DIS: Re: OFF: [Conductor] Lead Sheet

On Feb 8, 2008 1:52 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > C#D# F#G#A# > Player C D E F G A B Total > DbEb GbAbBb > --

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1903 assigned to Goethe

On Feb 7, 2008 9:06 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I object to the appeal. H. Trial Judge Goethe's reasoning is as > beautiful as a printout of a Whitespace listing. Yes, but he misspelled "disciple", which is certainly grounds for appeal of such a literary judgment. --Wooble

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 5418-5422

On Feb 8, 2008 12:04 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2/8/08, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I hereby initiate a criminal case, alleging > > that comex violated rule 2149 by claiming in message > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> that proposal > > 5419 passed while not believing that to be true

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Proposal

On Feb 8, 2008 7:33 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Feb 8, 2008 5:05 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > You are *insane*. > > > > This message brought to you by GNU Emacs. > > > > http://www.notepad.org/ > Bah, any editor that can't psychoanalyze a pinhead is c

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Optional is optional

On Feb 18, 2008 3:08 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The vote collector for an unresolved Agoran decision CAN resolve > it by announcement, indicating the option selected by Agora. If > e was required to initiate it, then e SHALL resolve it as soon as > possible

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: 1903a

On Feb 18, 2008 10:04 PM, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Feb 18, 2008 6:40 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In the matter of the appeal of CFJ 1903, I intend to cause the panel > > to judge AFFIRM. > > Given that the original judge su

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: nominations for IADoP

On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 11:47 AM, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thursday 21 February 2008 14:11 Geoffrey Spear wrote: > > I nominate Goethe, OscarMeyr, Pavitra, and Wooble for IADoP. > > Hmm... > > What happened with pikhq's nominations on (16 or 19)

Re: DIS: New Proto with different judgements

On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 3:39 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A set of proto-judgements... I suggest you resubmit the first as a thesis for a D.N.Phil.

DIS: poetics

While we're on the subject, is it just me, or is the scansion of R1922(b) subtly but maddening off?

Re: DIS: poetics

On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 5:04 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Goethe wrote: > > > On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > >> While we're on the subject, is it just me, or is the scansion of > >> R1922(b) subtly but maddening off? &g

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5451-5457

On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 3:09 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 8:50 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I vote as follows: > > > > > > > 5451 D1 3rootAllow Appeals of Paradox > > A

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1897 assigned to BobTHJ

On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 6:19 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 5:54 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This issue can no longer be avoided; no players other than BobTHJ > > are standing. > > > > > > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcas

Re: DIS: Proto: remove judicial paradoxes

On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 2:29 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If upheld, it requires us to act "as if it were" false. That's the same > thing within our formal system. Whether or not it "is" false is not worth > mooting outside of the judicial system. Rule 591 says the judgement S

DIS: Re: BUS: [Fwd: Prerogative assignments for March 2008]

On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 2:18 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I assign Default Officeholder to Levi. Can non-Players have prerogatives?

DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report

On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 3:34 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > NOTE: A new month has just begun. Now is the perfect time to make your > land purchases! Yeah, now all I need to do is get myself some points through another contest and I can buy some land. I think we need an amendment to

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report

On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 3:34 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As soon as possible after such an > > announcement the SoA shall create a random type of land and a Water > > Rights Voucher in the possession of that Farmer. [...] > Do we also get military protection from the evil sav

DIS: Re: OFF: null proposal distribution

On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 7:53 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Proposal pool: empty > Claim of error: my proposal entitled "Prerogatives for Players" was never distributed.

Re: DIS: Proto-Contest: Agoran Twister

On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 4:06 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 5 points is also good, though it seems you'd have a lot of points not > awarded if you did that. They'd get awarded when a new game was started, assuming there was an Innie left. In any case, it would be in keeping with other re

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1907 judged GUILTY / CHOKEY

On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 8:21 AM, Iammars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I support this. That's irrelevant, as is an "intent" to appeal a criminal case. The defendant CAN appeal by announcement.

