Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Now *this* is a futures market

On 6 Nov 2008, at 17:18, Roger Hicks wrote: I'm in agreement. This is a pain to work out from an automation perspective. Shoulda used Prolog. -- ehird

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: protection

On 6 Nov 2008, at 17:18, Elliott Hird wrote: Here I was thinking automated systems are good because they can handle knock-on effects. It's why I wrote mine, after all. Worth noting: It's not even a change of policy. It's just the fixing of a bug that would have given Woo

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Now *this* is a futures market

On 6 Nov 2008, at 17:09, Elliott Hird wrote: Unless you can give me a reasonable argument for this to be accepted I'm treating it as ineffective for not being clearly specified enough because if I allow unrestricted conditionals that would allow people to condition on turing comple

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Now *this* is a futures market

On 6 Nov 2008, at 18:14, Taral wrote: Did you? Y- no. -- ehird

DIS: Platonic PBA

Proto: Failing transactions that are not noticed quickly enough still affect rates & coin count, but you SHALL NOT do them. -- ehird

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I still suck at this sort of thing, but

On 6 Nov 2008, at 20:28, Roger Hicks wrote: I resolve the above Bank Motion. APPROVE BobTHJ (2234) Taral (2224) DISAPPROVE none I hereby remove the RBOA's rate for Coins. Umm... So much for that email I sent you. -- ehird

DIS: Re: BUS: Points Award (automated)

On 6 Nov 2008, at 21:29, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Per the AAA agreement, I attempt to award 4 points to Taral pls to be condensing into single message -- ehird

DIS: Re: BUS: PNP Voting

On 7 Nov 2008, at 13:51, The PerlNomic Partnership wrote: This message serves to make votes on behalf of the PerlNomic Partnership (a public contract). The PerlNomic Partnership votes as follows. Each vote is made a number of times equal to the maximum number of valid votes that the PerlNomic

Re: DIS: [Fwd: RE: Proposal: Expanded foreign relations]

On 7 Nov 2008, at 14:20, Pavitra wrote: *sigh* I think we should just ignore these losers. -- ehird

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5841-5941

On 7 Nov 2008, at 02:23, Dvorak Herring wrote: 5859 O 3 1.0 P23 Points for Me FOR Hahahahahah -- ehird

Re: DIS: Straw Poll

On 7 Nov 2008, at 11:55, Joshua Boehme wrote: Before I started working on some protos, I wanted to get a feel for people's opinions. There's not much point in taking the trouble to rewrite sections of the rules if people are still enjoying them. Thus, I am wondering: what aspects of the ru

DIS: but what IS "useful"?????????????//////////////////////////

Hypothetically. A web interface to a report, blah blah blah. Would it be useful to be able to see the state of the contract at a certain point of time? e.g. for CFJs. And how useful? -- ehird

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Another attempt at ruining Agora's political system

On 7 Nov 2008, at 11:50, Warrigal wrote: Do you think I would be an Agoran liberal? Yep, you always act as if Agora is a serious, important thing that must be respected and treated carefully. -- ehird

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5942-5945

On 7 Nov 2008, at 18:02, Dvorak Herring wrote: NUM C I AI SUBMITTER TITLE 5942 O 0 1.0 woggle Transporter Accident Repair AGAINST why? -- ehird

Re: DIS: Proto-Contract: Political Action Committee

On 7 Nov 2008, at 19:30, Roger Hicks wrote: Inspired by LLAMA and Vote Market, here is a more generalized (and hopefully useful) version of vote selling: Suggestion: just a regular Market, then build on it for vote-buying. -- ehird

Re: DIS: [Fwd: RE: Proposal: Expanded foreign relations]

On 7 Nov 2008, at 20:55, Geoffrey Spear wrote: On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 3:53 PM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Why are we taking this stupid invention of a bunch of 5 year olds seriously? to be fair, their founder is no longer 5. True. Although they still invest in this

Re: DIS: [Fwd: RE: Proposal: Expanded foreign relations]

On 7 Nov 2008, at 20:23, Ian Kelly wrote: But there is no explicit list of what these laws actually are. So do they actually have a bunch of laws that are just unpublished, or do they just claim a fuzzy general set of laws (in which case one might argue that they're not really laws)? http:/

