On Sun, 21 Jan 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> This takes it too far, I think. There are areas in need of reform and
> simplification, but too much work has been put into assets to just throw
> them away. What happened to the asset reform Alexis had drafted? That seems
> like a better option.
If an
The Herald is reminded that e is overdue in initiating the
Silver Quill award.
Also, Patent Titles of course.
m I just
> missing something here?
>
> On 1/26/2018 4:55 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Because, you know, apathy.
> >
> >
> > I deputize for the Assessor to recuse Publius Scribonius Scholasticus from
> > CFJ 3606. (recusal is over 14 days late).
> > >
Oops yes that was a finger typo not a brain typo :)
On Sat, 27 Jan 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jan 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> It's Lindrum, not Limdrum HTH
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.
>
CoE: I think during my brief Reign of Terror, I recused all the late
judges and reassigned all these CFJs to myself? Or do you think that
didn't work for some reason...
On Sun, 28 Jan 2018, Edward Murphy wrote:
>
> COUR
You know, explicit listing of valid options is something we should
add.
On Mon, 29 Jan 2018, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> I vote PRESENT, to avoid causing quorum fail. I will probably revise later.
>
> H. Herald, have you prepared a list of eligible proposals and/or any
> suggestions of highly relevant
o when the proposal has had a dominant
effect on gameplay since its adoption.
3. Scamster, to be awarded for particularly good scams.
[etc.]
On Mon, 29 Jan 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> You know, explicit listing of valid options is something we should
> add.
>
> On
On Mon, 29 Jan 2018, Edward Murphy wrote:
> G. wrote:
>
> > CoE: I think during my brief Reign of Terror, I recused all the late
> > judges and reassigned all these CFJs to myself? Or do you think that
> > didn't work for some reason...
>
> I interpreted the recusals as "assigned continuously
Proto-report for Tresuror
When the month turns in a couple hours, the following events
will have occurred as per Proposal 8004:
1. All previous shinies destroyed.
2. Payday 1 (happened when Proposal 8004 was adopted)
a. 10 shinies per player created;
b. 3 shinies per office held 1
On Thu, 1 Feb 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> > 2. Payday 1 (happened when Proposal 8004 was adopted)
> >a. 10 shinies per player created;
> >b. 3 shinies per office held 16 days in December (with
> >no
On Fri, 2 Feb 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
> Since rule 8004 obliterated the economy, I have created the following proto so
> that we can potentially do something with money soon.
Like the idea!
> Tickets are assets. Each ticket has a switch with the possible
> values of any 5-digit l
AP don't exist anymore - need to pay 3 shinies.
On Sun, 4 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Seeing how we're entering a new design era with the mass repeals, I'll
> suggest some new things (hopefully they haven't been done before already):
>
> I create the following proposal with the name "Picto-N
Yah just actually propose wherever you last left it - if there's still something
wrong with it it would progress faster being voted down and re-proposed
instead of waiting for a perfect version.
On Sun, 4 Feb 2018, Corona wrote:
> I'd argue that the last published version was good enough already
As current treasuror this does not communicate any transfers to me.
(This would be true even if the contract had shines - beyond a
reasonable effort to track)
>From a purely theoretical point of view, it would be interesting to
see if the rules could adjudicate the collapse of this contract in
On Tue, 6 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> (Arbitor is currently vacant.)
> I deputize as Arbitor to perform the following:
This fails - Murphy is Arbitor.
On Tue, 6 Feb 2018, VJ Rada wrote:
> I convert all of my bills into shinies with the Credit Union
Ambiguous transaction attempt, and the Credit Union has no shinies.
On Wed, 7 Feb 2018, Telnaior wrote:
> Somehow this managed to come through in variable-width font on my client (but
> now it's showing as fixed-width when I go to reply). Huh?
> Also, I flip omd's Master switch to Agora.
I copy-pasted the structure from PSS's last report - it had some weird
form
important honourary office, then?
