Welcome!!!
You've sent this to the discussion forum (agora-discussion@agoranomic.org).
With rare exception, no actions sent to this forum do anything. To
register, send the same message to agora-busin...@agoranomic.org. You
should subscribe to that and also agora-offic...@agoranomic.org.
If
Counterargument:
If I ask the question: "has the Promotor added Proposal 8077 back
to the proposal pool once?" the answer right now would be yes, so if
e added it again it would be twice, which the rule doesn't allow
em to do.
On Sat, 25 Aug 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> Actually, upon re-r
I'm ~a year behind in updating (and have been stuck midway in porting it
to Agoranomic.org since spring) but old CFJs are here:
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/
But updating those in the FLR is definitely an optional extra. Very much
optional.
On Sat, 25 Aug 2018, Timon Walsh
Yes you are absolutely doing it right :). Good catch.
On Sat, 25 Aug 2018, D Margaux wrote:
> Hi everyone!
>
> I Call for Judgement (barring twg) on the following statement: “D. Margaux
> currently has in eir possession 5 incense.”
>
> Argument in favor: R2499 does state quite clearly that,
Also for recent stuff, the "recently-resolved cases" sections of the court
gazette
has summaries that can be grabbed for annotations.
On Sat, 25 Aug 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I'm ~a year behind in updating (and have been stuck midway in porting it
> to Agoranomic.org
Remember not to count D Margaux's vote as e was not a player
when the decision was distributed (R683).
On Sun, 26 Aug 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> Thank you everyone, we do now have enough votes to pass quorum.
>
> However, I will hold off on actually resolving the decision until Aris has
I can opine in the CFJ on whether such a transfer is simultaneous, anyway.
On Sun, 26 Aug 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> Oh dear. I've just noticed that the quoted Notice of Honour was published
> last Monday, so my CFJed one about Agora's karma was my second this week, and
> therefore inva
The Referee's Weekly Report is inferred from R2555:
> The Referee is an office, and the recordkeepor for blots.
and
> Blots are an indestructible fixed currency
which leads to R2166:
> The recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity (if any)
> defined as such by, and bou
2018, or a portion thereof,
> > is doubted."
> >
> > If G.'s claim of error is in fact a doubt, then in response to it, I cite
> > the first above CFJ (which I believe relieves me of the obligation to
> > either revise the report or deny the CoE in a timely fashion
The auction ended minutes ago, but you won anyway.
On Thu, 30 Aug 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> NttPF!!
>
> -twg
>
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> On August 30, 2018 7:58 AM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>
> > I bid 1 more than the most recent bid on the last auction I bid on.
> > Ev
twg
>
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> On September 1, 2018 3:14 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I object to the Badges should be for broader participatory events, This
> > is more appropriate for a one-off patent title.
> >
> > I object to t
Don't forget to pay for your zombie Aris, you have about 12 hours left...
On Thu, 30 Aug 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> The zombie auction for Telnaior has ended. Aris was the
> winner with a bid of 30 coins.
>
> Bids
> 30 Aris
> 20 G.
> 5 Aris (cancelled)
> 1 G. (cancelled)
On Sun, 9 Sep 2018, D Margaux wrote:
> I cause nichdel pay 3 apples to stake a land claim to (-3, 1) with
> land type Black.
You must be active to stake a land claim, so this fails:
> 7. 3 apples to Stake a Land Claim on a specified land unit that is
> adjacent to the Entity's curr
On Sun, 9 Sep 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> (I do still plan to take over Rulekeepor in the future if nobody finds
> this objectionable, but I'm not yet prepared to do so.)
No pressure whatsoever, but have you put much work into this so far?
If I come to writing a land overhaul in a few we
t I'm not going to _have_ a free weekend until October at
> least.
>
> What I could do, I think, is publish the SLR and then immediately resign as
> Rulekeepor, but I'm not entirely clear whether that would work to relieve me
> of the obligation to publish the FLR too.
>
&g
On Sun, 9 Sep 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> quorum is 7.0, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid
quorum is 3 I think.
