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
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
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
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
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!
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
2008/7/8 comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Says the person who registered without reading most of the ruleset.
>
Shut up, you.
2008/7/9 ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> CoE: I'd like an Ultraviolet ribbon, too. I think I might have won or
> something, along with the rest of Sgeo's buddies.
>
> --Ivan Hope CXXVII
>
Doubt it.
The new URLs are:
http://agora.eso-std.org/notary-report.html
http://agora.eso-std.org/notary-report.txt
tusho
2008/7/10 Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> This doesn't seem to require that the supporters or objectors of an
> amendment to this contract be parties to this contract.
>
Correct
2008/7/10 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I recommend having the Distributor ban tusho from posting, myself.
>
It is clear that I did not think this thing out fully.
I forgot to specify 'If a WINNING Gamer thinks about the game'
:(
2008/7/10 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 3:03 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 3:01 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
for i in range(1000):
print "I
2008/7/10 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> print 'I go on hold. I come off hold.\n' * 1000
>
> Your extra newline is showing.
>
> -root
>
Ah true. Hmph, works with ruby
2008/7/10 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 3:27 PM, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> How about:
>>
>> from itertools import repeat
>> print '\n'.join(repeat('I go on hold. I come off hold', 1000))
>
> I already posted that one...
>
> -root
>
No you didn't.
2008/7/10 Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 2008/7/10 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 3:27 PM, Elliott Hird
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> How about:
>>>
>>> from itertools import repeat
>>> p
2008/7/10 Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> dim x as Integer
> for x = 1 to 1000
> Console.WriteLine("I go on hold. I come off hold")
> next
>
DIE! DIE YOU EVIL HERETIC!
(Watch as ais523 posts an INTERCAL version.)
2008/7/10 Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> If I emphatically refuse to agree to The Game, do I win?
> -
> Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
> OscarMeyr
>
No.
2008/7/10 ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 22:43 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote:
>> (Watch as ais523 posts an INTERCAL version.)
> This is CLC-INTERCAL (there is no standard way of doing text-based IO in
> INTERCAL, so I had to pick some version of doing it):
2008/7/11 Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Proposal: Chambers II
> AI: 3
> II: 1
Cliff's Notes?
2008/7/11 Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 4:27 PM, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 2008/7/11 Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> Proposal: Chambers II
>>> AI: 3
>>> II: 1
>>
>> Cliff'
2008/7/12 Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I object, only because I there should be a way to get to their stuff.
> Can we come up with a way to get access to an inactive farmer's loot?
> If a farmer ceases to be a farmer their possessions get donated to the
> bank?
>
Too late.
2008/7/12 ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> That's 6 FOR to 5 AGAINST, meaning it passes.
>
> --Ivan Hope CXXVII
>
Thank god.
Ping.
2008/7/13 Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Unless anybody wants to take up my Whitespace challenge, I proclaim Goethe
> the winner of this competition.
> -
> Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
> OscarMeyr
>
I preferred the INTERCAL.
2008/7/13 Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> It didn't have enough PLEASE statements.
> -
> Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
> OscarMeyr
>
Pretty sure it should always work correctly (and ais523 will
know how many are needed precisely, of course...)
2008/7/13 Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 2008/7/13 Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> It didn't have enough PLEASE statements.
>> -
>> Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
>> OscarMeyr
>>
>
> Pretty sure it should always work correctly (
2008/7/13 Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Poppycock. E said that e joined, but knew that e was not in fact joining.
> I support the call for appeal of this judgement, and recommend a final
> judgement of GUILTY.
>
> -zefram
>
I'm not sure I _want_ to be registered if something that goes wrong is il
2008/7/13 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Oh please. Using a different email address and pretending you have no
> idea why anyone would suspect you were you isn't "something that goes
> wrong".
That is not what the CFJ is on.
2008/7/13 Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> It has occurred to me that the power of R2149 makes the available penalty
> somewhat inadequate for this particular type of lie. I'd be in favour
> of a power=3 rule explicitly forbidding lying about one's identity.
>
> -zefram
>
I would support this wholeh
2008/7/13 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> A person SHALL NOT make a public statement unless e reasonably
> believes it is true.
This is a fundamentally flawed and dangerous idea and should not pass.
2008/7/13 Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Elliott Hird wrote:
>>This is a fundamentally flawed and dangerous idea and should not pass.
>
> What is the nature of the flaw? Does the current R2149 share it?
An announcement is a vessel for performing or trying to perform an acti
2008/7/14 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> I retract my previous claim of error, I forgot to search for other people
> voting on my behalf (below). -goethe
phew
2008/7/14 comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Proposal: a probably unsuccessful attempt at deregistering ehird
> because I forgot to vote AGAINST 5582
Stop being a dick.