>
> On 2018-02-07 09:16, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 7 Feb 2018, Telnaior wrote:
> > > Somehow this managed to come through in variable-width font on my client
> > > (but
> > > now it's showing as fixed-
On Wed, 7 Feb 2018, Madeline wrote:
> From the Ruleset:
>
> Rule 2518/0 (Power=3.0)
> Determinacy
>
> If a value CANNOT be reasonably determined (without circularity or
> paradox) from information reasonably available, or if it
> alternates indefinitely between values, then th
(assuming this was meant for Discussion and not me personally...)
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2018 10:35:48 +1100
From: Madeline
To: Kerim Aydin
Subject: Re: DIS: About Paradoxes
If a value becomes indeterminate, that in itself clarifies the situation - and
On Wed, 7 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Ah, I see. I can see why it would be so popular, it seems so fun! (And
> maybe I'll get fed up of it too eventually lol, like how eating chocolate
> everyday eventually gets at you.)
>
> This is a weird case of gerontocracy lol.
Yeah, I don't begrudge it
(Looking for odd misunderstandings of how rules function - entries
encouraged)
Assertion
If a person holds two offices each with a weekly report, then
e has the single duty of producing one weekly report combining
both offices (though it can be produced in parts).
Arguments
Seems like a stra
How was it broken? I thought we used it successfully for a
while and then just forgot.
On Wed, 7 Feb 2018, ATMunn wrote:
>
> did the rule for get get fixed?
>
> On 2/6/2018 9:53 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > I designate Cuddle Beam as next week's Silly Person.
> >
> > -Alexis
> >
>
Beam wrote:
> It's got a SHALL, not CAN
>
> R1650 doesn't give you any powers to actually do what this SHALL is
> commanding you to.
>
> On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 5:14 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > How was it broken? I thought we used it su
ement,
even if it doesn't take).
On Wed, 7 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> So, if I just say now "I designate G as the Silly Person", you become it?
>
> On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 5:52 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Um, you *already* CAN submit a pr
all along. (And SHALL isn't even a full mechanical
> restriction, its just cardbait)
>
> So, with the power of designation which I've had all along (would I not be
> the Silly Person right now), I can declare anyone the Silly Person anytime.
> No?
>
>
> On Wed, Fe
uddle Beam wrote:
> I think this would hamper the fun of the mechanic. Like, playing Tag or
> Spin the Bottle but you can just voluntarily be It or the person chosen is
> a bit weird.
>
> On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 7:10 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> >
> >
On Thu, 8 Feb 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> I bid π shinies on each auction.
>
> Gaelan
If this is auction is governed by R2550, then this likely break a SHALL NOT:
A person SHALL NOT bid on an Auction if it would be impossible for
em to pay that amount at the conclusion of the Au
On Thu, 8 Feb 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>A person SHALL NOT bid on an Auction if it would be impossible for
>em to pay that amount at the conclusion of the Auction.
Actually, this auction clause is problematic for *any* auction, as it requires
knowing what-will-be-possi
On Thu, 8 Feb 2018, Josh T wrote:
> I flip my Master switch to myself. Sorry folks, been busy but not quite
> enough to be undead just yet.
>
> 天火狐
R1885, which has the highest power in this stuff, is clear that this terminates
the auction immediately with "no winner" - I'm assuming that's the
to Card me for "breaking fun", sure, but then state it as such
> and not R2550.
>
> Because hey, a rule change might make it possible, you never know.
>
> (Also, I was planning on retracting that and bidding for real to win the
> auction but oh well.)
>
> On Th
Oh sorry, meant to mention... Not supporting any book-throwing efforts here atm.
On Thu, 8 Feb 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> You were testing, I was testing... Citing the rule specifically such that
> a ruling on whether it was appropriate would be specific to cause, and
> choosing a car
On Fri, 9 Feb 2018, Madeline wrote:
> So what's the status on the remaining two auctions now?
> I was hoping to make a serious bid on them. :(
Here's how fun's not *entirely* broken:
You can still place lower bids.
