El 01/11/2021 a las 15:44, Kerim Aydin via agora-business escribió:
On 10/31/2021 4:40 PM, Trigon via agora-official wrote:
Player(+a) cn wcjclcvcwsbgpdvt
== ==
Telna
I consent to amending “Jumblebeam Deal” to have no text
On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 8:45 PM Jason Cobb via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 9/22/21 21:24, Trigon via agora-official wrote:
> > Jason 7729 0 0 0 0 3 3 6 2
>
>
> CoE
On 2021-07-12 06:43, Trigon via agora-discussion wrote:
I deny this CoE. As we discovered soon after this message was sent, R.
Lee's pending failed.
NttPF
On 05/07/2021 00:16, Rebecca Lee via agora-business wrote:
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 9:10 AM Trigon via agora-official <
agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
FORBES FOUR HUNDRED THIRTY-FOUR
I just checked my sent folder and as much as it pains me to report it I may
have completely forgotten to set the BT these past few weeks. I could have
sworn that I have been sending these messages after the weekly reports, but
apparently not. Sincerest apologies for this. This having happened I
On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 12:21:49PM -0700, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On 11/4/20 11:47 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote:
> >
> > On 11/3/2020 5:02 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-official wrote:
> > >
> >
On 11/4/20 11:47 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote:
On 11/3/2020 5:02 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-official wrote:
FORBES FOUR HUNDRED SEVENTY-SIX
or ---
On 11/4/20 11:36 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote:
On 11/3/2020 5:02 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-official wrote:
|G. |1703| 2| 1| 1| 0| 0| 11| 8| 10|
|Gaelan | 327| 0| 0| 0| 1| 0| 1| 1| 0|
|Gaelan|+ 200cn|01 Nov 2020 21:54|Transfer G
On 10/15/20 3:22 PM, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 08:15:14PM +, nix via agora-discussion wrote:
>> On 10/15/20 2:57 PM, Falsifian via agora-business wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 04:49:46PM -0600, Reuben Staley via agora-official
>>> wrote:
=
On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 08:15:14PM +, nix via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 10/15/20 2:57 PM, Falsifian via agora-business wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 04:49:46PM -0600, Reuben Staley via agora-official
> > wrote:
> >> =
On 10/15/20 2:57 PM, Falsifian via agora-business wrote:
>
> On Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 04:49:46PM -0600, Reuben Staley via agora-official
> wrote:
>>
>>FORBES FOUR HUNDRED EIGHTY
>> ---
On 2020-08-22 21:10, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
On 8/22/2020 11:05 AM, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote:
* ASSUMPTIONS
* This report assumes that shelvacu has not had any Agoran
I wonder if that counts as a claim of error and prevents
self-ratification that way.
On 8/22/2020 11:05 AM, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote:
> * ASSUMPTIONS
> * This report assumes that shelvacu has not had any Agoran
>
> I wonder if that counts as a claim of error and prevents
> self-ratification that way.
>
Claims of error (or 'issuing doubts') are by announce
On 2020-08-16 01:29, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
>
> On 8/15/2020 5:54 PM, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote:
> Nevermind, I should probably read more than just one email before
> replying like this.
I called a CoE to make sure it wouldn't self-ratify. I don't thin
For the record, I am aware that it does not prevent self-ratification. I guess
I assumed people would CoE upon seeing any assumptions at all. Would people
prefer it if I doubted all my reports immediately after posting them? If so
I'll do it; it just seemed unnecessary.
On 8/15/2020 5:54 PM, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote:
Nevermind, I should probably read more than just one email before
replying like this.
>>>
>>> I called a CoE to make sure it wouldn't self-ratify. I don't think just
>>> listing the assumption does that.
>>>
>>> In the past, wh
Nevermind, I should probably read more than just one email before
replying like this.
I called a CoE to make sure it wouldn't self-ratify. I don't think just
listing the assumption does that.
