Re: DIS: BUS: Conclave

Michael Norrish wrote: (This is the sort of "I say I do, therefore I do" tautology that keeps Kelly awake at night.) In this case, I think Kelly is sleeping soundly because your utterance is of the sort that is performative. I can't remember what the linguists call it, but it's a little like

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: kick in the Agora

Goethe wrote: Eris wrote: Do we have a Justiciar? Heh. For some twisted reason, the last ADoP report lists it as me. But I think I was a "speaker on hold" at the time so it was probably held by no one and then picked up by Sherlock instead. Must resist filing a CFJ with the Justiciar to s

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Fifty-Two Card Pick-Up

Sherlock wrote: --- Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Proposal: Fifty-Two Card Pick-Up (AI = 3, please) Okay, but how does removing the "game" aspect of Agora help? Do you have a suggestion for something to replace cards? Yes, though I assume it'll need revis

DIS: Re: BUS: Judicial Reforms

Goethe wrote: Repeal Rule 1816 (No Double Jeopardy for Crimes) Why? I suppose you could argue that the judgment of a duplicate Civil CFJ would not count as a finding, since it was already found by the judgement of the original CFJ. A Judge (the first judge) may transfer a CFJ to a sec

Re: DIS: Vote fight

OscarMeyr wrote: On Sep 8, 2006, at 12:21 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: First of all, root, OscarMeyr and Maud, with regard to the original question, please see CFJ 1103, a mandatory annotation to R1482 in the SLR. I think that answeres the question--even the explicit deference is forbidden if the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: High-Power Deference

Ian Kelly wrote: On 9/9/06, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Proposal: High-Power Deference (AI = 3, please) Amend Rule 1482 (Precedence between Rules with Unequal Power) by appending this text: If the Rule with the higher Power explicitly says of itself that it

Re: DIS: Vote fight

Kerim Aydin wrote: On Sun, 10 Sep 2006, Kerim Aydin wrote: In the context of a body of text (e.g. a rule), what's the difference between claiming to defer and actually deferring? A claim to defer is not necessarily successful, whereas actually deferring is successful by definition. Followu

DIS: Re: OFF: Distribution of Proposals 4871-4872

OscarMeyr wrote: 4871 | High-Power Deference| Murphy| 3 | 10Sep06 | D FOR 4872 | Voting Credits | OscarMeyr | 3 | 09Sep06 | D FOR

DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Update the map

Maud wrote: Protoproposal h0133 (AI=1) Update the map I don't like the number /that/ much.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Update the map

Maud wrote: On 11/26/06, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I don't like the number /that/ much. What about just EMURPHY -> ? *pokes at Google Maps* Murphy Bridge (SA, ESE of Adelaide) Maudurah (WA, S of Perth) Torquaz (Q, N of Brisbane)

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Hold

root wrote: On 12/14/06, *Grey Knight* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > Wait a minute, I think GreyKnight mistakenly wrote FALSE instead of > TRUE. (I did pretty much the same thing myself, once.) As such, I > appeal the judgement of CFJ 1589. I

Re: DIS: Amicus Curiae

Crito wrote: I'd say the rule makes it clear that a document is a Cantus Cygneus if it is clearly labeled as such and submitted to the Clerk of the Courts. AFAIK there's no dispute over that part. The lack of a Registrar merely makes it impossible for the method of deregistration to be noted

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto-VL/VC report

OscarMeyr wrote: That was the most recent report-ish, I'm a bit behind on updating the current. What's holding me up right now is, I don't remember seeing anything about Maud or G. Eris deregistering; when did that happen? Both of em deregistered on December 12.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1594 assigned to Goethe

Goethe wrote: Players cannot be deregistered due to Rule 1789. Judge: Goethe [There's gotta be a way to win by paradox with this assignment.] And I do believe I've found one, but it requires one more player besides the two of us. First volunteer gets

