Sgeo wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 11:59 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
>>> On Nov 6, 2008, at 11:34 AM, Ian Kelly wrote:
I suggest flipping the Aerican Empire's recognition to Hostile.
>>>
>>> I agree. Refuse us recogn
Goethe wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Nov 2008, comex wrote:
>>
>>> ps. Equity originally took the place of crimes and infractions,
>>
>> Agora however is somewhat lazy, as most equity cases have been judged {}. :/
>>
> Yah, turns out no one wants to bother with coming up with suitable
> and interesting "comm
On Sat, 8 Nov 2008 19:49:16 +
Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8 Nov 2008, at 19:14, Sgeo wrote:
>
> > Might I point out that if they were to invade us with a sufficiently
> > large invasion force, Agora would lose, badly, in weeks?
>
>
> You serious? I doubt half of them could
On 9 Nov 2008, at 02:59, comex wrote:
I transfer all my currencies to the Bank, and then deregister.
Totally. So much for respect for recordkeepors.
--
ehird
Murphy wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
> > Rule 1367 (Degrees) from 1.5 to 1;
> This will fall afoul of Rule 649 ("Awarding ... a Patent Title by
> Proposal is a secured change"), since there's no other mechanism
> for awarding degrees.
I see no reason why a degree defined at power 1 can't be awarded
wit
On 9 Nov 2008, at 04:05, Ed Murphy wrote:
ehird, with the position explained this way, do you still disagree
with it as vehemently?
I still disagree (just because someone does some stuff that generally
recordkeepors do
doesn't mean that the person specified as the recordkeepor isn't) but
Murphy wrote:
> Proto-contract: (I don't want to recordkeep this; anyone who does
> should feel free to fill in the blanks and agree to it. Also, wasn't
> someone working on a proposal tying a similar concept to Notes?)
I still am, but I got distracted. I'll submit it as a real proposal in
the ne
Proto-proto: The Philanthropist
There shall exist an office knowns as the Philanthropist. Eir duties shall
include organizing non-mandatory ways for Agorans to collectively contribute to
the extra-Agoran world.
Some possible ideas would be making artistic creations that non-Agorans could
appr
On 9 Nov 2008, at 13:54, Joshua Boehme wrote:
If their capabilities are so questionable (as has been suggested by
multiple emails now), why are we so concerned with their
recognition? Is Agora really so insecure as to require validation
at every available opportunity?
Exactly my point. A
On Sat, 8 Nov 2008 21:21:04 -0600
Pavitra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 08 November 2008 08:50:51 pm comex wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 3:51 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2252
> > > ==
On 9 Nov 2008, at 11:59, Alexander Smith wrote:
I submit the following Terrible Proposal, AI=3, II=1:
{{{
Remove all instances of "without objection" from rules with
Power at most 3.
Remove all instances of "without N objections", for each
integer N, from rules with Power at most 3.
}}}
That
On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 9:38 AM, The PerlNomic Partnership
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This distribution of proposal 5948
By the way, am I the only one getting sick of these super-frequent
distributions?
On Sun, 9 Nov 2008 11:23:40 -0500
comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 9:38 AM, The PerlNomic Partnership
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This distribution of proposal 5948
>
> By the way, am I the only one getting sick of these super-frequent
> distributions?
No.
Could we
ais523 wrote:
> Murphy wrote:
>> ais523 wrote:
>>> Rule 1367 (Degrees) from 1.5 to 1;
>> This will fall afoul of Rule 649 ("Awarding ... a Patent Title by
>> Proposal is a secured change"), since there's no other mechanism
>> for awarding degrees.
>
> I see no reason why a degree defined at pow
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 3:59 AM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I submit the following Terrible Proposal, AI=3, II=1:
> {{{
> Remove all instances of "without objection" from rules with
> Power at most 3.
>
> Remove all instances of "without N objections", for each
> integer N, from ru
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 12:47 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Amend Rule 591 (Inquiry Cases) by appending this text to the list of
> valid judgements:
>
> * MALFORMED, appropriate if the text identified by the initiator
>as the statement cannot be parsed as a single statement
On 9 Nov 2008, at 19:04, Taral wrote:
If it has passed, set the power of "No more distribution spam" to 2.
Nonsensical.
--
ehird
comex wrote:
> I submit a proposal titled "EVEN MORE MODEST", AI=482903748923748923747962374:
> {{{
> CAPITALIZE EVERY LETTER IN THE RULESET.
> }}}
That's an illegal AI (it can be no more than 9.9); I'm therefore treating it to
default to 1 as your attempt to set it at the time of submission was i
On 9 Nov 2008, at 22:49, comex wrote:
I submit the following Proposal, titled "random fixes part 1":
nttdf? :-P
--
ehird
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 11:36, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With the support of The People, I intend to make Lobbyists an Eligible
> Currency. I think the PBA could use some free Lobbyists, after all.
>
Support. (I do intend to join this agreement and recordkeep through my
automated system.
