On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 11:37 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>ehird, comex, Quazie, and myself have failed to meet their
>obligations per section 10 of the Vote Market agreement.
Gratuitous argument: it would be equitable to require the
above-mentioned parties to purchase vote po
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 4:32 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 18 Nov 2008, at 21:27, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>
>> Gratuitous argument: it would be equitable to require the
>> above-mentioned parties to purchase vote points from the other parties
>
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 10:44 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's not easy to determine what's a good or bad rate unless you have
> something impartial monitoring their value somehow (PBA).
PBA's rate change algorithm isn't impartial, it's just an arbitrary
way of adjusting. It see
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 11:21 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Murphy, if you reject this as ambiguous I will eat your soul because my
> intent
> is clear.
I'm so disappointed that I won't get to vote for you as CotC later
today. Demanding that a CFJ with no statement is accepted is
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 12:50 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I nominate Murphy as CotC so he can have a few days while I write
> a superior interface and demonstrate my amazing speed of assignment.
Fails, e is already a consenting nominee in the current nomination period.
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 9:54 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I spent Db Db D to gain a C note.
>
> Fails. Surely you meant to write "Eb Db D".
(9) A player CAN s
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 11:31 AM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I intend to appeal this with 2 support. Increasing a player's voting
> limit on a decision causes it to be higher than it otherwise would have
> been. Eir voting limit was 1, increased by 50 (or however many it was, I
> can't
I proto-propose the following AI=2 proposal, "Party Politics":
{
Create a new Power 2 rule entitled "Cliques" with the following text:
Clique leader is a public contract switch, tracked by the
Notary, with a default value of 'none', and a set of possible
values which consists of
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 1:53 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> *5967 O1 1.0 Murphy Fix
Looks like a quote-handling bug in your script.
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 2:30 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 1:56 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> ais523, ehird, Pavitra, Wooble, and comex are all voting to lynch
>> avpx. That's 5 out of 5, so avpx dies. (E was one of the two
>> werewolves.)
>
> Ugh, I
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I support. The judge doesn't even address the issue of whether or not
> the increases are affected by chokey.
If they work, they're clearly not. Only the rule defining caste-based
voting limit even mentions the chokey.
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 8:32 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rule 104 (power 1):
>
> "The Speaker for the first game shall be Michael Norrish."
e doesn't get a say?
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 12:42 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 07:33, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Coalition is a clique switch, tracked by the Notary, with a set
>> of possible values which consists of
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I deregister Teh Clthohed Mna.
>
> It already deregistered in June, no?
err, yes, apparently. For some reason I've still been tracking its 0 ribbons.
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 12:38 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Canids 1 through 100 register. Context: Canids 1 through 100 are
> canids I saw once. They all asked me to act on their behalf to
> register. Therefore, I can.
I intend, with 2 support, to initiate a criminal CFJ, alleging
War
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 2:58 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Would you cut it out with trying to EXILE Warrigal all the time for
> obvious sarcasm/jokes?
As soon as e stops sending obvious sarcasm to the PF as purported Game Actions.
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 7:34 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So that I can see the value of coins relative to USD Vouchers, whose
> value is closely related to that of USD.
0
There, now you've seen it.
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 9:33 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I CFJ on the statement 'As Rule 1023 defines the terms, a unit of text
> consisting entirely of the string "1993:" is enumerated.' and the
> statement 'As Rule 1023 defines the terms, a unit of text consisting
> entirely of the
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 5:12 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MINISTERS WITHOUT PORTFOLIO
> Levi 21-Oct-07 // Not a player
> pikhq31-Dec-07 <- Speaker
> BobTHJ2-Mar-08
pikhq isn't Speaker;
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 10:13 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Simplified version. I agree to the following:
I'd like to state for the record (and the eventual grand jury) that I
have no specific knowledge of the scam ehird is planning, or why e
wanted to know what email address is ass
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 10:29 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So are we trying to establish that Agoran Contracts can not refer to
> entities external to Agora without fear of having their references to
> those entities usurped by other contracts?
It's already established that such us
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 2:51 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As it is, I can *maybe* refer to a certain unit of text in my proposed
> initial Book of History as something like "paragraph 1993:I[4]". If
> these CFJs come up FALSE, I suppose I could amend the Book so that the
> paragraphs a
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 8:23 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> He has said (##nomic) that it was a private pledge that was then destroyed.
Note that I could've been lying.
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 8:45 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I CFJ on the statement: The Vote Market is a contract.
>
> Arguments: That quote. :P
CFJ 1872 established that it is a contract, and it has the required
number of parties now anyway. When the contract was formed, private
pa
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I must live in an alternate universe where some players "play the game"
> by not even paying attention to cases going on around them. Oh, wait...
> damn.
Whereas the rest of us live in an alternate universe where players
bl
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 7:22 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 12:28 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I increase root's Debt by 578 by transferring 578 coins to em.
>>
>> In light of ais523's truly scary interest rate, without 3 objections,
>> I intend to r
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 7:12 AM, Joshua Boehme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since I wasn't in on the discussion, could someone provide the context,
> please?
That was all of the context, and I was incorrect. The contestmaster
switch is tracked by the Notary, but the list of contestmasters is
par
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, but you can't use a Windows binary. And revealing source would damage
> the contest, if I understand it.
Presumably everyone using a scripting language would reveal the source
to the contestmaster anyway.
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 6:40 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Uh, do the second and third paragraphs of R1607 actually sufficiently
> imply that the Promoter CAN in fact distribute a proposal? -G.
I think so; this seems like the same thing as "X SHALL Y by
announcement", except the
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 10:03 PM, Pavitra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What's going on with this? Are we stalled again?
Yes. 2 of you are foolishly voting with the werewolf to lynch me
instead of ehird, who was granted power of attorney by the one known
werewolf, which is stalling things.
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 10:44 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I nominate ais523 as Notary.
Ineffective; the nomination period for Notary has ended.
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 11:23 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 9:10 AM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> As it is now, the Protection
>> Racket has three first-class parties (BobTHJ, Taral and ehird) and
>> about twenty first-class non-parties. I think they're ou
On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 10:04 AM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Another interesting data point: I was playing Cheat with a single deck
> of cards with some friends. Someone called "two fives", and put down
> two cards. So I called "three fives", and put down the other two fives,
> in
On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 3:48 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> {
> Ratify the Notary's latest report. Public contracts not in the
> Notary's latest report cease to exist.
> }
Won't work. The Notary's latest report was, I think, correct at the
time it was published, so ratifying it wouldn't af
On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 3:52 PM, Pavitra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You can only invest 2 points per week, I think.
The recent changes (not Notary-recordkept) say you can invest up to
the amount the contract CAN revoke, and limits its own revoking power
to 5 points. I don't believe it's further
On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 2:15 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Coin Holdings
CoE: I tink the website from which this was copy/pasted wasn't up to
date as of the time this was copied, so much of this may have been
wrong. Letting it ratify would be a Bad Thing.
On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 5:10 PM, Pavitra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Even if it's not required, I consider it a SHOULD; at the least, it's
> courteous to recordkeepors to minimize the implicitness of relevant
> information.
For the record, since implicit consent was removed, I've been ignoring
me
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 4:03 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Someone remind me again why we have point award limits and fixed
> points if the PRS is around?
Because BobTHJ wanted to expend the much greater effort involved in
scamming the PRS into existence rather than just proposing changing
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 7:24 AM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Filing fee" to discourage pointless trademarking
I'm not sure I see a point to any trademarking at all. In the real
world, exclusivity rights to trademarks exist to prevent businesses
from confusing consumers by marketing good
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 10:02 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "I deprive some people of a chance under a system. I then claim this is
> an example of why you should vote for another system."
Players at the end of the List realistically have no chance whatsoever
of the Poobah ever prom
On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 4:16 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I fill my own sell ticket on 5997, specifying FOR.
> I fill my own sell ticket on 5998, specifying FOR.
Does this even work? A vote of SELL is, by contract, a vote
conditionally endorsing the filler of the ticket, not a vote
condi
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 10:45 AM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 18:41 -0500, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
>> Demoted to Delta: Bayes (twice!) (2nd class, weakest exemption, forced)
> CoE: According to rule 2211, you SHALL NOT demote the same person twice;
> the 4th par
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I transfer one prop from Bayes to ais523: Why should Bayes get a prop
> when it's ais523 correcting OscarMeyr, who doesn't know the rules?
HE DOES KNOW THE RULES.