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Periodic Spell Check

Maud wrote: On 12/18/06, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Amend Rule 2024 (Linked Statements) by replacing "labelled" with "labeled". This is not a misspelling; both spellings are acceptable. Further research indicates that "labelled" is more c

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto-assessing of Proposal 4876

Sherlock wrote: does it really make sense to set quorum in the ruleset, > where we keep having to rewrite it via proposal to > accomodate current activity levels? We probably shouldn't let it go below max(3,#players). AFAIK the only time we did that was Adoption Without Objection, which led t

DIS: Re: BUS: Recruiting drive

Sherlock wrote: I'd appreciate some feedback on this, which I was thinking of posting at www.nomic.net Looks good to me.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in CFJ 1594

root wrote: So does this mean that 1594 now needs to be reassigned, since the assigned judge was ineligible due to not being a player? Quiet, you.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Submission to the Clerk of the Courts

Quazie wrote: is there a number assigned to this CFJ? I call for judgement on the following statement: Agora is dead. Not yet, but it will wind up being 1595, and the one you just called will wind up being 1596. If you want to reference the above CFJ in the statement of ano

DIS: Chuck's Agora logo (from archive.org)

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ

Quazie wrote: I make a CFJ on the following statement CFJ 1594 has been judged. I assign this CFJ to Goethe. I publicly note the following: * Both Goethe and Sherlock presented reasonable interpretations of Rule 1789. Which of these interpretations we apply is determined by which

DIS: Officer shuffle?

Would anyone like to be CotC for a while? I can continue to maintain the database, since it's non-trivial to relocate. It'd also be nice to get a Speakership out of this win (R402), which would require my giving up the Clerkship (R1450). H. Promotor OscarMeyr, are you still out there? There ar

DIS: FYI: Current DigitabulistNomic ruleset

001. All players must always abide by all the rules then in effect, in the form in which they are then in effect. The rules in the Initial Set are in effect whenever a game begins. 002. Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and unregulated, with the sole ex

DIS: FYI: Claustronomic status

http://www.geocities.com/koljag/cn/indexcn.htm Would there be an interest in having Agora explicitly recognize these as subgames? Also, http://www.itsyourturn.com/ supports non-real-time chess and a number of other board games, if we feel like putting up a points-based framework around that or s

DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Ecumenical Proposals

Maud wrote: Amend the Agoran Contract titled "The Envoy" to read: "by appending the following", followed by just the new bits Amend the Buddy List to read: "Upon the adoption of this proposal, Agora's Buddy List is set to" * Ackanomic * Claustronomic * The Fantasy Rules

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Ecumenical Proposals

Michael Slone wrote: (I would MTFO for Garden Nomic III.) There's a Garden Nomic III? Not that I can find, hence "would".

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Ecumenical Proposals

Maud wrote: Sorry, I had to guess what you were saying because I don't keep up with all the neologisms you crazy kids use these days. MTFO = "mark out" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_(professional_wrestling)#Smarks_and_"marking_out" Incidentally, my son Alex is nine years old now. It's n

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ

OscarMeyr wrote: As I understand R1789, the CotC commands the deregistration as part of posting the WoF; the command is not directed AT the Registrar. Only the order to note the method of deregistration is directed at the Registrar. Correct, but CFJ 1594 hinges on the argument that this is e

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ

Quazie wrote: 3) Goethe published eir purported Judgement of FALSE. This was effective only in 1594T, and paradoxed it. Goethe's judgment that 1594 was false also is odd, because by judeing it false, it means e was deregistered upon stated that e was deregistered, thus he was

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ

Sherlock wrote: R2110 (Win by Paradox) limits the number of wins to one person, but > does not limit the number of wins that individual may achieve for > noting a paradox. Murphy therefore was eligible to receive any > number of wins that the Speaker decided to award. Rule 2110/0 (Power=3)

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Rook Promotes to Dragon King

