On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> and as far as I
> could tell, it would be inequitable to judge anything but what the parties
> wanted.
If all of the parties agree to a resolution, the equity court isn't
needed. I don't think this interpretation is a go
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 8:13 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Apparently, we've been
> invaded by Google Nomic.
A Google App Engine nomic's looking appealing to me at the moment.
Of course, this would involve giving up my longstandining refusal to
lean python.
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 1:15 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "I wish to register as a player" seems pretty explicit to me.
The fact that all registering does is flip an entity switch, and we
have nothing like B Nomic's "A Player is an Outsider who consents to
be governed by the rules[...
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 1:42 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wooble wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 4:28 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Wooble Thu 17 Apr 13:02:48 114
>>
>>> 48.48/ 53.6 4 crops
>>
>> I withdraw two 4 crops for 107.2 pens, leaving me w
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 3:56 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> root wrote:
>> What VVLOD/EVLOD averaging?
> Ah, I misread rule 2156; all this time I thought it said that at the end of
> each week the EVLOD and VVLOD were averaged and both set to the same value.
> And I've read that
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 3:57 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 1:53 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> I object, mostly because I just spent 10 minutes setting up
>> http://static.nomictools.com/bank
>>
&g
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 4:16 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wouldn't mind seeing it go either. If we do that, we can get
> probably rid of VVLOD as well and just have EVLOD be changed directly.
I thought the rationale for having both was more to make it so you
don't need to keep trac
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 4:18 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There's nothing in it that prevents the rest of the Bankers from
> producing their own unofficial reports if that happens.
True, but since the Bankers didn't produce official reports for 2
months when they were required to "tak
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 6:53 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> WOO! 5!
hail you.
Proto:
Create a rule entitled "The Law of Fives" with the following text:
All numbers are five.
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 7:13 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ian Kelly wrote:
>>I spend 3 Db + 3 E to gain 3 G.
>>I spend 2 D + 2 Gb to gain 2 Bb.
>>I spend E + Db to gain Bb.
>
> How do these work?
(8) A player CAN spend three Notes to gain a Note whose pitch is
as many sem
On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 2:20 AM, Quazie Nomic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And with this message I Quazie re-request to join agora for what may be the
> 3rd time in as many years, though I haven't been keeping track.
> And now, I am agoran.
Am I the only one who had to re-read the ruling in CFJ 194
On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 8:32 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/5/08, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I intend, with the consent of the other Bankers, to cause the Bank of
>> Agora to join the Points Relay Service.
>
> Can you?
I don't
On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 1:00 PM, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What if the contract doesn't allow itself to be amended? And, are you
> super positive that becoming a contest isn't an amendment?
2169 has higher power than 2198, so I think if 2169 says a contract is
amended it would be whet
On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 2:19 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think you're missing the point. The exact restriction in the first
> paragraph of R1586 is "Two Rule-defined entities CANNOT have the same
> name or nickname." Note the use of upper-case CANNOT, which by R2152
> means that "
On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 4:43 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I propose the following proposal (title: "Justice is Injustice") (AI=2.1,
> II=1):
> {{{
> CFJ 1984 SHALL NOT and CANNOT be given a judgement.
>
> Players SHALL NOT and CANNOT be punished for failure to give a
> judgement
On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 6:22 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Proto-psuedo-contest (for use with the PRS):
>
> 1. The name of this contract is "The Agoran Proposal Awards". The
> contestmaster for this contract is BobTHJ.
contestmaster is rules-defined, so I'd suggest using a different
On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 2:50 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Judge: Wooble
> Judgement:
The judgement is missing here...
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 3:13 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Perhaps we should try Insaner proposals: all of the above, plus the
> proposal's title, text, author and AI are secret as well.
The ID number should be secret too, and should be assigned after those
given to the other proposal
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You can't harvest the same CFJ twice.
I don't see that in the contract.