Re: DIS: Canada

On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 1:30 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So Canada wasn't a nomic before. But it definitely is now, per R2200. > Would the ambassador care to recognise it? I don't know that this is entirely clear. Is there a single set of self-modifiable rules that defines "Canada"

Re: DIS: Canada

On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Geoffrey Spear wrote: > >I don't know that this is entirely clear. Is there a single set of > >self-modifiable rules that defines "Canada" as an entity? > > Yes. Depending

DIS: Re: BUS: 1903a

On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 11:17 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Regarding 1903, I intend to cause the panel to judge AFFIRM with the > following concurring opinion: > > Goethe's original judgement of CFJ 1903 alludes to the following > interpretation: > >Questions are not statements

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 1910

On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 10:17 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think this is like the "decrease by -1" scam. > > Any programming language with a 'decrease' method would allow you to > decrease by -1 in order to increase by 1; but that is (arguably; I > still disagree :) not standard usa

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [IADOP] Organization Chart

On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 12:52 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I humbly thank > H. IADOP Wooble for the opportunity to come clean for something that has > been preying on my mind. Hey, I just added an asterisk to the report. You can thank Ivan Hope for bringing the criminal case.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contest proposal: Agoran Twister

On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 3:03 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 8:44 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Spot: Vote on at least one proposal from every batch of distributions. > > As far as I can tell, the AFO, BobTHJ and Wooble have not opined on > this

DIS: Re: BUS: Spot

On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 4:27 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 24/03/2008, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 2:58 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Spot: Vote permanently and completely

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report

On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 12:27 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 9:49 AM, Iammars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Wow. That was probably the worst land for me to get. I had 2 Digit Ranches > > (4) and a subtraction Mill. 0 is the only number I can make! > > It would

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Water Rights Enforcement

On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 4:21 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 01/04/2008, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 10:01 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I destroy 1 WRV in root's possession > > > > Oh, yay! I had somehow missed the fact that

DIS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5487-5489

On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 8:53 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 5487 O1 1Murphy Spelling it out FOR * 4 > 5488 D2 2Ivan Hope AGAINST. Foreign nomics that wish to be Agoran persons can do so by forming a partnership for that purpose. I'm not comfortable granting personho

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1914 pikhq recused, BobTHJ assigned

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What is it exactly that makes post-dated actions invalid? (just curious) Rule 478: "Any action performed by sending a message is performed at the time date-stamped on that message." Forging your date stamp arguably would a

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1914 pikhq recused, BobTHJ assigned

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 2:16 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Looking at B Nomic Rule 4E7, I also see nothing stopping one from > basing either the scheduled time or the number of repetitions on a > specific quantity that is impractical to compute (e.g. "the private > key corresponding

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Conductor] Lead Sheet

On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 10:07 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What's the point, really? -Goethe. I'd think the point is that American-style voting where the plurality rules isn't that great. Not that Agora frequently has hotly-contested elections with more than 2 candidates where a

DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report

On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I create a Mill (land #37) with an Operator of + (Addition) and a WRV > in the possession of Wooble Bah. Anyone interested in trading a Digit Ranch for a + mill? I'd prefer a 2 or a 5 since they're the most useful crops

DIS: Re: BUS: Shruggery

On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 2:12 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I join the PerlNomic Partnership. You can't join by announcement, you need to use PerlNomic's adduser mechanism. http://nomic.info/perlnomic

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Shruggery

On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 12:24 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm already a user. When I became a user, I had not had reasonable > > opportunity to review the PNP (I don't think I'd heard of it); now I > > have.