We used to have three kinds of CFJs with different procedures and standards
of evidence, inquiry cases (the generic default), criminal cases (self-
explanatory) and equity cases (for contract disputes).
I suppose you could argue that this makes "inquiry case" the only existing
subtype of CFJ ra
not a "plan"--it was a clear statement that I
> would not execute the intent if "one" person objected (thereby setting
> N=1). Aris does not explain why anyone could be "unclear" about the
> number of objections required to prevent me from taking the action.
> And A
preferring a
> second CFJ?
>
> -twg
>
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> On Thursday, September 13, 2018 8:44 PM, Kerim Aydin
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I object, and will note that it really is considered Bad Form/Sportsmanship
> > around here to judg
Working fine for me, but this happened to me 2 months ago and it turned out the
Agoranomic
had magically set my preferences on the mailing list info to turn off delivery.
I think
that happened to a couple others too, so check preferences.
On a related note, is there a reason that replying to
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> This seems to be an argument for replacing (or complementing) "clear" by
> "unobfuscated" in the relevant rule text.
Huh, actually, a leading definition of "obfuscated" is "unclear":
'obfuscate: render obscure, unclear, or unintelligible.'
I don't t
ler.
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> > This seems to be an argument for replacing (or complementing) "clear" by
> > "unobfuscated" in the relevant rule text.
>
> Huh, actually, a leading definition of &qu
On Sun, 16 Sep 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> Well (2) would be appropriate, but I think (1) is irrelevant until an actual
> reward action happens. Also, I don't think any of this information is
> self-ratifying regardless - I see nothing in the rules and vaguely recall that
> the Herald's stuff
I'm not a big fan of this - if we award almost-scams (assuming it didn't
work) with proposal-based AI-1 championship wins what's the darn point?
Other option (preferable): ask the herald to attempt to award champion
with 2 Agoran Consent - at least that ensures that the support is
more of a co
Whups! If nothing else, this sure puts em at the bottom of the pile for the
next
auction! (I'll try to remember to include blot info when doing auctions in
future).
On Sun, 16 Sep 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> On Sunday, September 16, 2018 3:42 PM, D Margaux
> wrote:
> > Person
On Sun, 16 Sep 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> I would like to request that nobody CoE the resolution of proposal 8089,
> because it wouldn't change the outcome of the decision and would have a
> knock-on effect on this distribution's quorum which I would much rather
> not have to think about
The issue with this is that the Herald CANNOT award 2+ Champion titles
simultaneously (I think... by R649 each award is an individual act).
So if e says "I award Champion to twg and D Margaux" then D Margaux is
the one who was "most recently" awarded it. With simultaneous wins,
this shifts the
On Sun, 16 Sep 2018, Edward Murphy wrote:
> D Margaux wrote:
>
> > I initiate two CFJs as follows:
> >
> > (1) The Referee CAN act on behalf of eir zombie to Point the zombie’s
> > Finger at a player.
>
> This is CFJ 3660. I assign it to G.
This seems like a straightforward TRUE (even
Thanks! :)
On Sun, 16 Sep 2018, D Margaux wrote:
> In light of that, I withdraw my candidacy for Herald, since I have no ideas
> in particular for reinvigorating patent titles.
>
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 7:16 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Sun,
oops, yes, I saw you mentioned that last week but I forgot - thanks!
On Mon, 17 Sep 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Sep 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> > Fora (Rule 478, self-ratifying)
>
> > Discussion irc://irc.freenode.net:6667/##nomic
> > <http://i
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018, Alex Smith wrote:
> This may actually suggest a general principle for avoiding ambiguities
> like this one: as the formatting of text is irrelevant, an attempt to
> specify something in a way that doesn't have a clear "start-to-finish"
> order is failing to uniquely specify
situation is one where that “general” rule probably doesn’t apply.
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 4:51 AM Cuddle Beam wrote:
> >
> >> I love the proposal, I just I dislike the ambiguity because it might
> >> defuse
> >> it and then th
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> - Incense is useless and exists only due to a ruleset bug.
