On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 9:24 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I request subsidy.
nttpf
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> Wikidot is just a bad VCS (does it even handle non-linear edits? I
> doubt it.) operating on a bad document format with an awful interface
> that requires javascript and that has no way to get non-HTML out of
> it; even scraping is prohibited b
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-04-07 at 12:35 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 12:18 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
>> > There was one Enigma puzzle this week, "Scales" by Tiger:
>> >> A puzzle named "Scales".
>> >> You have a balance scale and want to be
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> All persons are encouraged to submit a CFJ to the Justiciar only
> when there is a good reason not to submit it to the Clerk of the
> Courts.
So we should always submit our CFJs to the Justiciar since submitting
them to the CotC do
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 10:49 PM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> I'm not sure you're cut out for Registrar just yet.
Yet e's winning the election. But hey, let's complain instead of
doing something about it. That always works.
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I mill 9 - 5 = 4.
>
> If I have another 5 crop, I mill 5 - 3 = 2.
I don't believe you had any 5 crops at all when this was published;
your 5 ranch was created at the start of the week after crops were
produced, and I see no other transactions f
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> While performing weekly or monthly duties or publishing weekly
>> or monthly reports, officers SHALL NOT publish information that
>> is inaccurate or misleading.
>
> Classic!
The People have spoken; clearly officers now SHALL pub
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> With two support I intend to appeal this judgment.
If the judgement is incorrect, nttpf :P
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 10:17 AM, comex wrote:
> By the way, have we actually been taking quorum into account in
> elections? At the moment an election with more than one option is
> subject to all the usual, including voting period extension and
> failing quorum.
I certainly wasn't; I missed th
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 9:09 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> Protection Racket 01 Feb 09
> Reformed Bank of Agora 01 Feb 09
CoE: the Protection Racket and RBoA aren't Players.
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> I vote PRESENT. (Disclaimer: I don't know if this succeeds.)
It doesn't; the valid options are the active players who accepted and
didn't refuse their nominations.
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> I wish inactives would stop objecting to their inactivation.
>
> Why? Their presence doesn't affect anything. If it does, it's probably a
> bug.
Well, objecting to deactivation affects the quorum. Objecting to
*deregistration* doesn't affec
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 11:57 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn
wrote:
> As if the ruleset has ever prevented a nomic...
A bad ruleset keeps certain people, who care about such things, from
joining. In this case, it's keeping Agora from joining.
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> I haven't seen a PBA report in over 2 months. Am I missing something?
No. My proposal in perlnomic to post a report needs 1 more vote.
http://nomic.info/perlnomic/current-proposals/data.Wooble.pba_rep_041609
is the report it will send if it p
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 9:23 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> The list of players is from January 2008.
It's mislabeled; coppro and Tiger definitely were not players in January 2008.
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> I deposit five 0 crops.
> I deposit five 1 crops.
> I deposit five 3 crops.
> I deposit five 7 crops.
> I deposit five 9 crops.
I nominate Murphy as Coinkeepor. I'd intend to amend the contract,
but I'm not a Comrade anymore.
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 9:40 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Same here, though I suspect this fails because I harvested some
> proposal numbers recently.
No, it fails because you have 6 lands and the subsidy is 4.
I didn't award any points last week; I will do so as soon as I finish
confirming the harves
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:07 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Oi, talk about temporal databases. I think I know how to automate it
> sanely, though (when recording a transaction, first generate all rate
> changes between the last one and the current one; when generating a
> report, assume further rate cha
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:39 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> I intend, with the consent of the People, to amend the PBA contract
> by appending this section:
>
> *) Upon the addition of this section, each Eligible Currency's rate
> is set to ^14, then this section is removed.
Doesn't that just make
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 11:37 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Clearly you've never rowed crew; not too far off, tho by disciplined
> dropping down to the lower speed, the added power would probably put you
> somewhere in between. -G.
Obviously the time you'd waste instructing the worse rowers in proper
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 9:34 PM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> Getting Dvorak to do anything but vote? ha!
Your contributions certainly put you in an excellent position to criticize em.