Re: DIS: Interim update on Ambassador nominations

On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 5:04 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If, during the minimum waiting period between intent and action > defined for Agoran Consent, another active player is nominated > in this way and consents, then the IADoP SHALL as soon as > possible in

DIS: Re: BUS: Fixing elections

On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 6:08 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As soon as possible after the nomination period ends, then: (a) if > there is only one consenting candidate, the IADoP SHALL install em > in the Office by announcement; (b) if there are two or more > c

Re: DIS: Interim update on Ambassador nominations

On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 6:31 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 4:26 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I read "and consents" there as meaning I only SHALL do that if another > > active player conse

Re: DIS: second life

On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've secretly hoped for some time that Agora could establish embassies > in various graphical MMOs. I believe I came to the conclusion that EVE > would be the best place to start, at least in principle. (In practice, > it

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5493-5499

On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 6:15 AM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "PNP" above means I endorse the PerlNomic Partnership's vote. PNP can, at best, attempt to vote; it can't actually cast any votes due to insufficient voting limits.

Re: DIS: second life

On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 7:24 PM, Michael Norrish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > N! > > Being able to legislate to change game world physics is a catastrophically > bad idea. Doesn't that imply that nomic in general is a catastophically bad idea?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1925 assigned to Iammars

On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 3:04 PM, Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A question... > > Can first-class persons who are not players make, enter, or be bound > by contracts governed by the Agora Nomic ruleset? Yes. R1742 uses the word "persons", not "players". Whether Agora can effectively

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Request to be a Protectorate

On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 3:38 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Kyevan wrote: > > > > > Hello, Agora. I am Kyevan, and I am writing on behalf of IRCNomic. As > > > per IRCN's Rule 305, Agora is authorized to act

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: We haven't had any good partnership scams in a while

On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 3:41 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, if this had worked, an equity case could have been initiated > demanding that the AFO destroy all the pens created this way. I'd hope a judge wouldn't rule in favor of anyone bringing such a case; why have contracts at all

Re: DIS: Proto-Proposal - Community Service

On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 6:29 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > A judge SHALL NOT assign a task that the ninny cannot perform. > What if the task is to repeal all rules? That's possible. It's possible for Agora to repeal all rules. It's not possible for any given Player to do so, unles

Re: DIS: Proto-Proposal - Community Service

On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 9:52 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 5:10 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It's possible for Agora to repeal all rules. > > In fact, just about the only thing Agora can do is award a w

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1925a assigned to Goethe, Wooble, Pavitra

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 3:19 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I intend, with Wooble and Pavitra's support, to send the following > message from this panel: > > This panel REMANDS this case to Iammars that e may find the obvious. SUPPORT --Wooble

DIS: Re: BUS: [IADoP] nominations

On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 5:16 PM, Iammars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > *Grumle Grumble wrong forum Grumble Grumble* It doesn't matter; support is irrelevant in the current process (installation by Agoran Consent went away), and acceptance of your own nomination is assumed unless you explicitly decl

DIS: Proto-Judgement of CFJ 1927

1. Each first-class party to this equation (the first-class members of the CFJ 1915 equation at the time CFJ 1927 was called), with the exception of comex, CAN, during the 30 days following this equation becoming binding, specify one Agoran Decision with two or more days remaining before its resolu

Re: DIS: Proto-Judgement of CFJ 1927

On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 12:08 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 5/1/08, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 3. After this equation has been binding for 30 days or after all > > eligible parties have specified Agoran Decisions on which comex shall >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1925a assigned to Goethe, Wooble, Pavitra

On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 3:47 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Thu, 1 May 2008, Ed Murphy wrote: > > Goethe wrote: > >>> Appeal 1925a > >>> Panelist: Goethe > >>> Panelist:

Re: DIS: Proto-Judgement of CFJ 1927

On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 4:16 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Best fix: explicitly allow (in the Rules) equity decisions to modify the > state (existence and ownership) of any asset whose backing document is the > contract in question. I'm not sure this is really necessary, since th

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1925a assigned to Goethe, Wooble, Pavitra

