On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 1:01 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Any player can join this contract by announcement.
You're not a player; how do you propose to become a party?
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 12:12 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 6:21 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I leave the Vote Market.
>>
> I believe this fails. You still have an unfulfilled obligation to vote
> as I s
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 2:00 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Strongly object. Experimenting with the lack of a requirement to
> consult the other partners has been the point of the AFO from day one.
And the mere existence of this equity case shows that one partner
wasn't happy with that
On Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 1:25 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/7/5 Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> I intend to make the PerlNomic Partnership inactive without Objection.
>>
>> -woggle
>>
>
> I do object, because I think it'll be back Extra Super Soon.
If not on nomic.info, el
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 11:50 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 9:12 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I believe this fails. You still have an unfulfilled obligation to vote
>> as I specify on a future proposal of my choice. However, if you want
>> out of Vote
On Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 5:34 PM, Matthew Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Have you ever thought of setting it free from its shackles and allowing it
> to grow to its fullest potential?
Yes, but I've been unable to convince the governments of any suitable
countries to replace their entire body of
On Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 11:36 PM, Ben Caplan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does anyone know enough about "real world" copyright law to tell if a
> publication like the AWJ, which includes no verbatim text from other
> players, but only discusses in-game events in depth, would infringe on
> anything s
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 1:09 AM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With 2 support I intend to repeal this judgement. This judgement
> ignores the judgement of CFJ 2014, in which the word 'I' when used in
> a way such as 'I' was used in the filling of this CFJ leads to an
> ambiguous situation.
'
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:52 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I intend, with Agoran Consent, to act on behalf of Agora to award a
> win to every person.
Well, only players can act on behalf of Agora with Agoran Consent, so
this probably won't do much good. But I offer moral support.
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Transferring the FINED assets to the Lost & Found Dept is reasonable
> and would permit any contract to be fined.
You can't transfer a fixed asset, but you can destroy it.
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 8:23 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just don't have time to grok the economy in fullness
i was working on a thesis on the topic but I gave up when the Bank of
Agora collapsed.
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It depends on whether you mean "can with eir email account" or "can *if*
> given an email account". -G.
Well, for a significant portion you'd also have to add "and if taught
enough English that e's able to communicate in it
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This one bugs me. The rule doesn't say that a biological organism that
> only communicates in a non-English human language is *not* a person.
"An entity is
a person if and only if it is defined to be so by rules
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 3:20 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I believe Sgeo solved this in eir latest proto by limiting the
> currency to those to which its backing document is binding upon the
> Ninny.
I'm not sure this is a great idea; it would disallow fining someone in
chits unless
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A non-English speaker plus translation service probably meets the existing
> definition of "person". We should clarify that, rather than dropping
> the English requirement.
If the translation service isn't of a biological nature,
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 3:01 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think we need a proposal or other solution to prevent this contract
> spamming the forum indefinitely.
I recommend having the Distributor ban tusho from posting, myself.
Don't make me recontestify brainfuck golf.
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 9:22 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think it can be argued that, although it's certainly possible to make
> a contract in a-d (I've made an Agoran contract over IRC before, for
> instance), the context of that particular pledge seems to show that it
> might not ne
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 12:34 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/7/11 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> As Kelly once told some Pirates, can you take these silly games somewhere
>> else? To paraphrase yourself to David, this isn't a forum for every
>> random little nonsense game
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 3:49 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why have a maximum fine amount?
Because without it I can't create a shell corporation to hold all of
my assets, giving me some arbitrary currency in exchange and setting a
really low maximum fine amount for that currency.
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 4:20 PM, Ben Caplan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That wouldn't be an effective scam, unless the judge was in on it. E's
> under no obligation to specify your shell corporation's currency for
> the fine. E could just as easily fine you in something you care about,
> such as V
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 8:07 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As allowed by the Protection Racket agreement I create a Favor in the
> possession of the Protection Racket. I deposit this Favor in the RBOA
> in exchange for 150 Chits.