Not anymore...? (nothing to CoE if the asset is undefined now).
Cool. I highly support a 3-way proposal composition in this form if
the wording can be figured out.
But I don't think this version works, because the proposals have to be
resolved (by the Assessor) sequentially not simultaneously, and
conditionals can't be resolved based on future conditions (
yes
On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> You do realize that, legally, the arguments aren't really part of the
> judgement?
>
> -Aris
> On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 12:01 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I (self-) file a motion to reconsid
Huh. I agree that our usual Agoran method of interpretation would be
(most likely) to treat this literally (i.e. broken).
On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, D Margaux wrote:
> I noticed an issue with the Points proposal.
>
> >> For a player to 'lose' a point is for it to be destroyed (if e has one).
>
>
CFJ 1361 ("Beverly") is quite relevant here.
On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Sun, 2018-09-23 at 14:02 -0600, Reuben Staley wrote:
> > Therefore, "D. Margaux" and "D Margaux" refer to the same person, a
> > person who registered during April of this year.
> >
> > This ends my argume
Two gratuitous arguments:
1. CFJ 3657 found that the +1 and -1 are simultaneous:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2018-September/039083.html
2. In R2510, clause (2) and clause (3) somehow got reversed, in that the
"other" in clause (2) is meant to refer to
I will challenge/CoE the counting of any vote done in this matter.
It is wholly unreasonable (beyond the bounds of clarity) to require
persons to look back at past decisions to see what vote was cast.
(public voting should communicate not just with the assessor, but
with everyone).
On Sun, 23 S
On Mon, 24 Sep 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> > 2. In R2510, clause (2) and clause (3) somehow got reversed, in that the
> > "other" in clause (2) is meant to refer to the fact that it can't be the
> > same en
On Mon, 24 Sep 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
>
> > I vote, and act on behalf as Tenaior to vote, as follows:
>
> Not that it matters, but it's "Telnaior".
It matters if people are claiming that D. Margaux and D Margaux are
somehow different
On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> I object. You’ve just stated that you have a strong personal opinion.
Whether or not I judge this, I'm open to discussion and changing my first
impression.
(Obviously I can't make you not object, but using "expressing an opinion"
as a reason suppres
ir views on it. I have attempted
> to make that possible. If you disagree, that’s your right, but I’m only
> trying to be helpful. If you believe that the attempts at lowering quorum
> are inadvisable, that is a disagreement best worked out through the
> proposal process.
>
> With hop
t; looking up a vote on a relatively recent decision.
>
> -Aris
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 9:03 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > > I object. You’ve just stated that you have a strong pe
ive because of a minor and insubstantial typo or spelling variation.
>
> Last month, I sent a registration message signed “--D. Margaux,” from an
> email account with an email name “D Margaux .” Any
> reasonable player would perceive that both “D Margaux” and “D. Margaux” refer
better served by a re-phrased question which [because long arguments]
is TRUE".
On Fri, 28 Sep 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> This addresses whether this is a valid Notice of Honour, which I agree
> with. However, it doesn't address the question, which is ""This Notice
> of
I'm not sure where I stand, but I'm split enough on this issue (and
others found the win pretty clear and clever) that I'd support a moot
if desired.
On Fri, 28 Sep 2018, D Margaux wrote:
> I am grateful for the thoughtful consideration given by Judge Aris to the
> issues raised in this CFJ. I
On Fri, 28 Sep 2018, D Margaux wrote:
> Accordingly, I judge that the spelling of “Honour” as “honor” does not defeat
> the EFFECTIVEness of Trigon’s Notice of Honour.
When I wrote that rule, I (being American) specifically chose the British
spelling,
it was kind of an experiment to see if pe
On Fri, 28 Sep 2018, D Margaux wrote:
> Arg! For both of these CoEs, I think I meant (-3, 1)—not (1, -3). I keep
> confusing which comes first, latitude or longitude.
