DIS: RE: Re: BUS: Posture change, ais523 to sitting

comex: > ais523: >> stuff > "I become sitting" is sufficient, although, I suppose, not as likely > to provoke a funny response from Goethe. Yes, I know, but I thought extra formality was one appropriate-seeming start to Agoran citizenship. I'll drop down to standard Agoran formality levels from no

DIS: RE: Re: BUS: Call for Judgement

t rule is actually a rule of the contract. I never said it was, and in fact it is not. On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I call for Judgement on the following statement: > > "It is impossible for a player to become Referee within the

DIS: RE: Re: BUS: Re: CFJ

I am an Agoran, and also a player of IRCnomic. However, I have not (from an Agoran point of view) knowingly joined comex's contract, if it is one. Many IRCnomic rules conflict with Agoran rules anyway. (Doesn't Agora define Player differently, for instance?) -- ais523 -Original Message---

DIS: RE: Re: BUS: Re: CFJ

Well, comex copy-pasted a past version of its ruleset to the business list, and CFJ'd that it was a public contract. -- ais523 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of ihope Sent: Mon 28/04/2008 23:16 To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org Subject: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: CFJ On

DIS: RE: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5508-5512

Nothing particularly evil, but it's a bit clunky and inelegant. SHALL and CAN is to me elegant and clear; MANDATE/MANDATED is a long word to say, and a long word to think about, as well as complicating that particular list (which is clean at the moment). If you'd used a shorter name, I might hav

DIS: RE: BUS: RE: [CotC] CFJ 1932 assigned to ais523

, May 7, 2008 at 12:38 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > OK, it looks like this case is applicable now. My judgement is the > following contract, which is a contest, and has root as contestmaster: > > {{{ > 1) It being entirely within the power of the ini

RE: DIS: Re: BUS: RE: [CotC] CFJ 1932 assigned to ais523

Geoffrey Spear wrote: >On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 1:00 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 2:38 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >

DIS: RE: punish the scamster, too

It was an equitable resolution of the situation; all parties agreeing to the equation, having thought of it themselves, is one of the most equitable outcomes I can think of. There are other possible equitable reslutions too, most of which are a lot simpler than the equation I gave, but the fact tha

RE: DIS: RE: punish the scamster, too

e it says judgements must be reasonable, could you point me to where specifically? -- ais523 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Geoffrey Spear Sent: Wed 07/05/2008 21:09 To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org Subject: Re: DIS: RE: punish the scamster, too On We

DIS: RE: [IADoP] Ambassador & Herald elections

Because I've only just joined and am not sure who would be suitable, feel free to lobby and advertise like mad to try to persuade me to vote for you. Especially if you're a candidate. -- ais523 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Geoffrey Spear Sent: Wed 07/05/2008 21:

RE: DIS: Re: BUS: RE: [CotC] CFJ 1932 assigned to ais523

Oh, and rule 2169 takes precedence over rule 2136 anyway (it's more powerful). -- ais523 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Ian Kelly Sent: Thu 08/05/2008 07:53 To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org Subject: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: RE: [CotC] CFJ 1932 assigned to ais523 On

RE: DIS: Re: BUS: RE: [CotC] CFJ 1932 assigned to ais523

Even if arbitrary rule changes were something a player could do by emself, they aren't binding agreements, usually; and even if they were, rule 2169/4 isn't powerful enough to make gamestate changes above power 1.7 (but /is/ powerful enough to create a contest, as the definition of a contest has a

RE: DIS: Re: BUS: RE: [CotC] CFJ 1932 assigned to ais523

: BUS: RE: [CotC] CFJ 1932 assigned to ais523 On Thu, 8 May 2008, Alexander Smith wrote: > Oh, and rule 2169 takes precedence over rule 2136 anyway (it's more powerful). That doesn't matter if there's no conflict. And if this is interpreted being a conflict, it would have to take precedence over 2125 (power-3) as well. -Goethe <>

RE: DIS: Re: BUS: RE: [CotC] CFJ 1932 assigned to ais523

Goethe wrote: > Once regulated, a quantity can only be changed by methods contained > in the rules. Can you give a citation for that? From my quick grepping of the rules, the only effect that I saw regulating something had was to prevent that something from taking place under rule 101(ii). You're c

RE: DIS: Re: BUS: RE: [CotC] CFJ 1932 assigned to ais523

... -- ais523 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Kerim Aydin Sent: Thu 08/05/2008 11:36 To: Agora Discussion Subject: RE: DIS: Re: BUS: RE: [CotC] CFJ 1932 assigned to ais523 On Thu, 8 May 2008, Alexander Smith wrote: > No, it doesn't have to take preceden

RE: DIS: Re: BUS: Emergency!