Time to create the New Really Reformed Bank of Agora,
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 10:47 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you don't believe it is a legitimate value then feel free to
> propose a rate change.
I don't believe it's legitimate to allow (indeed, require) the
Protection Racket to constantly create assets that interest a very
smal
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:34 AM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 5637 O1 1Quazie Agora is my conditional value
> I change my vote to ENDORSE Agora x4
I don't think this works; under no circumstances can a rule take
effect before the votes on it are counted, so relying on a definition
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:52 AM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I thought that ENDORSE Agora was already defined.. I remember seeing
> it somewhere.. maybe it was in a proto and I got confused and thought
> that it was in a rule..
Umm, you saw it in the proposal you're voting on conditionally.
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 1:15 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Upon the adoption of this proposal, ehird deregisters emself by announcement.
If this would be effective, this would create a whole new ugly
precedent of "This proposal says you say you do, therefore you say you
do and do".
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 2:33 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I believe the power threshold for causing a message to be sent is 2.
> My reasoning: it's established that a contract can allow other people
> to act on behalf of its parties. As I understand it, this is implied
> by the fact that
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 5:32 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If I tell my secretary to type something and press send, e will use my
> email address and put my name on it; e will have sent it, but I will
> have written it and consented to its being sent under my name. The
> rules say that the
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:41 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I still need 3 more votes on whether to lynch Pavitra.
I recommend amending the contract to require votes to be cast as soon
as possible, with severe penalties for not doing so. A 2-week voting
period is a bit ridiculous.
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It can't just add a week from the distribution date?
I believe the rationale for not doing that was to not remove proposals
that were still in their voting period due to failed quorum, but
that's been rare lately, and I'd be h
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 2:55 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I submit the following proposal (AI=3,II=0,Title="Making 2125(e)
> actually do something"):
>
> Replace paragraph (e) of rule 2125 with the following:
> {{{
> e) It would, as part of its effect, modify information which
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 7:46 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What about the fact that while doing something is regulated, attempting to
> do something (and failing) is not regulated, and therefore a privilege?
You mean a right. It's your privilege to do what you wilt, regardless
of
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 10:02 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Assets are not inherently information
Agoran assets are nothing more than information that some entity is
keeping a record of.
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 11:33 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/7/16 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> 5643 O1 1comex a probably unsuccessful attempt at dereg...
>> FOR * 8
>
> With two support I intend to cause Wooble to sto
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 1:14 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Of course, what might be really interesting would be an antiveto that
> lowered AI by 1; AI<1 proposals could be interesting, as could making
> proposals insufficiently powerful so they couldn't do what they were
> meant to be abl
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 1:51 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/7/16 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 12:58 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I retract my votes on Proposal 5643 and vote AGAINST * 8
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You gave Woggle 300 chits.
Err, 150. That'll teach me to a) fix perlnomic, b) retract the equity
case that probably would have given me all of the chits I'd
contributed, and c) attempt to tip the
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 2:35 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As such, even though the entity in
> question is both a public message and a Forum, it is a Public Message
> and a Forgein Forum. As a result I judge this CFJ FALSE.
Next you'll tell us that Ctesippus' dog isn't really his fathe
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 6:37 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 4:30 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the
>> case, and in the initiating announcement e CAN disqualify one
>> person from as
> == CFJ 2073 ==
>
>Either the sky is always red or, if I do not hereby initiate an
>inquiry case on this sentence, then the sky is always green.
I rule TRUE. I take the English "Either... or" construct to be the
equivalent of logi
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You're too concerned with the facts of this case. To quote the
> American political left: "Its not the nature of the evidence, but the
> seriousness of the charge!" We definitely need to get a new judge
> involved in this ca
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 1:11 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So if any of those end up not being CFJs there is a criminal case
> against the CotC
Yes, but trivially UNAWARE if e reasonably believed that the cases in
question were CFJs, and I see no reason to think otherwise. I can't
imagi
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 3:01 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Exploit: Whenever the Clerk of the Courts assigns a judicial
>> panel, e SHALL assign one with the Default Justice as a member,
>> unless no such panel is eligible to be so assigned.
