I suppose I'll be referred to as "Wooble" since I'm using it in 2 other nomics.
On 7/3/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>I wish to register as a Player.
Per CFJ 1263, you are now a player (as of your message). Do you wish
to be referred
Can anyone expound on why it would be necessary to have both
UNDECIDABLE and another category, whatever it ends up being called,
for when there's not enough information to determine if the question
is undecidable? If it's "not capable
of being accurately described as either false or true, at the t
t; I vote as follows:
These are ineffective, as your voting limit at the start of the
voting period was zero. See Rule 1950.
--
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
sputes about the application of
the Rules. Please assume good faith. :)
-- Eris, who usually doesn't mind a spat or two
On 7/7/07, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I registered as a player at Jul 3, 2007 2:45 PM, thus becoming Active
> and hence an eligible voter. The v
hange it to lying down, without 2 objections. (I'll be able to do
> > that under the fifth paragraph of rule 1871/11 if I'm CotC at the time,
> > which seems a likely turn of events.)
> >
> > -zefram
> >
>
--
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
I vote as follows:
On 7/17/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
5088 Oi 1Murphy Compensate for vacant offices and speake...
FOR * 4
5089 Di 2Zefram encourage meeting quorum
AGAINST
5090 Di 3Zefram fix judicial rights
FOR
5091 Di 2Zefram prot
peal of a judgement in which not all three
appellate judges have rendered judgement, the post-reform appeal
case has its question on disposition open.
* Aspects of continuity not addressed by the above provisions shall be
governed by rule 1586. The above provisions shall guide the
application of rule 1586.
[Rule 1586 theoretically should achieve all of this on its own. As
it's a particularly radical redefinition of complex entities, explicit
provisions seem helpful.]
}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
Proposal 5087 (Ordinary, AI=1, Disinterested) by Murphy
Spell check
Amend Rule 1794 (Classes of Orders) by replacing "Oredr" with "Order".
Amend Rule 2024 (Linked Statements) by replacing "labelled" with
"labeled".
Amend Rule 2129 (Dishonor Rolls) by replacing "publically" with
"publicly".
--
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
On 8/2/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> >the rule requires "the statement"
> >to be inquired into to be included and I don't think it's sufficient
> >that someone could take the
> &
On 8/2/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> >The phase "whether CotC Zefram violated
> >Rule 1871" can only be read to mean that what is to be determined is
> >CotC Zefram's culpability for an alleged breach
ot;deprecated" in Rule 2152
just seems silly. There's no reason I can think of to allow a
discouraged or "deprecated" action in a nomic at all, and I think
including it shows a misunderstanding of the very important reasons
for allowing such things in software.
--
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
thing they can do is take away the votes of their members who are also
B Nomic Players and cast them as a group. Unless Agora gave Players
some sort of reward for giving eir allegiance to a hypothetical Agora
Faction in B Nomic, I can see no motivation for doing so.)
--
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
On 8/3/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/3/07, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I appeal the ruling in CFJ 1714 on the grounds that the Judge
> > apparently does not understand the meaning of the word "if", the
> > concept of
e "regularity".
As for the other one, it just looks like an attempt to create a
paradox by asking someone to judge whether the statement "Maybe" is
false.
--
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
red resender?
--
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
avours of acquittal,
> and so the interpretation of the charge is significant. I suggest that
> the second interpretation is preferable, because it matches the charge
> as presented by the prosecutor, whereas the first interpretation throws
> away a relevant part of that sentence.
>
> -zefram
>
--
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
y a means that makes it appear to be from
another Player.
}}}
If judged TRUE, would this create an 18-way fork of the game into
states where each of the 17 current Players is not a Player and 1
where it was sent by someone who's not a Player?
--
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
On 8/13/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It is not yet determined with finality whether CFJ 1712 is a criminal
> case or an inquiry case.
CFJ 1713 established that CFJ 1712 is a criminal case and there's no
pending appeal.