Well, in my opinion, that translation certainly isn't a valid reason to call for an emergency session. -- ais523 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Ed Murphy Sent: Fri 09/05/2008 20:06 To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org Subject: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Emergency!

DIS: RE: Re: BUS: anarchy!

Proto: Increase R869's power to 2.1, and add "changes to player's citizenship are secured". No reason to leave loopholes floating around... -- ais523 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of comex Sent: Sun 11/05/2008 04:03 To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org Subjec

DIS: RE: [Mad Scientist] Very Late

Well, if you want to keep your Mad Scientist position, I'd recommend nominating yourself for it, because I nominated myself for it. -- ais523 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Nick Vanderweit Sent: Sat 10/05/2008 17:57 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: BUS: [Mad

RE: DIS: Re: BUS: Flat as a Pancake, Real Edition

You should make Pancake a contract in Canada too. -- ais523 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Ed Murphy Sent: Sat 10/05/2008 02:06 To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org Subject: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Flat as a Pancake, Real Edition Ivan Hope wrote: > On Wed, May

DIS: RE: Re: BUS: RE: [CotC] CFJ 1932a assigned to Murphy, Goethe, Wooble

opriate" does. -- ais523 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Geoffrey Spear Sent: Sun 11/05/2008 13:54 To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org Subject: DIS: Re: BUS: RE: [CotC] CFJ 1932a assigned to Murphy, Goethe, Wooble On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 7:24 AM, Ale

RE: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1944 assigned to Ivan Hope

Buddha Buck wrote: > My intent with "any" was "at least one", not "all". I will try to > remember in the future that "any" is considered problematic, and > instead use terms like "there exists a statement in the following set > such that.". Can you provide me with pointers to how "any" can >

RE: DIS: RE: Re: BUS: anarchy!

is523 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of ihope Sent: Sun 11/05/2008 18:09 To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org Subject: Re: DIS: RE: Re: BUS: anarchy! On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 7:27 AM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Proto: Increase R869'

DIS: RE: [CotC] CFJ 1945 assigned to ais523

Proto-judgement: There are several things that must be established before a verdict of GUILTY is appropriate; the two most important are whether the alleged act happened, and whether the alleged act violated a requirement imposed by the rules. First, to address Wooble's gratutious argument. I

RE: DIS: RE: [CotC] CFJ 1945 assigned to ais523

Actually, the reason that I end up doing /this/ (message deliberately not collected) is that I'm restricted to using an Outlook webmail account, for spurious reasons that nobody believes the first time when I tell em. It seems to act a bit more sanely when I post using Firefox; I'll have to try

RE: DIS: RE: [CotC] CFJ 1945 assigned to ais523

Taral wrote: > On 5/12/08, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If it's a serious problem to the rest of you I may have to come up with a > > ridiculous solution to it, like a line-wrap script in > JavaScript which > > runs from public computers..

RE: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent on CFJ 1932a

If you somehow managed to impose such an equation, root would not be able to follow it; root is incapable of amending the original judgement of CFJ 1932, because there parties to it other than root. (I'm one of them, and would not agree to such an amendment.) Also, with the reassignment: what'

DIS: RE: BUS: I win

ehird wrote: > Rule 2140(c) implies that no entity with a power less than 3 can > modify any substantive aspect of an instrument with power greater than > its own, defining a "substantive" aspect of an instrument as any > aspect that affects the instrument's operation. Therefore, in order to Hmm...