> This doesn't work, because
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Um, that'll be distributed along with mine.
Not if the Promotor decides for some reason to wait to distribute
yours. I can't image why e might decide to do that, though.
Apparently "social barrier" doesn't mean anything t
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 6:00 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 15:57 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> Proposal: Chambers II
>> AI: 3
>> II: 1
> Please propose this with an II of at least 2, or you'll get an automatic
> AGAINST from me. Changing the proposal system so radical
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 8:11 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Why should II matter at all?
>
> It's an objective acknowledgment of the significance of the proposed
> changes. IIRC, a proposal to return to a straight Disinterested /
> Interested system (basically reducing scope from 0-to
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 10:23 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The II of a proposal should serve as a flag to get people to look at it;
> I can certainly imagine that some players won't have time to look at all
> the proposals, in which case they should look at those with the highest
> II.
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 3:47 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Using them to circumvent Excess. I wouldn't want to loosen up
> any Excess limitations right now. -G.
Proto: Players SHALL NOT submit obnoxious CFJs that do not serve to
resolve legitimate matters of controversy. Whenever
> 5649 O1 1.7 Quazie Partnerships devolve, and so should unqu...
AGAINST * 8
> 5650 O1 1.7 Pavitra No frivolous prosecution
FOR * 8
--Wooble
On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 8:54 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2019a
>>
>> Appeal 2019a
>
> I can't fin
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 10:26 AM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>tusho violated Rule 2029 by changing eir posture to sitting.
>>
>>
>>
>
> I am willing to rule UNIMPUGNED if tusho will kindly provide eviden
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 6:32 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As determined in CFJ 2074, tusho was not a player at the time this CFJ was
> called. E therefore could not have violated any rules. I rule INNOCENT.
Actually, it's probably possible to violate rules while not a player
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 10:59 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For all the current ways the PNP sends message there
> is usually a clear (if tricky to identify) first-class person who
> triggers the script that sends the message (activating a proposal or
> running one of the CGI progr
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 7:40 AM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 7:24 AM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I lie.
>>
>
> I initiate a criminal case against myself, alleging that I violated
> Rule 2149 by claiming that I lie when I did not, in fact lie.
>
Sounds INNOCENT
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 10:59 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How about some recordkeepors?
It wouldn't be so horrible to actually make the Accountor do something
for a change.
Protoproposal, AI=1.7:
Amend Rule 1504 by inserting the following immediately before
the final paragraph:
Notwithstanding the above, a sentence of EXILE is always appropriate
if the CFJ in question was initiated by the defendant, and the judge
SHOULD assign such a sentenc
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> By way of counter-suit, I CFJ on the following inquiry: A non-player can
> violate a rule of Agora.
I think CFJ1709 covers this fairly well, although I'm a but skeptical
about the idea that we should put much stock in
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 7:19 PM, David Nicol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> could the current Accountor please contact me concerning
> specifications for automating their task?
I think the Accountor is perfectly capable of creating the automation
necessary to publish no report and track nothing.
> 5651 O1 1Quazie Left in a lull
PRESENT
> 5652 D1 2comex Awful proposal
AGAINST
> 5653 O1 1.5 BobTHJ Department of Corrections
FOR * 8
> 5654 D0 2ais523
PRESENT
> 5655 D1 2comex Allow chaotic ID numbers to be assigned
AGAINST
> 5656 O1
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 3:03 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Caveats: Only one option can be used at a time. Search by judge
> does not care whether the player's decision was final.
It also seems to list any equity case as "case open", which I imagine
has something to do with there no
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 1:16 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It also seems to list any equity case as "case open", which I imagine
> has something to do with there not being a fixed set of available
> judgments.
Although oddly 1932 displays the judgment a
On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 1:13 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 4:40 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> #! /usr/bin/perl6
>> Use Agora.pm;
>> Use Agora/ROoA.pm;
>>
>> IF (milling 4 * 8 produces an X crop) == TRUE # otherwise refigure the
>> modulo 1
On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 12:05 AM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gratuitous arguments, just in case nobody else has already said this
> (maybe I have and then forgotten): If somebody states "I CFJ on this
> statement", they're taking the action "I CFJ on this statement" not
> because they're CF
On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 9:11 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is an interesting sentence, as I'm not a player and therefore
> have no Notes, and certainly won't have any in the next 72 hours.
Well, then appealing the case so there's a chance the sentence won't
go into effect until you o
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 3:17 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> == CFJ 2099 ==
>
>I transfer all my crops to the PNP.
I find that that precedents in CFJs 2079-2080 are irrelevant to this
case; in those cases the announcement th
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 1:02 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> By the way, I think Appellant Zefram missed the point in CFJ
> 2086-2087... at the moment that I say "I CFJ on xxx", it is true that
> I am initiating a CFJ on xxx (and not true at any other time).
> However, is it then true that C
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 2:10 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What about PerlNomic? Shouldn't that be recognised too? After all, it's
> participating in Agora at the moment...
Having a forum in PerlNomic in which e could announce the recognition
would probably be a first good step...
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 1:50 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Too late; I've already agreed to it on IRC.
Changes to the parties in a public contract take effect when they're
published; eir leaving the contract was published before you joined
it.
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No it wasn't.
>
> I can provide logs.
Logged or not, your IRC channel isn't a Public Forum.
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And you don't have to agree to contracts in a Public Forum.
Rule 2178:
Changes in the text or membership of a public contract do not
become effective until they are published.
The contract in question claimed t
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 11:23 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I initiate a criminal case accusing OscarMeyr of violating Rule 2149
>> by claiming that tusho could not have violated any rules because e was
>> not a player.
[...]
> assessment was accurate. As CFJ 2109 was filed in
On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 10:52 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In my judgement of CFJ 2094, I also find that objecting to a dependent
> action whilst not being commonly known by the name ais523 is a regulated
> action. (This is completely irrelevant to the judgement; however, it
> should be
On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 11:10 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's rule 2125 I'm trying to invoke there, which is not a SHOULD at all.
> You're thinking of the wrong rule...
I was thinking of the judge's reasoning guiding play, which is a
SHOULD, but if your reasoning constitutes "a judici
On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Err, I guess this is a CFJ again. I support this intent.
>
> It is? What did I miss?
CFJ 2090, although you obvious
On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 7:58 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This invalidates a ton of past judgements.
So? Their questions on culpability are no longer applicable, and if
they were UNIMPUGNED it's not like invalidating them would open up the
defendants to reprosecution even if it m
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 12:36 AM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If it's appealable then the judgement isn't in effect yet.
Well, there should probably be a presumption that if the CotC's report
says it's a CFJ and a judge ruled it's a CFJ we should probably act as
if it's a CFJ in the absence
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 10:15 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I decline this nomination. Remind me why we switched from consenting
> to declining again?
No one commented on that bit in Goethe's election refactoring
proposal. I'd be happy to vote for a proposal that removed the
implied con
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 11:04 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> e) If the voting period has lasted at least seven days, the
> contestmater CAN choose all remaining votes randomly, with
> lynch / don't lynch weighted in linear proportion to number
> of werewolves / number of vi
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 11:35 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just going through my Notary records, I can't find where Wooble joined
> the protection racket (although I vaguely remember it happening). When
> was it?
July 16, 17:53:38 UTC
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 1:01 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I accept the nomination for Scorekeepor and Accountor. I decline the others.
You earlier declined the same nomination (quoted in a different
thread) for Accountor. Under a strict reading of Rule 2154 I think
this makes you
On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 5:04 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I intend, without objection, to make the following players inactive:
> cctoide, cdm014, Doopy, Schrodinger's Cat
I already posted my intent to make cdm014 inactive; I'll be able to do
so in a few hours.
On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 8:06 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Unfortunately for you, a judicial finding has still found that it's
> regulated, regardless of whether or not the finding is successfully
> appealed.
I'm not sure why you think it matters if objecting is regulated or
not. An Obje
On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 8:29 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It was a failed action, not a lie. But sigh, I won't bother appealing again.
The rule didn't say you couldn't lie. It was a statement that you
shouldn't have believed was true.
On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Speech acts do not have truth values!
Statements have truth values. You made a statement.
On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 5:23 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/8/2 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Statements have truth values. You made a statement.
>>
>
> "I register" has no truth value.
It's true if and only if you regis
On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm afraid quite a few players disagree with you here.
Well then they should appeal this case.
On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 5:39 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Reading material: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performative_utterance
"Performative utterances are not true or false"
If they're not true, making them would violate R2149 as it existed
before repeal.
But thanks for pointin
On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With 2 support, I intend to initiate a criminal case against ihope for
> violating rule 1742.
Since Rule 1742 would allow only a sentence of DISCHARGE, why waste
everyone's time?
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 4:11 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2086a, 2087a: I intend to cause the panel to send this message:
>
> {
> The panel accepts appellant Zefram's arguments and judges 2086a and
> 2087a OVERRULE with a replacement judgement of TRUE.
> }
BobTHJ, ais523: Any chance
On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 12:33 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Reason: I believe that we came to think (via CFJ, or just discussion?)
> if R2019 "in a timely fashion SHALL" expires before the beginning of a
> month, the Speaker loses the ability to assign prerogatives
It was by discussi
The real question is if we can successfully prosecute either pikhq or
BobTHJ for not assigning prerogatives; each of them has a fairly good
case for UNAWARE (although obviously BobTHJ's is a bit stronger, since
as far as anyone can tell e didn't know e was Speaker until after e
wasn't anymore).
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 1:04 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's been over a week since all the other CFJs were created.
s/created/assigned ID numbers/
The CotC is behind; calling more CFJs may or may not be likely to get
em to start assigning numbers. Either way, it should be motivation
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 1:13 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rule 1742 says: "Parties to a contract SHALL act in accordance with
> that contract." There is no language to the effect that non-parties
> to a contract shall act in accordance with a contract. Therefore,
> although the AFO's R17
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 1:25 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In this case, I would suggest that the CotC politely take (nearly) the
> maximum allowed time to assign ID numbers to those CFJs (or, if e considers
> that not entertaining enough, take bribes to do it in time.)
Well, consi
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 4:06 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Well, considering comex's threatened lands now belong to the AFO and
>> the CotC is a member of the AFO (and the CotC is also quite a few WRVs
>> short for eir own lands), I wouldn't count on it.
>
> I believe I have 5 ranches
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 1:25 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In an equity case, this sort of word-twisting is not appropriate, if
> the Nethack sense of "ascend" was understood to be the relevant term
> in the spirit of the contract and the eyes of the parties. -Goethe
On the other h
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 11:09 AM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The problem with that is, under the old system, there were definitely
> multiple things called "voting limits". "Effective voting limit on that
> decision" and replacing "ordinary decision" with "decision" is probably good
A document that is, to the best of my knowledge, a good representation
of the current Short Logical Ruleset is hosted at
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/slr.txt
--Wooble
On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 2:01 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 9:39 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hmmso which was received first, this or my Water Rights enforcement?
>
> Wait, do we use Received: or is Date: presumptively correct?
Both the Date: and
On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 11:56 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 4. The PerlNomic Partnership shall act by using the mechanisms of the
> PerlNomic game to send messages to the appropriate Agoran fora. This
> is the only mechanism by which the PerlNomic Partnership may act.
>
> [Now,
301 - 400 of 1430 matches
Mail list logo