Eris wrote: That's ridiculous. Standard usage is that "A, B, C are mutually exclusive X" for {A, B, C} \subset X. Doesn't makes sense otherwise. Rules that don't make sense are nothing new. :)

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto-assessing of Proposal 4876

OscarMeyr wrote: On Dec 16, 2006, at 6:50 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: H. Speaker Sherlock, can you please confirm the following? Proposal 4876 FOR: Murphy, Goethe, OscarMeyr PRESENT: Eris Decision: FAILED QUORUM Did this ever get finalized? Sherlock confirmed it on December 18, albeit in a-d.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Distribution of Proposals 4877-4892

OscarMeyr wrote: For the moment, I declare PRESENCE on proposals 4877 through 4892. Not to the PF.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: registration and CFJs

Zefram wrote: What I like is that there's a procedure to unlink the CFJs, which would resolve the problem, but you can't do it until a Judge has been assigned. YAFI, YGI. Proto-Proposal: Pre-emptive Unlinking Amend Rule 2024 (Linked Statements) by appending, after this text: Linked C

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: registration and CFJs

Goethe wrote: ps. if you like the new rule 101, want to try to gut the judicial system... I ran out of steam on that one and we still need judicial reform (reform the mechanics to match R101 and the rest). Something along the lines of this outline? i. Every person has the right to CFJ

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of Proposals 4877-4892

Sherlock wrote: 4879 | Dishonor Rolls, redux | Murphy| 1 | 16Dec06 | O I love this... FOR I feel obligated to remind folks that I didn't write this rule, just proposed to patch it in from a previously adopted proposal that accidentally didn't have its full intended effect. 4882

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: registration and CFJs

Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: YAFI, YGI. What does that expand to? "You asked for it, you got it". The Clerk of the Courts may, without objection, unlink one or more of the linked CFJs from the others by announcement. If e unlinks more than one as a set,

Re: DIS: proto: broaden annotations

Zefram wrote: The Judge of any CFJ, the Statement of which alleges that a Rule should be interpreted in a certain way, which is judged TRUE or FALSE, may, at eir discretion, issue an Order requiring the Rulekeepor to annotate the Rule in question accordingly. If

Re: DIS: proto: broaden annotations

Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: Expressing the contrary of a given statement is not always trivial, unless you resort to the form "The statement 'foo bar' is false". I think it is sufficiently simple, generally a matter of inserting the word "not". In this case

DIS: Re: BUS: two proposals relating to low AIs

Zefram wrote: H. Promotor, I hereby submit the following Proposal, entitled "hoopy": --- Be it therefore resolved that a Rule be created with title "Sass That Hoopy" and text: When the Clerk of the Courts publishes a Judgement as required by Rule 591, e must accompany the publi

DIS: Unanimity issue

With the definition of Unanimity in question, would someone like to cast AGAINST votes as needed to prevent any of the proposals currently in their voting period from passing unanimously? I'd propose a fix to the definition, but I need to head offline now (and it's time someone else had a chance

DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: fix proposal efficacy

Zefram wrote: Even after the fixes proposed for Rule Changes, it's still possible for a Proposal to be adopted with AI < 1 and take effect with Power=0. That allows anything *except* Rule Changes to be done by an unpopular Proposal. Nope, Rule 955 prevents it: If the voting index ex

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Doing stuff

OscarMeyr wrote: On Jan 11, 2007, at 9:36 PM, Michael Slone wrote: On 1/11/07, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: I declare PRESENCE on all proposals between 4877-4892 unless doing so does not help meet quorum. I move we repeal the conditional voting rule. Prese

Re: DIS: A better argument for Unanimous working

Maud wrote: On 1/12/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: of selecting a reasonable ordering for the index. Who knows, maybe even Kelly would like it. I believe Kelly maintains that we quit playing Agora when it was decided (*not* by me) to handwave away the Annabel issue instead of rec

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Unanimity

Eris wrote: On 1/12/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: # If the Rules defining some entity are repealed or amended such that # they no longer define that entity, then that entity along with all # its properties shall cease to exist. So, specifically, the numerical comparison properties of U