RE: DIS: RE: BUS: I win

Goethe wrote: > Goethe wrote: >> On Wed, 14 May 2008, Alexander Smith wrote: >>> ehird wrote: >>>> Rule 2140(c) implies that no entity with a power less than 3 can >>>> modify any substantive aspect of an instrument with power greater than >>&

DIS: RE: BUS: I win

Geoffrey Spear wrote: > I cause ehird to lose. Causing another player to lose is not > regulated, thus by 101(ii) I'm allowed to do it by announcement. Yes, but does that actually do anything? Losing isn't defined anywhere, only Losing Conditions, so would causing a player to lose have any effect

DIS: RE: Return of the Oligarchy (draft 1)

OscarMeyr wrote: > * High Oligarch: 1 spot. Eir VVLOD is 6 times what it otherwise > would be, with a minimum of 3. (Compute VVLOD normally, and then > apply this rule.) That leads to some sort of strange feedback loop when the EVLOD and VVLOD are both set to the same value by averaging. The

DIS: RE: [IADoP] resolving Ambassador, Herald elections

To the IADoP: Could you explain why my votes in the message archived at were invalid? -- ais523 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Geoffrey Spear Sent: Thu 15/05/2008 18:30 To: [

DIS: RE: [CotC] CFJ 1936 judged FALSE

Judge Murphy's Arguments: > > I interpret Rule 2169 as "the possible agreements that the parties > could make [solely by agreeing to be bound by that agreement]", which > makes the statement false in general. The statement is a blanket > statement, so the existence of specific situations in which

DIS: RE: BUS: Don't dare to REASSIGN when it doesn't stop the scam...

comex wrote: > I intend, with 2 support, to appeal ehird's judgement of CFJ 1932 Rule 911 states: "an appeal CANNOT be initiated concerning an assignment caused by a judgement in an appeal case" ehird's assignment was indirectly caused by the judgement of CFJ 1932a, which reassigned that case to e

DIS: RE: [CotC] CFJ 1935 assigned to ais523 (proto-judgement)

CFJ 1935 protojudgement: {{{ First, comex is obviously GUILTY. Eir arguments do not appear to be intended to be taken seriously, but just in case, I checked all of comex's messages to public fora during the month of April 2008, and none of them submitted a Sell Ticket. The equation in question was

RE: DIS: RE: [CotC] CFJ 1935 assigned to ais523 (proto-judgement)

comex wrote: > * OVERLOOKED, appropriate if the alleged act allegedly occurred >at least 200 days before the case was initiated > > My arguments for the defense are that, seeing as I alleged that the > act occured at least 200 days before the case was initiated, > OVERLOOKED is appropr

RE: DIS: RE: [CotC] CFJ 1935 assigned to ais523 (proto-judgement)

Oh dear, that's just ridiculous. Does that mean that I can't find comex guilty after all, even though e blatantly is? A reading of the rules does imply that. And your fix proposal looks like it won't go through until after the deadline on the CFJ. Maybe I should judge OVERLOOKED, and then appea

RE: DIS: RE: [CotC] CFJ 1935 assigned to ais523 (proto-judgement)

ihope wrote: > I suggest judging GUILTY, since this sort of thing surely hasn't > stopped judges in the past, and EXILE for 1 second, which will clear > out (most of) eir stuff but still allow em to play. Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, EXILE wouldn't release em from the vote market. Also, it

DIS: RE: Re: BUS: Recusals

If I remember correctly, you protoed it in a-d but didn't submit a final judgement to a-b. -- ais523 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Ian Kelly Sent: Sat 17/05/2008 02:16 To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org Subject: DIS: Re: BUS: Recusals On 5/16/08, Ed Murphy <[

DIS: RE: distribution of proposals 5518-5520

5518 FOR 5519 FOR 5520 FOR*4 -- ais523 <>

DIS: RE: BUS: Ruling, in appeal 1937a

Murphy wrote: > I may change my mind if additional counterarguments specific to this > issue are brought to my attention. For the attention of Murphy: Although many of the arguemnts were expressed in terms of whether the equation could be made a contract or not, many of them implied the contestm

RE: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in CFJ 1935, and some other game actions

comex wrote: > Um, um, revealing what I told you in confidence? Well, that's > terrible! Normally, I would take things in confidence. However: 1) The scam doesn't actually work anyway 2) The scam relies on other people knowing what it is to work, and you already have your emergency session 3) Yo

DIS: RE: BUS: Duality

ehird wrote: > 2008/5/20 Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > This is a public contract. Whenever either Ivan Hope CXXVII or ehird sends > > a public message, the other automatically sends that same message. Any > > party to this contract may change this contract by announcement. > >