I work with maps a lot for a living and I still always forget that (lat,lon)
is (y,x) and not (x,y). Curse those ancient Greeks
On Fri, 28 Sep 2018, D Margaux wrote:
> I intend with Notice to flip the following zombies' master switches to
> Agora:
>
> Zombie Master Resale Agora was last eir Master on
> o PSS 1 27-Jun-18 21:08:31
> Kenyon twg 1 27-Jun-18 21:51:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2018, D Margaux wrote:
> Oh nice. Sorry, didn’t catch that announcement.
Actually I really appreciate that others are paying attention to
the report dates and tracking/thinking about zombie gameplay!
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-09-28 at 10:14 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > When I wrote that rule, I (being American) specifically chose the
> > British spelling, it was kind of an experiment to see if people would
> > rigidly stick to it. I'
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> > CFJ, barring D. Margaux:
> >Corona and D. Margaux made a Contract in the last 24 hours.
>
> Unless it's been changed since June 6, creating a Contract requires payment.
; Now, of course, what I’ve done could’ve been total bullshit but feel free
> > to CfJ and present _evidence_ against what I’ve just done to prove me
> > wrong.
> >
> > On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 at 01:12, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > &
On Sun, 30 Sep 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Also, about the scamster thing, I’d prefer not lol, because I’m not proud
> of my “scamming” here on Agora. It doesn’t have scamster merit because I do
> these things quite blindly - mere potshots in the dark - and I’m really
> just persistent, which isn
On Sun, 30 Sep 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> Good attempt at a scam. I had already anticipated it, however, and I think
> you
> will find you'd rather have submitted to the currency revaluation.
Do you thing the transferring-to-contract actually worked? It takes non-obvious
(and frankly a
On Mon, 1 Oct 2018, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
> On Sun, 2018-09-30 at 17:36 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On Sun, 30 Sep 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> > > Good attempt at a scam. I had already anticipated it, however, and
> > I think you
> > > will fi
On Sun, 30 Sep 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
> We can rework the Arcadia rules. New assets, new map, new everything. I would
> try to get back into the swing of things if the mechanics sounded interesting.
So, as I mentioned a couple months back, I tried a couple times to draft
something adding to
On Mon, 1 Oct 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Sep 2018, D Margaux wrote:
>
> > I CFJ (barring Aris) this statement: “G.’s attempt in the message quoted
> > below to transfer coins to the contract between em and D. Margaux is
> > EFFECTIVE.” (I note for the Arbitor’s benefit that G. is
On Sun, 30 Sep 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> So, for instance, pending proposals and
> calling CFJs should always be free and unlimited, excluding abuse.
What a limited view of a very small slice of game history this is.
. This would allow
> the Promotor to delay distributing a proposal and then remove it. I
> also haven't run a consistency check on this yet.
>
> I know this is partly (probably mostly) a manifestation of your
> frustration, but I actually agree with it.
>
>
On Sun, 30 Sep 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Okay, poll for everyone:
>
> 1. Have you ever been involved in the economy because it was required
> to take main game actions?
> 2. If so, did you enjoy it?
Yes. I've both enjoyed and not enjoyed. There were some (required to
participate) that I
On Sun, 30 Sep 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 9:06 PM Alex Smith wrote:
> > What about this: we have repeated instances of a subgame each lasting a
> > week or so, and some easy way to amend the rules of the subgame (easier
> > than a proposal;
For me, the "perfect" game
On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 9:06 PM Alex Smith wrote:
> What about this: we have repeated instances of a subgame each lasting a
> week or so, and some easy way to amend the rules of the subgame (easier
> than a proposal;
Oh, and by the way: this can be done without changing a single rule,
it's ca
2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> How are the Tournament rules currently?
>
> On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 3:16 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 9:06 PM Alex Smith
> > wrote:
> > > What about this: we have repeated instances of a subgame
ly deregistered... :-)
>
> I cause nichdel to Point eir Finger at Cuddle Beam for failing to track a
> bunch more things in the time that elapsed since G. Pointed eir Finger.
>
> > On Oct 1, 2018, at 7:15 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
deregistered... :-)
> >
> > I cause nichdel to Point eir Finger at Cuddle Beam for failing to track a
> > bunch more things in the time that elapsed since G. Pointed eir Finger.