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 7:23 AM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> I'm still waiting on Wooble to accept his nominations for Tailor and
> Accountor.
I didn't even notice I'd been nominated. If no one else consents, I'll
keep the offices by default.
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Proposal: Scheduled actions
This should probably explicitly spell out the order that actions occur
in the event multiple actions are scheduled at the same time and the
order is significant.
Granted this might be a problem even without schedule
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> If there are no accepted nominations, doesn't the office just become empty?
No. The outcome of the election is and nothing happens.
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 4:05 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-04-21 at 01:42 +0200, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
>> (I'm not sure about how weeks are counted: it's a new calendar week
>> since I last published an NoV, but it hasn't been 7 days)
>
> The rule is that officers must publish a high-prior
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:56 PM, Aaron Goldfein
wrote:
> Wooble is only begrudgingly putting up
> with the
> office of Tailor.]
Nonsense. I only nominated ehird for the office because e's accusing
me of doing nothing by filing NoVs. My passive aggressiveness should
not be taken to imply that I
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> comex wrote:
>
>> [! Note: There is considerable ambiguity about the current state of
>> the ruleset; this document is most likely incomplete. !]
>
> Which specific areas are still up in the air at this point?
I believe the text of R2223 is
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> All those issues were pretty similar and obvious.
2 of them argued for FALSE, you you judged TRUE based on them.
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> COE: the list omits Lands and WRV.
Admitted (informally; it's not self-ratifying).
I can't believe no one noticed that before now; they've been missing
since October.
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
wrote:
> Admitted.
> (is that all I have to do, or do I actually have to post an updated version?)
R2201 says you have to publish a revision (and in fact gives no legal
status whatsoever to admitting claims), although in practice the
correction is
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 10:59 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> I think this is a pretty clear UNDECIDABLE. It's paradoxical whether
> Einos fulfils the conditions to still be a protectorate (it was once),
> and therefore whether it is currently a protectorate. The rules-defined
> action in the CFJ subject
Having this missing from the Registrar's Report made it annoying to
determine, as Tailor, whether c-walker had previously been a Player
and thus whether e gained a White Ribbon upon registering. So I
decided to just maintain it myself.
REGISTRATION HISTORY (a)bandoned This section is
On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
> I thought I'd burnt off this Marker, but I'm not sure. I'll look through
> the archives and tell you later.
It was based on the last one you published. If you destroyed the
marker since then, the message didn't contain the word "marker".
Unles
On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> (which many will
> likely
> not receive because nobody pays attention to the reserve fora)
Anyone who's not subscribed to them is ignoring R478 and gets what they deserve.
Proto-Proposal, AI 2.1, "Committees 2.0":
In Rule 1681, replace:
Rules are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between
categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty
categories removed, as the Rulekeepor sees fit.
with:
Rules are assigned to or ordered within cat
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 4:05 PM, comex wrote:
> AGAINST, this breaks reorganization.
Rules can be reorganized by proposal.
> How do you know I didn't secretly move rules into different categories
> after the last SLR publication (before I resigned...)?
We don't, although the fact that they didn
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 4:36 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> I transfer all Coins I own to Wooble.
Fails; I'm not a Comrade.
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 7:03 PM, comex wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 6:54 PM, comex wrote:
>> [! Note: There is considerable ambiguity about the current state of
>> the ruleset; this document is most likely incomplete. !]
>
> CoE: No there isn't: the CFJ about mechanisms that has just been
>
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 8:35 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I retract my proposal with the title {Binding Inquiries} (I'll resubmit
> the corrected version along with the Proposal Pool to reduce spam).
Can we please keep personal actions out of official messages?
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> 2009/4/27 Geoffrey Spear :
>> I intend, with 2 support, to appeal this judgement. The statement of
>> the CFJ is nonsensical, and thus UNDETERMINED is the only appropriate
>> judgement.
>
> Please do not clutch
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 11:57 AM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> 2009/4/27 Geoffrey Spear :
>> It's a paradox. Of course it's not "sensical".
>
> It is not a paradox - merely something unexpected caused by the
> allowance of self-reference.
