On Saturday 29 November 2008 03:02:26 pm Elliott Hird wrote:
> On 29 Nov 2008, at 20:05, Pavitra wrote:
> > informally request a PBA report sometime soonish
>
> nomic.bob-space.com/agoralog.aspx
>
> by bobthj
>
> I pledged to allow him to publish a report on my behalf. He hasn't
> yet.
PBA was a t
On 29 Nov 2008, at 20:05, Pavitra wrote:
informally request a PBA report sometime soonish
nomic.bob-space.com/agoralog.aspx
by bobthj
I pledged to allow him to publish a report on my behalf. He hasn't yet.
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 7:12 AM, Joshua Boehme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since I wasn't in on the discussion, could someone provide the context,
> please?
That was all of the context, and I was incorrect. The contestmaster
switch is tracked by the Notary, but the list of contestmasters is
par
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 05:39, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> bobthj scammed it as a contest by ratifying scorekeepor's report. Except...
> see wooble's quote.
>
>
Arguments: The PRS was a contest for quite some time before it ceased
to be one due to a ratification error on the Notary
On 26 Nov 2008, at 12:12, Joshua Boehme wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 13:59:44 +
Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
CFJ: The PRS is a contest
Arguments:
neat, PRS isn't a contest; Notary is recordkeepor of
contestmasters so ratifying the Scorekeepor report didn't make it a
contest.
a
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 13:59:44 +
Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> CFJ: The PRS is a contest
>
> Arguments:
>
> neat, PRS isn't a contest; Notary is recordkeepor of
> contestmasters so ratifying the Scorekeepor report didn't make it a
> contest.
> and since the Scorekeepor report
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:56 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ais523 can't return the point, so an equitable resolution would be to
> award each other party 1 free point as well. ;-)
No.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> I agree that criminal proceedings aren't reasonable, I'm more thinking of
>> the equity; what is an "equitable" solution to making a mistake that
>> resets all other members' poin
On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 14:24 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 14:07 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > As is, I don't think there's a lot that can be done. The PRS was acting
> > not-in-accordance-with-expectations due to a mistake, so that can
On 27 Oct 2008, at 21:24, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I agree that criminal proceedings aren't reasonable, I'm more
thinking of
the equity; what is an "equitable" solution to making a mistake that
resets all other members' points? I'm not too bothered with
"gamestate
changing" issues, equity is mo
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I agree that criminal proceedings aren't reasonable, I'm more thinking of
> the equity; what is an "equitable" solution to making a mistake that
> resets all other members' points?
ps. Maybe equity would be me putting a big word ILLEGAL next to the w
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 14:07 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> As is, I don't think there's a lot that can be done. The PRS was acting
> not-in-accordance-with-expectations due to a mistake, so that can be
> solved equitably, but the gamestate will have changed a
On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 14:07 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:52, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> The following sentence is a win announcement, and this sentence serves
> >> to clearly label it as one. ais523 has a score of
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 15:07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:52, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> The following sentence is a win announcement, and this sentence serves
>>> to clearly label it as one. ais523
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:52, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The following sentence is a win announcement, and this sentence serves
>> to clearly label it as one. ais523 has a score of at least 100.
>>
>> Therefore, by rule 2187, I satisfy the W
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:52, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The following sentence is a win announcement, and this sentence serves
> to clearly label it as one. ais523 has a score of at least 100.
>
> Therefore, by rule 2187, I satisfy the Winning Condition of High Score;
> I do not sati
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 2:51 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I initiate an equity case regarding the PRS, whose parties are ehird,
> BobTHJ, comex, Murphy, Quazie, Wooble, Pavitra, ais523, and root.
> ais523 should only have gotten 1 point from the above cashout since e
> only had 1 PV
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> with:
> The total number of points a player MAY award in a given week
> is equal to 5 times the number of first-class players who are
> members of contracts for which e is contestmaster. Points up to
> this total CAN be awarded by a
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
> The following sentence is a win announcement, and this sentence serves
> to clearly label it as one. ais523 has a score of at least 100.
>
> Therefore, by rule 2187, I satisfy the Winning Condition of High Score;
> I do not satisfy any Losing Conditions, th
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 7:00 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can you be a little more specific about what the problem is here? What
> about the PRS would you change, or what do you find to be scammable or
> unbalanced? The PRS is regulated by the same "without three
> objections" that
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 7:50 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 12:24 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Elliott Hird wrote:
why?
>>>
>>> I have a problem with the laundering concept of the PRS. It shou
I object to ehird's, ihope's, and both of Quazie's attempts to make
the PRS a contest. It would allow contests to persistently exceed the
rules-mandated cap on number of awardable points.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 4:39 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ihope wrote:
>>Just to speed things along or something, I intend to make the Points
>>Relay Service a contract with myself as contestmaster without three
>>objections.
>
> I object.
And here I thought you'd just reposted the same
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 10:24 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Elliott Hird wrote:
>>why?
>
> I have a problem with the laundering concept of the PRS. It should not
> be granted the ability to award points. Points should only be awarded
> for generally-approved subgames, but the PRS would
Elliott Hird wrote:
>why?
I have a problem with the laundering concept of the PRS. It should not
be granted the ability to award points. Points should only be awarded
for generally-approved subgames, but the PRS would open the way for
anything to grant points.
-zefram
2008/6/28 Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I object.
>
> -zefram
>
why?
On Jun 27, 2008, at 2:36 PM, Quazie wrote:
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Geoffrey Spear
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2008/6/27 Geoffrey Spear <[EMA
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Elliott Hird
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> 2008/6/27 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
It's already a cont
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 2008/6/27 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> It's already a contest.
>>
>> Ironic.
>>
>
> Proto-proposal: rename "contests" to something
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/6/27 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> It's already a contest.
>
> Ironic.
>
Proto-proposal: rename "contests" to something that doesn't share
most of the same letters with "contracts"
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:26 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I join the PRS.
>>
>> 2008/6/27 Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> I intend to make the Points Relay Service a contract with myself as
>>> contest
2008/6/27 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> It's already a contest.
Ironic.
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I join the PRS.
>
> 2008/6/27 Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> I intend to make the Points Relay Service a contract with myself as
>> contestmaster without three objections.
>>
>
> I object.
>
> I intend to make the Points Rel
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:10 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I join the PRS.
>
> 2008/6/27 Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> I intend to make the Points Relay Service a contract with myself as
>> contestmaster without three objections.
>>
>
> I object.
>
> I intend to make the Points Re
34 matches
Mail list logo