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 12:03 AM, Nick Vanderweit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It seems like people would just
> put all of their money in banks and try not to spend it so that it
> would grow, and, while in the real world banks serve to give loans for
> higher interest than they pay for a savings
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 12:10 PM, Nick Vanderweit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> By giving the currency out to public works and
> officers who do their reports on time, it gives incentive. In
> addition, since they could be traded freely, players may pay each
> other the currency in exchange for favo
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Ben Caplan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> B: I vote on it with md5 hash .
>
> (The string hashed as would have to include cryptographic salt:
> rather than "FOR", it would be "FOR /*8947521705932789*/".)
How confident are we that MD5 doesn't have collisions between
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 4:52 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The fact is that no matter what seed you
> choose, it's possibe to find a seed for the opposite vote that
> collides with it, so such a rule would simply require us to invalidate
> all votes.
I think if we limited seeds to a r
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 8:36 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/6/13 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> I rather doubt that can be "reasonably determined...from information
>> published within the voting period."
>>
>> -root
>>
>
> I disagree.
>
> ehird
I nominate ehird as IADoP, as
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 3:00 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> {In rule 101, remove "ii. Every player has the right to perform an
> action which is not regulated." and subtract 1 from the number of each
> following element of the list. Replace the text of rule 2125 with "It
> is impossible to
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 3:26 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I repeal all rules that can be repealed by announcement.
>
The repeal of rules is definitely regulated by R105. sorry.
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 6:06 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/6/13 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Are you familiar with CFJ 1774?
>>
>> -root
>>
>
> Yes, but I didn't say that.
"I perform the set of possible actions" doesn't come anywhere near CFJ
1774's standard of reasonable
On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 11:01 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> D'y'think we're going to break the third appeal barrier this time?
Almost certainly, no matter how the ruling turns out. It was probably
a mistake on my part to suggest REASSIGN instead of OVERRULE.
Especially since there's alwa
On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 3:32 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When neither side will give up, someone must break the impasse, and that
> will happen in a panel regardless. If the panel is loaded with someone
> who has the position by virtue of election or a MwoP privilege, well,
> the
On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 5:47 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Snoopy's sister Belle plays the violin. Is that it?
>
> No, but you're getting closer.
Does it have anything to do with Beauty and the Beast?
On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 9:35 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Bah. I considered Beauty and the Beast, but I didn't think that just
>>> dropping the name of the movie would be sufficient.
>> I support this Bah, as it reflects my thoughts exactly.
> I also support this Bah...primarily
On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 9:39 AM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not starting an emergency session might have been a good way to allow
> more judges to be active to handle cases.
The Emergency Session ended days ago; non-Senators can sit up.
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 8:18 AM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hmm, why is everybody (except one voting PRESENT, apparently) against
> this? Does it break something?
Some people prefer to have the right to do the thousands if not
millions of non-game-related actions they perform on a daily ba
> 5547 D1 2ais523
FOR
> 5548 D1 3Murphy Chronological order
FOR
> 5549 D1 2Wooble Earning Interest
FOR
> 5550 O1 1Ivan Hope Tongue-tied
AGAINST * 3, FOR * 1
> 5551 O1 1BobTHJ Empower the Notary
FOR * 4
> 5552 O1 1.7 Murphy Clerk disi
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:02 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I recommend the judge of these cases implement a significant penalty
> upon comex for eir continued blatant violation of this agreement.
Wouldn't a criminal case be more appropriate?
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:46 AM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not sure if I can do this... I nominate myself as Tailor.
Yes, you can. There's a 4-day nomination period during which anyone
can be nominated; if more than 1 nominee who hasn't refused eir
nomination exists at the end of that
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 12:59 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 8:15 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 10:22 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 1:52 AM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I h
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 1:15 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nothing, other than trying to make a more obvious and forceful obligation.
Without some sort of suggestion of what a "strict sentence" should
entail, and maybe something more forceful than just encouraging the
judge, I'm not
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 3:13 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/14/08, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> FOR if voting FOR would cause the resulting VI to be exactly 3, PRESENT
>> otherwise
>
> Somehow this makes me uncomfortable. What happens in this case?
