Gaelan wrote:
I pledge to dedicate my weekly notices of honor to subtracting honour from
those who, despite not being in on the scam, unconditionally voted for G's rule
bending proposal (until I've gotten through everyone). The time window for this
pledge is 20 weeks.
Seriously, y'all, what
On 2020-07-16 9:49 p.m., Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
On 7/16/20 5:47 PM, Falsifian via agora-business wrote:
On 2020-07-16 5:47 p.m., ATMunn via agora-business wrote:
On 7/16/2020 1:43 PM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote:
On 7/16/2020 1:42 PM, ATMunn via agora-business wrote:
I p
On 7/16/20 5:47 PM, Falsifian via agora-business wrote:
> On 2020-07-16 5:47 p.m., ATMunn via agora-business wrote:
>> On 7/16/2020 1:43 PM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote:
>>> On 7/16/2020 1:42 PM, ATMunn via agora-business wrote:
I pledge to not say the word "tacos" in any context for the
On 7/16/2020 1:42 PM, ATMunn via agora-business wrote:
I pledge to not say the word "tacos" in any context for the next 24
hours. The time window of this pledge is 24 hours and breaking the
pledge shall be a class 1 crime.
I like tacos.
--
ATMunn
friendly neighborhood notary and Czar of Russi
On 2020-07-04 11:08, ATMunn via agora-business wrote:
I pledge to transfer 3 coins to every person who submits a 1-2 sentence
summary of a contract e is party to. If a person submits summaries for
multiple contracts, I will transfer 3 coins for every contract e
submitted a summary for. Multiple
On Mon, 25 Jun 2018, Rebecca wrote:
I do so.
You were too late as proposal 8050 passed, and pledges are no longer
retractable.
Fortunately that doesn't matter, as all your pledges were older than 60
days.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 9:02 AM, Ned Strange wrote:
Without o
I'm assuming this is the location to complain about a-o being messed up.
I've been out of town and haven't read through this thread really well.
I cannot log into the a-o private archives. Every time I try to, it just
takes me to the login screen again. It works with a-b and a-d though.
On 6/
I did the same. I asked for people to respond if it was received, and
there were no responses. In fact, I normally receive a copy of my own
messages, and I didn't with this one.
On 6/17/2018 3:09 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
Not sure if this helps, but I sent a test email to Official on Friday
Well, my email address is a gmail one, but I'm using Thunderbird to view
the emails. If it's a problem with Gmail, then it's a problem with
Google's servers, not the client.
On 6/16/2018 7:22 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
Okay, anyone using gmail didn't receive it. However, this can't just be
gmail
Not sure if this helps, but I sent a test email to Official on Friday to try
and narrow down the problem. It hasn't even showed up in the list at
mail-archive.com, let alone been delivered to anybody.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On June 16, 2018 11:22 PM, Aris Merchant
wrote:
>
Okay, anyone using gmail didn't receive it. However, this can't just be
gmail's fault, because plenty of people who aren't using gmail also haven't
received it. I'm quite confused. It would be great if those who have
received the messages could look at the headers and see if anything looks
differen
same
On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 12:41 AM, ATMunn wrote:
> The original message? No, I haven't received it.
>
> On 6/15/2018 4:45 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
>>
>> Poll: Who has and hasn't received the email? Please reply, and we'll use
>> the honor system.
>>
>> -Aris
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 1:43
The original message? No, I haven't received it.
On 6/15/2018 4:45 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
Poll: Who has and hasn't received the email? Please reply, and we'll use
the honor system.
-Aris
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 1:43 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jun 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
Oops.
Me too.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
On Fri, 15 Jun 2018, Corona wrote:
I'm in the same situation.
~Corona
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 10:53 PM, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 1:48 PM Kerim Aydin
wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jun 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
Oo
I don't seem to have it.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
On Fri, 15 Jun 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
Poll: Who has and hasn't received the email? Please reply, and we'll use
the honor system.
-Aris
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 1:43 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jun 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
Oops. Yeah,
On Fri, 15 Jun 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
I'm paranoid.
*adjusts tinfoil hat*
Are you sure that's genuine tin, and not the aluminum substitute the world
government has stealthily fooled nearly everyone into using?
Greetings,
Ørjan.
I am in the same boat. From now until this is resolved, I would request
that all messages be sent to BAK or BUS, as opposed to OFF.