The Stanford Encyclo
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Quazie wrote:
>> Having received no objections, I cause 0x44, Elysion, Quazie, and Sir
>> Toby to cease to be Farmers.
>>
>
> I frown at this,
I wouldn't object to an amendment restoring your crops, considering the timing.
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Quazie wrote:
> I wish that I could cryogenically freeze my state every time i leave
> agora. I always come back, but I have to start from scratch each
> time.
You should form a contract with someone requiring them to object to
any attempts to deregister you and
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Quazie wrote:
> There should be a place where all old assets go. We need a 'Dusty old
> closet' where all assets are tracked once they stop being useful.
Your old assets (at least, the AAA ones) are currently owned by the
Lost and Found Department. The ones with
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> I request subsidy.
Fails; the subsidy is 3 and you have 3 lands.
(I'm interpreting the 8 x-axis points and 2 y-axis points I awarded to
Murphy last week to be "at least 10 points." I believe R2179's usage
implies this, although 8+2i is not i
I've imported the proposal archives from Zefram's site and PerlNomic
to nomictools, and I'm adding new proposals as they're distributed.
A list of proposals distributed in the past week can be found at
http://www.nomictools.com/agora/proposals/current and a view of any
given proposal (going back t
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 8:43 PM, comex wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 7:57 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> 23 ais523
>> 23+ = Pilot (highest = Captain)
>
> Nice.
It'd be even nicer if props were at all useful anymore.
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 9:21 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> The original intent of props was similar to that of Patent Titles,
> i.e. useless beyond bragging rights. That said, with the RBoA gone,
> you could try amending the PBA to offer Pilots a similar advantage.
The PBA is anti-elitist, so this woul
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 9:45 AM, comex wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 12:29 AM, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> Admitted. coppro has 1+ 4i points.
>
> NoV (and I admit this one's a bit iffy): Murphy violated R2215
ITYM "root"
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 12:20 PM, comex wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> I resign as Accountor. I nominate coppro and Tom as Accountor.
>
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 8:24 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> The Dungeon Master is the recordkeepor f
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 12:33 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> FWIW, maybe we should up the frequency of the IADoP by proposal.
P6230. You haven't voted yet. :P
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> There was a recent proposal to create a separate clause like "officers
> SHALL NOT knowingly publish false information in the course of eir
> duties", but I'm not sure what happened to it.
It passed, then got accidentally clobbered by a later pr
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Aaron Goldfein
wrote:
> Note: I'm not really sure who the Speaker is right now; I'm waiting for some
> information from the Herald.
31 March 2009 Herald report:
MINISTERS WITHOUT PORTFOLIO
Pavitra 3-Dec-08 <- Speaker
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> The Anarchist's proposals are rarely accepted. This proposal proposes two
> changes, both of which serve the purpose of having the Anarchist's proposals
> actually be accepted. First, the Anarchist is given the power to select the
> rules e
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 1:40 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I spend C D E to flip j's caste to Alpha.
That's a lot to spend to ensure that a player who's abandoned the game
gets to be Epsilon in a couple of days.
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Proposal: Generalize equity
> (AI = 1.7, please)
>
> Amend Rule 2169 (Equity Cases) by appending this text:
>
> An equity case CAN be initiated identifying the ruleset in place
> of a contract. For the purpose of such a case, the rule
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> You, sir, have the brains and manners of a sheep.
That means a lot coming from someone who accused me of being
"criminally sloppy" in adding proposals to PNP, quit the game in a
crying fit when I nominated someone to replace you after your ow
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 12:50 PM, comex wrote:
> This is the first time coppro has made such an error as promotor, and I'm
> sure he will avoid repeats; you made repeated and systemic such errors.
Two proposals were distributed in an earlier batch where the proposal
numbers in the header didn't m
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 1:27 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 11:22, comex wrote:
>> I hereby explicitly, willfully refuse to become party to the PerlNomic
>> Partnership agreement until such time as I may activate myself in
>> PerlNomic or perform another action clearly intended
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Given the obvious-in-context nature of the typo, it'd be hard to argue
> that it was unclear which proposals people intended to vote on.
possibly. but then if the ID numbers on the quoted line before your
vote don't matter but the title and aut
On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 10:39 AM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> Or better yet, let potential judges select the cases they wish to
> judge through some suitable system and eliminate most all recusals. I
> proposed this at one point but it was shot down.
