DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Undo the scam already

On 12 Dec 2008, at 06:54, Ed Murphy wrote: Proposal: Undo the scam already This wasn't actually the scam, you know; just the backup.

DIS: Re: BUS: Six proposals

On 12 Dec 2008, at 07:55, Ed Murphy wrote: Proposal: Definition of definitions Where's the hidden dictatorship?

DIS: Re: BUS: ratification

On 12 Dec 2008, at 09:35, Alex Smith wrote: I definitely object to this one on general principles (I think it was Zefram who explained that a ratification error in the SLR can be reported in the FLR and you still have a complete history of the game whilst changing the rules in both, but changing

DIS: Re: BUS: Goodnight Vote Points

On 12 Dec 2008, at 19:21, Geoffrey Spear wrote: I object. This proposal lets the indebted parties off the hook for value they got out of the VM without having to give anything of value to the other parties in return. I think we should cut them some slack. After all, this removes indebtedness

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Goodnight Vote Points

On 12 Dec 2008, at 19:41, Roger Hicks wrote: Except the problem here is that by removing everything but the definition you have suddenly removed any value that VP once had. Sure the banks (due to not being able to instantly react to this change) will still buy them, but really all you are doing

DIS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 6018-6026

On 14 Dec 2008, at 00:00, The PerlNomic Partnership wrote: 6019 O 1 1.0 Murphy Undo the scam already I recommend voting against this one to save me/comex the trouble. grumble, appeals process...

DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6010 - 6013

On 14 Dec 2008, at 00:15, Ed Murphy wrote: *6010 D2 2.0 ais523 Rests Oh neat.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 6018-6026

On 14 Dec 2008, at 08:42, Ed Murphy wrote: > You can always propose undoing the changes you don't like; it'll > probably vote for that, too. > When was the last time bayes voted AGAINST? :P

Re: DIS: Unbought votes are boring

On 14 Dec 2008, at 15:34, Ed Murphy wrote: > Alternatively, just have it cast its own votes in weighted proportion > to bribes transferred to it for no other purpose. the Sheeple

Re: DIS: A new potential protectorate for you!

On 15/12/2008, comex wrote: > On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 9:33 PM, Craig Daniel wrote: >> The Curvature of the Earth is Overwhelmed by Local Noise >> Nomic > > Hmm, looks like HRC isn't new to the world of Nomic... this is from > ceolnn around 2000: > { > Shortly afterward, the following Move was App

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ

On 15 Dec 2008, at 14:02, Elliott Hird wrote: CFJ: I have some rests. Arguments: vi. Every person has the right to not be penalized more than once for any single action or inaction. First I was punished by the chokey, and now (for, uh, not being able to predict the

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Allow conversion of sentences

On 15 Dec 2008, at 15:36, Ed Murphy wrote: Proposal: Allow conversion of sentences Agora, systematically stripping away outlaws' rights since 2008

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Resolving Grand Poobah election

On 15 Dec 2008, at 15:47, Ed Murphy wrote: Why are you objecting to this one in particular? It depends on the contract that Warrigal already terminated. If Warrigal recreates it it will reactivate.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Allow conversion of sentences

On 15 Dec 2008, at 17:25, comex wrote: Not only would the same require many more coins on eir part, if e breaks the Rules in any way whatsoever (say, by failing to publish a PBA report) anyone can deregister em by announcement. I did not publish a report last week. Well, I've been thrown to t

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 6018-6026

On 15 Dec 2008, at 18:00, Alex Smith wrote: (Assuming you can't somehow leverage your dictatorship to stop it passing in the first place...) of course we can.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 6018-6026

On 15 Dec 2008, at 22:09, comex wrote: How do you suppose? It's been judged that annotations don't work, and that the democratization did work; neither was appealed. We passed a useless scam proposal. Oh. Shit.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 6018-6026

On 15 Dec 2008, at 23:04, Roger Hicks wrote: I (serving as language police) transfer a prop from ehird to Murphy for a great Star Trek reference. I transfer a prop from BobTHJ to myself for using language (specifically, the word "language").

