On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 12:51 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What about the voting example? An ineligible voter platonically
> CANNOT vote, and real-life voting works the same way so far as I know.
I doubt it; at least in jurisdictions with secret ballots there's
absolutely no way to
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 2:55 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-09-30 at 14:53 -0400, comex wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 1:12 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > I challenge this message's claim that it was not publish
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 7:26 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> regulated by the Rules, with the sole exception of
> changing the Rules, which is permitted only when the
> Rules explicitly or implicitly permit it.
Is it likely that changing the rules will cease to
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 1:29 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The ambiguity is in whether the SELL(5VP) or the x5 is expanded first. You
> seem to think the x5 is expanded first, but I still can't see any evidence
> for this view.
VOTE x 5 is, by game custom, shorthand for I perf
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'm sorry, but _actions only happen when a majority of the list sees it_.
>>
>> See: comex's ratification scam from a while back.
>>
>> You're too late.
>
> Hold on here. Now we get to the point where a legitimate communicat
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 4:16 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The text of the contract that defined the options was not published during
> the voting period, and rule 2172 does not make an allowance for text
> published /before/ the voting period.
BobTHJ published the text of the
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Any player (a deputy) CAN perform an action as if e held a
Uh, you removed "Monster"; this would just allow *anyone* to deputise
without announcing intent.
On Tue, Jun 29, 1993 at 8:04 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Happy birthday, Agora!
There were no Ribbons in 1993, and in any case the relevant Tailor's
report saying you've got no magenta ribbon has self-ratified, so even
if you gain one in the past you lost it at the time of ratification
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My point is not that it's true now and needs a fix (though a clarification
> is always useful) my point is that it's ridiculous to interpret the *current*
> rule as excluding readily-available information (as long as it's *re
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 1:08 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> comex wrote:
>>I wish ehird had tried that. E would have sent the message before eir birth.
>
> Woo, we have a player younger than the game? Now Agora's really grown up.
"When I was your age, we didn't have fancy online nomics.
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Where are you finding this? The vote I find is:
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> "SELL(5VP) x5"
>
> There's certainly no Against. Without the AGAINST (versus for example a
> 5xAGAINST) missing it's unclear to me whether t
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:55 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (Note, however, that it is not certain that the Assessor
> understood it correctly; Murphy recently admitted to treating unfilled
> tickets as no-vote rather than PRESENT.)
I don't believe there's any reason from a reading of the
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 2:05 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Did I miss an amendement?
>
> This version:
> http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2008-September/013955.html
>
> has Section 11 votes so that a Sell Ticket is a ticket to vote up to one's
> voting
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 2:35 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> where the line was drawn. Does anyone know why rule 2127 was created in
> the first place? I'm wondering if the bar was intentionally set high to
> discourage that sort of scam.
The archives show that Goethe originally proposed it
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 2:58 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've entered this into the CotC DB using the timestamp from the
> "Received: from yzma.clarkk.net ... by yzma.clarkk.net ..."
> header. If another timestamp would be more appropriate, then I'd
> appreciate an explanation from t
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 12:23 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> so the question on sentencing became inapplicable when the previous
> GUILTY judgement was set aside, but became applicable again when the
> new GUILTY judgement was delivered; and the judgement of the question
> on sentencing
On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 12:26 AM, Ben Caplan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> SELL(5VP - AGAINST). I'm not sure I want actions invalidated because I
> forgot to sign my name, but I'm willing to be convinced for the right
> price.
I believe the wording would make it so a correct From: header that
unambi
On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 1:31 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> and by replacing:
> a) Flip a player's caste to Alpha
> with:
> a) Flip a player's caste to Alpha; when a player's caste is
> flipped to Alpha, e becomes the Grand Poobah
Infinite loop.
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 10:35 AM, ehird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Infinite loop.
>
> Er, no?
Wouldn't the new Poobah be required to start flipping castes, starting
with making someone else an Alpha and thus demoting emself?