It seems to me that the best judicial system is one wh
Were I the registrar, I would publish the following:
Registrar's Census
Date of last report: Wed 29 Apr 09
Date of this report: Fru 1 May 09
Date of last ratification: Fri 4 Jul 08
Date of report last ratified: Sun 29 Jun 08
(All times are UTC)
Recent events
-
Wed 22 Apr 10:34-
On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> Incomplete watchers list :(
Well, it's based on the last Registrar's Report. I'd be happy to
reconstruct the list from the old one.
On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> --
> SpeakerMurphy ??? 1
since 6 April, I believe.
On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 6:04 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> I don't see how those players not listed can be considered watchers.
> They didn't even respond to an email I sent asking if they are
> watching the game.
Proposal 5211, to remove people not paying attention from the Watchers
list, failed ho
On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 12:48 AM, Sgeo wrote:
> Any thoughts on testing any plans? Either for real, by telling /b/
> about Agora, or simulation (let several players control 1,000
> first-class players, and a way to guard against the fallout when the
> simulation ends).
Considering there's no way A
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 11:52 AM, Quazie wrote:
>> 6260 Ease the rush D 2.0 1 ais523
> FOR - i think I have to do this... even though it looks like this
> isn't doing anything.
I don't think your pledge covers proposals that don't actually make it
possible for mor
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2488
>
> === CFJ 2488 (Interest Index = 2)
>
> The prohibition on excessive Notices of Violation in rule 2230
> is ineffective due to rule 101
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn
wrote:
> I harvest 2477 for Water Rights Vouchers.
Fails, CFJ2477 was assigned its ID over a week ago (you're about 12 hours late)
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 12:34 PM, comex wrote:
> * the AFO
Fails, not first-class
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Benjamin Caplan
wrote:
> * since precedence is not explicitly defined where there is no
> conflict, R217 defines it in that case.
The text is silent, but if there's no conflict then there's no need
for precedence to be defined and I'd rather see a judge assign
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Sam Benner wrote:
> I vote for this proposal.
nttpf. Also, it hasn't been distributed yet. Also, there's no reason
for any lurkers to vote for it, since they can just make themselves
active by announcement right after it passes if it does with the same
effect.
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> 2009/5/5 Sam Benner :
>> I vote for this proposal.
>
> Fails for a few reasons:
>
> * You're not a player
Yes e is.
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> All the time oklopol was registered, e didn't specify what eir email
> address was (making my attempt to report on em as then-Registrar rather
> special-cased). We already have one precedent of a player without an
> independent email. (Also, the
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 2:09 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 14:00 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
>> > All the time oklopol was registered, e didn't specify what eir email
>> > address was (making my
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 7:57 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> The fact that this does nothing to actual lurkers is understood and
> intended; it's just a way to prune Agora of people messing with quorum
> more efficiently than the w/o objection method.
I think a 7 day voting period on which everyone has to
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 09:02, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> I went through everyone's holdings from the last report and reapplied
>> all of the transactions, and these are the current holdings.
>> Obviously my transitio
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 11:19 AM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> FYI, it appears I can click on anyone's nickname to edit their crop
> and ranch holdings.
I'm not sure if that's a bug or a feature but I guess I should fix it...
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
wrote:
> I believe my millings happened even if the subsequent harvesting
> failed, but to make things clear:
> If I have no 2 crops, I mill 3/7=2
> If I have no 4 crops, I mill 7-3=4
> (or maybe this was a corrected report of the crop holdings of t
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Oh ffs were you just waiting for a completely boring one for me.
>
> Judgement
>
> By CFJ1945 UNDETERMINED (i.e. false except that "under certain
> circumstances, with very clear aggravating circumstances, it is
> just about possible to breach r
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 9:11 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I CFJ on the following: The phrase "This takes precedence over any other
> rule" in Rule 2229/1 attempts to specify a means of determining precedence
> between rules of unequal as well as equal power for a particular matter
> of spending rests.
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Benjamin Caplan
wrote:
> Because it has a lot of citizens, to whom we could spread the gospel of
> nomic by making Aerica a protectorate.
But then they'll join Agora, and we'll have a bunch of players who
think becoming 'citizens' of a fake country invented by a p
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I see what you're saying, and that this is generally what R1482
> intends, but I have a hard time saying that a claim "This rule takes
> precedence over matters of X" is not a direct specification of
> a means of determining precedence. It lit
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> The issue doesn't manifest itself in a Nomic until a rule is passed
> that states "this rule claims precedence over..." so the solution for
> Suber would be "don't pass a rule that says that."
Such a rule already exists in the Suber ruleset; R2
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Another problem. The exact wording of 1482/2 says that rule changes
> that cause the ruleset as a whole to specify *any other means* of
> precedence between rules of unequal power are blocked.
It may be relevant that it says "stipulate" rather
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Charles Walker
wrote:
>> I create a White ribbon in gwen's possession.
>
> Can I have one of those?
You gained one when you registered; it was 2 days before ribbons were
pragmatized.
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> Helping hand:
>
> I nominate Wooble for every office.
Fails; it's IMPOSSIBLE to nominate me for at least a couple of offices.
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> ps. If you say this R1482 allows very specific precedence rules
> to be adopted (e.g. "this rule has precedence over rests") how
> about this very specific one: "this rule has precedence over
> all rules that specify precedence"?
Then the te
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> I resolve the Agoran decision to decide the holder of the Registrar office.
>
> The votes are as follows:
>
> Wooble: Murphy, comex, root, Taral, Tiger
> Yally: None
>
> Note: Arnold Bros (est. 1905)'s and coppro's votes do not count due to
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 11:46 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> There is no alternate fix proposed that would actually function.
Oddly, that's up to the voters, not the Promotor, to decide. Agora is
not an Imperial nomic.
On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 2:06 AM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> I don't think Wooble's attempt is even valid as it attempts to nominate some
> players for ongoing elections, and thus his whole action should fail. Yours
> fails for the same reason.
It wasn't my attempt, it was Arnold Bros'
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 2:09 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I mill 0 - 9 = X.
0-9 = 2; fails.
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 8:19 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn
wrote:
> Are those pints to ehird effective, even if e's called Arnold Bros now?
Yes. Nicknames have no official status whatsoever, and everyone knows
who e was talking about.
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn
wrote:
> Since not only intentionally misleading but also incorrect information
> is illegal in officers' reports nowadays, I'll get this up here for
> you all to review for a day or so. If there's any information ou care
> about being correct, che
I received 3 attempts; I'm guessing the problem is getting the
messages on your end rather than sending them.
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Rodlen wrote:
> Having recieved no objections, I hereby clean rule 2247 (The Janitor), by
> replacing "one more" in the second sentence with "one or more"
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 6:28 PM, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
> After further thought, I withdraw my vote on Registrar. I'll have to
> reevaluate the candidates.
How much of a bribe do you want to reevaluate and vote for Yally again?
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 9:47 AM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> Hmm. I'm pretty sure I thought of this scam many moons ago; I seem to
> recall discussing it with ais523.
My original objection (and I believe ais523's as well) was actually
intended as a non-scam block of the obvious trivial win. When only
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> The above notwithstanding, if the action depends on objections,
> and an objection to it has been withdrawn within the past 24
> hours, then Agora is not Satisfied with the intent.
This makes it possible for a single Objector to
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 2:12 PM, comex wrote:
> This is a Win Announcement: Wooble has a Medal.
I don't mind winning twice; I just wasn't 100% convinced I actually
have a medal.
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 6:27 PM, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
> On May 12, 2009, at 6:03 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>
>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2485
>>
>> == Equity Case 2485 ==
>>
>> The Lender has not been keeping track
801 - 900 of 1430 matches
Mail list logo