2008/7/14 ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> So do I. ehird, that's 2 support now, you know the ##nomic meme...
> --
> ais523
>
Having received the neccessary support, I cause comex to stop being a dick.
2008/7/14 ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 1:15 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Proposal: a probably unsuccessful attempt at deregistering ehird
>> because I forgot to vote AGAINST 5582
>>
>> Upon the adoption of this proposal, ehird deregisters emself by announcement.
>
2008/7/14 ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I agree to the following: {This is a pledge. Ivan Hope CXXVII can act
> on behalf of himself by announcement. Ivan Hope CXXVII can terminate
> this contract by announcement.}
You call this an ehird moment? Well, it starts the same, except I'd end up
deregiste
2008/7/14 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> For the current case, I think "I act on behalf of myself" is what a
> speech act is by definition; whenever we say "I do X" we are implicitly
> saying that we are acting on behalf of ourselves. So the pledge is
> a tautology, "I act on behalf of myself
2008/7/15 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:41 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I still need 3 more votes on whether to lynch Pavitra.
>
> I recommend amending the contract to require votes to be cast as soon
> as possible, with severe penalties for not doin
2008/7/15 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> This makes something occur to me. Once an entity (a partnership) is
> defined as a person, is it even possible, without violating R101, to make
> them a non-person? At one stroke, by doing so, we've removed rights
> that (the instant before the change
2008/7/15 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Murphy has already said that e will change it for the next game, so at
> this point you're just whining needlessly.
>
> -root
>
I didn't hear that, but OK.
2008/7/15 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> The problem is that partnerships aren't people.
>
> They are if they're public and have a basis of at least two, which are
> the only ones that we've decided we want to have interacting with the
> game (and with good reason). Unless Goethe is right, in w
2008/7/15 Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> But you can't un-people them without reducing eir rights. So even if
> its wrong, its something we can't just change.
>
We can make it so that future partnerships are doers, but not people.
And a powerful proposal can de-person the existing ones.
2008/7/15 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Ah. I would suggest that, in keeping with legal practice we should
> instead split "persons" into "natural persons" and "artificial
> persons", and have R101 assign rights only to the natural variety.
>
> -root
>
Yes. This is essentially what I was sugge
There has been recent debate over whether a failing action should be illegal
or not. Here's some arguments.
First, let's take a look at how performing actions by announcement works.
You write a message stating that you perform an action, and somehow, when you
send off the message, it happens. (Not
2008/7/15 comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
>>> No, doer vs non-doer would not be a question of rights. Only people have
>>> rights,
>>> a
2008/7/15 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Neat. I create 1 billion chits in my possession.
>
If some people get their way I could criminal CFJ you if
you did this to a-b.
2008/7/15 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Why couldn't you do it as is?
>
> -root
>
Failing actions aren't illegal yet, thank god.
2008/7/15 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> although (a) to be fair, I covered those attempts with various disclaimers
> explaining the situation, although (b) I'm puzzled by the disclaimers issue.
> If you disclaim an action (those of you who claim that action statements
> can be false) wouldn't
2008/7/15 Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> comex got out of being found guilty in a criminal case by alleging that
>> the act occurred a long time ago, even though it didn't (with
>> appropriate disclaimers), thus forcing an OVERLOOKED version.
> Wouldn't e be guilty of lying then?
>
> (with
>> approp
2008/7/15 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> YOU MISS THE POINT. WHY IS IT JUST OR VALUABLE TO AGORA TO FORCE US TO
> ANSWER TO CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS FOR THIS SORT OF THING IN THE FIRST PLACE
> THIS PLACE HAS BEEN CRIMINALIZED ENOUGH, AND NOW YOU'RE ASKING US TO BE
> PARANOID ABOUT OUR EVERY AT
2008/7/15 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I liked a version that included intent to deceive, Zefram didn't care
> for it so it disappeared from Murphy's draft. Intent to deceive is a
> good way to cover, say, making true statements but sending them from
> an "imposter" email account. -Goethe
2008/7/15 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> R1728 allows that. We voted that in after comex deliberately
> prevented an appeal by announcing eir intent to do it and then never
> actually doing it, remember?
I remember that in #ircnomic. :)
2008/7/15 ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 13:38 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> I dance. I dance a dance of being free to say I do so.
>> A dance of freedom. A free-from-dumb dance. I dance.
> Is that a Powerful Dance?
Powerful Dances are worth a lot, I don't see why e'd dance
2008/7/15 comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
Hi!