>
> Player A: I vo
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 8:53 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Then I ask the kind Bankers of the BOA to consider an exchange rate for
> Points.
Points are a fixed asset and as such couldn't be transferred to the
Bank (well, not without making it a Contest, but I don't see that
happening wi
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 9:08 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2008, at 9:05 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 9:01 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> To resolve CFJs 1995 an
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 9:34 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 9:32 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Sure. E had 502 ribbons before the transfer e posted at that second
>> took place, 452 afterwards.
>
> I wish. :-P
&
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:32 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
>
>> CoE: The Mad Scientist has weekly duties but not monthly duties, therefore
>> I am due to gain 1 E note for fulfilling those duties, and have already
>> gained three E notes from such duties.
>
> Admitted.
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I take this opportunity to once again flog my unofficial vote
> reporting service, updated more or less daily (not with 100%
> guaranteed accuracy, but I do go back and make corrections as
> needed when the Assessor's official
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 2:59 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Is it just me, or is there no defined length for the voting period? I
>> suppose Rule 107 says it should last for seven days, but that seems a
>> bit long.
>
> Section d) defines when it ends.
I suspect that "as soon as poss
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 11:16 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I nominate Wooble for lynching.
> I second this.
Well I guess I should have expected that.
Umm, do I really need a 2-day discussion period to point out to the
non-werewolves out there that there's a 75% chance they're making a
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 3:16 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Unfortunately, all the players here could have an innocent reason
> or a guilty reason for what they did, although comex jumping in and
> closing off the nomination period like that is kind-of suspicious.
Not that I want
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 3:53 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Seeing what's happened to B Nomic recently (apparently almost
> everything since last December has been illegal due to
> specifying SHALL rather than SHALL and CAN)
Well, that was just my opinion and a Consultation stati
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 7:36 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would not be surprised if I
> wound up dead tomorrow, if Wooble doesn't get lynched.
Well, assuming you and ehird aren't both werewolves, killing one of
you to make people suspect I was getting revenge would be the logical
move.
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 11:09 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With the consent of all Bankers, I intend to modify the Bank of Agora
> contract by replacing "Bankers shall act in good faith, keeping in
> mind that the Bank of Agora's holdings belong to those people who have
> pens, not the Ba
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 1:09 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think you mean "Hercules". Also, the last sentence is a run-on.
Bah, that's a horrible Romanization anyway. His name was derived from
"Hera", and the Romans were too dumb to rename him Junoculo or
something when they stole
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 11:19 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How about: a person can only be part of one partnership at a time,
> partnerships only become eligible to register 24 hours after they
> become public? This would make things a little more sane while
> keeping partnerships in the
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 11:51 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> rules, or "regulation[s] determining the methods or course of a game
>> or the like" (OED), and as such lack the capacity and do not claim to
[...]
>
> "Rule" is defined by R2141, so the appeal to common definition is incorre
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 5:03 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That text wasn't in the BOA yet, was it?
The "good faith" clause has been in the BOA agreement from the beginning
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 2:23 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Lx & Ntwthy dtplt #79 Digit Ranch (4)
> I change the name of the above land to: 4 Crop
>
> land #80 Digit Ranch (6)
> I change the name of the above land to: 6 Crop
>
> land #96 Digit Ranch (9)
> I chan
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 2:53 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Near as I can tell, prerogative-awarding became restricted to players only
> on March 13. Yet April and June assignments include Levi, deregistered in
> Februrary.
I pointed out that the June one was invalid, and Murphy s
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 3:02 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Because I don't want yet another list, and I'm not convinced that the
> majority of players want another list.
Well, considering a majority of players are members of the AAA, you're
probably right, but I can see why the non-member
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 9:17 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Human Point Two once did bear the patent title of Minister Without
> Portfolio. At that point it was a person. Now that Human Point Two
> has once again gained its Personhood it should regain its patent
> title"
Is this a call
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 2:03 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> comex posted the message in question.