On 06/15/2018 04:53 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 1:48 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>>
>> On Fri, 15 Jun 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
>>> Oops. Yeah, I
I favor this CFJ.
On 06/15/2018 04:36 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Oops. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that one has been resolved. I retract my prior
> CFJ, and CFJ "Proposal 8050 has been resolved."
>
> -Aris
>
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 1:34 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>>
>> Er, might want to check the Propos
How is your email set up?
-Aris
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 1:54 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> I don't believe I've received this second attempt either.
>
> -twg
>
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
>
> On June 15, 2018 8:45 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 15 Jun 2018, Aris Me
I'm in the same situation.
~Corona
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 10:53 PM, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 1:48 PM Kerim Aydin
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 15 Jun 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > > Oops. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that one has been reso
oh my, taral was the distributor before omd. I think the change was around
2006.
On Fri, 15 Jun 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Okay, I'm starting to develop a theory here. The agora-official list
> is configured differently than the other two. It's owner is listed as
> "taralx at gmail.com" wh
Okay, I'm starting to develop a theory here. The agora-official list
is configured differently than the other two. It's owner is listed as
"taralx at gmail.com" whereas the others are owned by "owner-spamfilt
at agoranomic.org". I think we need to send a "something weird is
happening" report to omd
Ugh. I'll send it to Business and BAK.
OFF is still the one where the mailman archive is broken, too.
On Fri, 15 Jun 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> I don't believe I've received this second attempt either.
>
> -twg
>
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
>
> On June 15, 2018 8:45 PM, K
I don't believe I've received this second attempt either.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On June 15, 2018 8:45 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
>
> > Oops. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that one has been resolved. I retract my prior
> >
> > CFJ, an
Sorry, was about to get around to responding to this chain.
I have NOT received the email resolving proposals 8050-8052. It's not in my
spam folder either.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On June 15, 2018 8:45 PM, Aris Merchant
wrote:
>
>
> Poll: Who has and hasn't received the
On Fri, 15 Jun 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Oops. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that one has been resolved. I retract my prior
> CFJ, and CFJ "Proposal 8050 has been resolved."
Except now - haha - I made a second, hopefully successful attempt to resolve a
few moments *before* this second CFJ came in, s
https://i.gyazo.com/bf99d85e20f8a18ef447acdb3b4339ae.png
For some reason it's hitting my spam inbox.
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 10:45 PM, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Poll: Who has and hasn't received the email? Please reply, and we'll use
> the honor system.
>
> -Ar
Poll: Who has and hasn't received the email? Please reply, and we'll use
the honor system.
-Aris
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 1:43 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > Oops. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that one has been resolved. I retract my
> prior
> > CFJ, and CFJ "
I'm paranoid.
*adjusts tinfoil hat*
On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 at 17:40, Corona wrote:
> T.T I couldn't have acted on that intent any earlier than next Tuesday, and
> the dynasty will definitely be over by then.
>
> ~Corona
>
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 3:24 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>
> > I object to Cor
Er, might want to check the Proposal # in the CFJ statement...
I'll re-send the resolution to converge the gamestate in case it failed
before. I think the only things I did for zombies were announcements-of-
intent so I don't think the time difference breaks anything (yet!)
On Fri, 15 Jun 20
Did you ever resolve proposal 8050? I certainly can't find a resolution...
-Aris
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 9:09 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> You couldn't have anyway because PLEDGES CAN NO LONGER BE DESTROYED,
> WITHOUT OBJECTION OR OTHERWISE.
>
> They can't be destroyed at all because they're no
You couldn't have anyway because PLEDGES CAN NO LONGER BE DESTROYED,
WITHOUT OBJECTION OR OTHERWISE.
They can't be destroyed at all because they're no longer assets. Please read
Proposal 8050 - the only way for a pledge to end is to time out (and that
doesn't outright "destroy" it, it just m
T.T I couldn't have acted on that intent any earlier than next Tuesday, and
the dynasty will definitely be over by then.
~Corona
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 3:24 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> I object to Corona’s attempt, because the dynasty isn’t over just yet (will
> be soon though).
>
> On Fri, 15 Ju
On Sun, 27 May 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
All pledges that existed as assets the instant before this Proposal
took effect are considered to have been made as pledges under the
current version of Rule 2450.
This phrasing disturbs my platonic sense. Make them _actually_ be
pledges, thank you. R
Looks great. This gives me some ideas on how to do that regulations
reform that I've been thinking about. I'm still planning to work on
it, and I should have time for it in June.
-Aris
On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 12:27 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> I submit the following proposal, Pledge Simplifica
On Sun, 6 May 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Sat, 5 May 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > Or, we could just repeal them.
>
> I use pledges. If you want to ditch something, ditch regulations.
Actually nvm I forgot how poor the enforcement mechanism for pledges
was these days - I'd say now that puni
On Sun, 6 May 2018, Ned Strange wrote:
> I object: do this by proposal
Why?
On Sat, 5 May 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Or, we could just repeal them.
I use pledges. If you want to ditch something, ditch regulations.
Or, we could just repeal them.
-Aris
On Sat, May 5, 2018, 9:32 PM Ned Strange wrote:
>
> I object: do this by proposal
>
> On Saturday, May 5, 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > I intend to ratify the following document without objection:
> > { No pledges existed on 04 May 18 19:55:00 U
I object: do this by proposal
On Saturday, May 5, 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> I intend to ratify the following document without objection:
> { No pledges existed on 04 May 18 19:55:00 UTC }
>
>
> The above document is not correct. The pledges in existence before
> ratification are listed i
I realized you were trying to set quorum with the terrible proposal, but
what was the quorum bug itself? I thought it was a side-effect of it
working as intended (a feature not a bug).
On Mon, 25 Sep 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Thank you for your honesty.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 a
Thank you for your honesty.
-Aris
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 11:45 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-09-25 at 23:24 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> Speaking of mysterious secrets: ais523, can you tell us why you
>> submitted the repeal all rules proposal around the time of your
>> junta?
>> Sorry
On Mon, 2017-09-25 at 23:24 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Speaking of mysterious secrets: ais523, can you tell us why you
> submitted the repeal all rules proposal around the time of your
> junta?
> Sorry if I already asked and forgot about it.
First of all, the actual text of the proposal was irr
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 11:07 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> I pledge as follows:
>
> If a plaintext (ISO-8859-1) of the following SHA-512 hash is published,
> where the plaintext is 42 characters or less in length, then I will have
> performed as described in it:
>
> 766697bbcd12ee0d916bd2ee0edb5d3
On Wed, 2009-09-23 at 18:15 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I join Scumbuddies and change my membership to full.
Fails because I forgot to give consent. Ask for comex's and try again.
--
ais523
Notary
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 18:15, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I join Scumbuddies and change my membership to full.
>
> -coppro
>
Did comex and ais523 grant their consent? of not this was unsuccessful.
BobTHJ
ais523 wrote:
>> Any party (the actor) CAN act on behalf of a party (the grantor) whose
>> membership is full by announcement, except to intend or agree to make
>> Contract Changes to this contract, but SHALL NOT do so except in the
>> following cases:
>>
>> - as would be POSSIBLE if not for this
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 7:42 PM, Chris Blair <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While that's where you *send* the random rolls, the roll results
> actually come from [EMAIL PROTECTED] That's what Taral was talking
> about.
Ah, thanks. I'd never actually noticed it wasn't coming back from the same
addre
On Dec 8, 2008, at 10:12 PM, Taral wrote:
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 2:59 PM, Benjamin Schultz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Time to test it. I am about to roll the classic 3d6; there will
be no game
actions in the roll other than a communications test.
... what do you think I did?
/me pushes
harblcat wrote:
> Graa.. To make it official, TTttPF
>
> On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 5:16 PM, Chris Blair <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> While I don't question the adding of a dice server as a send-only
>> address, wouldn't it be proper to add the *correct* address? :)
>>
>> I intend to add [EMAIL PROT
While that's where you *send* the random rolls, the roll results
actually come from [EMAIL PROTECTED] That's what Taral was talking
about.
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 7:21 PM, Jamie Dallaire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] works just fine, no? That's where I always send my random
> rolls
[EMAIL PROTECTED] works just fine, no? That's where I always send my random
rolls.
Billy Pilgrim
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 6:06 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 2:16 PM, Chris Blair <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I intend to add [EMAIL PROTECTED] as a send-only address
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 2:16 PM, Chris Blair <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I intend to add [EMAIL PROTECTED] as a send-only address to the
> Business Forum without objection.
Given that this is just a correction of [EMAIL PROTECTED], which is
already approved without objection, I have simply made th
While I don't question the adding of a dice server as a send-only
address, wouldn't it be proper to add the *correct* address? :)
I intend to add [EMAIL PROTECTED] as a send-only address to the
Business Forum without objection.
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 11:16 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 2:59 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Time to test it. I am about to roll the classic 3d6; there will be no game
> actions in the roll other than a communications test.
... what do you think I did?
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there
On Dec 8, 2008, at 3:12 PM, Taral wrote:
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 8:16 PM, Benjamin Schultz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There having been no objection, I add [EMAIL PROTECTED] as a send-
only address
to the Business Forum. H. Distributor Taral, please let us know
when the
dice server can send
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 8:16 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There having been no objection, I add [EMAIL PROTECTED] as a send-only address
> to the Business Forum. H. Distributor Taral, please let us know when the
> dice server can send messages.
Done, but it won't work:
Dec 8
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 4:34 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hm. Could also be useful for TNP2, since it's been receiving a lot of
> Agora stuff that no sane person would read from Normish..
Addresses that can receive but don't want to can simply adjust their
mailing list settings:
http://ww
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 7:20 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I pledge the following:
>
> {Players may add or remove an email address as a "send-only address"
> to a specific Public Forum Without Objection. The Distributor SHALL
> take what actions are necessary to permit (or prevent, as appro
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 16:27, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I transfer all my lands, crops, WRVs, and chits to Bayes.
>
The chit transfer portion of this was effective.
BobTHJ
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 4:50 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1 Oct 2008, at 23:37, Ian Kelly wrote:
>
>> I agree to the following:
>>
>> This is a public contract. This is a pledge. root CAN amend or
>> terminate this contract at any time by announcement. Any person CAN
>> act on
On 1 Oct 2008, at 23:37, Ian Kelly wrote:
I agree to the following:
This is a public contract. This is a pledge. root CAN amend or
terminate this contract at any time by announcement. Any person CAN
act on behalf of root to cast on any Agoran decision a vote endorsing
the partnership that wa
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 7:51 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> I hereby end/terminate/retract/rescind/finish/kill -9 the Vote Goethe pledge,
> as the pledge allows. -Goethe
-bash: end/terminate/retract/rescind/finish/kill: No such file or directory
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> But your CFJ shows you understood the implications of your allegedly
>> reckless
>> action. And the more you try to explain, the more you show that you are
>> weighing the option
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But your CFJ shows you understood the implications of your allegedly reckless
> action. And the more you try to explain, the more you show that you are
> weighing the options carefully :) -Goethe
I think that at most it
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> But it's not a violation. As evidenced by the fact that you called the CFJ
>> on the matter, you've "understood and carefully weighed ... the full
>> implications of failing to
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> But it's not a violation. As evidenced by the fact that you called the CFJ
> on the matter, you've "understood and carefully weighed ... the full
> implications of failing to perform" and so performed according to the
>
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 3:22 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Um, "CAN and SHOULD" != "MUST"...? -Goethe
>
> Well, that's the point. I contend that doesn't matter, that "a state
> of affairs whereby events have not proceeded as envisioned
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 3:22 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Um, "CAN and SHOULD" != "MUST"...? -Goethe
Well, that's the point. I contend that doesn't matter, that "a state
of affairs whereby events have not proceeded as envisioned by the
contract" can follow from violating a SHO
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> I make the following binding agreement:
>
> ==
>
> 1. This is a public contract.
>
> 2. This is a pledge.
>
> 3. Any party to this contract CAN leave it by announcement and SHOULD
> do so at
On Jan 17, 2008 8:21 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A properly written pledge could probably prevent the joining, though to be a
> contract, it would need to have had 2 parties at some point.
A person intent on abusing the loophole presumably wouldn't write it
that way in the first
On Friday 18 January 2008 02:46:23 Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Jan 17, 2008 7:14 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Obtaining agreement requires that two people be involved, but "all
> > parties" is just one person in such a case.
>
> The precedent in CFJs 1682 and 1683 suggests that this i
On Jan 17, 2008 7:14 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Obtaining agreement requires that two people be involved, but "all parties"
> is just one person in such a case.
The precedent in CFJs 1682 and 1683 suggests that this is probably correct.
> Clearly, it would against the intentio
73 matches
Mail list logo