2008/7/16 Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Elliott Hird wrote:
>>If the above statement is false,
>
> This condition cannot be evaluated by any reasonable effort, so the
> attempted action is invalid due to unclarity.
>
> -zefram
>
It can be evaluated trivially - ask me.
2008/7/16 Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> E actually violated a contract instead. ##nomic was a contract
> forbidding the eating of cake at the time (if i have my timing
> correct).
That was after.
2008/7/16 Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> WIth 2 supporters I make teh aboce proposal Democratic.
>
Can you do that?
2008/7/16 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
>> I support, let's do this thang.
>
> Thanks. uh, have you fixed that "player" think yet? -G.
Yep, the proposal passed and ihope resolved it because the
Assessor didn't.
Also it got rid of the pledge.
2008/7/16 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I'm treating this as not communicating intent with sufficient clarity to
> be effective.
>
>
Want to ask me whether I was drinking coffee?
2008/7/16 Michael Norrish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Michael - and then you might drop partnerships too...
>
But partnerships are warm and fluffy, this is not.
2008/7/16 ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Actually, you got that backwards, in Canada, Dancing created a dance,
> rather than getting rid of one. OTOH, it might be quite difficult to
> gather the required resources to Dance a Powerful Dance there.
> --
> ais523
>
Er, I thought we defined it so that
2008/7/16 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Good luck with that. Stop holding my chits hostage and I'll happy
> change my vote to AGAINST.
>
http://nomic.info/perlnomic/current-proposals/comments.Wooble.dispersechits
2008/7/16 ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I post the following Sell Ticket:
> Cost: At least 8 VP, optionally more VP than that
> Action: Veto the Agoran Decision on whether to adopt proposal 5643 a
> number of times equal to the number of VP in excess of 7 spent by the
> filler of this ticket (e.g.
2008/7/16 ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Well, I get the best of all worlds with that ticket: price set so high
> it's unlikely ever to be accepted (thus I never have to risk actually
> using the veto and possibly annoying people because of it), me being
> able to claim that at least I gave you the
2008/7/16 ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 18:00 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote:
>> I post the following Buy Ticket:
>> Cost: 2VP
>> Action: Attempt to veto the Agoran Decision on whether to adopt proposal
>> 5643 at least 3 times.
> I fill th
2008/7/16 The PerlNomic Partnership <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I transfer 75 chits each to Woggle, ais523, Ivan Hope, tusho, and woggle
>
ilu
2008/7/16 ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I transfer 1VP to Wooble, as compensation for eir lost chits.
> --
> ais523
>
Dude, the PNP gave 75*2 chits to em. Read it carefully.
2008/7/16 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 12:58 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I retract my votes on Proposal 5643 and vote AGAINST * 8
>
> I once again retract my votes on 5643 and vote FOR * 8.
>
Even after 150 chits?
2008/7/16 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I join the Protection Racket.
>
> I initiate a criminal CFJ, with tusho as the defendant, alleging that
> e violated Rule 2029 by changing eir posture to sitting.
>
> --Wooble
>
Trying to exile me, ey?
Do as you wish, but you're a jerk.
tusho
2008/7/16 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You gave Woggle 300 chits.
>
> Err, 150. That'll teach me to a) fix perlnomic, b) retract the equity
> case that probably would have given me all of the chits I'd
> contrib
2008/7/16 Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> If the PerlNomic Partnership transferred 150 chits to me as a result of the
> message quoted above, I hereby transfer 75 chits to Wooble.
Thank you. I apologise to Wooble for my mistake.
Why? Cause you don't personally like it?
On 17/07/2008, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 9:46 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 9:20 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj
2008/7/17 Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Judicial corruption at its finest. Why have a reasonable argument when
> we can simply push this through by sheer force alone?
>
> BobTHJ
>
Exactly my thoughts when I responded last night. Sgeo, you've whined in
##nomic for ages about how much you're do
2008/7/17 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2008-July/012162.html
>
> -root
>
RAGE
2008/7/17 Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I submit the following proposal, AI=1.7, II=1, titled "No frivolous
> prosecution":
Violates R101.
2008/7/17 Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Is there an objective here? (apart from annoyance?)
>
> BobTHJ
>
Consider it a verbose and chaotic version of "We should really have a
proposal limit like CFJs."
This'll play havoc with PerlNomic and the AAA too, I think.
tusho
2008/7/17 Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> Exorcism
> AI: 1
> II: 0
> {
> Upon adoption of this proposal each proposal whose title includes the
> word "Demon" which is in the Proposal Pool is removed from the
> Proposal Pool without being distributed.