> >
> > > On Oct 1, 2018, at 7:15 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > >
> > >
&
On Tue, 2 Oct 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Ok don't freak out now, but you have exactly $8,008,135 by the way.
y'know, I think I'm just going to let that one self-ratify.
On Tue, 2 Oct 2018, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-10-02 at 07:43 +0200, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > Ok don't freak out now, but you have exactly $8,008,135 by the way.
>
> Do we have to CoE this to stop it self-ratifying? Or can we ratify an
> Agoran legal fiction that G. has that much? Would an
r weekly duties.
On Tue, 2 Oct 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Oct 2018, Alex Smith wrote:
> > On Tue, 2018-10-02 at 07:43 +0200, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > > Ok don't freak out now, but you have exactly $8,008,135 by the way.
> >
> > Do we have to CoE this to
On Tue, 2 Oct 2018, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-10-02 at 03:04 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > Actually, if real-world currencies are mapped via contract to being
> > Agoran currencies, there *IS* a reporting requirement:
> >The recordkee
olation
> for eir failure to keep those records until such time as a report
> is required (which may be never)?
>
> > On Oct 2, 2018, at 6:19 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Tue, 2 Oct 2018, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
> >>>
On Tue, 2 Oct 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 2:29 PM, D Margaux wrote:
> > I cause the contract between me and G entitled the First Bank of Agora to
> > transfer to me a number of coins equal to the number of coins that I have
> > previously transferred to that con
On Tue, 2 Oct 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> I reject your CoE; my report contains the line "The First Bank of Agora
> currently possesses 1006 coins."
Oh, sorry! Missed it way down there.
On Tue, 2 Oct 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> It's not a conditional _vote_, it's a conditional _action to change
> the vote_. You still submitted an unconditional vote; it's just that
> the content of your vote is, er, conditional on something else.
How on earth do you come up with that rea
t;
>
> On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 2:31 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 2 Oct 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> > > It's not a conditional _vote_, it's a conditional _action to change
> > > the vote_. You still submitted an uncond
On Tue, 2 Oct 2018, D Margaux wrote:
> This may be an oversight in the rules, since it seems to let technical
> deadline violations be punished but not if the deadline was unmet for long
> enough.
Last time I was referee, I meant to change it so the 14-day deadline
was for the finger-point, no
On Tue, 2 Oct 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> OK, please nobody do anything major with coins until these CFJs
> are judged, otherwise we may end up with a horrible divergence.
Well, I'm required to start a zombie auction this week, and it's not
a divergence yet (if it turns out the votes were
Specifically for "emergency", there are other Nomics out there (we at one
point had an active foreign relations program). From time to time, a
nomic gets it in its head to "invade" another nomic, where "invasion"
consists of mass registration in the target nomic to try to pass a rule
that says
Thanks for doing this! Since it's irregular, could you include a
"last ruleset change recorded" text on the top?
On Wed, 3 Oct 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
> I have updated the rulesets once again, including every proposal resolved as
> of yesterday.
>
> https://github.com/AgoraNomic/ruleset/bl
On Thu, 4 Oct 2018, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
> After checking the rules: violating pledges is defined as a crime, but
> I can't see any actual requirement to avoid committing crime. The
> relationship between crimes and illegal actions does not seem to be
> well-defined. The most plausibl
pecial
> > deference. I intend, with 2 support, to file a motion to reconsider
> > this CFJ. I'll try to correct the other problems I have with the
> > ruling legislatively, but on this point I think it's just incorrect.
> >
> > -Aris
> > On Fri, Sep 28,
On Sat, 6 Oct 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
> > -Am I a zombie?
>
> No, your master switch is even still yourself.
While you're not a zombie, I think someone recently announced an
intent to make you one, so you should post a quick hello there to
the public forum if you want to avoid zombiehood.
ts
> in the interim period, and allows em to receive a Welcome Package again
> afterwards.
>
> -twg
>
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> On Saturday, October 6, 2018 6:36 PM, Kerim Aydin
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On behalf of Gaelan, I act as f
It failed (if it did) by being caught in scam crossfire - I'm going to put it
back in the Razing of Land proposal I plan to get pended this weekend
(with a conditional in case it didn't fail).
On Sat, 6 Oct 2018, D Margaux wrote:
> It might have passed. There are four votes that are contingent
I would add "unobfuscated" to really bullet-proof it because that
covers any attempt to hide...?
On Sun, 7 Oct 2018, D. Margaux wrote:
> What would you think of a requirement that an intent to take a dependent
> action be announced “conspicuously”? Something like:
>
>
>
> //
>
>
> Am
Yes, I agree. Otherwise we'd have to assume that if you just replied
to yourself in BUS, every action in quotes would be re-done. (And
that's specifically why you need to append a PF rather than just
forwarding from DIS to BUS without comment). I'd define the unclarity
as "unclear whether
On Sun, 7 Oct 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> I know we used to have a Bill of Rights in Rule 101. It might be neat
> to add that back again. Does anyone (particularly anyone who around
> when we last had it) have any comments on the idea of bringing back
> legal rights?
My "if I ever get around t
On Sun, 7 Oct 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> G. commented that e moved most of the provisions, rather than deleting
> them. All we'd be doing is reconsolidating them.
So after some thought, I don't think we'd be well-served by this approach.
I think that the original Rights did an ok job when it
On Mon, 8 Oct 2018, ATMunn wrote:
> When I stopped playing several months ago, contracts were in the middle of
> being revised. I left before they were actually finalized. What is the current
> state of contracts? Do they work like they used to or have they been changed?
>
> While I'm at it, wh
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-10-09 at 16:08 -0600, Reuben Staley wrote:
> > Since you are Slate A and Slate C, you either can't win the game by
> > announcement because Slate B players can as the former, or you can't win
> > the game by announcement becaus
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
> On 10/9/2018 4:20 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On Tue, 9 Oct 2018, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2018-10-09 at 16:08 -0600, Reuben Staley wrote:
> > > > Since you are Slate A and Slate C, yo
Well, it's all in the same category, so it's not a huge burden to
write (x500) in the report.
But yes, there have been some "technically infinite" wins in the past
I think - this isn't the first time a winning condition failed to reset
itself.
On Wed, 10 Oct 2018, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 2
Ok, Here's my catalog of events. Want to see if we can condense cases
before figuring out what raft of CFJs are needed.
Corona, Trigon, VJ Rada start out with Blots, therefore CANNOT win.
Announcements made (including Slates of announcers):
Trigon (B, C): I cause the Slate B players to wi
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018, ATMunn wrote:
> On 10/9/2018 8:44 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > ATMunn (A, C): I win the game.
> I realized also, don't I have a blot? I assume I can expunge it, but I haven't
> yet.
Missed that - unfortunately the rule self-repealed now so i
minated contract cannot own assets. :)
>
> -twg
>
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> On Thursday, October 11, 2018 11:42 PM, Kerim Aydin
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 11 Oct 2018, D Margaux wrote:
> >
> > > I have sent to G. certain
ot; interpretation) is
> >>> that if the set of Slate N players, where N is a valid slate, cannot win,
> >>> and a person's set of slates includes N, e may not win since one of eir
> >>> slates cannot win. The other interpretation (the "inclusive"
Amusingly, there was previously text that said winning was Secured, which
would have implied that Instruments such as proposals (with the correct
power) would have worked. It was removed to make winning more permissive
for lower-powered rules. This was removed in Sept 2016, so maybe winning-
Well yes, but if it worked due to explicit Rules text prior to Sept 2016, and
nobody noticed that removing that text broke things, and nobody questioned it,
then no precedent has yet been set with the new rules text, even if we've all
assumed it worked in the mean time. Most of those wins-by-pr
ny evidence and arguments that anyone has on
> that topic, especially since I wasn't around for that Rule change and so
> lack some of the background.
>
>
>
> On Friday, October 12, 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> >
> > Well yes, but if it worked due t
901 - 1000 of 8209 matches
Mail list logo