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 5:49 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...some cleanups, clarifications, disambiguations, and scam-busting,
> as well as some modifications (rulekeepor can change rule titles if
> the current one is wrong, power is no longer restricted to >= 0 and
> 1-4 for rules). The
Elysion wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Nov 2008 19:49:16 +
> Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On 8 Nov 2008, at 19:14, Sgeo wrote:
>>
>>> Might I point out that if they were to invade us with a sufficiently
>>> large invasion force, Agora would lose, badly, in weeks?
>>
>> You serious? I doub
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 12:30 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 12:06 PM, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Even more atrocious than this:
>>
>> I submit a proposal titled "VERY MODEST OF YOU SIR", AI=1, II=3:
>> {{{
>> CREATE A RULE TITLED "MODESTY" (POWER=1):
Warrigal wrote:
> Well, this political initiative wotchie has to get off the ground
> somehow. I vote:
>
>> 5942 O 0 1.0 woggle Transporter Accident Repair
> DONATE (FOR)
As with SELL votes, I will record DONATE(X) votes in the Assessor DB
as X ahead of time, changing it later if/wh
On Sunday 09 November 2008 08:42:54 am Elliott Hird wrote:
> I CFJ on the statement:
> {{{
>__ __
> __ \ / __
> / \ | / \
> \|/
> _,.---v---._
>/\__/\ /\
>\_ _/ /
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 7:09 PM, The PerlNomic Partnership
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 5960 O 0 1.0 Bayes Bayes
> 5961 D 0 3.0 Bayes Bayes
Note: These proposals had no title; they were not titled "Bayes". I
suspect these are new proposals created by the act of distribu
On 10/11/2008, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 7:09 PM, The PerlNomic Partnership
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 5960 O 0 1.0 Bayes Bayes
>> 5961 D 0 3.0 Bayes Bayes
>
> Note: These proposals had no title; they were not titled "Bayes". I
> sus
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 7:48 PM, Pavitra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 5958 O 1 1.0 WarrigalAgoran History
> SELL(1VP - FOR), "propose" should probably be "post intent"
Does it help that "propose" can very easily be interpreted informally,
as I meant it?
--Warrigal
On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 4:25 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Goethe wrote:
>
>> Other protection proto: Internment (needs power=3):
>> During an Emergency session, a non-Senator, or a Senator not in
>> the roll call, may be placed in Internment by the Agoran Consent
>> of Senators
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It makes sense, but it doesn't work.
Ah, good point.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
22:13 <@Sgeo> Warrigal, you know your plan actually fails if there are
sufficient invaders?
22:13 <@Sgeo>
...
22:16 <@Warrigal> Sgeo: I said that.
22:16 <@Sgeo> Oh, that "permanent" thing?
22:16 <@Warrigal> What "permanent" thing?
22:17 <@Warrigal> I said that if the invaders outnumber us by a
cer
On Sunday 09 November 2008 10:48:26 am Joshua Boehme wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Nov 2008 11:23:40 -0500
>
> comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 9:38 AM, The PerlNomic Partnership
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > This distribution of proposal 5948
> >
> > By the way, am I the
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 2:44 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9 Nov 2008, at 19:04, Taral wrote:
>> If it has passed, set the power of "No more distribution spam" to 2.
>
> Nonsensical.
It makes sense, but it doesn't work.
"It has passed" is not defined by the rules; it's not clear
On 9 Nov 2008, at 20:23, Warrigal wrote:
It makes sense, but it doesn't work.
Proposals do not have power.
--
ehird
On Sunday 09 November 2008 05:55:00 am Alexander Smith wrote:
> FWIW, I think equity can work in some cases; look at the AAA and
> BobTHJ giving me the wrong number of crops, for instance. Maybe
> contracts should specify whether they want to be enforced via
> equity or crim...
This.
Proto-proto:
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 1:23 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wow. Of those five rules, I think it picked the only two that are
> essential: without Deputisation, people could hold a certain set of
> offices and thereby block everything, and without Power Controls
> Mutability, the entire p
> --Warrigal, who plans to distribute the resulting Lobbyists until
> there's more participation in the PAC
>
I thought lobbyists don't result unless someone bids on the proposals?
On 9 Nov 2008, at 20:40, Elliott Hird wrote:
On 9 Nov 2008, at 20:23, Warrigal wrote:
It makes sense, but it doesn't work.
Proposals do not have power.
--
ehird
Ignore me and my misreadings.
--
ehird
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 8:34 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 4:25 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Goethe wrote:
>>
>>> Other protection proto: Internment (needs power=3):
>>> During an Emergency session, a non-Senator, or a Senator not in
>>> the roll ca
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 4:43 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Warrigal wrote:
>> This is a proposal, and it will remain a proposal after I publish it,
>> but it will not become a proposal, whether or not I say it will,
>> because it can't become what it already is: "Repeal Rule 639,
40 matches
Mail list logo