In any case, this proposal has insufficient AI to amend R2211 so it's
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 12:56 PM, ehird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Which is exactly what me and comex are doing.
s/are doing/are trying to do/
I believe OscarMeyr made eir policies quite clear before the last
election, as did Ivan Hope.
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How did we come to have a 27 VP surplus?
pikhq destroyed 23 VP when e left the contract very early on.
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 2:36 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Then how did we come to have a 50 VP surplus?
It's not really a surplus; the contract was amended to only make
first-class parties get 50 VP for joining after Fookiemyartung was
already a party.
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 10:30 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hmm, why are these proposals out of order?
My guess is it's caused by perl's glob() using ASCII sorting by
default, but there's no guarantee that proposals will get added to the
pool in the order they're submitted anyway.
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 11:39 AM, ehird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Would you prefer a game where there were no interesting scams at all?
I'd prefer a game in which I didn't have to sit in a fucking IRC
channel all day long.
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I intend, without objection, to make the channel #really-a-cow on the
> IRC server irc.freenode.net:6667 cease to be an Agoran public forum.
You can't. You're not the Registrar.
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I withdraw my support. Cite R478 instead, and I'll reinstate it.
I withdraw my intent to initiate a criminal CFJ.
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 7:26 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Could also be applied to proposals, but proposals are homogeneous
> so there is no practical need. Cannot be applied to rules, where
> order affects precedence.]
PerlNomic is also set up to only assign ID numbers when the pro
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 2:39 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hmm... I'm curious why the vote was unanimous for root, as Murphy has
> a very nice website that shows everyone's Notes and note combinations
> and e doesn't seem to have been shirking eir job.
Murphy was soliciting people to take
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 5:02 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"'register' is a noun
> too, you know"):
Not in the places you replaced it, it isn't.
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 5:09 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Where the verb "to register" or "to deregister" is used
> without an explicit direct Monster, the action is implicitly
> reflexive.
Note to voters: please read this proposal instead of just voting FOR
like with the
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 8:48 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Would you care to elaborate on that? I get TRUE when applying the logic
> of CFJ 2203.
In CFJ 2203 I ruled that root cast 3 separate conditional votes. In
this case, BobTHJ also cast 5 separate votes, one of which had its
conditi
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 8:51 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's an action it "may" take, lowercase "may". Lowercase "may" is also
> used in the rule that allows the Mad Scientist to act on behalf of the
> Monster, so it's a match.
"may" should be taken to mean "permitted", not "able to",
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 9:09 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, in other words, the Monster may change the rules, and so I CAN
> change the rules, but I may not change the rules so R101(i) says I can't
> change the rules after all? I'm not entirely certain I follow that
> logic, or that it
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 9:21 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ah, so you think "may"="CAN" in one rule and "may"="MAY" in the other? I
> think that interpretation leads to many even worse scams; it would, for
> instance, allow me to get the Monster to do anything I liked that was
> legal, whe
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 10:34 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
>>I submit a proposal, with the title "Export",
>
> Is this the first (attempted) transfer of rule text between email nomics?
> Seems like a momentous occasion.
I think it would only be fair to trade 2 of our rules
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 10:53 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I think it would only be fair to trade 2 of our rules for 2 of their
>> rules. Or 1 rule and a pick in next year's Rule Draft.
>
> Just as long as we don't end up with the Beast.
Except for its ability to Devour random rules, th
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 3:24 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe we should have some way to get rid of inactive Watchers?
Your text editor doesn't have a delete key?
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 3:40 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is that a Refresh Proposal?
If I submit an RP it will be clearly labeled as such.
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 3:49 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 15:46 -0400, comex wrote:
>> Issue 1 - "clear indication"
> Dependent actions don't require a "clear indication" nowadays, but need
> to be "previously unambiguously described". Quite possibly this makes a
> d
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 1:08 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why is it 3 * floor(power) rather than floor(3 * power) to begin with?
> My recommendation for an equitable resolution is to amend the
> contract to match the practice.
I'm not sure that's an equitable resolution under the cu
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 2:36 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I submit the following proposal titled "Secure points":
>
> Upmutate Rule 2136 to power 2.
> Upmutate Rule 2179 to power 2, and amend it by appending to the first
> paragraph the text:
>
> Changes to point holdings are secu
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 9:58 AM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wasn't there a proposal to fix this a while ago? What happened to it?
P5612. It failed with a VI of 0.4, possibly because it redefined
INNOCENT instead of just fixing the "allegedly" bit of OVERLOOKED.
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 3:06 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 5786 O 1 1.0 Murphy Privatize the Welcoming Committee
> FORx3, but does this fail due to R101? (You're effectively forcing the
> Welcoming Committee's existing parties to agree to a radical amendment
> of the contrac
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 9:57 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 09:26 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 1:09 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > LIST OF ASSETS (organized by backing document / recordkeep
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 8:06 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kyle is hereby defined as a non-registered entity on whose behalf I
> can act by announcement. Kyle degregisters.
You're the only such entity. This probably succeeds in establishing
"Kyle" as a nickname for yourself and binding y
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 4:58 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I nominate The Law-abiding Partnership, Quazie, and ihope for Assessor.
Quazie and ihope aren't active players; both of their noms fail.
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 11:01 AM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wasn't there a CFJ about this?
CFJ 2177 held that "Mr. Elbow" was not a nickname for Ivan Hope
because it was defined as a player on whose behalf e could act by
announcement, and there were 2 such players, causing ambiguity. In
t
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was referring to the contract stuff, actually. I remember discussion
> here about some CFJ regarding contracts that claim that doing
> something means you agree to the contract..
I doubt that applies when the doing something is
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 11:38 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If this is about Ivan Hope publishing a Cantus Cygneus (albeit quoting
> BobTHJ's rather than writing eir own), then e doesn't get deregistered
> until the CotC carries out eir part of the procedure (which I have not,
> and do
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 3:03 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Unofficially:
>
> CHITS (* = Banker)
I assume this doesn't include Murphy's most recently deposit since e's
shown with fewer chits than e would have gained from that one
transaction. Other than that, how up to date is this?
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 10:51 AM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It would be cool if voting limits were based directly on Ribbons or something.
Considering you can't presently lose ribbons, this would remove any
incentive to keep contributing once you've already earned a bunch of
ribbons.
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I submit the following proto-contest as "Smallest Nomic":
>
> 1. All rules are amendable, but some are more amendable than others.
1. Anyone can add a rule unless someone else objects.
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 4:46 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Arguments: No rule said I didn't have a full
> set of ribbons, so it was up to me to decide that I did.
Rule 2199 says ownership of ribbons is limited to players. You're not
a player, ergo you cannot own ribbons.
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 11:28 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For the
> record, Quazie and comex were the werewolves, and root was the seer.
For the record, you guys lynched me for nominating comex.
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 4:17 AM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (However, Normish seems to be spam-blacklisted for
> some unknown reason; therefore, I can't send from it in such a way that
> other people will receive. This has been known to cause the mailing
> lists to stop sending to it b
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 8:59 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With the support of The People I intend to amend the PBA like so:
I object.
I'd prefer to leave the lost & found department out of it, and have
coins created in the possession of the PBA when anyone destroys them
without m
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 8:12 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I intent to amend the PBA by adding: {After this section takes effect, the
> RBoA ceases
> to be a member of this contract, then this section is repealed.}
I object. The RBoA should be free to put itself in a position to l
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When I go to that website, I see a series
> of scripts. It would be quite possible for me to click on one of those
> scripts and unknowingly take an action. It is quite possible that it
> is IMPOSSIBLE to join perlnomic as
On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 3:26 PM, The PerlNomic Partnership
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 5801 O 1 1.5 Murphy Left in a Huff
The distribution of this proposal may have failed; Murphy retracted it
before it was distributed. I'm not sure what the consensus currently
is on proposals creat
I proto the following AI=2 proposal, entitled "Indictment Reform".
In Rule 1504, "Criminal Cases":
remove ", with 2 Support," from the first paragraph.
at the end of the list of valid judgements for the question on
culpability, add:
* FRIVOLOUS, appropriate if the initi
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 1:18 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What the
> hey, I also nominate B Nomic for Conductor.
Fails. At least, I *hope* I didn't miss B Nomic becoming a player.
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nope, it hasn't registered yet. Also, it isn't a public contract yet
> because the B Nomic rules haven't been posted to the Agoran PF, and also
> I'm not sure if the proposal to add the Agoran public contract
> partnership boi
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 12:44 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 7:28 AM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> in this case "One True Agora" had never referred to anything.
>
> That seems rather unlikely.
One True Agora clearly refers to the Nomic Ruleset consis
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Though it does raise something: it it even possible for a contract
> under equity to impose CANNOTs (as opposed to SHALL NOTs) on rules-
> controlled actions enabled by a CAN? Any opinions?
I'd say no, that contracts can't
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 9:47 PM, Pavitra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> which I think is what this is trying to get at, the concept of logical
> tautology.
A statement that could possibly be false is not a tautology.
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 10:17 PM, Pavitra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Er, right.
> What's the word for the truth-value of "this statement is true"? I
> can't find it on Wikipedia.
>
> Indeterminate?
>
> Floyd?
I don't know that there is a generally-accepted term; I don't think
'circular' is often
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> for a pledge, all first-class persons should be witnesses by default.
>
> Seems like a good idea. Witnesses should also be barred from judging
> related equity cases.
The two of those together would bar everyone from judgin
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 7:08 AM, Joshua Boehme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the Ruleset has multiple authors.
> Would there be a distinction between the legal rights of someone who has
> contributed versus a player who hasn't? What if a player contribute
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 2:43 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wooble wrote:
>
>> (partial report at http://www.nomictools.com/agora/tailor)
>
> You should link to this from http://www.nomictools.com/
Umm, it's the only link in the sidebar.
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 5807 O 1 1.0 comex Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction
>> Equity Act of 2008
> FOR x 5. Down with the PBA!
An AI 1 proposal can't amend a contract anyway.
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 3:18 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> == CFJ 2238 ==
>
>When a person performs an action that takes parameters, e must
>unambiguously specify the parameters.
I proto-judge TRUE. When taking an acti
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 9:14 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 27 Oct 2008, at 13:10, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>
>> For practical reasons, such announcements SHOULD be avoided to
>> prevent cascading of
>> unknown-at-the-moment-but-platonically-unambiguo
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:30 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Proto: Agora becomes a codenomic.
Proto: PNP becomes the Accountor, someone besides me writes the code
to make that work, and all contracts are amended to remove the
recordkeepors of the assets they define.
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:13 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Which is an excellent reason to uphold the "specific" precedent and
> make such crazy transactions much more difficult.
Personally I think CFJ 1307 was wrongly decided. It hinges on the M-W
dictionary using only "explicitly" in t
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This compound method isn't one of the methods listed in R1728(a). The
> paragraph does say "at least one of the following methods", but I
> think that just means that the rules can define multiple methods for
> performing the
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 7:52 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 13:01 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>>> For CotC, the valid options are ehird and Murphy.
>> I vote SELL(3VP - ehird).
>
> H. IADoP Wooble, can
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 10:57 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd like to take this oppertunity to point out that as far as I know comex
> nominated
> Bayes without having actually written the code to do it. As such, I am
> leaving this one
> to him. :-P
And I'd like to point out tha
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 2:34 PM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ALTERNATIVE EMAILS
> ais523[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ehird [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] is me; I use this address for anything
crossposted to the B lists because my main email address isn't
subscribed
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 2:38 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 31 Oct 2008, at 18:20, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>
>> I intend, with the support of the People, to amend the PBA contract by
>> replacing "ehird" with "BobTHJ" in paragraph 12.