> }
>
>
2008/7/17 Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Elliott Hird
> Can't the Promotor distribute the Exorcism one first? But I'm guessing
> that before Exorcism is resolved, the Demon stuff will need to be
> distributed too?
>
bingo
2008/7/17 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Official Claim of Error:
>
> I believe/claim that to the best of my knowledge, the results of
> Proposal 5582 have been incorrectly reported in a manner that would
> change their outcome, by leaving out OscarMeyr's vote AGAINST.
>
> This is directed at
2008/7/17 ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 13:14 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> tusho wrote:
>>
>> > I propose the following proposal, named "Demon 1" (AI=1,II=0): {Hello,
>> > world #1!}
>> [snip]
>> > I propose the following proposal, named "Demon 450" (AI=1,II=0):
>> > {Hello, wor
2008/7/17 Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> But since you're not a player, none of these are actually proposals.
>
> -zefram
>
But if I ratify as a player, they will be.
2008/7/18 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Because avpx changed eir nickname to ehird. If e's changed it back,
> or it was determined to have failed, I missed that.
>
> -root
>
e changed it back and it probably failed
2008/7/18 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I see no reason for it to have failed.
Because I am ehird.
> Can you point me to where e
> changed it back? I can't find it in my archive.
Dunno, someone said e did.
tusho
2008/7/18 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Why? Partnerships are a rules-based constructs with no inherent natural
> rights. -Goethe
Being able to post to a-b is not exactly an inherent natural right.
2008/7/19 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> tusho wrote:
>
>> 2008/7/19 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> ehrid (aka Teh Cltohed Mna ...)
>>
>> CoE: No longer.
>
> Please explain this more clearly.
>
>
Someone deregistered ehrid, sometime. :p
If some way for me to become a player is provided (hint hint),
you can say goodbye to the Demon proposals.
tusho
2008/7/19 Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I support, and would be willing to negotiate bribing against objection.
>
As would I.
Er, as would ais523 on my behalf.
2008/7/19 Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Aren't you a player yet? How long has it been?
Almost 30 days.
But I wanna get rid of that contract first.
2008/7/20 comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> B-but--- by CFJ 1881, tusho is not a Marvy, and so need not Dance a
> Powerful Dance!
>
"Marvy" probably counts as a typo of "ninny" in this case.
Nice paradox...
2008/7/20 Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Jul 20, 2008, at 6:43 PM, Charles Reiss wrote:
>>
>> Are you trying to imply that it is not possible for non-players to
>> violate the rules?
>
> How could a non-player be bound by the rules of Agora? It would be
> completely silly to, as a rand
2008/7/21 Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Your argument that the PNP is its own executor wouldn't work even if
> you removed "first-class" from the definition. The PNP that Agora
> recognizes is a contract. A document. It can't do anything. The
> abstract entity that is doing those actions is
2008/7/21 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Is Googlebot a first-class person? It's attempted to update Agora on
> the PNP's membership and text of the contract at least once
> (http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:bvcyYEB-92wJ:nomic.info/perlnomic/update_agora.cgi+site:nomic.info+agora&hl=en&
2008/7/21 Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> This is why POST is supposed to be used.
>
It's not a bad thing. The votes should get sent out ASAP.
We'd do it via cron if we could. It's useful to have googlebot submit them.
Note that GET requests don't have to be non-effective, just that
multiple GETs sh
2008/7/21 comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> (Still looking for an editor that will allow me to edit text wrapped
> in the Agoran style without having to unwrap it first.)
You can write a program running on the Emacs OS to do that, but
I imagine you're attached to your current OS.
tusho
(editor war any
2008/7/22 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> tusho wrote:
>
>> The following action will fail: I initiate a criminal CFJ against tusho for
>> violating rule 2149 by stating that the initiation of this criminal CFJ will
>> fail.
>
> I'm treating this as not clearly expressing intent to initiate a CFJ.
2008/7/22 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Protoproposal, AI=1.7:
>
> Amend Rule 1504 by inserting the following immediately before
> the final paragraph:
>
> Notwithstanding the above, a sentence of EXILE is always appropriate
> if the CFJ in question was initiated by the defe
2008/7/22 Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 10:12 AM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Arguments: UNDECIDABLE is never appropriate.
>
> That's an assertion, not an argument.
Yeah um what about "This statement is false."?
Some things are just undecidable.
2008/7/22 Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I object.
>
> -zefram
>
I intend, with two support, to cause Zefram to stop being a dick.
tusho
(wish I could stop using this.)
201 - 300 of 1799 matches
Mail list logo