I'd transfer a prop from Sgeo to OscarMeyr, but I already transferr
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 8:19 AM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> player wasn't inactive, until there the number of persons bearing this
I think you meant to remove the "there" there; as written it doesn't make sense.
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 9:10 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's my ugly (un-)wrapping script if you want it:
> http://agora.qoid.us/aword.py
Can you repackage that as a greasemonkey script that will do the
formatting within Gmail?
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 8:20 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I vote 3 x FOR Prop. 6007 ("Thanks Murphy"). I withdraw / decline my
> self-nomination for Notary.
I'm counting this as declining my nomination of you, since your
self-nomination was ineffective due to being published d
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 9:09 PM, Jamie Dallaire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Any idea what the consequence of Obama being declared not unnaturally born
> would be?
Considering McCain was born in Panama at a time when the law
specifically made children of Americans born in other places "natural
born
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 1:41 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, but not from Champion. If I'm reading the rules correctly, e got
> a ribbon for Minister without Portfolio, which e got at the same time
> as Champion.
right, I'll correct the annotation, although the method of receiving
ribbon
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 7:58 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In the future, I may CFJ on the statements "It is a being.", "It is a
> referent.", "It is a concept.", and "It is an object."
In the future, I look forward to appealing any judgment on these that
isn't IRRELEVANT or UNDETERMINE
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 5:04 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Allowed"? So the admin can ignore changes he doesn't like? I see.
There's no true gamestate, so why should the recordkeepors even care
what the rules say? As long as the community agrees to go along with
what their reports
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 10:51 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 9 Dec 2008, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> The nomic-ness of the first couple sentences of this paragraph struck me:
>
> On another subject, back when you were discussing what would happen
> if Obama lost the citizenship iss
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 7:02 AM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> the PNP? (It was: "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."
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 7:29 AM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If you're not a member of the Partnership, the PNP CANNOT act by your
>> actions using the mechanisms of the game and thus did not publish that
>> message.
>
> How do you conclude that?
You quoted it yourself:
"The PerlNomic P
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 11:46 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I zoop a criminal case against the PerlNomic Partnership for violating
> Rule 2215 by announcing that I am a party to it in the quoted message.
I intend, with 2 support, to initiate a criminal CFJ against Warrigal
for violating
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 2:23 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 10:17 AM, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 10 Dec 2008, at 17:31, Roger Hicks wrote:
>>
>>> I (if possible) pre-emptively support any judgment of REMAND or REASSIGN.
>>
>> nttpf
>
> dhtbttpf
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 2:27 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 2:23 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 10:17 AM, Elliott Hird
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 3:31 PM, Joshua Boehme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's worth something like 5-6 Chits.
4.92795 chits.
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> If there is not a CFJ concerning whether I am a party to the Vote Market, I
> initiate a CFJ on the statement "ehird is a party to the Vote Market".
>
> Arguments: I recently abused the naming rules to define a contract defining
> VP as a curr
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 4:08 PM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> On 11 Dec 2008, at 21:02, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>
>> Gratuitous: the new contract was not the backing document for VP, as
>> they would continue to exist if the new contract didn't exist, thus it
>> couldn&#
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 11:09 PM, Jamie Dallaire
wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 10:58 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>
>> The Lovers have been chosen and informed. The first day phase
>> hereby begins.
>
> So... Any inactives we should get rid of?
avpx and Quazie, definitely. Zefram is inactive but s
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> ehird wrote:
>
>> On 15 Dec 2008, at 23:04, Roger Hicks wrote:
>>
>>> I (serving as language police) transfer a prop from ehird to Murphy
>>> for a great Star Trek reference.
>>
>> I transfer a prop from BobTHJ to myself for using language
>> (sp
I don't publish the following. If elected, I might publish it.
(Non-)Conductor's Lead Sheet
Date of this (non-)report: Mon 22 Dec 2008
Date of last report: Sun 14 Dec 2008
Date of last manual ratification : Tue 22 Jan 2008
Date of report last manually ratified: Fri 18 Jan 2008
(All time
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Charles Schaefer
wrote:
> Teach it to support/object (could be useful for automatically objecting
> if it detects a lack of activity followed by scam-type actions)
> Have it judge cases (I know that would be really hard to program; just an
> idea)
Second-class pl
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 10:45 PM, Warrigal wrote:
>> Any Player can send a public message to Agora with support and without
>> 2 objections in 4 to 14 days.}
If that works to create a power of attorney, Agora's more broken than I thought.
