On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, Nic Evans wrote:
> I favor this case.
Given how many game facts playerhood drives are you able to turn this one
around pretty quickly (within 4 days)? If so I'll assign right away.
On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, Nic Evans wrote:
> On 10/25/17 17:47, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, ATMunn wrote:
> >> I might not vote for this, as I'm working on a draft for a much more
> >> in-depth Auctions proposal. Hopefully I'll post that
On Mon, 23 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 5:04 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 20 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> >> Actually, given that this makes things more interesting... I SH-CFJ (or
> >> AP-CFJ
> >> if the
On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> I think I can miss a nap to provide arguments for what is likely the
> most important CFJ in game history. :)
Thanks. That was worth the read. I won't ruin the surprise, but safe
to say that (I think!) my own ideas on this case won't lead you to
de
On Thu, 26 Oct 2017, Telnaior wrote:
> I create the following proposal and use an Action Point to flip its Imminence
> switch to pending:
I will vote against this because I have a better way to hide these bodies...
heh heh...
> 1. Rule 649 "Patent Titles" requests stronger consent for awardin
On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, ATMunn wrote:
> I hadn't previously thought of including that in my proposal. It's a good
> idea, however, so I'll probably add it. You can still post your draft,
> though.
I'm planning for it to go out in the next distribution so I will submit the
proposal that assumes it e
Needs to be AI-3 to work.
On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, ATMunn wrote:
> For fun, I create the below proposal:
>
> Title: Way More Controversial Version of the Above
> Author: ATMunn
> Co-Author(s): Telnaior, V.J. Rada
>
> Deregister all currently registered players.
>
[OK, you folks with your forced deregistrations by proposal are rushing me].
PLEASE withdraw those deregistrations. This is a much better idea - Trust me!
Draft Proposal, AI-2 (re-enactment for fearmongor):
Re-enact the following Rule (I need to look up the Rule number):
Master is a pla
On Thu, 26 Oct 2017, Madeline wrote:
> Isn't it? They seem to be the same in terms of the proportion of people you
> need to get on side, it's hard to see how they aren't intended to be similar.
> It seems kind of strange that it's easier to award a patent title by making an
> AI1.5 proposal tha
Deregistering the players wouldn't destroy Agora.
As long as the public forum exists (now *that's* worth protecting),
a person CAN still register when there's no players. This would allow
the Assessor to resolve the proposal and register and be the only player
in the game for the duration of
On Thu, 26 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> Actually, I wonder whether or not we should just repeal the Public Forum
> rule?
> Because there are so many references to Public Fora in the rules, as well as
> Agora is a Nomic being a rule, it feels like the existence of the current
> Public Fora as Fo
Hi folks,
I'm still struggling a bit "leveling" Alexis's thesis. By sheer length,
it is clearly more than a B.N. and would fit for Masters. However
(wearing my academic review hat, seriously I just got out of a review
committee for a RL master's thesis), it's subject matter of the CFJ is
limi
award before asking for
2 Agoran Consent - that makes it harder for voters to pick between
levels.
On Thu, 26 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> No issues. It would be remiss of me to participate overly much in the
> discussions
> of the academy in regards to my own thesis.
>
>
On Thu, 26 Oct 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > Levels were: AN 150, BN 250, Masters 750, Doctorate 1000
>
> lol, our CFJs routinely go above those, we are smurt af.
Actually, it would be a real challenge to write a thesis that has
reasonable content and keep it at 150 or under.
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> I was with you all the way until the last paragraph.
Thanks for making it that far...
> Rule 101 states
> this "Agora is a game of Nomic, wherein Persons, acting in accordance
> with the Rules, communicate their game Actions and/or results of these
> acti
On Thu, 26 Oct 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-10-26 at 13:13 +1100, VJ Rada wrote:
> > Actually, I wonder whether or not we should just repeal the Public Forum
> > rule? Because there are so many references to Public Fora in the rules, as
> > well as Agora is a Nomic being a rule, it feel
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017, Madeline wrote:
> This was a really awesome read, and also we need to bury it as soon as
> possible before any lurking trolls make it their new scam objective.
It's not any more dangerous than many things, really.
R2140 means that Power-3 Instruments can amend Power-4 rule
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> I mean, if you have the power to pass any power 4 rule and wanted to
> troll, I doubt that this strangeness would be the first objective.
> Repealing all rules would be pretty easy. We just rely on
> people...not? Nomic-obsessed, extremely clever internet tro
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> > On Oct 25, 2017, at 6:15 PM, Nic Evans wrote:
> >
> > On 10/25/17 16:30, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >>
> >> Secondarily, I'd like to remove actions that require knowing the whole
> >> gamestate (of thos
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-10-26 at 17:04 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > Really, R1698 and R101 are the equivalent of "all your data will be lost,
> > are you sure you want to proceed?" buttons. They make it hard to hide
> > or accidenta
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
>
> Nothing prevents making multiple intents and only resolving one.
>
I'm an idiot. coming up...
I didn't follow all the corrections - is there a consensus as to what
recently-posted FLR draft is "most accurate" (needed for random picks
for Fearmongor).
On 10/27/2017 5:59 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Could the subtitle be updated to something more informative? The other
> badge descriptions all mention what happened and why it was awarded.
> This description only says who it was awarded to.
Sure. PSS as Herald awarded it and didn't officially li
It occurs to me that the Officer sections on agoranomic.org, instead
of depending on individuals posting their latest reports, could be
auto-scraped from agora-official using the [Officer] tags? Rather
than a single infrequently-updated report, this would lead to a
directory of documents whic
Elsewhere-hosted bot?
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017, Reuben Staley wrote:
> The site is powered by Github Pages, which only does static web pages, so it
> would still be dependent on people (or at least one person) scraping the lists
> manually.
>
> On 10/27/2017 4:37 PM, Ke
"nor is it appropriate if the undecidability arises from the case itself."
On Sun, 29 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> I suppose that's IRRELEVANT.
>
> On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 1:09 PM, VJ Rada wrote:
> Doesn't this allow for making statements that include well-known
> logical paradoxes that
Rulekeepor Candidate Alexis,
Have you published a draft SLR or FLR? I've seen the other candidates'
contributions. (sorry if I''ve missed yours!)
-G.
Yeah I'm surprised that the pun clause is so open-ended, given that
one can make *really long* shaggy-dog stories that end in hideous
puns.
On Mon, 30 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>
> Oh sorry, it's under the truly hideous pun clause. I'm sorry.
>
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 10:12 AM, VJ Rada wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> COE: none of those assignments went through (as you know)
>
I'm going to wait on the response to this - sometimes omd clears the
spam filters and flushes a bunch of messages out, then we can have a
nice argument about datestamps again.
On Sun, 29 Oct 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> NOTE: I have rewrapped all of the rules to 72 characters, in the raw
> files, I hope this is improved.
Appreciated, but not quite on. The dividing lines are at 70, and in
the first rule, this is the first line that hits 75, can't tel
On Sun, 29 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Oct 2017 at 15:48 Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I submit the first following proposal, "Zombie Auctions", AI-1 as part
> of the Fearmongor's Monthly Duties.
>
>
> Haven't you already done the Fearmon
On Mon, 30 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 at 03:03 VJ Rada wrote:
> These votes are overridden if the contract JA:tC makes any of them
> illegal. Any illegal vote is overridden by PRESENT, unless that is
> also illegal, in which case I do not vote.
>
>
> I
On Mon, 30 Oct 2017, Josh T wrote:
> Could you explain why you feel it necessary to define "private", is the
> common
> English definition not sufficient on some regard?
It's a bit ambiguous in the common definition.
- A "private" group could include more than 1 other person by common
def
red for any of them.
>
> On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 at 14:32 Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> [From the desk of the Fearmongor's rule-parser].
>
> CoE: The latest published SLR by PSS is missing a rule number
> for The Agoran Newspaper in the correct pl
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> The wealthy people are wealthy _because_ of exorbitant report rates
> and welcome packages.
Well what the heck do you expect them to do with the funds - you can
only pend so many proposals and its nuts to make them cheaper the more
Agora needs money.
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Well, I'll agree about welcome packages. However, the report rates are
> actually
> pretty reasonable. They do tend to accumulate for players with a lot of
> offices,
> but for those (including me) with onky a few offices, they're actually pretty
>
ll revenue is taken and given to poor players.
> Agora has to be shelling out upwards of 600 shinies a month! Most of
> that being from rewards. That's why rewards should be our target.
>
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 31
Um, ok, I was about to continue the thread after looking at the
SLR, and I can't find (in most recent SLR) where the Floating
Value is changed? Am I missing a conceptual change that happened?
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> > On Oct 31, 2017, at 1:16 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > Um, ok, I was about to continue the thread after looking at the
> > SLR, and I can't find (in most recent SLR) where the Floating
> > Value is changed? Am
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017, ATMunn wrote:
> I vote {o, VJ Rada} for Referee. [is this any different from just voting for
> o?]
It's technically still possible for other candidates to join, if they did
it might matter - otherwise no.
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017, Reuben Staley wrote:
> This. This times a billion. G's post about land reforms a while ago [1]
> proposed some really worthwhile ideas about shinies and how they could become
> more flexible. I think that if e ever puts the ideas there in place, our
> economic system would be
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017, ATMunn wrote:
> It's alright, I'm in no rush to get this finished.
>
> What do you (or anyone else) think of the idea of changing the two auction
> types
> to say, Official and Unofficial Auctions?
>
> Official Auctions would be those defined by rules and contracts, whereas
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> There is long-standing precedent that "CAN and SHALL within [time limit]"
> does
> not limit the CAN; it only sets a deadline on the SHALL.
Can you find the precedent - I think there's a couple rules currently written
that assume it's the other way, a
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-11-01 at 17:51 +, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > Finding free numbers sounds awful. I dislike fractional numbers too,
> > since
> > it kind of defeats the purpose of cleaning these numbers in the first
> > place, I think.
>
> I consider a number t
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 at 14:19 Kerim Aydin wrote:
> There's quite a few entries that "correctly" depart from the proposal
> pattern from the elder days (e.g. apparently "rule 750" was responsible
>
Js (unless I'm missing
something!)
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
>
> Hmm, but then doesn't that mean that Aris has to assign ID numbers to all the
> old
> proposals that didn't have them, assuming they were distributed?
>
> On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 at 14:39 Ker
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> The only place I see ID numbers for Proposals at all, in the current ruleset,
> is in R107, it's used as an example of a way to refer to the matter to be
> decided in a Decision. Today's Ruleset only mentions/defines ID numbe
f we allow "standard progression" numbers before
2007 to be grandfathered in by common definition, I don't see how that
precludes "unusual" identifiers.
> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017, 14:56 Kerim Aydin, wrote:
>
>
> The only place I see ID numbers for Propos
deal with proposals that are
> missing them altogether though
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017, 15:20 Kerim Aydin, wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 1 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > 1607
>
> Ah that was somehow missing from one of PSS's recent rulesets, I s
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 9:34 AM, ATMunn wrote:
> Let's test the limits of how far subject line actions can go...
> Feel free to CFJ.
>
>
> Challenge accepted.
>
> I CFJ on the following statement: ATMunn bought a Stamp in the referenced
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
>
> H. Herald, I believe that another Patent Title award is also in order, to
> another distinguished colleague.
>
Actually, I want to extend that award attempt into a bit of a policy going
forward, will do by tomorrow I hope...
...also curious to see wh
tting the time into this thesis.
> CuddleBeam loses 1 karma for doing exactly what G. said not to do, and
> voting SUPPORT for both decisions.
>
> On 11/2/2017 1:23 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> >
> > These are the support/object counts for Alexis's The
On Fri, 3 Nov 2017, Nic Evans wrote:
> Action Cost is a player switch, with possible values of triangular
> numbers, and default value of 1. At the beginning of every month,
> every player's Action Cost is set to 1.
If this accumulates monthly, this really needs to be tracked by someone
On Fri, 3 Nov 2017, Nic Evans wrote:
> Enact a new Power 1 rule titled "Estate Types and Assets" with the
> following text:
So, I'm not very keen on this part. I think that these add very little
to Land and don't reform it to anything reasonable based on giving
folks things to buy. I'd prefer
On Fri, 3 Nov 2017, Nic Evans wrote:
> You need to clean up the MMI here. You have MAY without CAN, and SHALL
> without CAN, and CAN/SHALL without a mechanism.
What do you think of the following MMI addition:
9. If a Rule states that an entity WILL do something, it is equivalent
On Fri, 3 Nov 2017, ATMunn wrote:
> The above statement notwithstanding, if a contract specifies that
> only its party members can bid on an auction, then players who are
> not parties of that contract CANNOT bid on the auction. Players may
> bid multiple times. The amount
On Fri, 3 Nov 2017, Nic Evans wrote:
> On 11/03/17 12:11, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 3 Nov 2017, Nic Evans wrote:
> >> Enact a new Power 1 rule titled "Estate Types and Assets" with the
> >> following text:
> > So, I'm not
On Fri, 3 Nov 2017, ATMunn wrote:
> > > Once the auction has ended, the auction's announcer SHALL announce
> > > the end of the auction in a timely fashion. In the same message, e
> > > SHALL include the a list of all the bids on each lot, and the
> > > winner of each lot. Afterwards, any
On Fri, 3 Nov 2017, ATMunn wrote:
> ---
> Ohh, okay. That makes sense. I'll try to encorporate something like
> that in. I still think it's probably a good idea to have a single
> auction only be able to auction one type of item.
I think the only real solution is that, if the top bidder doesn't pay
in time, e ceases to be the winner and the next highest-bidder wins (with
a fairly stiff penalty to dissuade this sort of tactic). Of course that
drags things out a fair amount.
To do this, you'd also have to allow bidding
So I think:
- I was thinking of bringing back rests/blots whatever the name,
- equity suits are a fair-sized hassle, others may disagree,
- I do not want to lose the current flexibility in judicial assignments,
random is a pain to manage,
- the referee is terribly designed, having fixed blots fo
On Fri, 3 Nov 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 10:41 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > - I do not want to lose the current flexibility in judicial assignments,
> > random is a pain to manage,
>
> I was thinking that just bringing back Justiciar would pro
On Sat, 4 Nov 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-11-03 at 23:03 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 10:41 PM, Kerim Aydin
> > wrote:
> > > So I think:
> > >
> > > - I was thinking of bringing back rests/blots whatever the na
On Sat, 4 Nov 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-11-03 at 23:13 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > > Both Rests and Blots could be destroyed by destroying a matching number
> > > of assets (Notes and Indulgences, respectively). So the modern analogue
> > > would likely be a "negative shiny".
> >
However, it is possible to have such things work on some level.
First, one important point. Commodifying crime (by making
people buy off their penalty) changes the mentality from
"I cheated and it's just plain wrong" to "that's the cost of
doing business". With that mentality, at least for lo
On Sat, 4 Nov 2017, ATMunn wrote:
> I'd like to maybe get into judging CFJs.
>
> Can I request to be placed in the Weekend court?
Yep! You're now on the list.
On Sat, 4 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> Proposal: Backed Out the Door (AI=2)
So I have to say, I'm going a bit insane here.
The economic system is fundamentally broken. I'm trying to draft
something, but it's dependent on 3 other unproposed things by
others, 2 of them major, and those are mov
On Sat, 4 Nov 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > Proposal: Backed Out the Door (AI=2)
>
> So I have to say, I'm going a bit insane here.
[Oh, and I know this is one that I liked the general idea of
and still really do :). It's just
On Sat, 4 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 at 16:47 Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Nov 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On Sat, 4 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > > Proposal: Backed Out the Door (AI=2)
> >
> > So I ha
; backlash.
>
>
> On 2017-11-05 10:38, VJ Rada wrote:
> Don't you only have Black left now? You're really close. Yeah, I agree
> we should keep ribbons static
> for a while.
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
You still need to report empty lists see rule 2379.
On Sun, 5 Nov 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> Denied, per 2514 Indifferent is the default, and no player held a
> different emotion, and I only need to report nondefault values.
>
> On 11/04/2017 06:09 PM, VJ Rada wrote:
> > Als
was asking if there was precedent for
> proposing wins away, that is, getting rid of
> validly obtained wins. I am inclined to say that while it's possible, there
> isn't, but I don't really know.
>
> On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
Sure!
On Sun, 5 Nov 2017, ATMunn wrote:
> By the way, regarding my Medals of Honour proposal (once the fix goes through
> for it), I'd like for any wins attained via that rule to be credited as "by
> obedience." Unless you think of something better.
>
> On 11/5/2
and even if we did, stripping the title wouldn't change the fact that
the game was won.
But as talked about in another thread, we did used to have it that
breaking the rules while winning prevented the win from taking
place, so some ILLEGAL wins were blocked that way. That doesn't
bloc
On Sun, 5 Nov 2017, Reuben Staley wrote:
> > 7961* G. 1.0 Fear lessG. 1 AP
> AGAINST
If this office is kept, I'll happily step aside for a player who
wants it. At first I thought it was good for a long-time player
(who might have some memory of good st
On Mon, 6 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> >>CONDITIONAL: If the proposal "Fear less" passes, then I vote FOR, otherwise
> >>I vote AGAINST.
>
> This conditional will not work my dude. Random Irony is probably getting
> resolved before
> Fear less, so this conditional will be indeterminate. Try "
slative
> or other official body.
>
> Actually it's rather close on that definition, yes.
>
> On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Mon, 6 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> > >>CONDITIONAL: If the proposal "Fear less" passes, th
On Mon, 6 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> >> 7960* V.J. Rada 2.0 Community Chest Repeal II V.J. Rada 2 sh.
> >PRESENT. Haven't been following why this is or isn't a good idea on its
> >own?
>
> Well the rule currently literally does not work. Also, I'm the only person
> who has used it
On Mon, 6 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> Really hope succession planning does not pass. We just established a really
> snazzy system for making new elections: it would be a shame to minimize
> elections at this time. We should be encouraging them instead.
The successor comes on as an Interim holde
ais523 may want to appeal CFJ 3585 then, as a matter of principle.
To quote Judge V.J. Rada:
> The text of the rules (2168) say that PSS was obligated to "issue a
> humiliating public reminder to the slackers who have not yet cast any
> votes on it despite being eligible". PSS literally used t
On Mon, 6 Nov 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-11-06 at 06:03 -0500, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> wrote:
> > How could I make it more humiliating without being rude?
>
> Listing the players who could vote but failed to has been the
> traditional way in the past. Sometimes they're even
On Mon, 6 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > 7934* 天火狐 1.0 Poetry Duel Challenge Writ 天火狐 OP [2]
>
> This proposal does not make any rule changes (the fact that it is written
> as a rule would be is insufficient to effect a rule change).
This part doesn't do it? It looks pret
All persons have karma scores. So this would calculate the sd of a
handful of players and 7 billion 0's. Maybe restrict it to all players'
karma?
On Mon, 6 Nov 2017, Reuben Staley wrote:
> This makes it so that there will always be Samurai and Gammas.
>
>
>
> Replace the first item of t
FWIW, the sd based on the most recent report was 2.38.
I don't mind the idea myself, but I'm always a bit leery of calculations
that require knowing the whole set to figure out an individual's status.
Though happy to try it now since gamma/samurai don't have other game
effects.
On Mon, 6 Nov 20
On Tue, 7 Nov 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> > 7958* G. 2.0 Succession Planning G. OP [1]
>
> FOR. I like the idea, but I’m not convinced of the implementation: in
> particular, is an appointed successor an interim, or a non-interim
> holder of an office? I’m voti
On Mon, 6 Nov 2017, omd wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 3:06 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > > 7941* Alexis 1.0 HTML Scrubbing Alexis 1 sh.
> >
> > This does not make any rule changes. I will, however, take it on myself as
> > Prime Minister to contact the Distributor to
On Wed, 8 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> 1: Make transactions from the Head to Agora of exactly 1 shiny, for
> the sole purpose of paying for an Estate.
Counterarguments:
We've previously found that if you try to pay for something, and fail,
the entire transaction fails.
So the first attempt to p
Yes, nichdel do you have that fixed version (without land) ready for
another draft? If you're low on time I can make a draft. (I've got
a simple Land version ready for that - not feature creep but replacement).
On Wed, 8 Nov 2017, Madeline wrote:
> I'm not even surprised tbh basic income is a
r actually get proposed/distributed?
On Wed, 8 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> I would disagree. If you said, for example "I'm eating all this fast
> food for the purpose of gaining 10 kg", that wouldn't be an untrue
> statement, even if the food was normal-sized and n
On Tue, 7 Nov 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> To be clear, I would look back at those recent precedents (I don't offhand
> remember which cases or payments) to find the reasons for those judgements
> before coming to a conclusion on this one. Both can't be right.
(I mean, I'
o agora to buy a stamp". Those 5 shinies
> could never have, in any case, led to buying a stamp, so the
> transaction was reversed on that basis. The 1 shiny in my case is a
> down-payment: part of a payment that will eventually total my debt to
> Agora for the Estate.
>
&
On Wed, 8 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> The Estate Auction wording is: "The winner CAN cause Agora to transfer
> the auctioned Estate to emself by announcement, IF E PAYS Agora the
> amount of the bid". That's readable and should be read as
> non-simultaneous: that is, the winner can get the estate
On Wed, 8 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> I don't remember that, but if you say so (and if there was a CFJ on
> it). I'm happy to accept the card if I have to.
No don't take my word for it. The argument depends on the pays/paid
grammar and that may have been different for any other case, especially
On Tue, 7 Nov 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> > I don't remember that, but if you say so (and if there was a CFJ on
> > it). I'm happy to accept the card if I have to.
>
> No don't take my word for it. The argument depends
On Wed, 8 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> Please move me to the Weekend Court; not sure I can handle a major judgment
> ATM and want to have more time to focus on Rulekeepor.
Done.
The wording is different enough on Auctions versus typical spend actions
that you still have a good chance IMO...
On Wed, 8 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> Yup. Now looking desperately for infinite-money scams brb.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 12:17 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
ion and
> the decision had been resolved, so the gamestate had already changed.
> Rule 2043 does not provide that the resolution date ratifies or that
> effects ratify, therefore the document purported ratification, but was
> not a ratification and therefore the facts ratify, but no furt
On Wed, 8 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 at 21:39 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I judge CFJ 3591 FALSE because Rule 208 reads "The vote collector for an
> > unresolved Agoran decision CAN resolve it by announcement, indic
Rule 2034 self-ratifies that a decision was "resolved as indicated" and
this includes the "indication" that it was resolved by the document
purporting to be a r208 resolution announcement that was published on
a particular date. It doesn't say that it ratifies the "resolution"
(result) but that
t it
> has a resolution?
>
> To me this is like saying that if I have 5 shine sprites and spend 10,
> ratifying that I had 10 doesn't ratify that the illegal spending happened.
>
> On Wed, Nov 8, 2017, 07:33 Kerim Aydin, wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > R
101 - 200 of 8209 matches
Mail list logo
