On 20 July 2013 16:28, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Charles Walker
> wrote:
>> FOOL (28)
>> Machiavelli
>
> CoE: Machiavelli was inactive at the time of eir ballot, making it
> invalid (Rule 683).
Admitted. This would give Fool 24 votes and result in omd being
Speaker. Ho
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Charles Walker
wrote:
> Since I missed the time limit for initiation by a few hours, the
> decision was never actually initiated.
I believe the precedent is that the CAN lasts until the action is
performed, as the obligation persists as well.
-scshunt
On 20 July 2013 16:59, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Charles Walker
> wrote:
>> Since I missed the time limit for initiation by a few hours, the
>> decision was never actually initiated.
>
> I believe the precedent is that the CAN lasts until the action is
> performed, as t
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Charles Walker
wrote:
>> I believe the precedent is that the CAN lasts until the action is
>> performed, as the obligation persists as well.
>
> omd recently argued that an obligation does not persist after the
> deadline (with regard to awarding yaks). I don't th
On Sat, 20 Jul 2013, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Charles Walker
> wrote:
> > Since I missed the time limit for initiation by a few hours, the
> > decision was never actually initiated.
>
> I believe the precedent is that the CAN lasts until the action is
> performed, as
On Sat, 20 Jul 2013, omd wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Charles Walker
> wrote:
> >> I believe the precedent is that the CAN lasts until the action is
> >> performed, as the obligation persists as well.
> >
> > omd recently argued that an obligation does not persist after the
> > dea
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I just remember the result, and that's how we've been playing in
> general (e.g. if I awarded a Herald award after a time limit,
> no one said it failed). I don't remember logic or rules needed to
> back it up, so I don't know if that interpr
On Jul 20, 2013, at 10:06 AM, Charles Walker wrote:
>
> --LATITUDE --
>
> |-4|-3|-2|-1| 0| 1| 2| 3| 4
> | -
> | 4| | | |G.| |G.| |G.|
>-
> 3| | | |G.|G.|G.|G.|G.|G.
>-
On Sat, 20 Jul 2013, Charles Walker wrote:
> you're right. Sensei. resign I quite Yes
I can reconstruct the board and publish all the moves
to date for confirmation (did so already privately),
but I can't assume Sensei for a couple weeks because
I'm traveling at the moment.
On Sat, 20 Jul 2013, comex wrote:
> Proposal: No scam TIME OUTs (AI=2)
>
> Amend Rule 1504 by replacing "When a sentence of TIME OUT goes into
> effect" with "When a sentence of TIME OUT has been in effect
> continuously for four days".
>
> [12:28 < eelpout> So I was going to: TIME OUT you, res
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 12:58 PM, omd wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Charles Walker
> wrote:
>> I hereby resolve the Agoran decision to elect the Speaker.
>
> This is also probably insufficiently clear, as it sounds like a
> standard election rather than a General one. I intend to de
On 20/07/2013 12:56 PM, omd wrote:
When a sentence of TIME OUT has been in effect continuously for
one week, the ninny becomes inactive, and eir stasis timer
increases by the specified amount.
I think we could also be clearer about when a sentence is in effect. At
the mome
On 19/07/2013 10:47 PM, James Beirne wrote:
>If the rules were to change to allow players to be bound to a
constitution they did not agree to, why would that be considered an
"agreement"?
If two people agreed to that party's constitution it would be an
agreement, just not one that all bound pla
On Sat, 20 Jul 2013, Fool wrote:
> On 20/07/2013 12:56 PM, omd wrote:
> >When a sentence of TIME OUT has been in effect continuously for
> >one week, the ninny becomes inactive, and eir stasis timer
> >increases by the specified amount.
>
> I think we could also be cleare
On Sat, 20 Jul 2013, Fool wrote:
> On 19/07/2013 10:47 PM, James Beirne wrote:
> > >If the rules were to change to allow players to be bound to a
> > constitution they did not agree to, why would that be considered an
> > "agreement"?
> >
> > If two people agreed to that party's constitution it
On 20/07/2013 1:21 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
In theory, you can still, also, publish a body of text and say " I agree
to this text, the first person to vote FOR proposal 5000 thereby consents
to join and make this an agreement".
I don't get it. Without R101 iii, the above would do what?
My sense
On Sat, 20 Jul 2013, Fool wrote:
> On 20/07/2013 1:21 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > In theory, you can still, also, publish a body of text and say " I agree
> > to this text, the first person to vote FOR proposal 5000 thereby consents
> > to join and make this an agreement".
>
> I don't get it. Wit
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 2:10 PM, omd wrote:
> Amend Rule 2389 (Ordinary Chamber) to read:
>
> Voting Tokens are a class of assets tracked by the Assessor.
> Each Voting Token has an ID number and an Expiration Date, upon
> which it is automatically destroyed.
How about a timer t
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> How about a timer to expiration?
Could use a timer, but not much point, since there is no reason for an
expiration timer to pause.
> And I'm a fan of platonic destruction
> here.
You mean pragmatic? I could change it to pragmatic, but because
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 2:48 PM, omd wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Sean Hunt
> wrote:
>> How about a timer to expiration?
>
> Could use a timer, but not much point, since there is no reason for an
> expiration timer to pause.
More flexibility this way. What if we want to make the to
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> More flexibility this way. What if we want to make the tokens created
> before the auction with paused timers, so that you know what you're
> bidding on beforehand?
You do know what you're bidding on with this proposal. But I guess it
would sav
Create a Power-2 Rule titled "Auctions":
Don't we already have an auction rule? Can we fix it or get rid of it?
When in effect, unless
a fine for that case has already been satisfied, the ninny
SHALL pay a cost of that amount of currency to satisfy the
fine
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Fool wrote:
>> Create a Power-2 Rule titled "Auctions":
> Don't we already have an auction rule? Can we fix it or get rid of it?
It was repealed.
>> When in effect, unless
>> a fine for that case has already been satisfied, the ninny
>>
On 20/07/2013 3:30 PM, omd wrote:
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Fool wrote:
Create a Power-2 Rule titled "Auctions":
Don't we already have an auction rule? Can we fix it or get rid of it?
It was repealed.
Just looked, R2393 is in the SLR posted 12 hours ago.
Do we want people to be a
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 11:47 PM, omd wrote:
>m.sl...@gmail.com
Don't use me in support of your argument. Just because I'm not using
a proper email client doesn't mean I have to like it.
--
Michael Slone
On Sat, 2013-07-20 at 09:21 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I just remember the result, and that's how we've been playing in
> general (e.g. if I awarded a Herald award after a time limit,
> no one said it failed). I don't remember logic or rules needed to
> back it up, so I don't know if that interp
On 20 Jul 2013 19:10, "omd" wrote:
> Proposal: Infraction cases (AI=2, PF=25)
FOR, but we should review the Classes of current crimes and upgrade a few
SHALLs/SHALL NOTs to Crimes. If no one does so next week I'll look into it.
Also, do we really need Classes of Crime? Could just have Infraction
This doesn't seem like it addresses the issue of Ambassador Abuse, although
it wasn't mentioned in the CfJ itself. As far as I can tell, if Ambassador
Abuse works, it would be required to be at the same time, and is there any
reason that same time != same message?
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 1:41 PM,
28 matches
Mail list logo