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 9:28 PM, comex wrote:
> Oracu-proposal (AI=1.5): Amend Rule 649 by replacing the first two
> sentences of the third paragraph of Rule 649 with:
> While a Patent Title has been awarded to (and not revoked from)
> an entity, that entity is said to Bear that Patent T
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 7:36 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2309
>
> == CFJ 2309 ==
>
>ehird is a party to the Vote Market
R2166 reads, in part:
An asset is an entity defined as s
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 10:26 AM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
>
> On 23 Dec 2008, at 15:20, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>
>> the compound action
>> of creating pledge-defined VP and then transforming them back to an
>> asset by terminating the pledge CANNOT modify any informa
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 3:56 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Disagree; the time limits for objections and resolution are both
> extended to January 8, making it effectively impossible. This can
> be fixed by re-submitting intent on or after December 25.
R1728 doesn't set time limits for the action of obj
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 4:49 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> holiday, you can do it during the holiday or after. For example, if
> you're assigned a CFJ the day before a holiday, you are given
> permission to judge with a time limit several days past the holiday.
> But you can still judge during the hol
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 7:37 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Didn't we figure this particular one out back in that first CFJ
> on whether this was possible? -G.
CFJs can be decided wrongly. It's not in the best interests of the
game for players to act on behalf of others using a mechanism that
recordk
On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
>
> On 24 Dec 2008, at 00:00, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>> 2. Having received no Objections, I ratify the following report with a
>> scope of the SLR:
>
> CoE: I have an outstanding objection to everything, maybe
You withdrew it, almost certainly.
On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
> H. Ambassador PerlNomic Partnership, please set the recognition switch for
> DiploNomic.
I'm not convinced that DiploNomic is a nomic. A game that doesn't say
its rules CAN be changed is typically assumed to have an unchangeable
ruleset.
On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 2:48 AM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> It is not necessary to specify a chord when sending a public message.
> However, just in case the rules have changed while I wasn't looking:
> c# diminished.
Proto: each public message may include a musical score to which its
text can be sung,
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 4:34 PM, Charles Schaefer
wrote:
> 2008/12/29, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com:
>>
>> Weekly gains (Mon 29 Dec)
>> -
>>
>> weekly duties:
>> Sgeo (Notary)
>
>
> I'm the Notary,
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 6:01 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> It's
> ambiguous whether "deregistration" or "degregistration" was meant, so
> the last paragraph of Rule 2197 prevents it from having any effect
> (contract-related or otherwise).
Gratuitous argument: R101 takes precedence over R2197 (and the
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
>> This will likely become either an Agoran contest,
I object.
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> Confusing. I have things that are like rests but don't always behave
> like rests...? But that still are rests?
No, you have Rests but the rules CANNOT prevent you from spending Notes.
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 7:03 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> I PBA-withdraw as many A Credits as possible.
> I PBA-withdraw as many A# Credits as possible.
> I PBA-withdraw as many B Credits as possible.
> I PBA-withdraw as many C Credits as possible.
> I PBA-withdraw as many C# Credits as possible.
> I PB
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 10:45 PM, The PerlNomic Partnership
wrote:
> The PNP withdraws one 3 crop from the PBA for ^14.
> The PNP withdraws one 7 crop from the PBA for ^14.
> Using a Division Mill, the PNP mills 3 / 7 = 2.
> The PNP deposits one 2 crop into the PBA to gain ^33.
> The PNP withdraws
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Taral wrote:
> I disapprove this motion for being insufficiently specific. I have my
> doubts as to its validity to begin with.
How specific could it be? By the time it's resolved, the PBA's rates
and holdings will almost certainly have changed.
AAA Non-Secretary's non-report
Crop/WRV Holdings
Player 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 X WRV
0x44 0 0 0 6 0 7 1 0 1 0 0 2
AFO 41 35 1 0 3 0 3 41 11 31 5 0
ais52
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> For the record, I don't consider probing programs in legal BF to be
> attacks... even with automated submissions. That's part of the fun.
> I'd frown on XSS or directory hunting etc. though I think the setup
> is pretty ok there.
I'm mostly an
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 8:13 PM, Sgeo wrote:
> I think we need to wait until the CFJs regarding recent win attempts
> are resolved.
ais523 is the Speaker unless eir earliest win attempts failed, and I'm
pretty sure eir MwoP was ratified by now. The only players who have
borne the title longer are
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 9:49 PM, comex wrote:
> I intend to appeal this judgement with two support.
> Arguments: This deserves a REASSIGN under the corruptive self-interest clause.
My scam's success hinges entirely on whether preemptive objections
work, whether Goethe's scam worked is irrelevant t
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> If you're gonna do that, pick _one_ bank...
IIB plz kthx
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> As long as you're copying Oracularities from 4E B, why not also copy the
> way they take effect when the case can no longer be appealed?
Oracularities were originally just Proposals tied to a Question, which
were automatically destroyed if the A
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 3:53 PM, Charles Schaefer
wrote:
> He just can't Dance a Powerful Dance to the business list. It's kind of hard
> to dance to (on) a public forum anyway.
Agora's scope is not limited to its fora.
Anyone who's ever seen me dance will vote FOR this proposal, and
immediately
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
>
> On Dec 22, 2008, at 8:48 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>
>> This message serves to initiate the Agoran Decision to choose the
>> holder of the Conductor office. The eligible voters are the active
>> players, the
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 11:19 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I submit the following proposal, Durn Furriners, Power-2:
I'm going to treat this as an AI-1 proposal with the title "Durn
Furriners, Power-2" :P
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:20 AM, Taral wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> I create the following crops in Taral's possession: X X 8 2 4 X 6 8 X 4 5 6
>> 1 8
>
> O.o I like this contestmaster.
It's entirely possible you just l
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Taral wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 5:51 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> It's entirely possible you just like my perl interpreter and the
>> people at Apple who compiled it without setting a good value for
>> RANDBITS.
>
> That&#x
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 4:39 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
> When the backing document for props was decontractised by proposal (N.B.
> we since altered the gamestate to what would have happened if it wasn't,
> but the change nevertheless occurred), props continued to be tracked
> informally: they were re
> Accordingly, I find Defendant root GUILTY and sentence the ninny to
> SILENCE of 3 Rests, one for each upheld NoV.
I'm treating this as creating 1 Rest in root's possession; I believe
R1504 is sufficiently unambiguous in stating that a number equal to
the breached rule's power is created, so eve
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 7:23 PM, Charles Reiss wrote:
> I PBA-withdraw 2 7 crops.
>
> I mill 7 + 3 = X.
> I mill 8 - 9 = X.
> I mill 8 - 9 = X.
> I mill 4 * 8 = X.
> I mill 7 / 4 = X.
> I mill 7 / 4 = X.
> I mill 7 / 4 = X.
The PBA had no 7 crops, but you had enough for this all to work when you d
> 6051 D 1 2.0 Goethe Durn Furriners
FOR
> 6052 D 1 2.0 Murphy Easier hermitage
FOR
> 6053 D 2 3.0 Murphy Committees
AGAINST
> 6054 D 1 2.0 Wooble Fix SILENCE
FOR
> 6055 O 0 1.0 Wooble [Anarchist] Repeal The Repeal-o-Matic
FOR * 3
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 2:28 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> I contest this. The office of Historian was repealed by Proposal 6018
> on December 22.
Does the fact that the portion of the IADoP's report listing you as
holding the office the last time I published it mean the office still
exists? Either wa
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 2:42 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/notes.php (now includes rank)
I think this is showing every case as disinterested at the moment,
unless I'm reading it wrong. Of course, I'm still doing all the
conducting manually at the moment anyway.
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I'm certainly not appealing, because if this isn't exactly my own opinion,
> it's pretty darn close. But my question is: does this mean that the
> "4 days" (time before you can start performing the action) isn't a time
> limit of any kind? A
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 10:12 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> Now, does R1728 base the time of a future event upon the time of
>> another event? Arguably, yes. When you announce your intent to
>> perform a dependent act
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 1:17 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> By the way, in just reading about error ratings on concurring opinions,
> I can't tell if 1 is supposed to be good and 99 bad or vice versa?
Considering it doesn't do anything at all, it probably doesn't matter.
It's been in the rule for over
601 - 700 of 1430 matches
Mail list logo