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Unanimity

Eris wrote: On 1/12/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This rule does not define Zefram. It does define Zefram's playerhood, but so do some other rules. If a rule says "X is a Y.", under what circumstances does it then define X? When X does not exist independently of the rules.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Unanimity

Eris wrote: On 1/12/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: When X does not exist independently of the rules. What if it says "This Rule defines X. X is a Y."? If X exists independently of the rules, then this rule is either lying, or using "This Rule defines X"

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Unanimity

Eris wrote: On 1/13/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If X exists independently of the rules, then this rule is either lying, or using "This Rule defines X" as a gloss for "This Rule defines a property of X". In either case, repealing the rule does not cause

Re: DIS: a bigger bug -- no gamestate changes?

Goethe wrote: proto-CFJ Proposal 4882 (The Lady, or the Tiger?) can have no effect on Goethe's registration status. Arguments R594/8, no longer in effect, contained the following text: For the purpose of the Rules, the application of an adopted Proposal is a legal procedur

DIS: Upcoming events

In addition to the Rule 1450 issue, it occurred to me that Rule 2110's awarding of the Patent Title of Champion might be interpreted as not synonymous with winning the game (despite the rule's title), hence failing to activate Rule 402. Fortunately, I have a Plan (tm) to sidestep this mess: 1) W

DIS: Re: OFF: Voting results for Proposals 4877 - 4892

If Michael's votes are discarded (see CFJ 1607), then the results are as follows: 4877 8 9 80 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 90 1 2 GreyKnightF F F F F F P F F F F P F F F F Manu F F F F F F A F F F F F F F F MurphyF

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Judicial backlog

Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: Players generally eligible to be Trial Judges: Players currently ineligible to be Trial Judges: Why am I not in either list? Because I goofed up. You should be in the second list, per Rule 1871's "When a player registers, e is considered turned." clause.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Judicial backlog

Grey Knight wrote: Am I expected to keep http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/ up-to-date as an unofficial part of the job, or does the site's owner do that? I can take care of it. Unless you really want to, in which case contact me privately and I'll set you up with access. (I'm still using Eri

Re: [Fwd: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto-assessing of Proposal 4876]

Murphy wrote: TTttPF: Proposal: Inactivity Revisited Create a rule titled "Inactivity" with this text: A player may become active or inactive by announcement. A player may, without objection, make another player inactive. Did this get lost in the shuffle?

DIS: Re: OFF: Judicial backlog

Murphy wrote: 12/30 OscarMeyr calls CFJ 1598 "Murphy received more than one Patent Title of Champion on December 30th, 2006" 12/30 Goethe dismisses CFJ 1596 (retroactively invalidated by Proposal 4882) 01/03 Murphy calls CFJ 1598 "Rule 402 (Church and State) may cause the

DIS: Re: BUS: Judicial motion

Goethe wrote: I file a motion for the judge of CFJ 1605 ("Goethe was deregistered in a Writ of FAGE in December 2006" to consider the following argument: Murphy claims that certain judgements were "retroactively invalidated" by Proposal 4882. I strongly dispute this statement. By R217 (powe

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Voting results for Proposals 4877 - 4892

OscarMeyr wrote: On Jan 22, 2007, at 12:40 AM, Ed Murphy wrote: 4877 8 9 80 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 90 1 2 GreyKnightF F F F F F P F F F F P F F F F Manu F F F F F F A F F F F F F F F Michael A A A A A A

Re: DIS: Rule 1868 Paradox

Jacob Sutton wrote: Rule 1868 states that a CFJ is open if it has not been judged and closed if it is not open So, if a case has been judged, there is no rule keeping it from still being considered open. Correct. So it's not open. (Assuming it also doesn't have any outstanding motions.) Th

Re: DIS: Rule 1868 Paradox

Jacob Sutton wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: >Jacob Sutton wrote: >> Rule 1868 states that a CFJ is open if it has not been judged and >>closed >>if it is not open >>So, if a case has been judged, there is no rule keeping it from still >>being considered op

Re: DIS: Rule 1868 Paradox

Jacob Sutton wrote: */Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>/* wrote: >Check out CFJ 1575: >http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1575 I guess that case could be reopened, then. In fact, it was, and root re-judged it as required: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcas

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Cleaning up after myself

Goethe wrote: Murphy wrote: Upon the adoption of this proposal, the gamestate is modified so that Goethe was deregistered due to Rule 1789 (Cantus Cygneus) as of the posting of Murphy's message on or about Mon, 18 Dec 2006 07:44:10 -0800. What exact aspect of the "gamestate" is being modifi

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judicial motion

Michael wrote: We can agree as a matter of fact that Goethe did or did not send particular messages to the public forum, but the legal effect of such messages can be changed by ratification or proposal. Pedantic side note: it's the legal effect of one of my messages, not Goethe's, that was in

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judicial motion

Goethe wrote: [Side note: This is the closest parallel to Lindrum World that I've seen since I've been around here.] I'm honored. I think.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes

root wrote: On 1/30/07, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On each proposal in the group of proposals from proposal 4893 to proposal 4902 (excluding proposal 4896) I place a vote of FOR, unless without my FOR vote any one of those proposals would not pass, in which case i place a vote of

DIS: Re: BUS: Timing Order for CotC GreyKnight

Zefram wrote: (Can anyone see a good way to fix Rule 1810 so that the CotC can satisfy both my and Maud's Timing Orders in one action?) Adding an explicit exception to 1794(d) would work: "If the entity performs the duty, all Timing Orders ordering em to perform it are satisfied." Is 1794(d)

DIS: Re: OFF: Judicial Assignments

Grey Knight wrote: It not being possible to assign a judge for CFJ 1607, I issue a Notice of Rotation. All turned players are now unturned. What about Manu? (The web database incorrectly listed em as being on hold. Fixed now.) I assign CFJ 1607 to Cecilius. I assign CFJ 1608 to Peter. I as

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC, on behalf of] CFJ 1606 assigned to Quazie

Quazie wrote: (unless i'm mistaken) deregistred players cant CFJ. And i am mistaken it seems, which leaves a very interesting hole open in the event that some non-player wanted to create havoc, as any person can call any number of CFJs But the Clerk of the Courts can dismiss any excess ones

Re: DIS: Broken vacation rule? (Was: Re: BUS: Timing Order for CotC GreyKnight)

Maud wrote: Unfortunately, I cannot vacate the order I validly executed, because I am not a player. If I were to register, would I be able to vacate the order I made while not a player? The relevant text from Rule 1799 is Any Order may always be stayed or vacated by the Player (or, in

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Corrections and dismissals

Grey Knight wrote: --- Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 1/31/07, Grey Knight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Due to a technical error, my first Notice of Rotation was ineffective. The assignments of CFJs 1607, 1608, and 1609, as well as the second Notice of Rotation following them should a

DIS: Proto: Revise Rotation

Proto-Proposal: Revise Rotation Amend Rule 1871 (Turns for All) to read: When a player is selected as Trial Judge of a CFJ, e becomes turned. A player is ineligible to be Trial Judge of a CFJ if e was turned when it was called. When a player registers, e becomes turned

DIS: Re: BUS: Appeal of CFJ 1594

Eris wrote: On 1/31/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I hereby appeal Sherlock's judgement of CFJ 1594. I also appeal this Judgement, because I've always wanted to try this. This is explicitly allowed by Rule 101, but contributes nothing toward Rule 1564's prerequisites for initiating a

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: No Silly Orders

Grey Knight wrote: Amend Rule 1793, "Orders" by appending the following paragraph: Any Order which requires any entity to perform an impossible or illegal action, or to refrain from performing an action which that entity is either legally required to perform or which it is impossible not to

Re: DIS: Proto: Revise Rotation

Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: The Clerk of the Courts may (without 2 objections) turn a player e expects to judge CFJs slowly or not at all. What's this supposed to mean? Sounds like a barbecuing procedure. "cause a player to become turned", then. When t

Re: DIS: A bit of heresy...

Sherlock wrote: Goethe wrote: Boy, wouldn't that be the surest way of ensuring I never, ever, ever re-registered. Well, let's look at what's happening with my recent ruling regarding the Cantus Cygnaeus CFJ. No one complained about my judgment or argument at the time. Now it's probably goin

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: some deeming

Grey Knight wrote: Some of the rules use the word "person" in places (a particular point of interest is Rule 869, "How to Join and Leave Agora"), but we'd have to call a CFJ on whether or not a banana capable of using email and other computing facilities should be a person. :-) I am reminded o

Re: DIS: OFF: Judgement of CFJ 1597

Michael Norrish wrote: Kerim Aydin wrote: > Let's say, in this case, the decision is "OVERTURN AND REVERSE". > Did that "OVERTURN AND REVERSE" apply to Goethe's FALSE or > Sherlock's TRUE? There's no legal distinction the appeals court can > make to distinguish them. I don't imagine the

Re: DIS: Proto: Revise Rotation

Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: What's this supposed to mean? Sounds like a barbecuing procedure. "cause a player to become turned", then. It's the whole thing that I have a problem with, not the verb "turn". I really can't make head or tail of it. What

Re: DIS: Proto: Revise Rotation

Quazie wrote: On 1/31/07, *Ed Murphy* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:The intent was to jump ahead and make more Turns-for-All assignments to the greatest extent possible. As things currently stand, and even under your suggested middle ground, the CotC cou

Re: DIS: Proto: Revise Rotation

Zefram wrote: I understand the purpose of the Rule as a whole. What's the "turn slowly or not at all" bit about? I don't follow that sentence. "slowly or not at all" refers to the player's judging, or lack thereof. The order of events basically went like this: 1) Ineligibility due to req

DIS: Re: BUS: Pineapple CFJ

Goethe wrote: As an unregulated property of a person (Zefram), it is the sole discretion of Zefram (CFJ 1361), and should be FALSE. But what if e /wants/ to be a pineapple?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Orange you glad I didn't...

Michael wrote: I don't think this is a counter-example. When you "deem" your nickname to be PineappleLover, you do so by posting some announcement to this effect to the appropriate mailing list and the Herald pays the appropriate amount of attention, all as required by the rules. More to the

DIS: Bribery

I will increase by 5 the VLOP of the next player who is installed as CotC according to the Agoran Consent procedure in Rule 1006.

DIS: Proto: Paragraphs defined, etc.

Proto-proposal: Paragraphs defined, etc. (AI = 2, please) Amend Rule 1023 (Common Definitions) to read: The following terms are defined: (a) Agoran epochs: (1) Agoran days begin at midnight UTC. (2) Agoran weeks begin at midnight UTC on Monday.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Distribution of Proposals 4904-4909

Michael wrote: 4904 | some deeming| AGAINST 4905 | Cleaning up after myself| FOR 4906 | "Deem" deemed harmful | FOR 4907 | Timing without Orders | FOR 4908 | No Silly Orders | FOR 4909 | broaden annotations | FOR Not to the PF.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Initialize Activity

Quazie wrote: Is anyone else defiantly inactive? ^ Is this typo intentional or merely serendipitous? Anyway, some players may reasonably fit the English definition of "inactive". There are five things that depend on activity: 1) Requirement to receive PFs 2) Abil

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Paragraphs and pineapples

Goethe wrote: Murphy wrote: Upon the adoption of this proposal, each natural person who is part of a player that is not a natural person is awarded the Patent Title of Denny Crane. I object to this being treated as a cheap scam (whose perpetrators could be bought off with trinkets) rather t

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: pineapple

Goethe wrote: I call for judgement on the following statement, barring Goethe, OscarMeyr, and Zefram: But you didn't bar the Pineapple Partnership! Will the PP's eligibility to judge block Rotation, etc.? I think "our" way is a little safer... if a judge of a PP-called CFJ says that PP isn't

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: pineapple

Eris wrote: On 2/27/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Proto-proto: Partnerships are ineligible to judge a CFJ if all its members are ineligible. If some but not all members are ineligible, then the judgment must be supported by at least one eligible member to be effective.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Paragraphs and pineapples

Goethe wrote: How about something more radical and simple? Leave "persons" as referring to all types of persons (not just natural), but insert a single sentence "persons consisting of the same set of natural persons are the same person". This would limit the arbitrary issue, and puts partnersh

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgments

Goethe wrote: Sherlock's judgements in 1616 and 1615 are reasonable. OscarMeyr's judgement in 1614 is reasonable. Unfortunately, they are in direct opposition, so there's no clear precedent. Any ideas on whether an appeals process is useful to resolve this? I don't believe they're in opposi

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: conflict of interest

Quazie wrote: This is exactly the type of change I was talking about, I just have never understood the CFJ system enough to write it myself. Eris, may I publish that short list of bullet points you sent me about a conceptual revamping of the judiciary?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: conflict of interest

Eris wrote: On 3/9/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Quazie wrote: > This is exactly the type of change I was talking about, I just have > never understood the CFJ system enough to write it myself. Eris, may I publish that short list of bullet points you sent me about

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Voting results for Proposals 4910 - 4911

Goethe wrote: Murphy wrote: * Is the Pineapple Partnership a player? yes -> Quazie voted AGAINST, VI = 3/4, voters = 7 no-> Quazie voted FOR, VI = 4/3, voters = 7 indeterminate -> Quazie did not vote (condition in Rule 2127 paragraph 2

DIS: Re: BUS: Dear, damn'd distracting town, farewell!

Michael wrote: I hereby deregister. Well, crap. Would anyone else (preferably already familiar with CVS) like to be Rulekeepor?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Re-divide some offices

Goethe wrote: as for bringing back the Assessor, ADoP, and the Registrar, do we > really need that sheer weight of offices when we don't care enough to contest the ones we've got? We already have the weight of their duties, and under the current regime they're locked together in twos and thr

Re: DIS: eligibility

Maud wrote: Is there any way I can make myself eligible to judge CFJs, or do I have to wait for a Notice of Rotation? You could always call a CFJ, barring me and sproingie...

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Rulekeepor's notes for Proposals 4893-4903

Goethe wrote: I'd suggest the following record for R105: History: Initial Immutable Rule 105, Jun. 30 1993 Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1072, Oct. 4 1994 Amended by Proposal 1275, Oct. 24 1994 Renumbered from 1072 to 105 by Rule 1295, Nov. 1 1994 Amended(1) by Proposal 3445 (Ge

DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: reorientation

Zefram wrote: H. Promotor, I hereby submit the following proposal, entitled "reorientation": --- Amend rule 889 ("The Clerk of the Courts") by deleting the text The CotC's Bi-Weekly Report shall include the following: (i) Each Player's Orientation. --- (Orientation isn't define

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Rulekeepor's notes for Proposals 4893-4903

Goethe wrote: Zefram wrote: This did not cause any rule to acquire a number previously used by a different rule, which is what's going on here. It suddenly occurs to me that this unique precedent gives us two entities with the same name and/or nickname by R1586 (self- reference alert: is a R

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Voting Limits

Zefram wrote: Benjamin Schultz wrote: Zefram 1 1 0 I should have a VC for delivering judgement, and I expect several other players should too. Since 2007-01-22, R2126 includes: A player who submits a judgement during eir Deliberation Period gains one VC. A playe

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >