On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 7:44 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If my intent to resolve the decision implied an attempt to install the
> victor, I install Eris as Accountor. Otherwise, I intend to deputise
> for the IADoP to install Eris as the Accountor.
You don't install the win
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 8:50 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I vote as follows:
>
>
> > 5451 D1 3rootAllow Appeals of Paradox
> AGAINST
May I ask what you dislike about the proposal?
-root
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 2:25 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Assigned to root (panelist):(as of this message)
Invalid. I'm currently supine.
-root
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 5:22 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 24/02/2008, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I hereby assign 1890a and 1891a to the panel of Ivan Hope, Iammars,
> > and Pavitra.
>
> Appellant comex's arguments consisted of "See root's message in a-d,
> among othe
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 7:41 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It seems a bit cumbersome, especially the whole "tortoise" terminology.
Well, at least it's not broken like the current rule is.
-root
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 2:02 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Would anyone like to take over as contestmaster of the FRContest,
> or alternatively to be contestmaster of this one?]
I could take over the Fantasy Rules Contest. If I have to pay
attention to it, maybe I'll find more time
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 1:59 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ah. Perhaps it would be better to OVERRULE with IRRELEVANT, then, as
> the description of IRRELEVANT is that the veracity as it was then is
> not relevant now.
It's relevant to knowing whether the alleged assignment of
prerogat
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 3:14 PM, Ben Caplan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I move to REMAND with these arguments.
The prior judge has since gone on hold. I suggest that REASSIGN would
be better in this case.
-root
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 4:27 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I intend, with 2 support, to appeal this judgment.
NttPF.
-root
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 12:31 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> not judged FALSE -> a delivered judgement by BobTHJ is legal
I disagree with this link in the chain. If the CFJ was not judged
FALSE by BobTHJ, it only implies that the CFJ has not yet been judged.
It certainly does not
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 10:19 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does anyone know, or has anyone heard, or can anyone find, a term commonly
> used (or uncommonly but "official" Latin) for the "Matronizing nurse" use
> of using first-person plural for second-person singular, sort of the
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 3:30 PM, Ben Caplan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It seems that official documents would no longer be self-ratifying under this
> proposal. Is this deliberate, and if so, why is it a good idea? (If a
> document can be "secretly published" ala Rule , then its author can
On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 12:12 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> root1 2 1 6 1 11
I have no chords to spend this month. :-(
-root
On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 12:18 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I assign Default Justice to root.
Stupid dice server.
-root
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 11:11 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 1:01 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I support Murphy's call for appeal of CFJ 1903. In spite of reading this
> > > in the caller's arguments, I looked at the ruleset that contained
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 12:26 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Arguments:
> The arguments given in Wooble's purported causing the panel to judge
> CFJ 1903a are not labeled as a concurring opinion and therefore do not
> constitute one. While it could be argued that the satisfying t
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not unappealable. AFFIRM reassigns the prior judgement, which starts a
> fresh two-week timer for appealing that assignment.
No, AFFIRM and OVERRULE both prevent further appeal of the case. From
Rule 911:
However, ru
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 12:16 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I join Enigma
NttPF.
-root
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 12:49 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I intend with the majority consent of the farmers to make the
> following changes to the AAA agreement:
> {
> Create a new section with the text:
> {{
> The Federal Subsidy is an integer value. At the end of any week in
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 12:14 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/4/08, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hawkishness is a player switch
> > Posture is a player switch
>
> Secure player switches.
Is there any reason not to just secure all switches?
-root
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 12:29 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Once per week, an Innie can post a Spot, which is a command (e.g. "Do
> not vote on a decision an odd number of times"). Every other Innie
> should, as soon as possible, State an Opinion on the Spot, which must
> be either "OKA
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 12:40 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hypothetical spot: State an opinion of NO WAY on this spot.
I do like the idea, though. It just needs to be hardened against
game-breakers like that one.
-root
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 12:40 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hypothetical spot: State an opinion of NO WAY on this spot.
Come to think of it, self-reference isn't even necessary. Consider
this spot: Either do X or do not do X.
-root
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Come to think of it, self-reference isn't even necessary. Consider
> this spot: Either do X or do not do X.
Oh, wait. That one's trivial to avoid breaking. Never mind.
-root
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 1:33 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I meant "each pitch". Yes, it's deliberately more dangerous than VC
> decay was.
And probably makes win by notes next to impossible.
> >> 5465 O1 1Murphy Simplify case transfer
> > AGAINST x 13 (the removal of
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 2:06 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 06/03/2008, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hypothetical spot: State an opinion of NO WAY on this spot.
>
> Good point. Change the first sentence of that paragraph to "Once per
&
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 2:15 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think you may want to disallow conditionals and self-reference in
> general as well. Consider "Do X if you opined OKAY on this spot;
> otherwise do not do X" (where X is IMPOSSIBLE).
Hmm, I think
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 10:58 AM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I hereby attempt to make the contract known as Agoran Twister a
> contest; this must be done without 3 objections.
NttPF.
-root
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 2:16 PM, Iammars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Okay, I'm working on the Tailor's report, and I remember something about
> someone winning recently. What happened with that?
BobTHJ was awarded the title of Champion in the Herald's report on March 3.
-root
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 4:26 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Bob is a person.
> * Bob is a player.
Unlikely. R2166 doesn't define what a person is, which is the
requirement of R2150. Instead, it merely imposes some contractually
defined regulation upon them.
> * Bob is a first-class
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 4:44 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree to this pledge: "When this contract is created, Ivan Hope
> CXXVII is awarded 1,000,000 Notes of every type, then this contract
> terminates itself."
This doesn't meet the criteria of a backing document as laid out in
R2
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 4:47 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...though perhaps that was unwanted, as I failed to see the point of
> these previous pledges the first time around.
The reason I think mine worked is the first sentence of R2166:
An asset is an entity defined as such by
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 3:57 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ihope wrote:
> >I hereby attempt to make the contract known as Agoran Twister a
> >contest; this must be done without 3 objections.
>
> I object. The contract is too easily modified. I think any modification
> to a contest s
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 8:51 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree to this pledge:
>
> 1) This is a public contract.
>
> 2) This contract is a pledge.
>
> 3) Rules with an ID number of 2166 are a class of fixed assets
> restricted to players, with the Rulekeepor as recordkeepor.
>
> 4
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 10:43 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/11/08, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I considered something like this in my original scam, but it falls
> > afoul of R105.
>
> Does it? I think "destroying" a rule
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The claim being made is that unowned assets get transferred to the
> Bank (by the second sentence) and then destroyed (by the second half
> of the third), if the Bank is not an authorised owner. That's highly
> dubious; I th
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 12:39 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But that would still be a gain, thus prevented by the first half of the
> third sentence.
The rule also says "Each asset has exactly one owner." If the Bank
can't own it by default, then who does? At best, the rule is
int
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If your logic is accepted, then contest-defined assets are not
> properly defined, since they fail to "define" the entity required to
> track them. Additionally, rests were not properly define
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 12:43 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've been thinking about this a bit further, and it seems there are
> two possibilities. It seems clear that R2166 in some sense requires a
> defined asset to have a defined recordkeepor, but it'
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 1:51 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ian Kelly wrote:
> >The rule also says "Each asset has exactly one owner."
>
> That provision may well be broken due to the rule failing to provide a
> mechanism to enforce it.
I don't
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 1:18 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/03/2008, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Oh well. I intend to amend the Agoran Twister contract, with the
> > support of a majority of Keiths, by replacing the text "Any Keith ma
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 3:05 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I object! Without 3 objections is probably, in practice, easier to
> get than the support of a majority.
Without 3 objections is the same level of support that would be needed
to just ditch the contest and form a brand new one.
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 3:25 PM, Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 4:12 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Also, note that the objections can come from anybody, not just Keiths,
> > which is an important aspect to avoid a
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > == CFJ 1910 ==
>
> For crying out loud, is supplying even the rudimentary summary or effort
> of the controversial actions involved and evidence going out of fash
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 4:13 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The CFJ was initiated in the same message where I performed the
> controversial actions and argued their effectiveness. Is it my fault
> if the CotC didn't incorporate any of that into caller's
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 4:18 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Um, if you didn't say "these are my arguments" then yes. Incorporation is
> not the CotC's job (hence the term "caller's" arguments). -Goethe
I think it was pretty clear that they were arguments produced by the
caller i
> When you present a case before a judge, you say "here is my case" and the
> judge doesn't go hunting for context. The idea that the "ensuing discussion"
> is a required part of the argument is specious, you (the caller) present your
> best arguments, and the judge considers them, and at eir
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 4:38 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If passing implicit arguments is unacceptable, the situation could
> still be avoided by including a simple archive url or message-id in
> the case file.
>
> Or here's another option. If a jud
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 5:10 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 9? I have myself, comex, the AFO, Murphy, root, Goethe, BobTHJ, and
> Wooble. Who am I missing? (5 people are still required, and root got 5
> people, so that's all good.)
Hmm, I thought I saw somebody else join, but I must hav
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 8:27 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> a purple tree
Oh, that Harold! Somebody should take away his crayon.
-root
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 10:22 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The legislated duty of the judge to evaluate all reasonable
> arguments does not negate the customary duty of the caller to
> present some sort of reasonable argument.
That line sounds strangely familiar. I've been readin
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 11:54 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I intend to deputise the delivering of a judgement by the judicial panel of
> Appeal 1897a.
You can't. See Proposal 5454 (not yet incorporated into the SLR).
-root
NttPF
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 3:23 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/11/08, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > NUM FL AI SUBMITTER TITLE
> > 5469 O1 1.7 woggle No Social Contract
> FORx11
>
> > 5470 O1 1.7 Murphy Ask a yes-or-no question, get a yes-or-n..
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 8:17 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/14/08, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The above notwithstanding, a Contract Change is INVALID if:
> >
> >a) It would make a person a party to a contract against their
> > will.
>
> Therefo
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 12:52 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think the analogy fits. A boat traveling from international
> waters was somewhere else before it was in international waters.
> Unless it was constructed there, but even in that unusual situat
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 9:47 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In the interest of preserving the intent of the rule (and I should
> know, I wrote it), I interpret that 3) does apply, and does take
> precedence over 1) and 2). Accordingly, I judge TRUE.
One final point. This judgement
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 3:14 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 15/03/2008, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Spot: Initiate at least one judicial case per week.
>
> If someone Opined NO WAY on this, how would they Break it?
By initiating a judicial case?
-root
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 3:20 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 3:14 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 15/03/2008, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Spot: Initiate at least one judicial case per week.
> &
On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My thoughts, as a watcher (and not a player in either Agora or Agoran
> Twister) is that a necessary condition to the validity of a Spot
> should be that it is possible for any Innie to legally satisfy the
> obligations
On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 1:29 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 5:12 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Spot: Initiate at least one judicial case per week.
>
> NO WAY
I don't think you're required to opine on your own spot...
-root
> You'll know what you're looking for when you find it. There might be
> other words in the grid that aren't related to the thirteen words. I
> used a random letter generator to fill in the rest of the array. For
> exmple, there's the word "COW" in the top row. That's just a fluke.
In fact, th
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 11:54 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> comex wrote:
>
> > On 3/17/08, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Is it reasonable to interpret assets as being transferred from a
> >> state of being unowned to a state of being owned by ?
> >
> > Yes, but it is
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 4:25 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It can't, but go back and read what I wrote earlier; there is another
> interpretation of transference that you haven't addressed.
I don't see the distinction. You seem to be arguing that "being in
the ownership of " and "bei
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 4:36 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Assuming you're referring to what I quoted... I don't think being
> "transferred to a state of being owned by" and entity is a reasonable
> interpretation of an asset being "transferred to" it. The latter (as
> evidenced by its wo
On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 5:39 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> > A if not B = A or B
>
> Actually, its A xor B. ~(A xor B) = (A & B) | !(A & B)
~(A xor B) = (A & B) | (~A & ~B) = (A & B) | ~(A | B)
> It hinges on whether do "Do X instead of
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 3:05 PM, Iammars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since some people are having trouble trying to find the connection between
> the words, let me tell everybody this:
> Using a wordlist of English words won't help you. You're gonna have to go
> pop culture on this one if you want
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 3:30 PM, Iammars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 5:26 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 3:05 PM, Iammars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Since some people
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 3:45 PM, Iammars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh man, I want this job. :)
Sure, until somebody comes up with a scam that involves creating
hundreds of contract-based assets with no recordkeepors that the
Accountor would then be required to track...
-root
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 6:04 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Proposal: Reward interesting grafts
>
> Amend Rule 2192 (The Mad Scientist) by appending this text to
> section d):
>
> This proposal counts as the Mad Scientist's weekly report if/when
> it is adopted.
It's no
Proto: Generalize official duties (AI=2)
Like Murphy's proposal, this would also grant the Mad Scientist a
salary of E notes, but it would do it in a more structured way.
==
Amend Rule 2143 (Official Reports) by renaming it to "Official Reports
and Duties", and by replacing this text:
During the week ending March 23, there were no score-worthy events
among contestants of the Fantasy Rules Contest.
-root
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 12:41 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I post the following Spot:
>
> Use the letter x in the text of every Proposal you submit.
Hmm. I was about to NO WAY this, until it occurred to me: if I NO
WAY it without also submitting a proposal that does not conta
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 12:41 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I post the following Spot:
> >
> > Use the letter x in the text of every Proposal you submit.
>
> Hmm
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 12:58 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> (I was going for letters this week too :) )
>
> Spot: Vote permanently and completely (*) FOR any proposal containing the
>letter e.
How do I break this if I opine OKAY?
-root
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 8:44 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Spot: Vote on at least one proposal from every batch of distributions.
As far as I can tell, the AFO, BobTHJ and Wooble have not opined on
this first spot, so they're all out.
-root
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 1:03 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 8:44 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Spot: Vote on at least one proposal from every batch of distributions.
>
> As far as I can tell, the AFO, BobTHJ an
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Spot: Vote permanently and completely (*) FOR any proposal containing
> the
> >>letter e.
> >
> > How do I break this if I opine OKAY?
>
> There's a little trouble when there's a variety of ways to negate a
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 1:42 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's not "out of a set of X proposals, vote FOR any (i.e. at least one of
> them)
> that contains an e". It's "for any given proposal, if it contains an e, you
> must vote for it" or if you prefer "any time a proposal co
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 2:25 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 4:00 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Okay, suppose I opine NO WAY on this spot. If, at some point, there
> > is exactly one proposal in that set, and I happened
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 2:43 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008, comex wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 4:00 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Okay, suppose I opine NO WAY on this spot. If, at some point, the
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 6:04 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 24/03/2008, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I guess I'd like to try to get a Notary report ratified, so with
> > Agoran Consent, I intend to make myself the Notary.
>
> By the way, should I support my own Agoran Decisio
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 7:53 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 9:32 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Spot: Assign a judgement of TRUE to the next CFJ to which you are assigned.
> >
> > -root
>
> If I opine OKAY
On 24 Mar 2008 20:09:59 -0600, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Murphy wrote:
>
> > Spot: Post your next message to the Public Forum such that its Date:
> > header have an odd number in the seconds portion.
Dang, I sent too soon and messed that up. Did that count as my "next
message to the Publi
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 5:19 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 7:19 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 9:32 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Spot: Assign a judgeme
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 2:08 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Without 3 objections, I intend to amend Agoran Twister by changing
> "Spot, which is a command" to "Spot, which is a command regarding game
> actions", to avoid Spots like this in the future. (Of course, if
> Murphy causes some
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 7:24 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think my VLDD comes back next week, so here's my Ordinary votes:
No, all that matters is that you came off hold before the proposals
were distributed.
-root
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 7:16 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The AFO joins the AAA.
> I transfer all my Crops, Lands, and Water Rights Voucher to the AFO.
> I leave the AAA.
> I join the AAA.
> [Note: 100 identical lines follow.
> Since I still own fewer lands than the Federal Subsidy a
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 7:04 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 7:57 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > "...shall create ceiling(50-(S/N)) VPs in the possession of each
> > first-class party to the Vote Market, where S is the sum of all
> > VP holdin
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 7:33 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 9:20 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think you're wrong. ceiling(50 - ((50N-1)/N)) = ceiling(1/N) = 1.
> Oh.. you're right. Well, in that case, you
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 12:42 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do you see any issues with [private] transfer of privileged knowledge from
> myself (as no-longer Notary) to Ivan Hope? The Rules used to have a
> requirement for former officers to ensure new officers got all relevant
>
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 1:10 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If the Notary publicly requests for a specific member of a
> public contract to publish the contract's text or membership,
> that member SHALL do so as soon as possible.
Even if that member is inactive?
-root
On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 11:50 AM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you see any errors, please tell me.
You've omitted the spots that Wooble and I posted on March 24.
-root
On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 12:08 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 11:50 AM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If you see any errors, please tell me.
>
> You've omitted the spots that Wooble and I posted on March 24.
Oh, and Mu
During the week ending March 30, there were no score-worthy events
among contestants of the Fantasy Rules Contest.
-root
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 6:34 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A judicial panel is qualified to be assigned as judge of an appeal
> case if and only if it initially has three members, each of whom
> is qualified to become a member of that panel.
s/initially/at the time o
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 7:39 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (Side note: Do players feel
> that majority-plus-CotC is more or less warranted when the odd panelist
> expresses a contrary opinion, vs. when e says nothing?)
I would only consider it appropriate when one of the panelists
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 9:49 AM, Iammars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wow. That was probably the worst land for me to get. I had 2 Digit Ranches
> (4) and a subtraction Mill. 0 is the only number I can make!
It would take two weeks, but you could make a 0 and then subtract 4
from it to get 6.
-roo
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 10:01 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I destroy 1 WRV in root's possession
Oh, yay! I had somehow missed the fact that only digit ranches require water.
-root
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 10:39 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As for complexity, I've
> already pointed out how the old system (under which the individual
> significance of an individual action could be determined immediately)
> is simpler than the new (in which it cannot be determine
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 11:40 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There seems to be some disagreement in the literature (and apparently
> in C machine-dependent differing behavior of the % operator) about how
> to take the modulus of a negative number. There seem to be equally
> goo
901 - 1000 of 2151 matches
Mail list logo