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 2213 judgement

On 7 Nov 2008, at 21:28, Kerim Aydin wrote: I would pay more attention if a non-scammer agreed. -G. That's a nice way to dismiss an entire person. -- ehird

DIS: Re: BUS: A question

On 7 Nov 2008, at 21:58, Warrigal wrote: Well, that was fun. Oh great, you're back to making completely useless contracts. -- ehird

Re: DIS: [Fwd: RE: Proposal: Expanded foreign relations]

On 8 Nov 2008, at 19:14, Sgeo wrote: Might I point out that if they were to invade us with a sufficiently large invasion force, Agora would lose, badly, in weeks? You serious? I doubt half of them could even make a working proposal... -- ehird

Re: DIS: Proto in CFJ 2247 [controversial?]

On 8 Nov 2008, at 21:16, Kerim Aydin wrote: Proto in 2247 [controverial?]: Worst judgement evar. "X was intended therefore X is what is true" is so awfully against any spirit of Nomic that I can't even begin to comprehend it. Equity is pushing it, but it doesn't act as if the intention i

DIS: Re: BUS: forgot something

On 09/11/2008, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > [Don't want to be bound by contests broken when equity dies Unfortunate > but not interested]. > > I resign from each and every public contract of which (a) I am a member > and (b) the contract allows me to exit at this time. > > -Goethe

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Proto in CFJ 2247 [controversial?]

On 09/11/2008, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sat, 8 Nov 2008, comex wrote: >> On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 6:57 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >>> On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 4:16 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> wrote: For contracts, we govern by the spirit and

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: forgot something

On 9 Nov 2008, at 02:59, comex wrote: I transfer all my currencies to the Bank, and then deregister. Totally. So much for respect for recordkeepors. -- ehird

Re: DIS: Proto in CFJ 2247 [controversial?]

On 9 Nov 2008, at 04:05, Ed Murphy wrote: ehird, with the position explained this way, do you still disagree with it as vehemently? I still disagree (just because someone does some stuff that generally recordkeepors do doesn't mean that the person specified as the recordkeepor isn't) but

Re: DIS: [Fwd: RE: Proposal: Expanded foreign relations]

On 9 Nov 2008, at 13:54, Joshua Boehme wrote: If their capabilities are so questionable (as has been suggested by multiple emails now), why are we so concerned with their recognition? Is Agora really so insecure as to require validation at every available opportunity? Exactly my point. A

DIS: Re: BUS: An atrocious proposal

On 9 Nov 2008, at 11:59, Alexander Smith wrote: I submit the following Terrible Proposal, AI=3, II=1: {{{ Remove all instances of "without objection" from rules with Power at most 3. Remove all instances of "without N objections", for each integer N, from rules with Power at most 3. }}} That

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals

On 9 Nov 2008, at 19:04, Taral wrote: If it has passed, set the power of "No more distribution spam" to 2. Nonsensical. -- ehird

DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: random fixes part 1

On 9 Nov 2008, at 22:49, comex wrote: I submit the following Proposal, titled "random fixes part 1": nttdf? :-P -- ehird

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5949-5964

On 10/11/2008, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 7:09 PM, The PerlNomic Partnership > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 5960 O 0 1.0 Bayes Bayes >> 5961 D 0 3.0 Bayes Bayes > > Note: These proposals had no title; they were not titled "Bayes". I > sus

Re: DIS: Chat logs

On 10 Nov 2008, at 04:53, Warrigal wrote: Posted with what was probably permission. Proto: Only senators can propose in an emergency. -- ehird

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: random fixes part 1

On 10 Nov 2008, at 08:07, Ed Murphy wrote: Suggest also re-titling "The Monster" to "Monster Facts". Suggest repealing the monster because we passed a proposal to give it to B. -- ehird

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals

On 10 Nov 2008, at 08:16, Taral wrote: The frequent distributions are really becoming a nuisance. Sorry... but there were _sixteen_ proposals. -- ehird

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals

On 9 Nov 2008, at 20:23, Warrigal wrote: It makes sense, but it doesn't work. Proposals do not have power. -- ehird

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5946-5947

On 10 Nov 2008, at 16:59, Roger Hicks wrote: In all my future communications, a vote of SDONATE(x - y) should be evaluated to be the posting of Sell Ticket with cost x and casting all my valid votes endorsing the filler. If the ticket is not filled, the vote should be evaluated as a DONATE(y) vo

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5949-5964

On 10 Nov 2008, at 17:20, Ed Murphy wrote: ehird, if comex promised to fix this and I've forgotten about it, please point it out; in this situation, I recommend that Wooble transfer a prop from em to you in compensation. Welp, I'm pretty sure I've asked comex to do it. I haven't committed t

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals

On 9 Nov 2008, at 20:40, Elliott Hird wrote: On 9 Nov 2008, at 20:23, Warrigal wrote: It makes sense, but it doesn't work. Proposals do not have power. -- ehird Ignore me and my misreadings. -- ehird

DIS: Re: BUS: Information required in CFJ 2218

On 11/11/2008, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As trial judge of CFJ 2218, I order the parties to the Russian > Roulette contract to provide me with a plaintext copy of the contents > of the file specified in the CFJ statement. > > Also, H. Notary ais523, would you please forward me a

Re: DIS: Musings on CFJ 2241

On 11/11/2008, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > == Equity Case 2241 == > > due to comex's actions with respect to the PBA, it is now very > difficult to determine the number of AAA-defined assets comex > and the PBA hold

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PBA, milling

On 11 Nov 2008, at 19:36, Roger Hicks wrote: Unless I have something wrong this last milling failed because the PNP only has one + mill. As a result the subsequent deposit of a 2 crop also fails. O Gastrnheseco, you must advance quicker. -- ehird

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2261 assigned to Warrigal

On 11 Nov 2008, at 12:20, Warrigal wrote: If possible, I judge UNDETERMINED. Even if a piece of ASCII art is a statement, it's too nonsensical to have a truth value. -> UNDECIDABLE :-) -- ehird

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2246 judged FALSE by ais523

On 12 Nov 2008, at 00:26, comex wrote: (As I ranted in ##nomic, people insist on genericizing the term "mousetrap" to mean any contract someone is bound to against eir will, but the real Mousetrap was quite a bit more than that.) Ditto with "walrus" to any vote-for-this-and-reap-rewards scam.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2245 assigned to Taral

On 12/11/2008, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 6:31 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> This is why I hate equity. Having been thwarted in their attempts at >> mousetrapping BobTHJ, ehird and wooble are now forced to pay em >> damages!? > > It's not a final judgement

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2245 assigned to Taral

On 12/11/2008, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 6:44 PM, Elliott Hird > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Nor an acceptable Proto. I intend to leave the Racket. > > I hope you don't think this will affect your obligations under equit

DIS: Re: BUS: Werewolves day phase status

On 12 Nov 2008, at 15:00, Geoffrey Spear wrote: I vote for Zefram too, for the same reason. There's also avpx and Quazie. The throwaway vote possibilities are endless! P.S. You should all cross-post to the B/Agora lists to make this simpler. -- ehird

DIS: Re: BUS: Initiation of Werewolves session #2

On 12 Nov 2008, at 16:58, comex wrote: I agree to the following contract with the AFO: They have to be public. Anyway, way too ambiguous to work. -- ehird

DIS: Re: BUS: [Enigma] This week's moderately difficult puzzles

On 12 Nov 2008, at 11:56, Joshua Boehme wrote: Contestmaster ais523, what is the current membership of Enigma? plus Warrigal. -- ais523 (Disclaimer: One or more claims of identity in this message may be false.)

DIS: Re: BUS: Since ehird keeps criticizing officeholdors...

On 15 Nov 2008, at 20:20, comex wrote: I nominate ehird for Notary. I nominate ehird for CotC. Cool. Kay. -- ehird

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: pledg

On 16 Nov 2008, at 04:24, Ed Murphy wrote: Yes, it did: The pledge at the start of this thread. -- ehird

DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation

On 16 Nov 2008, at 15:39, Benjamin Schultz wrote: I nominate comex and ehird for Notary. Absolutely happy to take it. Nothing can be as hard as Coinkeepor. -- ehird

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA bandwagon!

On 16 Nov 2008, at 15:45, Benjamin Schultz wrote: I think the AAA report is on a web page somewhere, but I lost the URL. Somebody please repost it. http://nomictools.com -- ehird

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA bandwagon!

On 16 Nov 2008, at 15:52, Benjamin Schultz wrote: I don't see the farm on there. Do I have to get an account and log in? Apparently it's unlinked. http://www.nomictools.com/agora/aaa

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA bandwagon!

On 16 Nov 2008, at 16:03, Benjamin Schultz wrote: Shiny! Thanks very much. Thank Wooble, not me :)

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: stuff

2008/11/17 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > What strong precedent? I don't remember that clause being invoked > even once (until now) since it was enacted. > > Well, the precedent caused by it being voted in with that intention? Just saying. Anyway I think that the definition of voting limit is

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: If at first you don't succeed...

2008/11/17 Joshua Boehme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > The second instance is BobTHJ in January 2008. Digging through the archives, > it looks like it generated some discussion, but I don't see a CFJ on it. > Thus, we cannot conclusively say that BobTHJ's registration was permitted -- > it could have b

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: If at first you don't succeed...

2008/11/17 Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 2008/11/17 Joshua Boehme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> The second instance is BobTHJ in January 2008. Digging through the archives, >> it looks like it generated some discussion, but I don't see a CFJ on it. >>

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Voting results for Proposal 5961

2008/11/17 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > CoE: > > This is missing most of the votes that were cast on this proposal. > > I intend, with 2 support, to initiate a criminal case alleging that > the AFO violated Rule 2215 by publishing the below message in an > attempt to mislead other into thi

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Voting results for Proposal 5961

2008/11/17 Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Possibly, the declaration of invalidity did not work.. I remember some > rule against tampering with these things, though that might be from > Canada.. > There is a rule specifically allowing ballots to be declared invalid.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Voting results for Proposal 5961

2008/11/17 Joshua Boehme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Is this what you were thinking of? > Other rules may place further constraints on the validity of ballots. This rule takes precedence over any rule that would loosen the constraints specified by this rule.

DIS: Re: BUS: Another anti-scam CFJ

On 17 Nov 2008, at 08:54, Ed Murphy wrote: I initiate an inquiry case on the following statement, disqualifying comex: Arguments: That was just a backup. See my terrible proposal for what i have actually utilized.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: stuff

On 17 Nov 2008, at 15:09, Kerim Aydin wrote: E made many bad (read: "illegal") interpretations. Another was defining "reasonable time for response" as "3 minutes". The reason it all worked is that the rules made emself, as the judge, the final arbiter of eir own interpretations, with no

DIS: Re: BUS: sock puppetry

On 17 Nov 2008, at 18:38, Geoffrey Spear wrote: As ehird is not a person and has never been a first-class person, I hereby deregister em by announcement. Coulda fooled me.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Last resort

On 18 Nov 2008, at 16:41, Zefram wrote: Elliott Hird wrote: Therefore, Agora acknowledges that a nomic ruleset can have a jurisdiction larger than the domain of the game it defines the rules for. Not in general, no. That judgement is only that Agoran rules have infinite scope. Well that&#

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2254 assigned to OscarMeyr

On 18 Nov 2008, at 23:09, Geoffrey Spear wrote: This would lead to deliberately driving down the rate to sell them cheaply first. On the other hand, the RBoA's rates are almost always wrong, it keeps being scammed, etc. Lesser of two evils.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2271 assigned to BobTHJ

On 19 Nov 2008, at 00:05, Ed Murphy wrote: That one was not accidental. Hahahahahaha

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [scam] rulekeepor's notes on proposals 5949-5964

On 19 Nov 2008, at 00:19, Joshua Boehme wrote: Annotations != rules. The rules require the Rulekeepor to track annotations and encourage em to do so, but it gives no particular legal force to the annotations so tracked. But he can APPEND a historical annotation to a RULE'S TEXT. -> It beco

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1234 judged by Taral

On 19 Nov 2008, at 14:03, comex wrote: How was it judged? TRUE, I believe. along with the denying.

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2254 assigned to OscarMeyr

On 19 Nov 2008, at 15:36, Roger Hicks wrote: Just because the PBA has self-adjusting rates doesn't make them right. It makes them righter, in general, instead of arbitrarily set. Take a look at my recent deposit of PV, for an example. You misunderstand: the point is that the PBA is structu

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2254 assigned to OscarMeyr

On 19 Nov 2008, at 16:06, Geoffrey Spear wrote: PBA's rate change algorithm isn't impartial, it's just an arbitrary way of adjusting. It seems unlikely to me that the objective value of a 0 crop decreases by 25% any time someone deposits one in one bank but doesn't change at all if they deposit

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Notary] request for information

On 19 Nov 2008, at 17:47, Ed Murphy wrote: I really don't see someone with a long history of attempting scams being voted into the office that decides who gets first shot at adjudicating the success or failure of scams. Of course, this may change as the player population does. FYI, I would

DIS: Re: BUS: Beyond the grave (not really)

On 19/11/2008, Nick Vanderweit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Because people have been bugging me, I agree to the following contract: > > {ehird can act on behalf of avpx to choose a target for lynching in > Werewolves.} > > avpx > Oh, stuff you.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Beyond the grave (not really)

On 20/11/2008, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 19/11/2008, Nick Vanderweit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Because people have been bugging me, I agree to the following contract: >> >> {ehird can act on behalf of avpx to choose a target for lynch

DIS: Re: OFF: [Notary] request for information

On 19 Nov 2008, at 14:05, Elliott Hird wrote: The Protection Racket has been in a whirlwind lately; I ask BobTHJ or similar to give me the text if they know it as I am entirely unsure about its state and ais523 did not track the amendments for some reason. OK, I know about all contracts

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2276-78 assigned to Wooble

On 20 Nov 2008, at 16:40, Geoffrey Spear wrote: R2156 says "the voting limit is" not "the voting limit defaults to" or "begins at, subject to modification" "is" could be interpreted, and IMO in the prescense of the one-offs rule, should be interpreted as "is set to".

DIS: Fwd: [s-b] BUS: Werewolf session #2 update

Begin forwarded message: From: Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 20 November 2008 20:27:27 GMT To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [s-b] BUS: Werewolf session #2 update On 20 Nov 2008, at 20:21, Geoffrey Spear wrote: I vote for ehird, although avpx's attempt at giving

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Werewolf session #2 update

On 20 Nov 2008, at 20:33, Ian Kelly wrote: I agree it's too obvious. ehird was quick to second the vote against avpx. Actually, I realised that inactives will be gotten rid of anyway, and was checking my mail at the time. So, might as well not vote for someone who won't be lynched.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2276-78 assigned to Wooble

On 20 Nov 2008, at 22:44, Ed Murphy wrote: From the CotC's report: Sorry, nope.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5972-5981

On 20 Nov 2008, at 23:02, Roger Hicks wrote: Vote Market allows tickets of any currency. Oh. I leave Coin Votes. Awesome, though! A coin market! P.S. rename Vote Market to just Market. :P

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5972-5981

On 20 Nov 2008, at 23:02, Roger Hicks wrote: Vote Market allows tickets of any currency. 3. At any time a party CAN post a Sell Ticket by announcement. A Sell Ticket must include: * A description of an action that the party is able to take. * A cost in VP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5972-5981

On 20 Nov 2008, at 23:21, Roger Hicks wrote: Oopsmy reports have been using the wrong contract language. Here is the correct language for section 3: publish a report so that it actually happens.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2276-78 assigned to Wooble

On 20 Nov 2008, at 23:44, Ed Murphy wrote: Did you attempt to use your scam powers to take yourself out of the chokey? Such an attempt would have failed if your original in-the-chokey status kept your voting limits below 51. /me drops bomb of crap gamestate crim cfjs have to specify the mess

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2276-78 assigned to Wooble

On 21/11/2008, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Elliott Hird > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 20 Nov 2008, at 23:44, Ed Murphy wrote: >> >>> Did you attempt to use your scam powers to take yourself out of >>>

DIS: Re: [s-b] BUS: Werewolves session #2 update

On 21/11/2008, 0x44 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Geoffrey Spear wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 12:04 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> >>> That's 3 out of 5. (Also updating this to B for completeness.) >>> >> >> I vote to lynch avpx as well. >> > I vote to lynch avpx also, even tho

Re: DIS: Proto: Agora Smock Exchange

On 21 Nov 2008, at 07:36, Sgeo wrote: e.g., Prices are determined exclusively by buyers and sellers (more buys -> higher price etc.) Gee, what does that remind me of? :P

Re: DIS: I was bored, so I wrote this

On 21 Nov 2008, at 13:25, Geoffrey Spear wrote: e doesn't get a say? No. :P

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2274 assigned to Warrigal

On 21 Nov 2008, at 16:01, comex wrote: (*I* was a player then, and so were Murphy and root, dunno about ais523) ais523 = april/may this year

Re: DIS: SPAM in the place where I live...

On 21 Nov 2008, at 18:45, Roger Hicks wrote: and I promise to think about fixing this problem Real Soon Now (TM). When you have thought about it, will you think about deciding on a timeframe for the actual fix? And then think about fixing it? :P

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: banking and milling

On 21 Nov 2008, at 19:18, Roger Hicks wrote: so it's probably best not to stockpile them. Ooh! Attack of the FUD ghouls! FYI, PBA rates can be manually adjusted and we can amend the contract. And it might be worth waiting until "the future" before saying random stuff about it.

DIS: Re: BUS: Boring Loan Service report

On 21 Nov 2008, at 20:45, Warrigal wrote: I increase root's Debt by 580 by transferring 580 coins to em. 2008-11-21 20:45 -- Warrigal transfers ^580 to root. (fails, only has ^578)

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements

On 22 Nov 2008, at 13:11, Alex Smith wrote: So I judge CFJ 2264 trivially TRUE to the literal question asked, and TRUE to the spirit of the question, but with many caveats; the contract can be amended, but might not be enforceable. I hate contract law.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Agreement

On 22 Nov 2008, at 22:31, Roger Hicks wrote: Did you forget co-authorship: Bayes? Wow, that line wasn't even hard-coded.

DIS: Re: BUS: PBA Amendment

On 23 Nov 2008, at 06:09, Roger Hicks wrote: I object, primarily because I don't want to adjust my recordkeeping scripts. Suber has some words to say for you. (Along the lines of "since nomic is fluid any scripts used must be fluid too") But regardless, I'm happy with changing _my_ script

DIS: Re: BUS: Animal

On 23 Nov 2008, at 15:55, Benjamin Schultz wrote: The message from ehird was not posted by Pet A, but by ehird. It seems to me that Pet A (or indeed any person) would have to post directly from eir own email address to validly register. Act on behalf doesn't work! YAY GAMESTATE RECALCULATI

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Animal

On 23 Nov 2008, at 19:20, Geoffrey Spear wrote: I intend, with 2 support, to initiate a criminal CFJ, alleging Warrigal violated R2215 in the above-quoted message. I recommend EXILE. Would you cut it out with trying to EXILE Warrigal all the time for obvious sarcasm/jokes?

DIS: Re: BUS: Seeing whether the US dollar is worthless or not

On 23 Nov 2008, at 19:40, Warrigal wrote: I would intend to make the new USD Vouchers an Eligible Currency with the support of The People, but given that that didn't work last time, I'd like to know why first. Why should it be?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Seeing whether the US dollar is worthless or not

On 23 Nov 2008, at 20:29, Pavitra wrote: On Sunday 23 November 2008 01:59:13 pm Elliott Hird wrote: On 23 Nov 2008, at 19:40, Warrigal wrote: I would intend to make the new USD Vouchers an Eligible Currency with the support of The People, but given that that didn't work last time, I'

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Seeing whether the US dollar is worthless or not

On 24 Nov 2008, at 13:19, Geoffrey Spear wrote: 0 There, now you've seen it. Exactly. Barely any Vouchers will be used, if at all, this just makes the PBA vulnerable due to rapid rate inflation. And besides, even if they are used, nobody will ever, ever go through with the transaction, unless

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Formatting CFJs

On 24 Nov 2008, at 13:26, Geoffrey Spear wrote: R1023(b) really has no effect whatsoever on the game, and there's certainly no requirement for the Historian's report to care about it at all. Both of these are trivially IRRELEVANT. The interpretation of the rules is never IRRELEVANT.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: End the Era of Impunity

On 24 Nov 2008, at 16:25, comex wrote: I could not support this more. Yes.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Seeing whether the US dollar is worthless or not

On 24 Nov 2008, at 16:23, comex wrote: s/ehird/BobTHJ? no.

<    3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   >