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 6018-6026

2008/12/15 Geoffrey Spear : > On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: >> ehird wrote: >> >>> On 15 Dec 2008, at 23:04, Roger Hicks wrote: >>> I (serving as language police) transfer a prop from ehird to Murphy for a great Star Trek reference. >>> >>> I transfer a prop from BobT

DIS: Re: BUS: nomination

On 16 Dec 2008, at 14:48, Geoffrey Spear wrote: Other than this claim that the office of Rulekeepor constitutes a permanent dictatorship, I think comex is doing a fine job. I never said permanent; I was under the assumption that the appeals processes were still going and it could summarily be

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Hear ye, hear ye!

On 16 Dec 2008, at 12:01, Charles Schaefer wrote: If you are referring to me, I wasn't dissuaded by anything. I just didn't want to do it until I took office, but then Murphy came along and did a great job fixing it up. No, he refers to I.

DIS: Re: BUS: Lousy Lack of Free Time

On 17 Dec 2008, at 11:45, Joshua Boehme wrote: I still plan to finish this round of Werewolves, though, so don't lynch me. What, even if you're a werewolf? :P

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Lousy Lack of Free Time

On 17 Dec 2008, at 16:31, Jamie Dallaire wrote: Oh, and PS: saay avpx were indeed a werewolf, and an inactive one... Would the werewolves ever be capable of killing anyone, given that werewolves must reach consensus on a victim??? Murphy? (this rests on the assumption that avpx couldn't

DIS: Re: BUS: PBA, milling

On 17 Dec 2008, at 23:59, The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PBA, milling

On 18 Dec 2008, at 00:18, comex wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 7:16 PM, Elliott Hird wrote: On 17 Dec 2008, at 23:59, The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:

DIS: Re: BUS: [Anarchist] Proposals

On 18 Dec 2008, at 12:34, Bayes wrote: Bayes submits the following proposal, titled "Repeal 'Contracts'" (AI=2, II=0): { Repeal Rule 1742 (Contracts). } Yespls

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] uncontested elections

On 18 Dec 2008, at 22:30, Roger Hicks wrote: 23 crops

Re: DIS: braincorefckwars

On 18 Dec 2008, at 23:37, Benjamin Schultz wrote: Does there exist a decent Perl to Brainfuck parser / compiler? LOL (There probably does, as nobody in their right mind writes their code directly in Brainfuck.) Nobody who writes bf is in their right mind.

DIS: Re: BUS: bf joust programs wanted

On 19 Dec 2008, at 08:37, Kerim Aydin wrote: Ok, I've got a Brainfuck Joust tournament runner working. Before making this an official contest I'd like to see if the rules are interesting. (I tried a few random warriors and it looks ok, or at least it seemed like it wasn't wholly degener

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: bf joust programs wanted

On 19 Dec 2008, at 15:33, comex wrote: That's an easy way to lose, yes, since you'd be zeroing your own flag. put the > first

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: bf joust programs wanted

Let an arbitrary amount. On 19 Dec 2008, at 21:15, Charles Schaefer wrote: Since it seems like most people are writing multiple programs (at least for test purposes), will people be allowed to submit multiple programs in the contest? Maybe with a fixed limit or some discouraging factor bui

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: bf joust programs wanted

On 19 Dec 2008, at 21:21, Jamie Dallaire wrote: Perhaps the round robin should exclude matches between programs submitted by the same author, though. Nice artificial way to boost one's score would otherwise be to submit a hundred sacrificial lambs. this was done for iterated prisoner's dil

DIS: Re: BUS: PBA Report

On 19 Dec 2008, at 21:35, Roger Hicks wrote: People's Bank of Agora CoE: not an actual report, you didn't act on behalf of me. Also, the PBA owns coins.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PBA Report

On 19 Dec 2008, at 21:47, Roger Hicks wrote: What coins? somebody left a while ago

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: bf joust programs wanted

On 20 Dec 2008, at 16:56, Alex Smith wrote: 1000 seems too low, given that you have to set a value down from 128; I'd suggest 1 or even 10. (Otherwise, a warrior could simply create lots of fake flags with its time, pretty much making it impossible for its opponent to win because the ot

Re: DIS: Proto-contest for BF

On 20 Dec 2008, at 22:51, Kerim Aydin wrote: Any player (member or non-member) may submit up to three BF programs a week I'd like this to be relaxed a bit; it's hard to judge without resubmitting often.

DIS: Re: BUS: [IADoP] weekly report NoVs

On 22 Dec 2008, at 17:46, Charles Schaefer wrote: Charles is not the Notary Synonym.

DIS: Re: [s-d] InterNomic Player/Bot Working Group

On 22 Dec 2008, at 20:17, Charles Schaefer wrote: Have it hold an office (one that can be fully automated) bayes also does this (Anarchist)

DIS: Re: [s-d] InterNomic Player/Bot Working Group

On 22 Dec 2008, at 20:17, Charles Schaefer wrote: A while back (B's second era), B Nomic had a player called the Automatic (or maybe Automated) Nomic Playing Unit, which someone later admitted was an attempt to create an artificial player. I think it would be interesting to try to do a li

DIS: Re: BUS: Brian's DiploNomic Report

On 23 Dec 2008, at 03:45, Warrigal wrote: The following proposal passed, with Warrigal voting FOR it and nobody voting AGAINST it: Please do not bother these mailing lists with your own nomic's reports...

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Brian's DiploNomic Report

On 23 Dec 2008, at 05:22, Taral wrote: On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 8:40 PM, comex wrote: I intend, with Agoran Consent, to unconditionally surrender to DiploNomic. I support. I obect.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: BF joust begins!

On 23 Dec 2008, at 22:39, Ed Murphy wrote: Of /course/ I object! So? I'm just trying to get a paradox. :P

DIS: Re: BUS: I Intend Happy Holidays for All!

On 24 Dec 2008, at 00:00, Kerim Aydin wrote: 2. Having received no Objections, I ratify the following report with a scope of the SLR: I see "win and fix" is a long-forgotten mantra.

DIS: bye

I deregister.

DIS: BUS: try again

ttpf On 24 Dec 2008, at 16:16, Elliott Hird wrote: I deregister.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I Intend Happy Holidays for All!

On 24 Dec 2008, at 17:25, comex wrote: You retracted it. Not that I recall.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I Intend Happy Holidays for All!

On 25 Dec 2008, at 19:43, comex wrote: On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 7:14 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: I preemptively object to all dependent actions attempted between now and Dec. 31, 2012. I CFJ on the following: {{ It is possible for a private contract to create an ability of one party to act on

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Ambassador] Foreign Relations

On 25 Dec 2008, at 23:51, Warrigal wrote: It has proposals, and those proposals can take effect. We don't need to be more specific. I disagree.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Ambassador] Foreign Relations

On 26 Dec 2008, at 00:03, Warrigal wrote: Your opinion would matter more if you were a player of DiploNomic. As it purports to be a changing Agoran contract, my opinion is very relevant.

DIS: small partial mousetrap, eh?

http://normish.org/ "You also agree (binding under the rules of the nomic Agora) to the public document submitted to Agora on December 25 2008 by ais523 whose title was "The Small Partial Mousetrap", and agree to be bound by it as an Agoran binding private contract."

DIS: Re: BUS: Barricading the loophole

On 28 Dec 2008, at 17:02, comex wrote: On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 12:00 PM, Alex Smith wrote: I object to all attempts to perform dependent actions Without 3 Objections until the end of the current Holiday. I object to all attempts to perform dependent actions until the end of the current Hol

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Barricading the loophole

On 28 Dec 2008, at 19:36, Ed Murphy wrote: Why not? If pre-emptive objections work in general, then I don't see why these particular pre-emptive objections wouldn't. They don't in general.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Ciao

On 29 Dec 2008, at 22:56, Charles Schaefer wrote: Just to make sure, you might want to spell it correctly. Hehehehehehehe...

DIS: Re: BUS: Ciao

On 29 Dec 2008, at 23:01, Ed Murphy wrote: Caller's arguments: "degregistration" was re-defined as "joining the UNDAD contract" as recently as a couple months ago (see CFJ 2237). It's ambiguous whether "deregistration" or "degregistration" was meant, so the last paragraph of Rule 2197 prev

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Ciao

On 29 Dec 2008, at 23:08, Alex Smith wrote: a-d a-b, actually.

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal

On 30 Dec 2008, at 04:34, comex wrote: Award each of {j, Murphy, ais523, 0x44, Billy Pilgrim} one Rest. Merely one? I'm not a fan of punishing them in Agora, but I support it in this context: it is impossible to punish them as B. Agora, let's recognize our former Protectorate's struggle

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Ciao

On 30 Dec 2008, at 17:01, Roger Hicks wrote: Argument: Ehird has made multiple attempts to deregister though until this attempt e has failed to send them to the appropriate forum. It is clear e desires to leave the game haha, no. I was just messing with you all with that forum stuff.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal

On 30 Dec 2008, at 16:49, Kerim Aydin wrote: I intend, with Agoran Consent, to request that the Ambassador send a message to B Nomic on behalf of Agora protesting the current developments in the strongest possible terms. No need, the emergency was stopped.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [BF joust] Two challenges

On 30 Dec 2008, at 22:19, Taral wrote: I ran this program but it didn't do very well. :-)

Re: DIS: Another live one

On 31 Dec 2008, at 16:30, Roger Hicks wrote: # Any swearing causes a 10 point deduction from the swearer to be redistributed by the chancellor not giving more than half to himself. To hell with that.

DIS: Fwd: Game thing [blatant advertising]

crosspost is for stupids Begin forwarded message: From: Elliott Hird Date: 31 December 2008 22:35:56 GMT To: discussion list for B Nomic Subject: Game thing [blatant advertising] This will likely become either an Agoran contest, or a B mack- giving contract or something if it goes well

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2311 assigned to Goethe

On 5 Jan 2009, at 18:46, Kerim Aydin wrote: Therefore, taking A-C together, this court finds that ehird DOES have Rests, that constitute a losing condition and reduce voting power as indicated by the Rules, without violating R101. However, R101 takes precedence over the clause of R2229/0 th

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2311 assigned to Goethe

On 5 Jan 2009, at 19:19, Kerim Aydin wrote: And yes I really really and on purpose ducked what happens with those only- somewhat-resty rests in the future... it may even be to your advantage to keep a non-resty rest around (i.e. never go down to zero) for its special properties. Can it cast

DIS: Re: BUS: New Years Resolution

On 5 Jan 2009, at 21:05, Roger Hicks wrote: * I am no longer maintaining my web-based display of economic contracts. Alternately, you can all determine to do away with these economic contracts and you won't hurt my feelings. Hahahahahaha... centralization is great. [Don't worry, I should hav

DIS: Re: BUS: PBA escape

On 6 Jan 2009, at 16:13, Geoffrey Spear wrote: Before these transactions, there were 3827 Coins outstanding. The last time BobTHJ updated his site's PBA rates, the total assets of the PBA could be bought for 2268 coins; due to adjustments in the intervening Monday midnights this is now a bit l

DIS: Re: BUS: PBA escape

On 6 Jan 2009, at 20:56, Taral wrote: At least with the RBoA it's fixable. Er, why isn't it fixable with the PBA?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PBA escape

On 6 Jan 2009, at 21:49, Taral wrote: Well, I suppose you could "fix" it, but you'd be meddling with your famous self-regulation mechanisms. The idea was improving the algorithm.

DIS: Re: BUS: AFO

On 7 Jan 2009, at 03:11, comex wrote: I intend, with the unanimous consent of the current Partners of the AFO, to admit ais523 to it. Can I get in on the fun? No? Aw.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2321 assigned to Wooble

On 7 Jan 2009, at 18:27, comex wrote: Then again, I don't think your Servant Coin was ever removed, so... It's w3o.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: uncontested elections

Ffff On 08/01/2009, comex wrote: > On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 7:19 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: >> This message serves to resolve the Agoran Decisions to choose the >> holders of the Accountor and Anarchist offices. In each, the voters >> were Wooble voting for Woob

Re: DIS: Proto: Committees

On 8 Jan 2009, at 08:32, Ed Murphy wrote: * RBoA (Treasurer) * PBA (Coinkeepor) If you're gonna do that, pick _one_ bank...

DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Census

On 8 Jan 2009, at 07:08, Ed Murphy wrote: Mon 29 Dec 22:52:22 ehird deregisters (disputed, CFJ 2323) Honestly... I clearly said degregister.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2323 assigned to Goethe

On 8 Jan 2009, at 14:24, Kerim Aydin wrote: TRUE. What's your opinion on whether I'm an UNDAD party?

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Census

On 8 Jan 2009, at 19:21, Taral wrote: An unfortunate typo. R754(i). Degregister is defined by the UNDAD which I knew very well about. There is sufficient ambiguity, and the CFJ judgment recently passed on the matter by Goethe agrees. I believe I am now an UNDAD party.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Speaker

On 8 Jan 2009, at 21:27, Charles Schaefer wrote: Goethe's CFJ Mine.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Speaker

On 8 Jan 2009, at 21:27, Charles Schaefer wrote: You know, in B Nomic, we repeal rules when we're done with them. Agora is rather heavily steeped in tradition.

Re: DIS: Proto: A radical inquiry CFJ change

On 8 Jan 2009, at 21:48, Pavitra wrote: This is obviously a scam. The judicial system has recently been subjected to rampant corruption; giving it actual power over the gamestate would be catastrophic. Let's also stop proposals changing the rules.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2326 judged GUILTY / SILENCE (3.4 or 1.7) by OscarMeyr

On 9 Jan 2009, at 03:52, Ed Murphy wrote: I support, and double the amount of the fine. Can I be deregistered by announcement yet? I'm excited!

DIS: Re: BUS: New Year's Sweep I

Repealing protectorates? AGAINST On 9 Jan 2009, at 16:19, Kerim Aydin wrote: I submit the following proposal, Durn Furriners, Power-2: - In Which We Do a New Years Sweep of Rules that Seemed Interesting, But Haven't Amounted

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposal 6050

On 9 Jan 2009, at 17:12, Ed Murphy wrote: Invalid, you have (at least) 6 rests. I intend to continue purporting to vote :-P

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Full Logical Ruleset

On 9 Jan 2009, at 17:31, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 com...@gmail.com wrote: THE FULL LOGICAL RULESET [Note (28 June 2007): A rendering of the escutcheon of Agora is at .] Note: broken link. Annotate with a new link to Murphy's co

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Watcher WoodsPam

On 10 Jan 2009, at 20:19, Pavitra wrote: I believe it is fairly clear in this case that WoodsPam is not a player of Agora. Counterpoint: You're a member of the PBA and thus a filthy mutant commie traitor. All your opinions must be disregarded.

DIS: Re: BUS: PBA non-report

On 12 Jan 2009, at 09:39, Alex Smith wrote: I PBA-deposit all my PV. (Note that the backing document for PV may have "may"? No, it did.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 6051-6055

On 13 Jan 2009, at 22:58, Pavitra wrote: 6055 O 0 1.0 Wooble [Anarchist] Repeal The AGAINST Anarchist BAYES does that work?

DIS: Re: BUS: Watcher registration

On 19 Jan 2009, at 03:41, bd_ wrote: I request listing as a Watcher. Whoa hi bd_! IRCNomic!

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposal 6059

On 20 Jan 2009, at 18:54, Kerim Aydin wrote: I've found the scam here I believe; I'm not going to describe it while this is being voted for in case comex hasn't thought of it :), but I strongly recommend Against here. -Goethe How closed. (Abstinence-only scam awareness?)

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposal 6059

On 20 Jan 2009, at 18:54, Kerim Aydin wrote: I've found the scam here I believe; I'm not going to describe it while this is being voted for in case comex hasn't thought of it :), but I strongly recommend Against here. -Goethe ais thinks he's found it 19:02 < ehird> A player CAN spen

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposal 6059

On 20 Jan 2009, at 22:08, Kerim Aydin wrote: Er, scam aside, did I miss the legitimate context under which anyone *would* create Rests in eir own possession? I might not have looked so hard for a scam if I'd know there was an intended reason. -Goethe Obligatary/act-on-behalfy rest creationa

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposal 6059

On 21 Jan 2009, at 13:57, Kerim Aydin wrote: Ah. If you mean to merge the criminal and equity courts, you should just come out and say that a "judge of an equity court can create rests" and rather than using this backhanded method. The scam is fairly real (not that "eir" thing) though no

DIS: Re: BUS: [Airstrip One] Flight Schedule

On 22 Jan 2009, at 01:17, Benjamin Schultz wrote: I transfer a prop from ehird to Murphy, to restore Murphy to Pilot status. Completely Missing the Point of Props 2: Electric Boogaloo

DIS: Re: BUS: bank merger

On 22 Jan 2009, at 19:41, Taral wrote: I disapprove this Motion. Find a better disposition of the assets than an inflationary bank system. And the RBoA doesn't meet this definition why? "We can pass a hack motion to fix the rates"? You can do that in the PBA too.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: bank merger

On 22 Jan 2009, at 21:30, Taral wrote: Then do so. Except it's better to tweak the algorithm, which woggle already protoed in ##nomic. It's a matter of figuring out what will guard against it best.

DIS: Re: BUS: bank merger

On 23/01/2009, Benjamin Schultz wrote: > On Jan 22, 2009, at 11:40 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > >> I become a party to the RBoA. (I may have already been a party. The >> Notary website says I am but it also says BobTHJ is.) >> >> I post the following Bank Motion: >> {{ >> Set the Exchange Rate for

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 6060-6062

On 23 Jan 2009, at 12:14, Geoffrey Spear wrote: AGAINST * 5 I like the part where this is so terrible that extra voting power must stop its scourge.

DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6051 - 6055

On 23 Jan 2009, at 22:05, Ed Murphy wrote: *6053 D2 3.0 Murphy Committees I agree to the PBA contract's text, but with People's Bank of Agora replaced with The Unofficial People's Bank of Agora.

DIS: Re: BUS: bank merger

terminate it now? On 24/01/2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Geoffrey Spear > wrote: >> I post the following Bank Motion: >> {{ >> Set the Exchange Rate for every currency to 0. >> >> Deposit all assets held by the Bank except Coins in the People's Bank of >> Agora.

DIS: Re: BUS: bank merger

On 24 Jan 2009, at 01:54, Geoffrey Spear wrote: AFO: ^109 ais523: ^102 Bayes: ^23 BobTHJ: ^343 comex: ^7 ehird: ^0 Murphy: ^29 OscarMeyr: ^7 Pavitra: ^206 PNP: ^15 Protection Racket: ^40 Quazie: ^103 Taral: ^339 Warrigal: ^0 woggle: ^13 Wooble: ^368 CoE: Not all of these are Comrades, so some

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: bank merger

On 24 Jan 2009, at 14:30, Elliott Hird wrote: CoE: Not all of these are Comrades, so some of this distribution failed. So did it all fail or just those...?

DIS: PBA

I will start recordkeeping the PBA as soon as I can. :) Reports should be soon, or something.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 6060-6062

On 25 Jan 2009, at 14:58, Alexander Smith wrote: I support. (Who would have guessed that a simple milking rule would be so controversial?) Could you stop responding to things that are already resolved?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6014 - 6016

On 25 Jan 2009, at 03:26, Chuck Carroll wrote: Thank you, all. I'm deeply flattered, and a bit humbled to share the honor with Suber and Hofstadter. It's also quite satisfying to me to see that Agora continues, even though I haven't been a Player for many years now. Hi!

<    5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   >