On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 12:15 AM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nobody makes private pledges anyway.
I've made private pledges and the Notary can confirm this.
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I submit the following Rule, "Generalize R101(iv)", AI-3:
Should the PNP take this as an unambiguous attempt to submit a proposal?
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 12:43 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I see my AddUser proposal at PerlNomic was rejected. Any chance that
> could be reversed? I'm interested in joining for legitimate reasons.
You've stated publicly that you don't know perl and your request was
made shortly af
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 4:35 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Why? The judgement doesn't contradict CFJ 1307. If you want to
>> reverse the CFJ 1307 precedent, call a new case.
>
> The arguments explicitly do. Judge Wo
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 11:48 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I retract all my votes on Proposals 5842-5941, and I vote FOR each of them.
Do you really think an equity judgment in the Artistry contract would
be worse than rewarding that spamathon? comex has blatantly ignored
eir obligati
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 10:26 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I think we should just ignore these losers.
>
> We're the ones who approached them diplomatically in the first place.
The Ambassador had nothing to do with the approach. We should ignore
Murphy too :P
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Or alternatively nominate Murphy for Ambassador...
But this would only make it more likely that in the future we'd
attempt to establish diplomatic relations with "nations" founded by
5-year-olds.
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 3:53 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why are we taking this stupid invention of a bunch of 5 year olds seriously?
to be fair, their founder is no longer 5.
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 5:11 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> True. Although they still invest in this thing.
>
> They have a Wikipedia article and have been mentioned in real-world
> newspapers.
Let's establish dip
On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 4:16 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For contracts, we govern by the spirit and not the direct language,
Proto: repeal contract law, because that's just stupid.
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
> 0 ##
> 1 #-#
> 2 #--#
> 3 #---#
> 4 ##
> 5 #-#
> 6 #--#
> 7 #---#
> 8##
> 9 #-#
> 10
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 9:58 AM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Argument: Other amendment processes don't necessarily 'violate' it in
> the sense of making it not counting as having agreed to the amendment
> either; for instance, without-objection, or without member objection, or
> any met
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I already tried to pass 2234-35 to root so that they can be judged
> together with 2172.
Well I believe it's too early for me to intend to recuse em from 2172.
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 12:36 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ps. thank you for an illustration that it's useful to have equity to
> prevent contracts from being ruined by crap.
The contract can easily specify that a vote consists of listing a
single party's name with no conditionals
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There's also avpx and Quazie. The throwaway vote possibilities are endless!
>
> P.S. You should all cross-post to the B/Agora lists to make this simpler.
yeah but if I vote for someone different there's less chance we'll
a
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 1:47 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> without circularity or paradox, from information reasonably
> available to all townspersons.
"each townsperson"?
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 2:22 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there a substantive difference, or is this just a style issue?
"All townspersons" could possibly mean all of them collectively, I
think. Or maybe not.
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I guess Agora doesn't exactly have an abundance of things to buy, does
> it. Maybe I'll steal B Nomic's RPG stuff and turn it into a contest.
In theory you can buy a caste increase with note credits or even a win
with enough cr
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 16 Nov 2008, at 15:52, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
>
>> I don't see the farm on there. Do I have to get an account and log in?
>
>
> Apparently it's unlinked. http://www.nomictools.com/agora/aaa
>
That page is out of date
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 16 Nov 2008, at 15:39, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
>
>> I nominate comex and ehird for Notary.
>
>
> Absolutely happy to take it. Nothing can be as hard as Coinkeepor.
I'm interpreting R2154 as requiring acceptance of a nom
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 8:30 PM, Joshua Boehme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What, no campaign speeches anymore?
Ok: inductive reasoning tells us that Warrigal will almost certainly
accidentally deregister within the next 2 weeks, necessitating another
election (requiring a waiting period for deput
501 - 600 of 1430 matches
Mail list logo
