Quazie wrote:
> 5632 O0 1Murphy Fill the gap
> FOR x 1, AGAINST x 1, PRESENT x 1, Support BOBTHJ x 1, Support root x 1
>
> 5633 O1 1Ivan Hope Fugality
> FOR x 3, Support Ivan Hope x 1, Support Murphy x 1
Dammit, now I have to refactor the 'votes' table.
Proto-Proposal: When Am I?
Create a rule titled "When Am I?" with this text:
A message's Date: header is generally a reasonably accurate
measure of the time of its publication. A person alleging
that such a header is significantly inaccurate SHOULD clearly
identify which
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 1:47 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Quazie wrote:
>
>> 5632 O0 1Murphy Fill the gap
>> FOR x 1, AGAINST x 1, PRESENT x 1, Support BOBTHJ x 1, Support root x 1
>>
>> 5633 O1 1Ivan Hope Fugality
>> FOR x 3, Support Ivan Hope x 1, Support Murphy x
Traditionally, when protos are done, who gets co-authorship? Certainly
Murphy, for wording it cleanly, thank you, but what about those who
pointed out minor problems here and there? (Thank you too)
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 1:18 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> 5588 D2 2Quazie Proposers Dilemma
>> PRESENT
>
> I retract this vote and vote AGAINST, since R2186 does not allow the
> proposal to do what it c
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 8:06 AM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I retract my sell ticket for a vote on 5588.. It's not that I don't
> want VP, or want to vote PRESENT, it's just I might not have time to
> satisfy it if it's filled..
>
>From section 4 of the Vote Market agreement:
{
However, if f
On Monday 7 July 2008 5:32:23 Quazie wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:23 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > An upgraded Ranch should require 2 WRVs / month (possibly distributed as 1
> > WRV every half month). I think the upgraded Mill is too powerful, though.
>
> The thought was
2008/7/8 Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> If this works, I suggest the Herald record these wins as by Bandwagon.
>
> Pavitra
>
I second this motion. (Only one more support needed!)
2008/7/8 Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Monday 7 July 2008 2:52:31 Elliott Hird wrote:
>> I intend, with Agoran Consent, to act on behalf of Agora to award a
>> win to every person.
>>
>> tusho
>>
>
> I support.
>
It won't work.
2008/7/8 Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> It won't work.
>
Urgh, hit submit before I wanted to.
It won't work because I'm not a player. When the proposal that
repeals acting on behalf of Agora passes, could someone do it again
the new way for me? Eternal luv offered <3
tusho
2008/7/8 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On Tue, 8 Jul 2008, Ben Caplan wrote:
>> On Monday 7 July 2008 2:52:31 Elliott Hird wrote:
>>> I intend, with Agoran Consent, to act on behalf of Agora to award a
>>> win to every person.
>
> I object. I refuse to award 7 billion championship titles.
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
> Not every person can communicate by email, and besides, this can't happen
> anyway
It depends on whether you mean "can with eir email account" or "can *if*
given an email account". -G.
2008/7/8 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
> On Tue, 8 Jul 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
>> Not every person can communicate by email, and besides, this can't happen
>> anyway
>
> It depends on whether you mean "can with eir email account" or "can *if*
> given an email account". -G.
>
True. Either
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It depends on whether you mean "can with eir email account" or "can *if*
> given an email account". -G.
Well, for a significant portion you'd also have to add "and if taught
enough English that e's able to communicate in it
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It depends on whether you mean "can with eir email account" or "can *if*
>> given an email account". -G.
>
> Well, for a significant portion you'd also have to add "and if taught
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This one bugs me. The rule doesn't say that a biological organism that
> only communicates in a non-English human language is *not* a person.
"An entity is
a person if and only if it is defined to be so by rules
2008/7/8 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> This one bugs me. The rule doesn't say that a biological organism that
> only communicates in a non-English human language is *not* a person.
> So English is a sufficient criterion, but not a necessary one. This
> will never be tested, as merely posting
Current Contract
---
{
1. The name of this contract is Objectionable. Objectionable is a Pledge.
2. Phoenix Wright is responsible for maintaining this contract. if
this contract is a contest Phoenix Wright is its contest master.
Initially Quazie is Phoenix Wright.
3. Any player may become party
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> This one bugs me. The rule doesn't say that a biological organism that
>> only communicates in a non-English human language is *not* a person.
>
> "An entity is
> a pers
2008/7/8 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> What would be particularly interesting is if tusho's Spanish friend
> claimed R101 rights by raising a CFJ on eir personhood. E is clearly
> a person by standard definitions and world standards of human rights,
> etc., can the Rule 2150 definition, empow
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
> 2008/7/8 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> What would be particularly interesting is if tusho's Spanish friend
>> claimed R101 rights by raising a CFJ on eir personhood. E is clearly
>> a person by standard definitions and world standards of human right
Sgeo wrote:
>Can the judge really be trusted to specify an arbitrary amount?
Can the judge be trusted to specify an arbitrary currency? It may
be impossible for the ninny to acquire it. To avoid these problems,
perhaps the fine should be limited to currency that the ninny has owned
at some point
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008, Zefram wrote:
> Sgeo wrote:
>> Can the judge really be trusted to specify an arbitrary amount?
>
> Can the judge be trusted to specify an arbitrary currency? It may
> be impossible for the ninny to acquire it. To avoid these problems,
> perhaps the fine should be limited to c
Roger Hicks wrote:
>I would exclude any assets from destruction which are part of a
>zero-sum system (none at the moment as far as I am aware, but just in
>case). Also, I think it needs to be "CAN and SHALL" instead of SHALL
>to override contracts which don't permit the voluntary destruction of
>th
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008, Zefram wrote:
> Roger Hicks wrote:
> You could allow fining by transferring currency to the L&FD in lieu
> of destruction. That would make more currencies available for fines.
You could call it FREE PARKING.
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 1:01 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sgeo wrote:
>>Can the judge really be trusted to specify an arbitrary amount?
>
> Can the judge be trusted to specify an arbitrary currency? It may
> be impossible for the ninny to acquire it. To avoid these problems,
> perhaps t
2008/7/8 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I'm not sure how "obtaining" a person under "controlled conditions" squares
> us with human rights :P. It would have to be a language some percentage
> of current officers would understand (e.g. Turkish is Right Out by CFJ 1460
> or I'd have a candidate
The office of Tailor is really kind of obnoxious. Here's something
that I hope will help.
Proto-proposal: Pragmatic ribbons
AI=2
Amend rule 2199 (Ribbons) as follows:
1) Replace the text:
Ribbons are gained as follows, unless the player already
possesses the color of Ribbon to be ga
Proto-Proposal: No, Mr. Garrison, we cannot get rid of all the Mexicans
(AI = 3, please)
Amend Rule 2150 (Personhood) by replacing this text:
Any biological organism that is capable of communicating by
email in English is a person.
with this text:
Any biological organism that
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
> 2008/7/8 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> I'm not sure how "obtaining" a person under "controlled conditions" squares
>> us with human rights :P. It would have to be a language some percentage
>> of current officers would understand (e.g. Turkish is Ri
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 3:20 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I believe Sgeo solved this in eir latest proto by limiting the
> currency to those to which its backing document is binding upon the
> Ninny.
I'm not sure this is a great idea; it would disallow fining someone in
chits unless
Ed Murphy wrote:
> (English is Agora's lingua franca; non-English speakers
> will require a translation service to participate in a practical
> sense.)
A non-English speaker plus translation service probably meets the existing
definition of "person". We should clarify that
2008/7/8 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> (English is Agora's lingua franca; non-English speakers
> will require a translation service to participate in a practical
> sense.)
>
Oh! I see you're a COMEDIAN!
2008/7/8 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> If by "explain the situation" you mean "translate the whole ruleset to
> avoid CFJ 1856" then I agree with you that this would work (this is why I
> said in the first place it would never happen). -G.
Pretty sure people have called CFJs as non-players w
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A non-English speaker plus translation service probably meets the existing
> definition of "person". We should clarify that, rather than dropping
> the English requirement.
If the translation service isn't of a biological nature,
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
> 2008/7/8 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> If by "explain the situation" you mean "translate the whole ruleset to
>> avoid CFJ 1856" then I agree with you that this would work (this is why I
>> said in the first place it would never happen). -G.
>
> Pre
2008/7/8 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> If the translation service isn't of a biological nature, is the union
> of the two a first-class person?
>
Hi Searle!
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>If the translation service isn't of a biological nature, is the union
>of the two a first-class person?
I can't send email without a keyboard. Is me+keyboard a first-class person?
-zefram
2008/7/8 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Oh that's right, we're not talking about registering anymore. If we're
> just asking whether someone who fits the description would be considered
> a person, we could just do a hypothetical CFJ (it looks like my proposal
> to require Rights cases to have
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The office of Tailor is really kind of obnoxious. Here's something
> that I hope will help.
>
> Proto-proposal: Pragmatic ribbons
> AI=2
>
> Amend rule 2199 (Ribbons) as follows:
>
> 1) Replace the text:
>
> Ribbons are gained
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 12:32 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tailor's Ribbon Report
> Ribbon awards (Rule 2126)
> --
> RedInterested proposal changes rule with Power >= 3
> Orange Interested proposal adopted unanimously
> Green Hold of
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pretty sure people have called CFJs as non-players without reading most of
> the ruleset.
Says the person who registered without reading most of the ruleset.
2008/7/8 comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Says the person who registered without reading most of the ruleset.
>
Shut up, you.
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 7:56 AM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 1:18 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
5588 D2 2Quazie Proposers Dilemma
>>> PRESENT
>>
>> I retract this vote and
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008, Zefram wrote:
> Sgeo wrote:
>> With Agoran Consent, I act on behalf of Agora to award myself and all
>> supporters a Win.
>
> I believe this is ineffective for lack of specificity. Specifically,
> the announcement of intent was not specific about to whom wins were to
> be awar
45 matches
Mail list logo