I initiate a criminal CFJ, naming ehird as the defendant, alleging
that e violated rule 2149 by posting the above-quoted statement while
not believing it to be true.
--Wooble
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 8:10 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>LONG SERVICE AWARDS
>> Three Months: Goddess Eris, Goethe, Sherlock, Michael, Murphy,
>> OscarMeyr, root
>> Six Months: Michael, Murphy, OscarMeyr,
On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 8:59 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 4:39 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> 5564 D0 2rootRepeal Partnerships
>> AGAINST
>
> If I may ask, why do you support retaining a
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 3:00 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Although I agree with the
> judge's arguments with respect to contracts which attempt to bind
> would-be parties to other contracts, it does not seem to me like the
> Left Hand is trying to bind anyone who agrees to it to the Right
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 7:48 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 5:34 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I submit the following proposal, entitled "Recordkeepors keep Records":
>>
>> In Rule 214
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 12:04 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I fill this ticket.
Uh, thanks. I was pretty sure winning PerlNomic myself wasn't worth
2VP; I can't imagine that letting someone else win could be.
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 1:34 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Like Mao, I guess. With all the rights I'm trying to dodge, you might
> wonder if this is best suited for a game independent from Agora.
I'm not worried about trying to dodge rights, but a contestmaster
isn't allowed to award poi
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 6:34 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On a side note, I would remind players who are critical of the
> Protection Racket agreement that by harshly dealing with the RBOA in
> this case as a result of the overlapping membership you would be
> corrupting the very ju
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 1:09 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Found this...
>
> On Fri, Feb 1, 2008 at 8:16 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Later, on Feb 7th, pikhq proto'd awarding comex Scamster,
deregistering em and creating a power 4 rule banning comex from
registering.
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Ben Caplan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So did that self-ratify?
No; reports don't self-ratify generally, just the portions of them
that detail holdings of assets. I don't think there's a good argument
to be made that a patent title is an asset since it's not expl
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - it is about a situation that occured before the case was
>filed (i.e. not arising from the case itself, and not occuring
>after the initiation of that case)
I don't like this clause; it seems to me
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 2:46 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Upon the adoption of this proposal, the Bank of Agora contract is
> terminated.
>
> [It's not happening by unanimous agreement of Bankers, unless Pen
> holdings are manipulated so that comex can be kicked off the board.]
comex
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 11:44 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> there are few days during
> which *every* active first-class player performs at least one
> parsimonious action.
I'd say it's incredibly rare that *every* active first class player
sends a message to any of the mailing lists
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 12:43 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Either that or root's trying to
> fake the results for some reason...
I'd like to think e'd be smart enough to assign emself a prerogative
with a useful power in that case. It's not like any proposals have had
trouble r
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 1:49 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> People who voted FOR: Do you actually _want_ to award me Scamster
> against my will?
Yes. If you didn't want the patent title, you shouldn't have shown so
much enthusiasm for perpetrating scams.
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 3:00 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gratuitous: In Gmail which doesn't easily do fixed width font, it
> doesn't look like a word to me.
Further gratuitous: 16 of 22 first-class players were using Gmail as
of the last registrar's report.
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 3:36 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> More further gratuitous: no-one's complained about lack of fixed-width
> fonts in reading tables like voting reports, which would be Harder. -G.
I know at a glance that a voting report is a voting report. At a
glance, thi
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since I am notehird now, it's not that ambiguous. (This escapes me
> from that evil pledge, for what it's worth)
I'm not entirely convinced. You're the same person who was referred
to by the pledge, regardless of a change
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 11:50 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Should we create the Agoran equivalent of an LLC?
You can already do that, just don't expect much support to get them
accepted as persons.
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A fair question, and one that has been vexing me as late. The question:
> what does "continue to play" mean? That phrasing of R101 didn't envision
> attempting to having contracts that were permitted to be binding to
> non
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 12:41 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wooble wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> A fair question, and one that has been vexing me as late. The question:
>>> what does "continue to play" mean? That phrasing of
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 1:56 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If
> indirect preventions are counted, then almost any game action could be
> forbidden on the grounds that it led to breaching the contract.
Gratuitous argument: a reasonable person wouldn't agree to be bound by
a contract
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 2:15 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/6/26 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Gratuitous argument: a reasonable person wouldn't agree to be bound by
>> a contract so that restricted eir behavior in such a way. (On
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 2:25 PM, tusho ?
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well! I'd like to join this here Agoranomicgamething. May I? Good,
> that's nice of you.
>
> I join.
>
> --
> tusho ? (questionmark)
>
Now would be a good time to ratify some reports and give us a known
good gamestate for the Ho
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:45 AM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gmail says that this was sent 1 hour ago, but I confirmed my IRC
> identity with Alexander just some minutes ago.. I think Alexander is a
> time traveler >.>
Umm, Gmail tells me eir message was sent 5 minutes ago. Sounds like a
t
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> More specifically: The contract originally known as Teh Cltohed Mna [1]
> and renamed to ehrid [2] contains an explicit list of its members,
> titled the Manroster.
Actually, the contract doesn't claim the Manroster is a list
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:09 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I perform the following action on behalf of ehird:
> {{{I file a CFJ on the statement "This CFJ was filed by ehird".}}}
Why?
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I join the PRS.
>
> 2008/6/27 Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> I intend to make the Points Relay Service a contract with myself as
>> contestmaster without three objections.
>>
>
> I object.
>
> I intend to make the Points Rel
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/6/27 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> It's already a contest.
>
> Ironic.
>
Proto-proposal: rename "contests" to something that doesn't share
most of the same letters with "contracts"
On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 7:50 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Assessor 35
>> Promotor 50
>
> I think you've got these reversed.
Well, I admit
2008/6/29 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Happy birthday, Agora!
>
45 seconds late, I believe.
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 1:08 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well it's classic Nomic prisoners dilemma etc., but I disagree that
> it's boring, any more than playing Werewolf (that's been played many
> times before) is boring.
The prisoner's dilemma gets a lot less interesting when yo
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 3:40 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This following is a win announcement: My nickname is Goethe!
I'd think the Herald would want to avoid setting a precedent of
explicitly labeling random announcements as win announcements. Stuff
like "The following is a win
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 12:00 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The voting period has already ended on these proposals.
Hmm; the agora_sync program is supposed to remove proposals
corresponding to Agoran proposals that are no longer open, and was
working right a while ago.
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 2:43 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Upon the adoption of this proposal, all members of contracts using
> phrases like "X CAN act on behalf of Y" SHOULD amend them to "X CAN
> cause Y to act".
Doesn't this sort of thing lead to thinking of Players as avatars, and
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 1:39 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There's still interesting politics in who to make the contract with
Not really. You make the contract a partnership, have all the parties
sponsor it, and require it to cast the exact number of votes you'd
have cast under the old
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 3:44 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Cute HTML.
Oops; I was composing in Rich Formatting because lining stuff up in a
proportional font is a pain, and intended to switch it back to plain
text before sending.
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 5:41 PM, Nick Vanderweit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Coauthors to this proposal are doopy, pikhq, Chester Mealer, and Murphy.
Umm, what proposal?
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 10:59 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If we're talking specific points
> in time here, then nobody's capable of sending email in English except
> during the split second they're pressing the "send" button
I'm capable of sending an email in English at any moment. I ju
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 3:58 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm obligating myself to give everyone who has not participated in the
> fora since April 29 a D note. This is equivalent to giving everyone a
> D note and then penalizing people D notes for participating in the
> fora. However, by
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 7:39 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> No, 4 - 4 is 0, in any base arithmetic.
>>
> Oops...
>
> But not in binary :)
If you're using a 4 in your binary, you're probably doing something
horribly wrong.
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 2:47 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> == Equity Case 2036 ==
>
>Murphy took all of the AFO's assets.
Any comments from the parties to the AFO? As far as I can tell, this
has been resolved equitably without arbi
201 - 300 of 1430 matches
Mail list logo