On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Goethe wrote: > > > On Thu, 1 May 2008, Ed Murphy wrote: > >> Goethe wrote: > Appeal 1925a > Panelist: Goethe > Pane

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Land Takeover Pledge

On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 6:04 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There exists the potential for plenty of conflict. See: > -- > Rule 1586/3 (Power=2) > Definition and Continuity of Entities > > Two Rule-defined entities CANNOT have the same name or nickname. But are specifi

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Bank of Agora Report

On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 8:28 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 7:29 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Proto-report, anyone should feel free to publish this (I'll be offline > > intermittently for the rest of the weekend). Someone should also > > suggest

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgment of CFJ 1927

On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > While this addresses the original issue with the Vote Market > agreement, it does not remedy or address the breach of CFJ 1915's > equation. I will leave it for someone else to determine if that is a > problem. Well, my

Re: DIS: RE: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5508-5512

On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 11:59 AM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nothing particularly evil, but it's a bit clunky and inelegant. SHALL and CAN > is to me elegant and clear; MANDATE/MANDATED is a long word to say, and a > long word to think about, as well as complicating that particul

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: RE: [CotC] CFJ 1932 assigned to ais523

On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 1:00 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 2:38 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > OK, it looks like this cas

Re: DIS: RE: punish the scamster, too

On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 4:00 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It was an equitable resolution of the situation; all parties agreeing > to the equation, having thought of it themselves, is one of the most > equitable outcomes I can think of. There are other possible equitable > resl

DIS: Re: BUS: RE: [CotC] CFJ 1932 assigned to ais523

On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 5:43 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > happen. Rule 2169 is more powerful than it is, explaining that if > a group of players could do something by emselves (and it is > possible for a player to create a contest by emself, in fact > failing requires other p

Re: DIS: RE: [IADoP] Ambassador & Herald elections

On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 6:51 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Vote for me, even though I never consented! I have some great > sca^H^H^Hideas for most efficiently running the office of Ambassador. > Rule 2154: "A player who has not refused eir nomination is a consenting candidate."

Re: BUS: RE: DIS: Re: BUS: RE: [CotC] CFJ 1932 assigned to ais523

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 6:54 AM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I submit the following proposal (AI=3,II=1): > Amend rule 2125 by adding, at the end: > "A player MAY NOT perform a regulated action except when permitted to > do so by an instrument with power at least 0.1". I think this

DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1939 assigned to Goethe

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 5:39 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If a rule states that an action is regulated, that does not > prevent that action from taking place, but only prevents that > thing from taking place under rule 101(ii) (and therefore makes > it impossible to tak

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: RE: [CotC] CFJ 1932 assigned to ais523

On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 3:19 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 1. A person can declare emself a person, but can't declare emself a player >> other than through the registration process. > > I'm not sure I agree.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Ducks & platypuses

On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 11:18 AM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The Rebuttal of the Rebuttal: > > I should not be found GUILTY because my religion - > Agoracontractian - requires me to make that contract, and > it is unreasonable to say that I could drop my religion to > avoid breaking t

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Ducks & platypuses

On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 12:38 PM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I initiate a criminal CFJ against Wooble for violating Rule 101. > > The last sentence of Rule 101 states: "Please treat Agora right good forever". > > I hereby claim that alienating new players by insulting eir religion is

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Ducks & platypuses

On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 1:09 PM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I argue that "please X" actually means "X", just in a more polite form. > > For example, a sign stating "Please do not litter" likely implies > consequences for littering -- it really states "do not litter". > > This is, as f

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Ducks & platypuses

On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 008/5/9 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> You left out a rather important part of the EXCUSED clause: >> >> * EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant could not reasonably >>avoid _breaching_ the _rules_ in a manner

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Emergency!

On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > gives "Hour now is for Green Clarissimi to come to run up under > for fatherland." I'll draw up the proposal to rename Ribbons to Clarissimi right away.

DIS: Re: BUS: RE: [CotC] CFJ 1932a assigned to Murphy, Goethe, Wooble

On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 7:24 AM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Gratuitous arguments for CFJ 1932a: > > Just because something is "inappropriate", with the English meaning of the > word, doesn't mean that it's necessarily against the rules. Non sequitur. Appropriateness of judgeme

Re: DIS: RE: Re: BUS: anarchy!

On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 1:15 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Not sure if there are any rules of power 2 that I'd want it to take > precedence over in particular, but it should certainly be less than 3 in my > opinion, so I was just making it as high as possible up the precedence

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1946 assigned to Goethe

On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 12:41 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ah, I'm no longer the Notary (are the IADoP's records out-of-date?). So I > hadn't been looking for such things in my email. Here we go. aha. Okay: My last report correctly noted in two places that you'd been replaced

Re: DIS: RE: [CotC] CFJ 1945 assigned to ais523

On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 1:18 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Top-posting is evil. Quoting the entire message is evil. winmail.dat is evil. You forgot lines that don't break after ~72 characters. Also evil.

Re: DIS: RE: [CotC] CFJ 1945 assigned to ais523

On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 1:32 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You forgot lines that don't break after ~72 characters. Also evil. > > To be a true Discordian, I must therefore top-post on a whole-message quote > with 108-character lines using Outlook. Anything else? I hope you're

Re: DIS: RE: [IADoP] resolving Ambassador, Herald elections

On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 4:38 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > To the IADoP: Could you explain why my votes in the message archived at > > were invalid? They weren't. When looking for votes, I

Re: DIS: RE: BUS: Don't dare to REASSIGN when it doesn't stop the scam...

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 1:02 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > comex wrote: >> I intend, with 2 support, to appeal ehird's judgement of CFJ 1932 > Rule 911 states: > "an appeal CANNOT be initiated concerning an assignment caused by > a judgement in an appeal case" > ehird's assignmen

Re: DIS: Why can't non-players be contestmasters?

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 2:07 PM, Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm not a player (and would rather > maintain my non-playerhood as long as possible). Umm, why? If you want to play the game, you should be willing to be bound by the rules.

Re: DIS: Why can't non-players be contestmasters?

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > One thing worrisome is Rule 101(ii), which entitles "players" to > perform unregulated actions. Arguably, that implicitly denies the > right to perform unregulated actions to non-player persons. But in a > way that makes th

Re: DIS: RE: [CotC] CFJ 1935 assigned to ais523 (proto-judgement)

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 3:17 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Of course, the clause is obviously intended to be interpreted such > that the allegation is the initiator's. So I don't have any real > defense other than that I don't think asserting my rights is a very > good ground for EXILE, i

Re: DIS: RE: [CotC] CFJ 1935 assigned to ais523 (proto-judgement)

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 4:33 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, EXILE wouldn't release em from the vote > market. Also, it would exile em for 30 days, because although the exile-based > deregistration block would disappear after a second, the can't

Re: DIS: RE: BUS: Ruling, in appeal 1937a

On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 10:13 AM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The judgement fails to address the argument that rule 2169 is capable of > creating a contest, with root as contestmaster because rule 2136 would have > allowed em to create a contest with em as contestmaster, without

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: posture, senate

On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 2:43 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Who supported this? Wooble didn't (at least not in the above-quoted > message); instead, e announced intent to make eir own attempt. I did right after e first annouced eir intent, and Ivan Hope CXXVII supported as well, after

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1966 assigned to Ivan Hope

On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 11:22 AM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 9:41 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>R101 item i. reads: i. The map being obviously the most >>important rule, every person has the right to move it back up to >>the top of the rulese

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 1942-43 assigned to OscarMeyr

On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 7:38 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't have time for a quick look right now. However, the Ducks & > Platypuses agreement does not seem to have been included in the arguments. > I order H. Caller Wooble to provide me with the text of that agreement a

DIS: Re: BUS: Stop it already.

On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 10:21 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I CFJ on the statement: > {{ > ais523's claim of identity in each of the messages sent to > agora-business in which e claims that e has 100 points is incorrect, > because neither e nor ehird has 100 points. > }} The claim that e

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Accountor's Report

On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 9:47 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 9:43 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Accountor's Report >> Date of last report: never >> Date of this report: now >> >> Trumpets: >> >> The letter I: 1 > > That's the type of report I'd be happy with

DIS: Re: OFF: Accountor's Report

On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 9:43 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Accountor's Report > Date of last report: never Should I bother with a claim of error, since the Accountor has previously issued a report?

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Why can't non-players be contestmasters?

On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 3:47 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Elliott Hird > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I agree to the Points Relay Service contract. >> >> ehird >> > I intend without three objections to make the Points Relay Service a contest. I obj

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Why can't non-players be contestmasters?

On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 8:49 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 5:08 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 3:47 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> I intend without three objections to cause the AAA to cease to be a contest. >>

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Why can't non-players be contestmasters?

On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 9:04 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't know if I'd classify the PRS as a scamI don't have any > hidden agenda apart from providing a backing for existing contests and > permitting one person to administer multiple "contests" (or allowing > non-players

DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] Docket

On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 9:40 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 1937 woggle WoobleWed 28 May 23:28:10 > 1936 ais523, ehird, comex, Pavitra, Thu 29 May 01:37:40 > Ivan Hopepikhq I'm sort of hoping the panel in 1936a

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Why can't non-players be contestmasters?

On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 3:30 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have a few ideas for other contests that I would like to try, but > first the PRS needs to be contestified. Proto: In Rule 2136, replace: A first-class player who is a member of an existing public contract CAN

DIS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5528-5531

> 5528 D1 3ais523 AGAINST > 5529 D0 3ais523 AGAINST > 5530 O1 1comex AGAINST * 4 > 5531 D2 3Murphy Rules as Binding Agreement AGAINST --Wooble

DIS: Re: BUS: RE: RE: Salvaging the Gnarly Contract

On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 1:12 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > my gnarlierness depends on the interpretation of the rules (for > instance, if there were a rule "Whenever an exiled entity is ever > not a player, e is registered", it would cause the same sort of > trigger loop as this

Re: DIS: Reaction to B Nomic's failed mildly offensive message

On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 1:31 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think they changed their mind. No, the message below was addressed to agora-business from the Ambassador, it probably bounced because e's not a subscriber. I'll note that BobTHJ suggested the content of the message.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: RE: RE: Salvaging the Gnarly Contract

On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 4:49 PM, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thursday 29 May 2008 12:41:27 Geoffrey Spear wrote: >> Your ability to create a paradoxical contract without the >> support of a majority of players which makes information required to >

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1951 assigned to OscarMeyr

On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 9:19 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm getting hung up on the entire concept of calling a > criminal case on a player for doing eir Agoran duty. Well, the rules do say judges SHALL assign appropriate judgements. IIRC, I proposed changing that to SHOULD t

Re: DIS: RE: BUS: Hmm, so I can resign now?

On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 9:55 PM, Nick Vanderweit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thursday 29 May 2008 10:12:03 Alexander Smith wrote: >> Wooble wrote: >> > I nominate Offhanded, ehird, and ais523 as Notary. >> >> I consent. > > TTttPF Err, I think you meant "NttPF", although the forum doesn't matt

DIS: Re: BUS: Appealing CFJ 1935

On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 11:47 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 5/30/08, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I now have 2 Support; I appeal CFJ 1935. > > I call for judgement on the statement: > * If I am judged GUILTY in CFJ 1935, a sentence other than DISCHARGE > is appropriate

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Proto: Bidding for Judgeship

On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 1:32 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Perhaps a better method might be to have a two day window where any > potential judge can announce their interest in a case. Then the CotC > makes a random selection from among all interested judges? I'd frankly prefer that

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >