On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 4:58 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 4:58 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2027a
>>
>> Appeal 2027a =
On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 8:49 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2048b
>>
>> =
On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 8:59 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I go on hold.
Does anyone want to be Registrar? I'm required to make a nomination
as soon as possible, and I'm fairly likely to just nominate every
single player and install the one who doesn't notice in time to refuse
eir no
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 2:27 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If the original contract envisioned not devolving the obligation well onto
> the parties (quite likely, in fact), then I don't see what resolution the
> equity case could reasonably provide beyond finding that it's not a
>
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We really don't know whether the *current* system is platonic or
> pragmatic. We had a couple cases where it was "obvious" that the text
> of a contract didn't devolve responsibilities (and therefore wasn't).
>
> We haven't
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The only instances involving the AFO were subject to "out-of-court"
> settlements before a precedent was set.
By the way, I think the AFO clearly does devolve its obligations onto
its members, but in such a way that, since t
On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 8:33 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I can't find this on zenith.
>>
>> Regardless, with the support of the panel, I intend to cause the panel
>&g
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 6:51 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, yeah, I discounted that, because I have yet to see a persuasive
> argument to the effect that I couldn't just refuse such an equation.
Well, we could just follow the US Supreme Court and determine that the
existence of a fun
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 11:15 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The answer, of course, is that equations were not envisioned as being
> restricted by R101 (iv), and ruling that right ineffective would
> prevent the equity court from being largely useless, and (thanks to
> your recent proposal)
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 8:33 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Assessor's Voting Limits Report
The Assessor no longer tracks voting limits; most of this document
isn't part of the Assessor's report and should be ignored if this is
ratified.
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But, seriously, it would really be against the oldest of all game
> custom if we couldn't make arbitrary changes to the ruleset somehow.
Not to mention being in direct conflict with the central premise of
The Paradox of Se
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 2:26 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That exact suggestion (abandon and restart) is what led to 4 proposals
> getting rid of 2/3 of the ruleset, and (incidentally) the new R101. -G.
I hit my Panic Button, build a Phoenix Egg, and declare myself to be a
Revolut
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 6:53 PM, Ben Caplan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Note that one more false lynching will end the game in favor of the
> werewolves. Please only vote to lynch Zefram if you genuinely believe
> e is a werewolf, not merely out of revenge for inconvenient
> inactivity. That would
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 1:26 AM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does this mean 2019 is now back on ais523's plate? And if so aren't
> they WAY overdue for a judgement?
The panel in 2019a was WAY overdue in judging. ais523 still has 6+
days to judge, since the case was just remanded to em.
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 1:03 AM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i act?
I doubt any of that was sufficiently unambiguous to cause any actions.
Possibly the "I lean. I sit." which would have had no net effect
anyway as you were already sitting.
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 11:50 AM, Chester Mealer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gender Neutral pronouns(e.g eir, e, and e's) are words granted meaning and
> usage under the set of rules excluding 754(4).
I believe it's 754(1) that grants them meaning, since those words have
no ordinary-language mean
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 12:25 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> he or she, surely. We don't call objects "e" do we?
We have players that aren't humans and thus have no gender, and the
rules do use "e" when referring to players, so yes.
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 3:43 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 3:40 PM, root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On behalf of TNP2: TNP2 registers.
>
> I nominate TNP2 for Rulekeepor.
This was ineffective as the nomination period for the office had ended.
On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 8:01 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I nominate each of ais523, BobTHJ, comex, Goethe, Murphy, OscarMeyr,
> Quazie, root, Sgeo, Taral, tusho, woggle, and Wooble for each of the
> offices of Promotor and Rulekeepor.
I'm going to treat this self-nomination as an accept
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 10:45 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> By CFJ 2050 doing x on behalf of another player is really just you doing x.
>
> Thus if I make a partnership vote on something, it is really me voting.
>
> Thus partnerships can't do anything.
I disagree with this analysis of my
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 8:32 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If I mill 5 * 8, does that produce 7?
Yes.
BTW, It would probably be nice to have addition, subtraction, and
multiplication tables in the AAA report too; it's not like they're
significantly less obnoxious to figure out
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 10:11 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I recuse myself from all appeals panels, and lie down.
You can't recuse yourself from a panel, only a judge can be recused
and it's the panel itself that's the judge.
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 3:00 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2. By CFJ 1303 and 1895, the statement publisher = statement sender
>and remains you (the physical sender of the message), even when you
>act on behalf of someone else.
> --dividing line here
> 3. F
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 9:38 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Addition and subtraction mod 11 are moderately less obnoxious to figure out
> than division.
Well, ok, when you're dealing with single-digit operands addition is
incredibly simple and subtraction's not much worse once y
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 10:05 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Whups, I was too late! This nullifies Zefram's arguments in 2087,
> dunno what to do with that now. -Goethe
Zefram: "For the record, I am dubious about this interpretation of a statement
being made, and action being taken
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 12:44 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I consent, and also request the prior judge to consider whether the
> message in fact had the effect of making Sgeo supine (another possible
> meaning of 'I lie').
In the context of the defendant's message, I can't see any way y
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does this mean that the change to democratic can be made after results
> are announced (though before self-ratification)? -Goethe
I'd say that once an Agoran Decision is resolved, it's no longer a
decision and can't be chan
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 6:47 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hmmm... just testing it so that Agoran voters can see how the PNP
> would distribute proposals. Which seems fine, although it ought to
> send to official, not to business with a false "OFF:"
Proposed, but I'll need to subscribe t
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 10:40 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> X crops - 135 chits (no previous rate)
This should probably be higher
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 11:18 AM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you include the header and >s as part of the proposal or don't
> enter its adoption index as 1.5, I will bite you.
It's fairly likely that the PNP will be the Promotor soon, so you'll
be able to bite yourself.
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 8:14 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Urglefurg. I hadn't read the ruleset for a while (not being a player
> and all), I probably
> should have before trying to reregister.
I'm fairly sure the B ruleset never allowed registering by announcing
that you do so to
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 9:13 AM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Goethe wrote:
>> I submit the following proposal, Pragmatic Caste, AI-2:
> This almost allows a trivial dictatorship scam, by flipping
> everyone else's caste to Savage and then making dictatorship
> proposals (outracing
On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 12:39 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 5681 O 1 1.0 BobTHJ PRS Changes
> PRESENT (I haven't followed the PRS closely, why is this being opposed?)
Because this would have the same effect as just removing "fixed" from
R2179, instead of making people go
On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 1:34 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> People should follow contests; every contest out there is a potential
> source of scammable points
And that's why to make a contest in the first place you need to do it
without 3 objections. If players vote to enable an obvious
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 12:35 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Probably rule 101 stops this being effective, though, but arguably it
> does much the same with respect to the PRS.
I'd argue that R101 doesn't protect anyone from contracts they're
already party to changing.
I do, however, sti
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 3:58 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well we've never really settled that "Rules are an agreement issue" but
> I have a meta-argument for choosing it... if we accept your argument,
> it's not possible to play Agora, so we might as well choose the
> interpretatio
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 4:18 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh I see, you're accepting that CAN works to limit doing things through
> mechanism, but not SHALL. Sorry, I thought you were arguing in the "I'm
> privileged to do anything so I CAN do anything just by saying that I do it"
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 11:50 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Did that get removed? The last version of the ruleset I've seen
> (http://www.geoffreyspear.com/slr.txt) still has it.
That page is now out of date, but I don't remember a proposal changing
REASSIGN since it was updated.
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 9:44 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And Ivan Hope's voting
> limit is currently 1 and likely to remain so for a while, making
> CHOKEY not very interesting.
I don't believe interestingness is part of the criteria for sentence
appropriateness. I don't think
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 10:39 AM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The judgement of FINE on the question on sentencing is still in
> effect, as I never appealed it. Since it has not been appealed since
> then, and it has certainly been more than two weeks since it was first
> assigned, it now can
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 9:12 PM, Pavitra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I mill 7-1 to obtain 6. I transfer a 5 crop, a 6 crop, and an 8 crop to
> ais523, specifying that e increase the PNP's caste twice.
Great, now we'll have to get around to making it so the PNP can
actually vote again.
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 10:39 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not so much, given that it's automated now; just remind me to update
> the database if your caste changes before the decisions are resolved.
The voting limit on a given decision is the voting limit at the start
of the voting
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 7:35 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/8/28 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> The voting limit on a given decision is the voting limit at the start
>> of the voting period.
>>
>
> Aren't votes resolved (and
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 3:09 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I only just now properly read this and realised what it actually said,
> and I like it. I vote for Ivan Hope CXXVII for Grand Poobah, if that
> voting period is still open.
The voting period is still open, but if Ivan Hope CXXVII
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 3:13 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Admitted. I thought Flainian Pobble Beads were only exchangeable for
> other Flainian Pobble Beads, though...
Shhh...no one's supposed to notice that once they exchange their
assets for FPBs there's no current way to exchange the
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 3:44 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd like to point out (despite having been killed in the Werewolves
> game) that this game possibly matters a lot, as the points have just
> been reset, and so it could give an opportunity to get a good headstart
> on winning by p
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 3:48 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-08-26 at 15:25 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> ais523 R BKW 4
> CoE: I have more ribbons than this, which I CoEd on last time: I also
> have Cyan and Ultraviolet
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 4:50 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Meanwhile, I CFJ on the following criminal case:
> Pikhq has violated 2019 by failing to assign prerogatives for
> August 2008 in a timely fashion before August 1.
Criminal CFJs now require 2 support.
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 7:36 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, I grepped for 'comex' and it isn't in there. So you're not trying
> an obvious scam, at least.
I ran a diff against the version I'd posted, and I don't see any
non-obvious scams either. Unless we both missed some rule
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 2:37 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It was in Proposal 5680. -Goethe
The voting period of which has ended with a unanimous vote. If H.
Assessor Murphy doesn't get around to resolving it, I should be able
to resolve it before the 7th of the month is over.
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 2:04 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Arguably, there are two requirements: the CotC SHALL assign an ID
> number, and the CotC SHALL assign the smallest possible legal ID number.
> The Monster was deputising based on the first, not on the second.
It doesn't matter wha
On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 1:09 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For September:
The Speaker hasn't violated the time limit for assigning these; I
believe this means you can't deputise yet.
On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 1:07 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Choice? What choice? I think the point has been made clear that the
> CotC and Poobah must choose as fairly as possible or be removed from
> office. I submit the Protection Racket and my brief tenure as Grand
> Poobah as evide
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 7:34 AM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Consider what would happen if, in judging a criminal case, a judge
> said, "The defendant has stated that e has no intention to follow this
> rule in the future. Since ignoring this rule forever is a very serious
> offense, I senten
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 3:05 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are these B Nomic corporations also Agoran persons?
Not yet, although I can freely amend their charters to make them
devolve their responsibilities to their Sockholders, then I just have
to sucker some first-class person in
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 3:49 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (/me wonders why the other Agorans playing B weren't also enterprising
> enough to do anything interesting with the fruits of my scam.)
I bought up all of the available assets before they noticed your scam.
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 7:02 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gratuitous argument on the second CFJ: See the most recent self-ratified
> IADoP's report. (The report of 26 Aug 2008 listed pikhq as Speaker, who
> self-evidently is not Michael Norrish.)
The IADoP's report doesn't se
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 8:24 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 7:15 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I don't think I made any commentary to agora-business (check
>> agora-discussion archives for my brief old considerings). But
>> basically, the record in 21
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 8:06 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> See CFJ 2077.
Ceasing to be a player doesn't cause you to stop being a party to any
contract that's not restricted to players, and for those contracts
your announcement would be insufficient to become a party again
because you said
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We've had quite an activity spurt recently. And B had one a few
> weeks back.
...when I woke people up by proposing B become a Protectorate. It's
gone back to being dead again.
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 11:05 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 6:57 PM, The PerlNomic Partnership
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Proposal pool: empty
> Claim of error: The proposal pool is not empty. I submitted another
> proposal along with "Undemocracy".
Actually,
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 10:34 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ihope wasn't on IRC when it occured to me to remind him, and I'm not
> about to go around lying saying I reminded him when I didn't, although
> certainly any CFJ would be judged SLIPPERY..
You can't be criminally punished for viol
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 1:06 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 08:04 -0400, comex wrote:
>> I initiate a criminal case against pikhq, for breaching Rule 104 by
>> not being Michael Norrish.
> With 2 support, I intend to initiate a criminal case against pikhq for
> breach
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 3:38 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Power 1.5, actually, but I grant that.
At Power 1, you can amend R1922 to authorize yourself to grant MwoP to
whomever you want. R1922 should have at least the same power as R649.
Of course, regardless of the power of R1922
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 3:47 PM, Jeff Weston (Sir Toby)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have some concerns about the proto-contract as it stands now. This may
> cause a large amount of traffic on the public forums due to the number
> of actions Player Characters can take.
The obvious solution is to
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 4:14 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sure, it just prevents that thing from being done by a non-instrument.
And it should be noted that securing at power 0 in effect secures at
power 1, since you can't have a proposal with an AI < 1.0.
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 4:17 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Another point: if a document defines an asset as a currency, does that
> explicitly permit free exchanges of it?
No. Transferability is subject to modification by the backing
document, the same as for any asset. In the RPG exam
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 4:21 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's still possible to have instruments with power less than 1, though
> I've never seen it happen in practice.
Unless I'm missing a loophole, such an instrument would have to be a
rule, and it would need a passed AI <= 1 prop
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 8:35 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> distributing the proposal, and Rule 106 refers to a proposal having an
> author; a message claiming to submit a proposal without providing this
> information is probably too vague to count as a game act
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 3:02 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also, I'm willing to retract this CFJ if it looks like it'll create too
> much work, as long as someone explains to me the gist of what exactly is
> going on here.
The gist of what's going on here is that you made a judgment that
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 3:14 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (Incidentally, I think we now have people arguing for FALSE/FALSE,
> TRUE/TRUE, UNDECIDABLE/UNDECIDABLE, and FALSE/TRUE...)
In that case I feel obligated to try to come up with a convincing
argument for TRUE/FALSE.
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 3:16 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The "great simplification" purposefully dropped this but didn't replace
> it with anything, on the grounds that doing such would make it part of
> "game custom and precedence" as long as the rules remained silent.
Suber's ju
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 11:34 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I terminate this pledge, as it is obsolete. (It does not impose any
>> future obligations on Sgeo that aren't imposed by the Vote Market
>> anyway.)
> By the way, does that work, or are the precedences still screwed up
> around
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 6:34 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I still have a strong feeling that Agora needs some sort of safety valve
> to escape from situations where the normal proposal system doesn't work,
> maybe after seeing it happen to B Nomic at least twice in the last year.
B does
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 4:52 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> require a detailed knowledge of how it works.) As non-Agorans are not
> even necessarily subscribed to a public forum, it seems quite possible
> that a non-Agoran could join an Agoran contract yet be unaware of the
> equity system
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 12:59 PM, Ben Caplan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The problem is this: does "by unanimous consent of its parties"
> mean "by any party with the consent of all parties" or "by any person
> with the consent of all parties"?
I had the same thought and I'd argue for a judgment
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Jeff Weston (Sir Toby)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I CFJ on the following statement: The message sent by "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
> on "Tue, 16 Sep 2008 20:16:23 +" (see evidence 1) was successful in
> initiating a CFJ.
>
> I argue for a FALSE judgement in this case
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 3:25 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Claim of Error: Sir Toby may be the initiator of this CFJ and so this
> assignment of Sir Toby as judge may have been INEFFECTIVE.
Would Sir Toby deputising for the CotC to deny the claim of error fix things?
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 4:27 PM, Ben Caplan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 20 September 2008 07:24:47 pm Ben Caplan wrote:
>> I (do not, yet) agree to the following, become a cartographer, and
>> become Cartographer-General :
>
> Comments? Anyone?
I'm a bit skeptical, if only because whe
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 6:48 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Fails. The Promotor is only required to distribute proposals that
> have been in the pool since the beginning of the week.
The Monster doesn't have to wait for an officer to miss a deadline.
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 5:47 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 4:33 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> *Ivan Hope 577 Chits
>> *woggle451 Chits
>> *Quazie675 Chits
>
> I cause Iv
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 4:30 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> {{
> The owner of a Land MAY change its name by announcement.
> }}
Would you be ok with allowing farmers to specify the name for a land
that will be created when making the announcement that would cause the
land to be create
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 3:26 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One thing that I've noticed (mostly due to advising the PNP on which way
> to vote) is that recently, we seem to be getting mostly Democratic
> proposals, thus making all our nice complicated Caste stuff pretty
> irrelevant. Is it
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 3:26 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> root's judgement generally (though not specifically) goes against
> CFJ 1879 for computers in general.
I believe R2200 was created in direct response to the original
judgment in that case, almost specifically to allow us to
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 3:45 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I hereby request Protectorate status for my computer (strictly speaking
> for its software) which is named selim. I have full access to this computer;
> so as long as I am an Agoran player, it's "gamestate" is arranged so th
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 4:26 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How is this different than the fact that, for a "traditional" nomic, the
> Ambassador would probably post a message in that Nomic's forum, which the
> rulekeepor or other recordkeepor of that nomic would be required to make?
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 6:24 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think this highlights problems with the Protectorate rules. They
> depend on the Protectorate nomic having things like "fora" and a way
> to "proclaim" things to the nomic, which are properties defined by
> the other nomic
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 7:27 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's angels-on-pins dancing. Is Agora a nomic or is Agora+Players a
> nomic?
By Rule 2200, Agora itself is a nomic. Were its rules arranged such
that a Protective Decree platonically changed the rules, it could be a
prot
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 1:22 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, I'm coming to think, it actually *does* ratify the existence of a
> separate (fake) person.
By what of the "no avatars" clause of R2170? Do we just ignore an
unambiguous part because an ambiguous bit of the same rule ma
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think it should be automatic, I think it's up to players whether
> to carry blots and live under a cloud or to pay to become immaculate.
> But that's a detail. Care to do a proto of some kind? -G.
Call them Rests a
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 5:13 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can testify that ais523 has access to [EMAIL PROTECTED] currently,
> though comex and I both have the power to send email from that address
> as well, and three of asiekierka, Norgg, Pavitra and Sgeo could
> conspire to do so.
A
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 12:58 AM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I believe precedent is that if a disclaimer implies that something may
> not actually be true, it's not an announcement.
If so, we need to calculate a whole lot of gamestate. "I vote 5* FOR.
Disclaimer: this might not work, I'm
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 1:39 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There's nothing that says privileges can't grant ability in general.
CFJ 1966 says it, and it hasn't been overturned legislatively or by
another precedent yet.
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 9:05 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yer just in it for the deputization...
No, I'm just opposed to officers blatantly abusing their powers.
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 11:16 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [lots of deep reasoning]
My assumption was "it will take about 2 minutes to write a perl script
to brute force this."
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 11:29 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hmm... interesting. But given that I have to award myself "as many
> points as possible" later on, would that give me infinite points?
Well, it's not possible to award more points than the limit, so you
wouldn't be required to a
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 7:56 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Argument: Rule 1551 is an instrument, and a therefore rule 105 allows it
> to make rules changes where permitted by rules other than rule 105, and
> rule 1551 permits itself to make changes. (Note that there is no
> 'explicitly' i
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 8:59 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also, where da mad scientist elections be at?
The nomination period hasn't ended yet.
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 10:58 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> we wouldn't say that he had
> gained the privilege of driving his car; nor would we in the more
> bizarre situation that he became allowed to do it but remained unable
> to.
What if the teenager got eir driver's license by could
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 12:20 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Again, there's a difference between being being unable to do something
> for reasons unrelated to the law (cannot find keys; no access to email
> so can't mail agora-business) and because of it (it's a super-duper
> remote-control
401 - 500 of 1430 matches
Mail list logo