DIS: RE: Re: BUS: Re: Hay guyz

nttPF. Also, do you want to end the pre-trial phase immediately? -- ais523 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of ihope Sent: Tue 20/05/2008 22:52 To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org Subject: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Hay guyz On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Elliott Hird <[EMA

DIS: RE: null proposal distribution

Zefram wrote: > There would normally be a proposal distribution at this time, but > there are no proposals to distribute. Yes there are, you missed my Mad Scientist proposal in agora-official. (I put it there because the rules state that the proposal may some day retroactively turn out to have bee

RE: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Hay guyz

ihope wrote: > My arguments: R101(i) gives me the privilege of doing what I will, > which includes stating that two plus two is five. Where does it say that? Saying that two plus two is five has nothing to do with the map. {{{ Rule 101/7 (Power=3) Agoran Rights and Privileges The rules may

RE: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Hay guyz

ais523 wrote: > ihope wrote: > > My arguments: R101(i) gives me the privilege of doing what I will, > > which includes stating that two plus two is five. > Where does it say that? Saying that two plus two is five has nothing > to do with the map. Ah, ignore that, rule 101 changed after you sent you

DIS: RE: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1936a assigned to comex, Pavitra, pikhq

Pavitra wrote: > Simply put: persons make binding agreements; Agora makes those > agreements into contracts, and eventually perhaps contests. The > judgement for a question on equation is not even a contract. Rule 1742/14 says, in part: Contracts are binding agreements governed by the rules

DIS: RE: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Full Logical Ruleset

Goethe wrote: > B. Actually, no ones stopping you from making a Ruleset like that and > publishing it. Go for it. It's your privilege and (for the moment) your > right. In other words, rule 101 says: Nothing's stopping you from trying. That doesn't mean it will work. -- ais523 <>

RE: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Full Logical Ruleset

comex wrote: > Of course, that creates a good interest-of-the-game reason to judge > that R101 i. is just broken for some reason or other, because who > knows what spurious actions have been announced in the last two > months. Well, if anyone can do what e wilt, ehird's Announcement of Chaos actual

DIS: RE: RE: BUS: RE: [CotC] CFJ 1961 assigned to Pavitra

Goethe wrote: > Boy, what a bunch of lying going on. I hope y'all others can teach > these folks that a purposeful lie is a purposeful lie, whether or > not it also happens to be a game action (and DISCLAIMERS to the > contrary notwithstanding). Rule 2149/8 explicitly permits disclaimers. Performi

RE: DIS: RE: BUS: RE: [CotC] CFJ 1961 assigned to Pavitra

Pavitra wrote: > Actually, I think the DISCLAIMER works, due to R2149's "truth or > falsity of the whole" clause. Fortunately, this same disclaimer also > means that e did not publish eir claim of identity (and hence score). > ais523's attempt is legal and ineffective. Just because I didn't claim m

RE: DIS: RE: BUS: RE: [CotC] CFJ 1961 assigned to Pavitra

ais523 wrote: > Pavitra wrote: > > Actually, I think the DISCLAIMER works, due to R2149's "truth or > > falsity of the whole" clause. Fortunately, this same disclaimer also > > means that e did not publish eir claim of identity (and hence score). > > ais523's attempt is legal and ineffective. > Jus

RE: DIS: RE: BUS: RE: [CotC] CFJ 1961 assigned to Pavitra

Goethe wrote: > Yep. The whole thing is a public document. R2149 says you take the > truth of the whole thing. If the whole thing isn't a claim, then it > isn't a claim and isn't an action in this case. Either your DISCLAIMER > disclaims your earlier sentence for all legal purposes, or no leg

DIS: RE: Pending court business

Oh, Eris, just a note: according to the CotC website at , you're over 2824 days late on a judgement. -- ais523 <>

DIS: RE: Judicial status

Murphy wrote: > ais523, you have enough support (more than enough, if Duality > works) to appeal your own judgement of CFJ 1935. The deadline > for doing so is June 3. Yes, I know. I was going to wait a while to give the fix- OVERLOOKED proposal more time to pass, but complete the appeal before th

DIS: RE: BUS: Hmm, so I can resign now?

Wooble wrote: > I nominate Offhanded, ehird, and ais523 as Notary. I consent. -- ais523 <>

DIS: Reaction to B Nomic's failed mildly offensive message

B Nomic attempted to send Agora a mildly offensive message yesterday to a-b, but failed. (I won't link to it because then I might inadvertently accomplish what they were trying to do for them; I only noticed myself because I was reading through their logs.) It seems that they have a rule requiri

RE: DIS: Reaction to B Nomic's failed mildly offensive message

ehird wrote: > 2008/5/29 Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: (snip) >> I'm wondering if we should plan a response? Pointing out that they couldn't >> even send us a midly offensive message seems like a decent response, because >> that is in of itself a

RE: DIS: Reaction to B Nomic's failed mildly offensive message

BobTHJ wrote: > Only fitting since I was the one who made the epic surrender which B > Nomic is commemorating. Details? -- ais523 <>

RE: DIS: Re: BUS: RE: RE: Salvaging the Gnarly Contract

root wrote: > On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: (snip) >> >> But there isn't such a rule, and the whole point of awarding wins by >> paradox is (or should be, anyway) about paradoxes that are actually in >> the rules. Your ability to create a paradoxical c

RE: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1951 assigned to OscarMeyr

Murphy wrote in a-b: > Proto-Proposal: Defend the judiciary > (AI = 2, please) > > Amend Rule 2158 (Judicial Questions) by inserting this paragraph after > the paragraph containing "A judgement is valid and/or appropriate only > as defined by the rules.": > > In the interest of defending t

DIS: RE: BUS: RE: RE: Salvaging the Gnarly Contract

ehird wrote: > I call for judgement on the following statement: {{comex CAN initiate > an equity case concerning the Gnarlier Contract}}. (snip) Wow, an almost exact copy-paste of my attempt to win by paradox, even down to copying the same argument with the names changed. We certainly do need some

RE: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1951 assigned to OscarMeyr

Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > and as far as I > > could tell, it would be inequitable to judge anything but what the parties > > wanted. > > If all of the parties agree to a resolution, t

DIS: RE: distribution of proposals 5532-5537

I vote on Agoran Decisions about whether to adopt proposals as follows (each decision is identified by the number of the proposal it is about): 5532 AGAINST*4 5533 FOR 5534 FOR 5535 FOR 5536 FOR 5537 FOR -- ais523 <>

DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 5521-5527

comex wrote: > On 6/2/08, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I intend to set the Score Index to 5, without objection. > > I object. Why? -- ais523 <>

DIS: RE: Hall of Sensibility

root wrote: > I spend C + E + G to increase BobTHJ's VVLOD by 1. > I spend C + E + G to increase woggle's VVLOD by 1. > I spend C + E + G to increase Pavitra's VVLOD by 1. > I spend Gb + Bb + Db to increase Wooble's VVLOD by 1. > I spend Gb + Bb + Db to increase Murphy's VVLOD by 1. > I spend Gb +

RE: DIS: RE: Hall of Sensibility

root wrote: > What VVLOD/EVLOD averaging? Ah, I misread rule 2156; all this time I thought it said that at the end of each week the EVLOD and VVLOD were averaged and both set to the same value. And I've read that rule several times! Presumably my mistake was because the result of EVLOD=VVLOD is

DIS: RE: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: BAK: Proto-Judgement on 1989, ponderances of 1990

root wrote: > Not exactly the same formula, but this would apparently allow > non-first-class players to become contestmasters (note that the > "provided e is not" clause can be refactored into the "who is" > clause). It's not regulated by R2125(e), either. > > A first-class player who is a

RE: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: BAK: Proto-Judgement on 1989, ponderances of 1990

root wrote: > It's at least a bug in that somebody (probably the scorekeepor) should > be required to track contests and their contestmasters. I was planning to make the Notary do it. I do it as it is, anyway. -- ais523 <>

RE: DIS: Re: BUS: Isn't that just silly?

ehird wrote: > I repeal all rules that can be repealed by announcement. Failed, surely? A CFJ has already found that Announcements of Chaos don't work. -- ais523 <>

RE: DIS: Re: BUS: Isn't that just silly?

ehird wrote: > I perform every action that can be performed by announcement. Failed, surely? Partly because the order wasn't specified and is relevant, and partly because you just attempted an infinite number of actions in one message, which is impossible. -- ais523 <>

DIS: RE: Re: BUS: RE: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1966 assigned to Pavitra

Pavitra wrote: > Just because you CAN do X doesn't mean you CAN do X by Y means. > No, wait, yes it does. > Well, if you publish "I turn [something made of lead] into gold", > Agora will recognize that as valid, even if the laws of nature in your > embedding reality don't. It's not Agora's fault if

DIS: RE: Proposal: Intractable cases

Pavitra wrote: > I submit the following proposal, "Intractable cases", AI=2, II=2: AFAICT that would end up causing double-appealed cases to require unanimous support from everyone, unless for some reason the CotC was ineligible to judge them, under the currently-being-voted-on change to appeal s

RE: DIS: Proto-Judgement of CFJ 1996

comex wrote: > Informal poll: Would you consider the statement: > "I give Ivan Hope 50 pens iff he gave me 50 pens in the quoted message" > sent quoting a message in which Ivan Hope sent me 50 pens, valid? > (This is distinct from the statement of CFJ 1966 where my ambiguous > message could be inte

RE: DIS: RE: Proposal: Intractable cases

root wrote: > If you want to find a way to improve the appeal system, I suggest > trying to find ways to significantly reduce the number of appeal cases > that are getting initiated in the first place. Right now we seem to > be generating more cases than we can really handle, which I think is > wh

DIS: RE: BUS: RE: [Deputy Tailor] Ribbon Report

Wooble wrote: > I only went back though the CotC reports looking for the players who > didn't already have a Blue ribbon for cases judged, and stopped > looking for the ones who, like you two, were Supine in the first few > reports I looked at. Ah, I'm not a Senator, so I was forced to supine by th

DIS: RE: BUS: AAA - Mill me please

BobTHJ wrote: > Oops...I also revoke 3 points from Quazie. Correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC Quazie doesn't have 3 points. (It's hard to see how e could have gained them in such a short time.) If Quazie did get the land e wanted, and didn't have the points, I'm off to buy several thousand lands for

DIS: Werewolves session 1

So, Wooble nominated comex, then ehird nominated Wooble and comex seconded. That isn't a lot to go on, but there's some information there, at least. Seconding that quickly is rare in real-life games of Mafia, I find. Nominating immediately on no evidence is surprisingly common, either to glean inf

DIS: Proto: Emergency exit

Seeing what's happened to B Nomic recently (apparently almost everything since last December has been illegal due to specifying SHALL rather than SHALL and CAN), I think it's probably a good idea to have some way to fix Agora if things go really bad. So this is an attempt to write a rule which can,

DIS: Re: BUS: Paradox cleanup

root wrote: > On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 4:12 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: First, let me explain why I made these proposals outright rather than protoing them (which is what I'd normally do for proposals this complex); it was merely a technicality due to the paradox c

DIS: Re: BUS: Paradox cleanup

ihope wrote: > So, um, a contract caused a win by paradox by saying "if it's X, it > becomes Y; if it's Y, it becomes Z; if it's Z, it becomes X; if it's > X, stuff can happen", which is merely ambiguous? > > Note to self, then: jump on top of every ambiguity, and always appeal > judgements of UND

RE: DIS: Re: BUS: Paradox cleanup

Murphy wrote: > ais523 wrote: >> root wrote: >>> What is unknown about the current set of CFJs? >> Whether comex filed an equity case against the Gnarlier Contract. (E >> tried to, and it was found UNDECIDABLE whether this was possible, so >> I can only include that it's undecidable whether e creat

RE: DIS: Proto: Emergency exit

root wrote: > > I think it's > > probably a good idea to have some way to fix Agora if things > > go really bad. So this is an attempt to write a rule which can, > > by itself and without help from other rules, get the game out > > of just about any mess. > > What might this protect us from that R

RE: DIS: Proto: Emergency exit

Goethe wrote: > On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, Alexander Smith wrote: > > Finally, I can > > imagine a situation where Agora winds up in a really drastically > > unknown gamestate, where even though there is a way to pass a > > proposal within four weeks, nobody is entirely sure

RE: DIS: Proto: Emergency exit

Goethe wrote: > The Annabel Crisis appeared in a 419 scam? Do tell! (And I'll tell > you :) ). Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be deliberate. is archived by one of the same websites that archives Agora mailing lists, and contains both the

DIS: RE: Bank run

comex wrote: [snip] > Mr. Monopoly 46 sets the withdrawal rate of 9 crops to 1. > Mr. Monopoly 46 sets the withdrawal rate of 1 crops to 1. > Mr. Monopoly 46 transfers 716 Pens to the AFO. I terminate Mr. Monopoly 46. [snip] Ironically, I'd thought up a scam very similar to this one independently

DIS: RE: Re: BUS: Proposal: Repeal Partnerships

comex wrote: > On 6/18/08, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I submit the following proposal, titled "Repeal Partnerships" (AI=2, II=0): > > I wouldn't support repealing partnerships altogether-- for example, > the AFO provides a nice place for Murphy and I to store crops-- but > there are

RE: DIS: RE: Re: BUS: Proposal: Repeal Partnerships

BobTHJ wrote: > "Any contract (which meets the requirements) may become a Partnership > without 3 objections"? It works for contests, why not partnerships? That inserts one of the paradox escalation holes that I've just been trying to get rid of, but I like the principle. (If a contract is set up s

RE: DIS: RE: Re: BUS: Proposal: Repeal Partnerships

Taral wrote: > On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 8:34 AM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That inserts one of the paradox escalation holes that I've just been > > trying to get rid of, but I like the principle. (If a contract is set > > up so that it'

DIS: RE: I win

ais523 wrote: > The following sentence is a win announcement, as defined in Rule > 2186, and this sentence serves to explicitly label it as one. ehird wrote: > The following sentence is a win announcement, as defined in Rule > 2186, and this sentence serves to explicitly label it as one. We need a

RE: [Fwd: DIS: Re: BUS: Werewolves, take two]

Murphy wrote: > Without three objections, I intend to make The Werewolves of Agora Nomic > a contest, with me as the sole contestmaster. then > Having received no objections, I perform this change. I'm not sure if that worked; you're still contestmaster of Enigma. I can now resolve an action to mak

DIS: RE: fit of pique over now

Goethe wrote: > I register. I sit up. I nominate myself for Herald. Welcome back! <>

RE: ?spam? Re: DIS: proto Stock Market

cdm014 wrote: > I'll keep working on it. I thought it would be an interesting contest. I'm > glad to see others agree. I think it would be mostly interesting if corporation's dividends depended on something in the gamestate, such as whether proposals made by corporation members passed. Corporation

DIS: CFJ 1993

Murphy: I'm slightly concerned that CFJ 1993 doesn't have a judge yet; it looks bad when a criminal case against the CotC still doesn't have a judge 10 days after it was filed. I don't want to make the situation worse by filing another criminal case against that, though, so I'm just sending this re

DIS: Notary online

I've put the public part of my Notary notes online at , hopefully providing a reasonable reference for the current state of contracts in Agora. (They get out of date from time to time, and occasionally contain mistakes that I notice later - for some reas

DIS: RE: Apology for CFJ 1993

Murphy wrote: > How slow is triple unanimity! > That lofty goal of undisputed truth > That three must reach in no more time than one. > And so the order handed down to me: > Recuse the lot if they be so uncouth > That none persuade the rest before the gun. > But I was lost,

DIS: RE: BUS: RE: Human Point Two... Activated

Murphy wrote: > 5. The Partners shall ensure that Human Point Two obeys the Rules of > Agora to the maximum possible extent. Ah, I missed that. -- ais523 <>

DIS: Voting questions

Zefram, avpx, why did you vote AGAINST ? (I can guess why Eris voted against, given eir recent voting patterns). -- ais523

DIS: RE: BUS: More decontestification

root wrote: > ais523 can make Enigma into a contest without waiting. Actually, I'm pretty sure my contestification of Enigma worked, regardless of whether Murphy was contestmaster before, as I was definitely not a contestmaster before it. -- ais523 <>

RE: DIS: Re: Re: BUS: Public forum

Goethe wrote: > The rules define public as the state of a publicity switch, and by R754(2) > this overrides any other definition of public. Actually, they define Public as a state of a switch. However, does this necessarily override all other uses of "public" in the rules? If it does, then there

  1   2   3   >