the conditions, even before the
> meta-...-religions became Agoran contracts, even before
On Friday 9 May 2008 6:03:17 Elliott Hird wrote:
> 2008/5/9 Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > You still must have joined the infinite chain (or at least one
> > contract thereof) in said finite past.
>
> One of the meta-religions along the chain specifies that I have
> been in existence for an i
2008/5/9 Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> You still must have joined the infinite chain (or at least one
> contract thereof) in said finite past.
>
> pavitra
>
One of the meta-religions along the chain specifies that I have
been in existence for an infinite amount of time. So no, maybe not
in sai
On Friday 9 May 2008 5:31:33 Elliott Hird wrote:
> 2008/5/9 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Then you shouldn't have joined that one either. You realize the chain
> > can't recur infinitely, because the base state is not to be a member
> > of any contract, so you must have joined these contracts
2008/5/9 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Then you shouldn't have joined that one either. You realize the chain
> can't recur infinitely, because the base state is not to be a member
> of any contract, so you must have joined these contracts at some point
> in the material past.
>
> -root
>
Actua
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 4:00 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/5/9 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Then the Religion contract would inevitably force you to breach one
>> contract or the other, and so you should not have agreed to it in the
>> first place. Had you not, the rules b
2008/5/9 Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Please agree to the typo-fixed version instead.
>
> ehird
>
Actually, don't: that's not actually the metareligion, just an excerpt
(Like before).
ehird
On Friday 9 May 2008 10:18:15 Elliott Hird wrote:
> The Argument:
>
> I should not be found GUILTY because the contract obligated
> its parties to not be party to it, and therefore the contract
> obligated its parties to break the rules. Therefore, since I
> could not have done anything else, I pl
2008/5/9 ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 6:00 PM, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The Metagoracontractian Metareligion:
>>
>> This religion is a private contract, and a pledge. It has two commandments,
>
> I agree.
>
> --Ivan Hope CXXVII
>
Please agree to the typo-
My previous message had typos. Here is a revised version.
2008/5/9 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Then the Religion contract would inevitably force you to breach one
> contract or the other, and so you should not have agreed to it in the
> first place. Had you not, the rules breach would have
2008/5/9 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Then the Religion contract would inevitably force you to breach one
> contract or the other, and so you should not have agreed to it in the
> first place. Had you not, the rules breach would have been avoided.
My metareligion - Metagoracontractian - requi
On 5/9/08, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 11:18 AM, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > (I will hereby rebut the argument which is against my guilt and,
> > therefore, for my innocence.)
> >
> > These arguments relate to CFJ 1943.
> >
> > The Argument:
>
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 12:06 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/5/9 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Does it also define what the Ducks & Platypuses contract must be?
>
> Yes.
Then the Religion contract would inevitably force you to breach one
contract or the other, and so you sho
2008/5/9 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Does it also define what the Ducks & Platypuses contract must be?
Yes.
ehird
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 11:50 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> But my Religion is a private contract -- it obligated me
> to post the Ducks & Platypuses contract, and it obligates
> me to not propose, and oppose any such proposal, of a
> change to the Ducks & Platypuses contract.
Doe
2008/5/9 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> From an Agoran standpoint, yes.
>
> -root
>
But my Religion is a private contract -- it obligated me
to post the Ducks & Platypuses contract, and it obligates
me to not propose, and oppose any such proposal, of a
change to the Ducks & Platypuses contract.
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 11:38 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You left out a rather important part of the EXCUSED clause:
>
> * EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant could not _reasonably_
> avoid breaching the rules in a manner at least as serious as
> that alleged
>
>
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 008/5/9 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> You left out a rather important part of the EXCUSED clause:
>>
>> * EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant could not reasonably
>>avoid _breaching_ the _rules_ in a manner
008/5/9 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> You left out a rather important part of the EXCUSED clause:
>
> * EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant could not reasonably
>avoid _breaching_ the _rules_ in a manner at least as serious as
>that alleged
>
> (Emphasis added.) Violating
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 11:27 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/5/9 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Breaking the rules is breaking the rules. You can do what you want,
>> but if you don't follow the rules, then you're not playing Agora.
>
> It would seem that EXCUSED provides an
2008/5/9 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Breaking the rules is breaking the rules. You can do what you want,
> but if you don't follow the rules, then you're not playing Agora.
It would seem that EXCUSED provides an avenue for breaking the
rules, if the alternative is "at least as serious as tha
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 1:09 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I argue that "please X" actually means "X", just in a more polite form.
>
> For example, a sign stating "Please do not litter" likely implies
> consequences for littering -- it really states "do not litter".
>
> This is, as f
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 10:49 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Agora doesn't have the principles of freedom of religion and
>> separation of church and state. R101(ii) could be said to grant
>> freedom of religion, but only as long as the practice of that religion
>> does not break th
2008/5/9 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> To be a pledge, it must identify itself as such, which it does not.
It does. I did not claim at any point that I was posting the whole contract -
I merely posted a brief explanation and its commandments.
> If it were in fact a contract, it would have beco
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 12:38 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I initiate a criminal CFJ against Wooble for violating Rule 101.
>
> The last sentence of Rule 101 states: "Please treat Agora right good forever".
>
> I hereby claim that alienating new players by insulting eir religion is
2008/5/9 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 11:18 AM, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The Rebuttal of the Rebuttal:
>>
>> I should not be found GUILTY because my religion -
>> Agoracontractian - requires me to make that contract, and
>> it is unreasonable to s
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 10:28 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My religion is in fact a private contract which is a pledge, and has those
> commandments as part of it.
To be a pledge, it must identify itself as such, which it does not.
> The second commandment's claim that the
> comm
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 11:18 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Rebuttal of the Rebuttal:
>
> I should not be found GUILTY because my religion -
> Agoracontractian - requires me to make that contract, and
> it is unreasonable to say that I could drop my religion to
> avoid breaking t
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 11:18 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (I will hereby rebut the argument which is against my guilt and,
> therefore, for my innocence.)
>
> These arguments relate to CFJ 1943.
>
> The Argument:
>
> I should not be found GUILTY because the contract obligated
> its
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 8:27 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I intend to make the following contract with comex:
>
> {
> Parties to this contract cannot leave this contract.
> Parties to this contract are obligated not to consent to making a
> Contract Change.
> Parties to this co
37 matches
Mail list logo