And CuddleBeam *might* be able to retract eir bid (I think e
can, because that
id of i. I’m kind of curious about the ruling about that,
> > but I’m happy to (attempt to) retract one or both of my bids if that’s what
> > everyone would prefer.
> >
> > Gaelan
> >
> > > On Feb 8, 2018, at 4:20 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > &g
On Fri, 9 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Not to bring them up again but I think it would be easier if G. themselves
> just admit that their own card was ineffective to clear it out, so no need
> for back and forth.
I would be dishonest if I said that I knew it was ineffective. There are
plausib
Oh dear no, the ability to bid all sorts of non-integers is in the zombie
auction rule too, that was mine. In this respect yours actually faced
the problem by attempting to ban impossible bids.
(Not that taking a break is a bad thing at all and I hope you return,
but despite the contradictions
On Thu, 8 Feb 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Title: Zombie Auction Reform Act
> Adoption index: 2.0
> Author: Aris
> Co-author(s):
I'm waiting until the end of the auction to comment on this, there
are several things that may or may not be issues I'd like to see
what does or doesn't break as we go
Note I'm required to start a zombie auction for omd soon.
(Overdue actually)
On Sun, 11 Feb 2018, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> I support the intents for o and Quazie, but object to the intent for omd.
>
>
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 at 11:14, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> >
> >
&
It says they're "ongoing" weeks ago.
I'll be resigning assessor rather than resolve these - thx.
On Sun, 11 Feb 2018, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 at 14:28, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I intend to ratify the following {}-delimited
As referee I'm conflicted. On one hand this is blatant use
of office for personal gain, on the other hand I convinced myself
when I was Tailor that the nature/ expectation of Black ribbons made this
particular scam expected/ok.
On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Telnaior wrote:
> This is a Notice of Honour.
How about we get rid of black ribbons altogether I loathe them
(And am certainly not willing to make a rules exception for them).
On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-02-12 at 00:35 +, Alex Smith wrote:
> > On Sun, 2018-02-11 at 16:32 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
s possible to contract to ensure I couldn't)
> (plus now that I've got it I don't need to be looking for ways to get it, and
> this was pretty benign by scam standards)
>
>
> On 2018-02-12 11:32, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > As referee I'm conflicted. On
eb 11, 2018, at 4:39 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > How about we get rid of black ribbons altogether I loathe them
> > (And am certainly not willing to make a rules exception for them).
> >
> > On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Alex Smith wrote:
> >>
On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Sun, 2018-02-11 at 16:41 -0800, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> > This change, mind you, would make G win.
>
> Well, it's one of the more ingenious ways to deal with a missing black
> ribbon that I've seen.
Eh it's pretty darn obvious and dull if your tailor a
worth noting someone (Murphy?) mentioned a couple of months ago that the
> real scam is that you don't have to deny the CoE publicly, which would allow
> it to work even if someone noticed.
>
> On 2018-02-12 11:48, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Alex Smith wrot
Honestly I doubt that the pink slip would be a punishment at all
because support to replace you likely wouldn't exist.
On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Madeline wrote:
> It's hard to deny that...
>
> On 2018-02-12 11:40, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > Pink slip is most appro
On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Sun, 2018-02-11 at 16:48 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Alex Smith wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2018-02-11 at 16:41 -0800, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> > > > This change, mind you, would make G win.
>
On Sun, 11 Feb 2018, Edward Murphy wrote:
> G. wrote:
>
> > Actually, from what I can tell the issue is the accuracy/timeliness of the
> > recent
> > Metareport,
>
> I've finished writing the record-event code, I'm just about to
> start testing it. Hopefully things will be caught up within the
When you ratify a report that includes a specific "this is the
date this report is for", my understanding is that this modifies
the values for that date. Just like my recent attempt to ratify
"On (date) there were no elections".
In this case, you would have ratified everyone's ribbon holdings
f
revious self-ratifications and just make it so that everyone's had these
> > ribbons for a year.
> > Also, the rules are very strict on "nothing self-ratifies unless we
> > explicitly say it does", and nowhere does it say the date of the report is
> > somethi
ot; has the same effect.
On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> The ratified report was correct though, wasn't it?
>
> In any case, I'm not sure ratification works that way, but I'm not sure it
> can't either. I don't recall any precedent about it, though.
d work that way, though.
> > Self-ratification is clearly limited in scope to the listings themselves. I
> > don't think any surrounding disclaimers or the like are included.
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 at 21:21, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> >>
>
On Sun, 11 Feb 2018, Edward Murphy wrote:
> ArbitorMurphy 2018-01-28(ongoing) 2
Did someone re-start this election after winning it? This is one
that was confusing me earlier.
On Sun, 11 Feb 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> I hereby distribute each listed proposal,
I don't mean to fuss and I don't mean to bug
But you swept this proposal under a rug:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2018-February/037795.html
Browsing the Archives
Is much easier for me
If binned into months
On Sun, 11 Feb 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> Mailman is mean
> And requires a password
> Use Mail-Archive
>
> (Please)
>
> Gaelan
>
> > On Feb 11, 2018, at 6:50 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
By saying there's insufficient information, you imply that you accept
the bid as POSSIBLE in the first place, because if the bid wasn't a
bid at all, the answer would be FALSE no matter what.
On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Statement: "were Gaelan’s bid of i on Quazie’s zombie auctio
/cases/?3242. It would've been
> much different if the CFJ was asking if this Thing was a bid in the first
> place, but it's not, it's about if this Thing would win or not. At least,
> that's how I see it.)
>
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 4:35 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
&g
On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> Are the case statements available somewhere so that I can easily look over
> them for annotations?
Links pasted in below (from Murphy's earlier Gazette):
3614:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2017-December/012154.
't clogging the processing of logic because it's
> considering we're Considering at all in the first place, and therefore it
> could be asked if that Modus Ponens is true or not. But we're not actually
> Considering it at all! Because "Did he distim the doshes?&
H. Rulekeepor,
This annotation for R591:
Amended(45) by Proposal 7975 "Auctions v6" (ATMunn; with o, Aris,
nichdel, G.), Nov 26, 2017
should be:
Amended(45) by Proposal 7976 "A Mostest Ingenious Paradox" (Alexis;
with ais523), Nov 26, 2017
On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> I find it funny how IRRELEVANT is a special case of DISMISS lol
>
> It's like: "This is bogus- but a SPECIAL kind of bogus!"
I was inspired to look at a history for this. TRUE and FALSE were
always there, but the rest of the scheme was:
1993 - UNDECI
CFJ 1895 may be useful, although it was written when 'person' was defined
in other ways. The key quote:
It is a longstanding principle of Agora that fundamental telos, the
Intention,
is non-assumable, irreducible, and non-transferable. Every assumed act of
free will can be traced t
n't deliberately make that thought - but it didn't come from
> > nowhere. It came from the stew (via you perceiving it. And you couldn't
> > have perceived it if wasn't there in the first place, so the origin of that
> > chain reaction is the heat of the st
ny
neighborhood or so at a guess).
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 8:31 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > > I think a fair assessment is eir January+Feburary salary for the office
> > > - 6 shinies - but mitig
On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-02-13 at 22:17 +0100, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > OK, I'm up for trying it. How much would you sell your vote for?
>
> I don't have a vote right now, and part of the problem is that Agora
> doesn't have much assets of lasting value at the moment t
em is very poor at working when
there's general apathy/ambivalence towards it.
On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > I think a fair assessment is eir January+Feburary salary for the office
> > - 6 shinies - but mitigated by ei
I think we should have resetting wins, but not for every win type (e.g. not for
Ribbons
in particular).
I think whenever we've had parallel win methods, we've mixed re-setting and
non-resetting
wins, but never done resets across sub-win types.
I also think we should put in Losing Conditions t
As mentioned before, it doesn't have to be all one thing. There can be
a couple resetting win methods, and some that don't reset. It's fun when
we don't worry about it, but say 1-2 weeks in a quarter events conspire
to have a "race to a prize" that several people compete in. (Things like
Zombi
Last time we did this, 3 players created a contract so that anyone
could act on their behalf to get the support automatically. This
needs objections or the proposal Economy is completely devalued.
On Wed, 14 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> I think that's a lot better for what its trying to do a
Someone should track that...
On Wed, 14 Feb 2018, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> Do you even have enough shinies for all these contracts?
>
>
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 at 22:21, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>
> > Anyways, I deleted the post, but here is an archive of it:
> > http://archive.is/FQpip
> >
> > I need t
On Wed, 14 Feb 2018, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> That still has the problem of delaying proposals by an additional 4 days,
> which is the exact opposite of what we want to do with controversial ones.
I feel like review periods are good things, especially when you're specifically
asking Agora if the pro
On Wed, 14 Feb 2018, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> That still has the problem of delaying proposals by an additional 4 days,
> which is the exact opposite of what we want to do with controversial ones.
Simple alternative:
Every Office gets one Official proposal (or 1 free pend) per week. SHOULD
be pri
y forgotten so the author may forget to resolve the
> intent.
>
> It's tempting to play spoiler and just to object to all intents to prove a
> point, honestly.
>
> (disclaimer: in the above, when I say typo, I'm assuming that we can't use
> the cleaning rule on i
On Thu, 15 Feb 2018, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-02-14 at 15:24 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > Yes, expensive proposals are a paradigm shift to what you're used to.
> >
> > We played like that (even more expensive, actually) from 2001-2005 or
> > so. It work
Can a contract give power to anything?
On Wed, 14 Feb 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> Df
>
> > On Feb 14, 2018, at 7:58 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> >
> > This contract accepts shinies as long as it has fewer than ((Pend Cost) +
> > 1) shines. It accepts no other assets.
> >
> > This contrac
proposal which,
> if adopted, gives power to some or all of its sub-proposals.
>
> Gaelan
>
> > On Feb 14, 2018, at 8:32 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Can a contract give power to anything?
> >
> >> On Wed, 14 Feb 2018, Gaelan
ct doesn’t give power. Contract obligates me to pend a proposal
> >> which, if adopted, gives power to some or all of its sub-proposals.
> >>
> >> Gaelan
> >>
> >>> On Feb 14, 2018, at 8:32 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >>>
> >>
On Wed, 14 Feb 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> I disagree—just because a proposal provides the text of a document doesn’t
> mean that the document is part of the proposal and is evaluated when the
> proposal gains power.
R2350:A proposal is a type of entity consisting of a body of text and
o
; On Feb 15, 2018, at 9:54 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > The following bids are defensive. If the auction works as is sensible
> > these simply
> > result in 12-shiny bids in each auction. If the auction is already screwed
> > up,
> >
t know if it actually works.
>
> On 2/15/2018 1:23 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> > If you’re right about newer bids overwriting older ones, we should be fine.
> >
> > Gaelan
> >
> > > On Feb 15, 2018, at 10:14 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > >
> >
On Fri, 16 Feb 2018, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-02-16 at 10:18 -0800, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> > Yeah—I think I’d prefer standardizing some of this to uppercase. I’ll
> > take a closer look tonight or this weekend.
>
> If we want a consistent rule, my suggestion would be to capitalise any
Speaking of which, once Coins goes through I think we might add a symbol
for our main currency? ($,%,# whatever? "I bid #3" is easier than writing
out the word every time...
On Fri, 16 Feb 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2018, Alex Smith wrote:
> > On Fri, 2018-0
patching auctions, but think there should be a deeper change
because zombies are pretty powerful and unchecked right now.
Also, zombies from actual natural persons has a bit of baggage.
But the bidding's pretty cool, so Outline for discussion. This
nerfs them a bit but hopefully not so much th
cial person" seems like it's distorting
> the definition of person that we've kind of agreed not to question too hard?
>
> On 2018-02-23 05:37, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > patching auctions, but think there should be a deeper change
> > because zombies ar
8, Madeline wrote:
> Okay, you said artificial person rather than artificial player. Guess that was
> just a slip of the fingers? And that's a good point about being able to do
> anytime, I definitely misinterpreted there. Perhaps changing it to
> one-per-month would be a bett
Assuming I get back to this computer tomorrow, I'll likely assess
PAotM in ~24 hours, getting rid of all shinies (barring any bugs
or whatnot).
(quick skim of votes shows it passed, though barely made quorum).
e that an
> important characteristic of zombies is that they used to be "alive".
>
> Also could we make them assets? They are property, and at this point
> are purely synthetic entities.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 10:37 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
&
Auctioneer defaults to Agora (R2547).
On Sat, 24 Feb 2018, ATMunn wrote:
> Unless I'm missing something, doesn't an Auctioneer have to be specified?
>
> On 2/24/2018 12:24 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> >
> > I submit the following Proposal, Zombie Lots,
On Sat, 24 Feb 2018, ATMunn wrote:
> What's VI?
Me showing my age. VI = Voting Index, used to be the name for the ratio
of FOR/AGAINST votes in R955. Forgot it was no longer defined.
Make a contract duplicating gameplay, and a proposal that copies the
state over whenever it happens to pass. It could then have a few folks
vote against it without issue.
On Sun, 25 Feb 2018, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 at 21:12 Cuddle Beam wrote:
>
> > > just sweep it under the
If you're circling back to the original subject with that comment, I'll maybe
make a longer
campaign statement around when voting starts up.
On Sun, 25 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Jest aside I really am interested in knowing what he's going to do with the
> position after the reforms lol
>
Should Ienpw and proof technique be at 0?
On Sun, 25 Feb 2018, Corona wrote:
> What happens next? Is G.'s dethronement by the "triple-A" inevitable? Will
> V.J. Rada finally find redemption? Find out in the next issue of Karma Weekly!
>
> Court:
>
> Karma Entity
> -
> SAMURAI
> -
>
On Mon, 26 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Is there some way to challenge past CFJs? Besides the moot thing, which is
> too late now to do for that.
You can always re-call the same statement or similar. The Judge could say
"CFJ 3580 was decided wrongly, and this is the new decision." However,
On Mon, 26 Feb 2018, ATMunn wrote:
> I forget when I deregistered. When am I allowed to reregister?
>
Not quite! Your deregistration timestamp was Thu, 8 Feb 2018 21:28:52 -0500
-the very late-with-report Registrar
On Mon, 26 Feb 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > I also massively disagree with CFJ 3580, for the " Agora exists
> > platonically, and so can exist without the rest of reality" thing, for the
> > same reasons that CFJ 3622 gave that judgement.
Hi CuddleBeam,
I wanted t
Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 5:04 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 26 Feb 2018, Ned Strange wrote:
> >> With two support, I intend to inititate an election for Notary. I
> >> nominate myself for reportor.
> >
> > I withdraw my nominatio
I don't see a CAN in that sentence?
On Tue, 27 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> "If Proprietary Land becomes Aether, the Cartographor SHALL transfer it to
> Agora in a timely fashion, destroy any facilities on the Land Unit,
> and set *all
> other switches* to their default values."
>
> >all othe
player SHALL
>by announcement' means that the player CAN perform the
> action, and SHALL do so within the time limit.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 5:04 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I don't see a CAN in that sentence?
> >
>
Hi Kenyon,
Question from Registrar: Did you attempt to register/become a player at any
point?
(Just looking at your "if I am a player..." below). Can't find an attempted
registration. Also noting you sent the below CFJ attempt to
agora-business-request,
not agora-business.
Also, you don'
On Wed, 28 Feb 2018, Ned Strange wrote:
> That's no longer the email I use for this game. Obviously not a COE
> because no ratification or anything.
Got it. Assuming you're using edwardostrange at gmail.com, let me know if
different.
401 - 500 of 8209 matches
Mail list logo