Do you really think that the mere possibility of appeal means that
nd in recent months.
Indeed, I'd rather see comex get the VCs for the proposals.
That said, I'd probably support an anti-plagiarism rule if someone proposed it.
--
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
187 Oi 1LeviLack of Interest
FOR * 9
> 5188 Oi 1LeviRegistrar Report Requirements
PRESENT
> 5189 Di 2Levi More MMI
FOR
--
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
I have updated the NomicWiki page in question.
-Ambassador Wooble
On 8/30/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I intend to deputise for the ambassador in order to update the NomicWiki
> page about Agora for August.
>
> -zefram
>
--
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
ement is
made it's neither true nor false, although one could argue that if the
imperative is directed towards an officer who is bound by the Rules,
the speaker in question can determine with certainty what the response
to the imperative will (or at least SHALL) be, and therefore what the
truth value of the imperative will be at some later time.
--
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
veryone the trouble.
And I think Fern and Emerald are just Green. That should save
everyone else the trouble of thinking for themselves too.
--
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
On 8/31/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> >And I think Fern and Emerald are just Green.
>
> They're definitely shades of green, but fern is slightly reddish
> and emerald is slightly bluish. Much the same way that pink is a
> shade of
I vote as follows:
> 5199 D1 2Murphy Trust-Busting
FOR
> 5200 O0 1Zefram no indefinite deputisation notice
FOR * 9
> 5201 D1 3comex Refactor regulation
AGAINST
> 5202 D0 2Murphy Asset repair
FOR
> 5203 D1 2Murphy Easier chromatic wins
AGA
ecuses a judge with cause"; I'd
assume that's when e can do so, at the time of recusing the judge.
Changing the "CAN" to "CAN and SHALL" would preserve the intent of the
original proto better though, IMO.
--
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
too, so like you and BobTHJ I couldn't even see the
attempted obfuscation without using the "Show original" option.
I'd have to agree that it's a lot more likely that a given Player
would be able to read an HTML message than one in an arbitrary MIME
type.
--
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
ated by people who are deliberately trying to be difficult.
--
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
h how the actual content of the message is presented rather
than its Content-Type. I don't think anyone has a problem with a
bunch of tags surrounding the text people send as long as the
actual text of the messages that need to be interpreted under the
rules is completely clear without needing translation/transliteration.
--
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
posture to supine without
a proposal right now.
--
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
On 9/17/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm republishing this for the new judge assignment in case 1711a, and
> I intend to cause the panel of BobTHJ, Wooble, and myself to judge
> REMAND with these arguments, with the consent of BobTHJ and Wooble.
I consent to having the panel judge RE
lid values
> as "all real numbers from 0 (default) to 1, inclusive", for instance.
It could but that would break the switch metaphor IMO. I'd suggest
calling such a thing a "dial". Then again personally I think a
"switch" should have exactly two possible values.
--
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
On 9/17/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> >Then again personally I think a
> >"switch" should have exactly two possible values.
>
> To match the hardware, presumably?
>
> http://www.maplin.
On 9/18/07, Peekee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Quoting Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > root wrote:
> >
> >> On 9/17/07, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> On 9/17/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> &g
I vote as follows:
> 5225 O1 1Goddess Er Lying down on the job III
FOR * 9
> 5226 O1 1BobTHJ Lie Down
PRESENT
> 5227 O1 1Peekee Get some colors.
AGAINST * 9
> 5228 O0 1rootCitizenship cleansing
PRESENT
> 5229 D1 3rootEarly announcement o
e an appeal can be brought with 2 support and doesn't require
Agoran Consent; objections are irrelevant.
--
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
2 support, the result of the
decision on whether to do it is APPROVED if there are 2 or more
supports even if there are positive infinity opposes.
Frankly I think the dependent action process has become a bit too generalized.
--
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
a judge.
In any case 5225 doesn't prevent a judge who's recused for cause from
simply flipping eir posture back to sitting.
--
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
> Statement: It is possible for a judicial case to have more than one
>subclass.
I judge IRRELEVANT. The veracity of the statement is not relevant to
the game.
--Wooble
the power to
allow a voter to cast more valid, counted votes than e has the right
to? Sounds like a scam to me.
--
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
On 9/27/07, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is it just me, or wouldn't this give the vote collector the power to
> allow a voter to cast more valid, counted votes than e has the right
> to? Sounds like a scam to me.
Also, is it just me or does anyone else's
On 9/27/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Human Point Twoc/o Murphy 29 Apr 07 A
Murphy left the Human Point Two partnership at the time e deregistered.
--
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
On 9/27/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/27/07, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 9/27/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Human Point Twoc/o Murphy 29 Apr 07 A
> >
> > Murphy le
e created by announcement.
Since the appeal hinged on the quite correct assertion that we can, in
fact, break the game state in any way we want to through passing
proposals, any statement of the form "X is possible" is probably
superficially true.
--
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
ese times the AFO
actually became the vote collector for the decisions in question, as
it's irrelevant. E was the vote collector at the time e was cased to
publish the message resolving the decisions, ergo they were resolved
with that message.
--
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
ly paying attention to the
ballots, they're pretty much worthless.
--
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
nd are you trying to drag someone else into this growing war?
Certainly not. And I can assure you I have no intention of trying to
drag ECMAnomic into a war, either.
--
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
I intend to make Agora be a player in B Nomic.
>
> Let's see how B Nomic handles *two* player/factions. :)
>
> I vote SUPPORT on this, BTW.
>
I vote OBJECT.
--Wooble
--
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
ase, the English
language; in our hypothetical case where "nkep" has a game-defined
meaning, the game) it's not, by definition, nonsense.
--
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
On Nov 30, 2007 12:10 AM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We surrendered?
>
> . . . I propose war. . . And I wonder if we can make him a knave.
>
BobTHJ surrendered, having received Agoran Consent to do so when e
badly worded his message seeking such consent. Eir message to B
surrend
On Nov 30, 2007 12:06 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1806a
Should be http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1807a
--
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
s capable of owning points.
--Wooble
--
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
B, where everything in
the game is already defined as an Object.
--
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
e another. If a rule with a number higher than 110
conflicts with 110 and 110 says that it takes precedence, it does.
--
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
that contract as Agora is
by the Fookiemyartug contract, i.e., not at all.
--
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
On Dec 3, 2007 2:45 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Dec 3, 2007 11:36 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Dec 3, 2007 11:31 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Let me introduce you to my private contract that say
using R2172) can not perform a regulated action.
See R1688. Agora has 0 power (by default), and thus cannot make
changes where a mechanism for those changes is defined in an
instrument with a power greater than 0 (which would be any instrument,
by definition).
--
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
On Dec 6, 2007 1:32 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> > "To decrease a value by -1" cannot be reasonably interpreted to mean
> > the same thing as "to increase a value by 1".
>
> Obviously,
On Dec 6, 2007 1:49 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 6, 2007 11:42 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The fact that you interpreted it as such does not make it obvious that
> > such an interpretation is reasonable.
>
> That's pr
ents in
your recent CFJs and tries to appeal them on the grounds that they
don't take into account the reasoning given in CFJ1813.
--
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
On Dec 9, 2007 6:28 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Statement: The Accountor is an office.
I judge FALSE.
Reasoning:
{{
While Rule 2126, listing the Accountor in a list prefixed by "the
following officers:" would seem to implicitly state that there must be
an officer known as the Accounto
itous pre-emptive argument: B's Ambassador was ordered by another
Player to send that message on behalf of B, and no one declared the
action of issuing that order Invalid, so it's "valid in every way,
even if it is in contradiction to the rules."
Isn't explicitly legislating "I say I do, therefore I do" frickin' wonderful?
--
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
al, decimal, or hexadecimal as preferred, as long as the
> program consistently uses a single system. The program must not
> accept any input.
Do you have a preferred newline format? Is the ASCII LF character
sufficient rather than a CR LF?
--
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
On Dec 11, 2007 1:30 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12/11/07, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > With the consent of H. Goddess Eris and H. root, I intend to have the
> > panel judge OVERRULE with a replacement judgement of IRRELEVANT,
>
> Is
, the whole thing was a fun exercise, and had the added benefit
of making my perl code look very readable by comparison.
--Wooble
--
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
ich also
seemed a bit like cheating. Then I briefly toyed with the notion of
writing a Brainfuck program to help figure out how to best write the
other program, but that just gave me a headache.
--
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
s own right. There are really three
> I disagree about this ordering of annoyingness, but unselective quoting
>
> >It's less annoying than quoting the entire message and then bottom-posting :D
> comex wrote:
>
--
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
On Dec 14, 2007 9:06 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wooble 3
> Zefram 9
> BobTHJ 1
I believe that BobTHJ and I lost our points upon deregistering and are
both at 0.
--Wooble
ave.
Only through an agreement that allows them to borrow the thing they
wish to spend so they may spend it. No procedure to borrow VCs exists
in Agora.
--
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
On Dec 26, 2007 3:52 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Change the title of Rule 2176 to "Notes", and amend it to read:
>
>Notes are a class of assets. Ownership of Marks is restricted
>to players.
s/Marks/Notes/
--
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
On Jan 2, 2008 11:27 AM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 02 January 2008 05:14:38 Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> > On Jan 1, 2008 11:48 PM, Jamie Dallaire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Hmmm, I don't think it's a proposal. Plus, even if
moving this text:
> If a registered partnership is not a public contract, it can be
> degregistered with Support.
> }
s/degregistered/deregistered/
--
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
On Jan 3, 2008 9:26 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> >s/degregistered/deregistered/
>
> No, the rule text actually says "degregistered".
Ah. The Wooble Private Partnership gregisters and adds "deregister"
in all its forms t
ogram using only one byte of memory and still would have
submitted the shortest program.
--
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
On Jan 8, 2008 3:11 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> > Acting on behalf of my daughter, a minor, I register Zoë Spear using
> > the nickname "Wooblette".
>
> I thought about that, was wavering
to have worked reasonably well. I'd thought you were
around back then but I see now that you joined immediately after the
Second Era ended when the server that did the parsing died a horrible
death.
--
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
I think this problem would've been a lot easier had I not decided to
make the actual brainfuck coding easier by writing a debugger for the
Mac, which involved remembering how to code in Objective C, learning
Apple's CoreData API that I'd never used before (which was entirely
unnecessary for this ta
gt; Yeah, I'm trying to find where that setting is in g-mail.
Gmail does that automatically as far as I can tell, as long as you
don't select "Rich formatting". I certainly have always typed
paragraphs all on one line and they get split to a 72-character width
when they're sending.
--
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
tion
in existence to promote their relations with another government, with
which Agora has no affiliation? The office of the Prime Minister or
perhaps the Foreign Ministry would surely be more appropriate.
--
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
ver to the gamestate, including but not limited to
> enacting, repealing, or amending a rule.
>
> This rule takes precedence over all other rules.
>
> [Requesting comments on whether or not this has a bug.]
>
You misspelled "Wooble" as "comex".
's the threshold for people repeatedly using a term in one
way before it's "custom" and therefore able to override a rule?
--
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
> -root
>
> As am I. I'm guessing that Ben Caplan here wants to be known as 'watcher'.
If anything, he requested to be known as 'a "watcher"'.
--
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
On Jan 29, 2008 2:43 AM, Jeremy Koo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> After review, it seems I suffered from a slight misunderstanding of
> the rules. Thank you all for your comments. It is my intent,
> actually, to just have this apply to proposals. In addition, I
> believe votes of PRESENT (which a
On Jan 29, 2008 12:00 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 29, 2008 9:31 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Here I am attempting to use the normal english definition of the word
> > 'deregister'. Note that R869 does not define this word. It defines "to
> > deregister" and "
On Jan 29, 2008 1:35 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 28 Jan 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> > The task for Hole #4 is to write a ROT13 encoder. The program's
> > output should be identical to its input encoded in ROT13, as described
> > at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROT13 (*).
>
On Jan 29, 2008 7:53 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can do a *double* ROT-13 encoder. Does that count?
That would be an interesting contest. I'm sure I'd lose horribly with
my bloated 4-character solution.
On Jan 29, 2008 7:55 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I OBJECT to this appeal. Does that count for anything?
It could count for something when the decision on who is named to the
Appeals Panel is made...
On Jan 30, 2008 3:02 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Making the public statement 'This statement is a lie' would
> > cause the person making that statement to violate Rule 2149.
>
> Soliciting comments on this CFJ.
>
> Judge BobTHJ
I agree with H. Zefram's analysis. Rule
On Jan 31, 2008 1:43 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 31, 2008 11:32 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Jan 31, 2008 12:35 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I vote for the first candidate on the following lis
On Feb 1, 2008 9:17 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> >I initiate a criminal CFJ with Zefram as the defendant, alleging e
> >violated Rule 2149 in the above message by making the statement "I
> >intend to deputise for BobTHJ to dere
On Feb 1, 2008 12:31 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Repealing equity cases would remove the ability to pursue equity in
> the broader sense. Equity cases cover general inequities in the
> proceedings of contracts, not just the particular cases where some
> party has failed to meet eir
On Feb 2, 2008 9:57 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Caller's Arguments:
>
> In addition to the issue of contracthood in the case initiated by
> pikhq, I request that the judge consider:
>
> 1) whether "agreement between all parties" to change the membership of
> a "non-binding contract"
On Feb 4, 2008 2:43 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 4, 2008 12:25 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I disagree that making inappropriate judgments should be a criminal
> > offense. I'd support having an appeal of a Judge's de
On Feb 4, 2008 1:49 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Regarding the first instance: A judge who intentionally assigns
> an inappropriate judgement should be subject to prosecution. A
> judge who assigns a judgement that e believes in good faith is
> appropriate, but later turns out to be
On Feb 4, 2008 3:21 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> >Right now such a judgment would need to be overturned by a Proposal
> >anyway, if I'm not mistaken. If the inappropriateness is egregious
> >enough, the members of the panel coul
On Feb 4, 2008 3:30 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 4, 2008 3:12 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You could simplify this sort of thing by amending the Vote Market
> > agreement to allow the poster of a ticket to explicitly limit who
> > can fill it.
>
> Is specifying mult
On Feb 4, 2008 3:35 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> >And yet they seem more palatable to me than letting a corrupt judicial
> >system punish corrupt judges.
>
> Er, we don't have a corrupt judicial system. We have individua
On Feb 6, 2008 8:30 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> I hereby officially notify all Players of their Rule 1750-imposed duty.
>
> You have been warned.
"Encouraged" doesn't seem to create all that much of a duty. How
about changing "are encouraged to" to "SHALL", make it quarterly
On Feb 6, 2008 1:59 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe the easiest thing is to combine these issues: leave N alone (get
> rid of N+1) and disqualify the "first-class person who posts the intent,
> or who posts the intent on behalf of a second-class person" from supporting.
In theo
On Feb 6, 2008 1:03 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That of course was my first thought, but then I thought that there may be
> trivial dependent things that it's perfectly reasonable and convenient for
> the AFO (or someone else) to be able to do. General opinions all around,
> based
On Feb 7, 2008 8:38 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 7, 2008 7:13 PM, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > A nomic is an entity defined by a set of explicit rules that
> > provide means for themselves to be altered arbitrarily, including
> > changes to those rule
1 - 100 of 1430 matches
Mail list logo