In the past, when I've published reports with assumptions like that,
I've immediately CoEed them for th
On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 5:36 PM Falsifian via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> On 2020-08-14 14:30, ATMunn via agora-business wrote:
> > On 8/14/2020 10:29 AM, ATMunn wrote:
> >> On 8/13/2020 10:33 PM, Falsifian via agora-business wrote:
> >>> On 2020-08-09 20:02, Reuben Staley via agora-official wrote
On 2020-08-14 14:30, ATMunn via agora-business wrote:
On 8/14/2020 10:29 AM, ATMunn wrote:
On 8/13/2020 10:33 PM, Falsifian via agora-business wrote:
On 2020-08-09 20:02, Reuben Staley via agora-official wrote:
oh lol, get better names guys
On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 6:16 PM Reuben Staley via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 2020-08-10 02:10, N. S. via agora-business wrote:
> > COE: This report lists Fred and Gaelan as separate entities, they are the
> > same (I don't think F
On 2020-08-10 02:10, N. S. via agora-business wrote:
COE: This report lists Fred and Gaelan as separate entities, they are the
same (I don't think Fred has any assets though, e cannot have got a welcome
package as gaelan was already registered)
Denied. I'm pretty sure that Fred is just a player
On 6/20/20 12:02 AM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 2020-06-19 20:06, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via
> agora-discussion wrote:
>> The way I was thinking of it, I gave you the second legislative card I
>> already had: either way, I should have two now.
>>
>>> On Jun 19, 2020,
On 2020-06-19 20:06, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via
agora-discussion wrote:
The way I was thinking of it, I gave you the second legislative card I already
had: either way, I should have two now.
On Jun 19, 2020, at 18:11, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion
wrote:
On 6/19/20 6:20 AM, Pub
> On Jun 19, 2020, at 17:35, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion
> wrote:
>
> On 2020-06-19 04:20, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-business
> wrote:
>> Sorry for not catching this in one of the earlier drafts; the web
>> interface is difficult for me.
>
> As in the Treasuror's sub
The way I was thinking of it, I gave you the second legislative card I already
had: either way, I should have two now.
> On Jun 19, 2020, at 18:11, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion
> wrote:
>
> On 6/19/20 6:20 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-business
> wrote:
>> CoE: I have a se
On 6/19/20 6:15 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote:
> Okay, interesting. I didn't realize that "cashing a promise" means
> actions are taken that I have to explicitly search for the original
> promise to know what they are. Good to know.
Theoretically, PSS SHOULD have recited the text
On 2020-06-19 16:10, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
On 6/19/20 6:07 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote:
On 2020-06-19 04:20, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-business
wrote:
On 6/19/20 4:51 AM, Reuben Staley via agora-official wrote:
|Publius | 168| 1| 2| 1|
On 6/19/20 5:13 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote:
> I still like promises as an idea in theory, but it's seeming like they
> might be a problem right now. They're the exact opposite if "make
> everything searchable and easy to follow for the Treasuror", which really
> wasn't a problem I
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 3:11 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 6/19/20 6:07 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote:
> > On 2020-06-19 04:20, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-business
> > wrote:
> >> On 6/19/20 4:51 AM, Reuben Staley vi
On 6/19/20 6:20 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-business
wrote:
> CoE: I have a second legislative card that Jason created in my possession.
But you transferred it to me - that was the whole purpose of the exercise.
--
Jason Cobb
On 6/19/20 6:07 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 2020-06-19 04:20, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-business
> wrote:
>> On 6/19/20 4:51 AM, Reuben Staley via agora-official wrote:
>>> |Publius | 168| 1| 2| 1| 1| 0| 0| 0| 0|
>> CoE: I have a second legi
On 2020-06-19 04:20, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-business
wrote:
On 6/19/20 4:51 AM, Reuben Staley via agora-official wrote:
|Publius | 168| 1| 2| 1| 1| 0| 0| 0| 0|
CoE: I have a second legislative card that Jason created in my possession.
These two messages are
On 2020-06-19 04:20, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-business
wrote:
Sorry for not catching this in one of the earlier drafts; the web
interface is difficult for me.
As in the Treasuror's subsite? Is there anything I can do to improve
your user experience?
Also, not a CoE, but you
On 2020-05-24 14:07, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
On Sunday, May 24, 2020 3:01:25 PM CDT James Cook via agora-business wrote:
CoE on the below report: On May 17, I did not pay Agora and Tcbapo did
not pay me, since the May zombie auction ended before any bids were
placed.
(I may try to ratif
On Sunday, May 24, 2020 3:07:55 PM CDT nch via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Sunday, May 24, 2020 3:01:25 PM CDT James Cook via agora-business wrote:
> > CoE on the below report: On May 17, I did not pay Agora and Tcbapo did
> > not pay me, since the May zombie auction ended before any bids were
> >
On Sunday, May 24, 2020 3:01:25 PM CDT James Cook via agora-business wrote:
> CoE on the below report: On May 17, I did not pay Agora and Tcbapo did
> not pay me, since the May zombie auction ended before any bids were
> placed.
>
> (I may try to ratify that the auction went smoothly, but let's no
nch wrote:
On Sunday, May 10, 2020 5:39:47 PM CDT Reuben Staley via agora-official wrote:
- -
Coins Zombie
= =
50 ATMunn
75 nch
65 pikhq
If the label of 'zombie' in thi
These are CoEs, not CFJs :)
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Sunday, November 11, 2018 7:18 PM, Kerim Aydin
wrote:
>
>
> (Or, since D. Margaux also re-raised the issue and assigned a new
> case, these could be withdrawn).
>
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> > I favor these
(Or, since D. Margaux also re-raised the issue and assigned a new
case, these could be withdrawn).
On Sun, 11 Nov 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I favor these.
>
> My apologies, I wrote 3/4 of the judgement in question but then real life
> clobbered me this past week - if I'm assigned I can judge
On another subject, since ATMunn's judgement brought it up, I've been
thinking since our previous contract about what would happen if we put
out a hashed contract, with one of the clauses being "the parties won't
reveal the text of this contract", then claiming in public that it
gives various po
Yup - if you've been sold at least once you're eligible (because the buyer
probably looted you). Last paragraph of R2532.
On Sat, 27 Oct 2018, ATMunn wrote:
> I think a player who de-zombified emself is eligible for a welcome package
> again.
>
> On 10/27/2018 3:02 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>
I think a player who de-zombified emself is eligible for a welcome
package again.
On 10/27/2018 3:02 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
Can you? I’ve been a player for a while.
Gaelan
On Oct 27, 2018, at 8:02 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Oh! And I award Gaelan a welcome package.
On Sat, 27 Oct 2018,
Can you? I’ve been a player for a while.
Gaelan
> On Oct 27, 2018, at 8:02 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> Oh! And I award Gaelan a welcome package.
>
>> On Sat, 27 Oct 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't think it self-ratifies due to your report, but in case it
>> does: CoE: G
Well, none of the report actually self-ratifies at the moment because of the
bug I pointed out last week, but zombie status wouldn't do anyway, no.
I'll fix this for next week's report and publish it as a revision to this one.
Sorry Gaelan.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Saturday, O
On Tue, 2 Oct 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> I reject your CoE; my report contains the line "The First Bank of Agora
> currently possesses 1006 coins."
Oh, sorry! Missed it way down there.
In the coming days, unless persuaded otherwise, I plan to uphold this
Finger Pointing and impose a forgiveable fine of 2 blots.
On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 12:28 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> I favor this case.
>
> On Sun, 9 Sep 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> > On August 27, 2018, I initiated a CFJ i
Unfortunately, you only possess 4 steel. If I have my order of operations
correct, your loom is destroyed due to lack of upkeep paid, and you now have 1
steel remaining.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On August 31, 2018 9:00 PM, Corona wrote:
> (Sorry for neglecting my duties. Agora's
Actually, I think there’s an easier resolution to all this. Proposal 8066
(“Separation of church and state”), adopted on July 26, contained the language:
“Destroy all incense.”
> On Aug 27, 2018, at 8:34 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> I agree that this current report implies (with a labelle
I agree that this current report implies (with a labelled column
containing blanks) that everyone except you has 0. That's why I CoE'd
this report.
Because, see Rule 2379: for a report to imply anything about incense, it
would need to have a labelled blank section (labeled as "incense
ownersh
Under the theory advanced below, I think there is no error in the current
Treasuror Weekly Report. The current Report does not expressly say that
anyone has "0" incense; it simply leaves that field blank. And under the
theory advanced below, this blank field does not necessarily imply "0".
Anoth
True, but the fees rule may or may not change that, depending on how it and
the upkeep cost provision are construed.
-Aris
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 5:55 PM Reuben Staley
wrote:
> Historically, you only need to send a message stating that you pay nonzero
> upkeep costs.
>
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018,
Historically, you only need to send a message stating that you pay nonzero
upkeep costs.
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018, 18:48 Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, I've missed this, haven't I. Sigh. Well, I can only hope that
> the ruling is that upkeep costs of 0 don't need t
Well, I've missed this, haven't I. Sigh. Well, I can only hope that
the ruling is that upkeep costs of 0 don't need to be paid. We really
need to make upkeep a With Notice action.
-Aris
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 10:35 AM Reuben Staley wrote:
>
> Wow, this report looks good. :D
>
> This is a notice
On Nov 28, 2017, at 4:15 AM, Telnaior wrote:
> CoE: Aris paid me 15 shinies at 2017-11-27 01:04 UTC.
Noted and accounted for. Thanks for catching it. I’ll include that once all of
the outstanding CoEs are resolvable, or in next week’s report at the latest.
signature.asc
Description: Messag
No I think we probably need to sort out what actually happened.
I would just rule that the message destroyed just one stamp.
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>
> On Nov 28, 2017, at 12:30 AM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 9:04 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote
Ah, makes sense. Thanks for the clarifications.
On 11/21/2017 8:34 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
On Nov 21, 2017, at 8:30 PM, ATMunn wrote:
So when publishing report revisions, even if things changed between the
original report and the revision, all that has to be changed is the thing in
the Co
> On Nov 21, 2017, at 8:30 PM, ATMunn wrote:
>
> So when publishing report revisions, even if things changed between the
> original report and the revision, all that has to be changed is the thing in
> the CoE?
In this case V.J pointed out the CoE close enough to the publication of the
repor
Floating Value & Weekly Report are different things. Had to change the
report to be accurate. Not the value.
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 12:30 PM, ATMunn wrote:
> So when publishing report revisions, even if things changed between the
> original report and the revision, all that has to be changed is
So when publishing report revisions, even if things changed between the
original report and the revision, all that has to be changed is the thing in
the CoE?
I was never really sure how this works.
On 11/21/2017 8:28 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
On Nov 21, 2017, at 9:25 AM, ATMunn wrote:
CoE:
On 10/27/2017 1:47 AM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
Final question: When did Agora pay me 2 shinies?
Oct 15th:
PF
Well, either way, I guess I also claim a reward of two shinies for authoring
and pending a passed proposal.
Did you miss this message?
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mai
> On Oct 25, 2017, at 9:16 AM, ATMunn wrote:
>
> CoE: I'm pretty sure I paid Alexis 2 shinies.
So you did, in two separate transactions. I’ll publish a revision shortly.
> Also, another question: I tried to buy a stamp previously, however this did
> not show up here. I won't CoE it, however,
That's an issue with Thunderbird. It saves all your drafts and then gets
confused and says you sent them all. You didn't. Everyone else just see
what you actually hit the send button on.
A way to circumvent this that only works if you don't care about
potentially losing work you didn't save manual
wait, did it? it might just be my client showing it twice... I don't
even know anymore
On 10/25/2017 9:31 AM, ATMunn wrote:
what why did this get sent twice
On 10/25/2017 9:16 AM, ATMunn wrote:
CoE: I'm pretty sure I paid Alexis 2 shinies.
Also, another question: I tried to buy a stamp previ
what why did this get sent twice
On 10/25/2017 9:16 AM, ATMunn wrote:
CoE: I'm pretty sure I paid Alexis 2 shinies.
Also, another question: I tried to buy a stamp previously, however this
did not show up here. I won't CoE it, however, because I don't know the
action actually succeeded, becaus
> On Oct 24, 2017, at 11:03 PM, VJ Rada wrote:
>
> Oh my god! It costs more than 1 shiny to pend a proposal! This is practically
> _unconstitutional_
>
> I buy a stamp.
You already created one this month, on Oct 12th.
-o
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
You already have this month.
On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 at 23:03 VJ Rada wrote:
> Oh my god! It costs more than 1 shiny to pend a proposal! This is
> practically _unconstitutional_
>
> I buy a stamp.
>
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>
>> As Treasuror, I flip the Floating Value
66 matches
Mail list logo
