Was looking through my email archives for LambdaMOO stuff, and saw
something about an Agoran MOO that used to exist. Is the database for that
available anywhere? I would love to explore it and see what people made,
even if it's otherwise dead.
What's going on with BlogNomic?
http://blognomic.com/archive/twelve_times_twelve_midnight
Is this just the new theme, risking BlogNomic's existence?
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 12:59 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1931
> >
> > == CFJ 1931 ==
> >
> >IRCNomic is a public con
"47. This nomic is named Canada."
http://lyokoscan.net/wiki/index.php5?title=Canada_Rules
"Any Don can
cause another Don to cease to be bound by this contract without the
objection of a Don."
Is this to be able to easily kick out inactive Dons? Because the Don to be
kicked out can always just object..
I understand that nowadays, it's possible for a rule of power 3 to elevate
itself higher, but was that the case when the Fountain was passed? If not,
how did it get to be Power 4?
What was the point of the first change? Unsuccessful fountain attempt? Also,
how did those proposals pass?
Is "initiator" well-defined in
Win by Paradox
What I mean is, is the initiator the person who initiated the CFJ, or the
person who made the win announcement?
Doesn't the proposal need to specify which rule? I mean, we know because of
context, but still..
Do all rules that specify events to happen at a certain time have power <=
2? If not, than the Holidays rule (R1769) does not overrule it..
I might be wrong, but don't reports traditionally go in OFF?
Gmail says that this was sent 1 hour ago, but I confirmed my IRC
identity with Alexander just some minutes ago.. I think Alexander is a
time traveler >.>
Maybe the proposal should explicitly override R869..
I agree to this contract. If there are any such ordinary decisions
that I can attempt to change to democratic, I do so with 2 support. If
there are any current attempts to change an ordinary decision to
democratic that I can support, I do so.
I agree with and to these changes.
I knew about Agora for a long time, not sure where I first heard about
Nomic. Somewhat recently, I was invited into IRCnomic, and recent
discussions in the channel that used to host ircnomic got me
interested in Agora again..
Proposal titled "Defend Democracy!" AI>=1.5 II=?
No agreement is allowed to force a person to vote a certain way or to
not vote on any democratic decision.
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Proposal titled "Defend Democracy!" AI>=1.5 II=?
> No agreement is allowed to force a person to vote a certain way or to
> not vote on any democratic decision.
>
Erm, replace "person" with "first-class player"
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Proposal titled "Defend Democracy!" AI>=1.5 II=?
>> No agreement is allowed to force a person to vote a certain
Maybe if a rule tells someone that they must do something like vote a
certain way on a democratic question, if a criminal CFJ is called
against that person, they are EXCUSED, or maybe a new judgement..
Protoproposal "Unbribed Actions" AI=3 II=3
"Bribable " is a switch on game actions performable by first-class
players. Options are bribable (default) and unbribable. If a
first-class player breaks a rule by performing an unbribable action,
or not performing an unbribable action, and a different fi
Protoproposal "Unbribed Actions" AI=3 II=3
"Bribable " is a switch on game actions performable by first-class
players. Options are bribable (default) and unbribable. If a
first-class player breaks a rule by performing an unbribable action,
or not performing an unbribable action, and a differen
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:45 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Protoproposal "Unbribed Actions" AI=3 II=3
>
> "Bribability " is a switch on game actions performable by first-class
> players. Options are bribable (default) and unbribable. Changes to
&g
erm, rules to the contrary notwithstanding
Direct consequences of taking an unbribable action or not performing
that action are secured by this rule to be those defined by the rule
that defines the unbribable action in question.
>5577 O1 1comex I don't deserve Scamster!
AGAINSTx2
>5578 O1 1.5 Murphy Easier cleanup of one-off pledges
FORx2
>5579 D0 3Quazie Race the Hare.
FOR
>5580 D1 3SgeoHolidays are sacred
FOR
>5581 D0 2SgeoRibbon Clarific
"14. Whenever a party owns more than 40 OVs, any party may transfer the
OVs e owns in excess of 40 to the Lost and Found department by
announcement."
I think the wording is a bit awkward..
> Keeping in mind there are some who have frowned upon legislative play too,
> and believe 1 person/1 vote and no bribery for all proposals should be
> relatively sacred. And of course those who don't mind bribing judges :).
I fully support legislative play for ordinary decisions, but not
democra
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 4:06 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 14:02 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 1:56 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > --
>> >UNDEFINED BUT HELD PATENT TIT
How does this motivate any parties to act in any way? What value do Reeds have?
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 5:52 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> With Agoran Consent, I act on behalf of Agora to award a win to myself
>> and all persons who support my acting on behalf of Agora
Why is Schrodinger's Cat, who has 0 notes, in the report, but I'm not?
> ---
> Replace the following sentence in R 2124
>
> The Executor of such an announcement of intent CANNOT support
> nor object to it.
>
> with
>
> The Executor of such an announcement of intent CANNOT support
> nor object to it. A partnership of which the Executor is a party
> CANNOT support nor
AI=1.7
"Impeachment"
{
In rule 1504, between the paragraphs describing the sentences of FINE
and CHOKEY, add the following paragraph
{{
* IMPEACH from an elected office, appropriate if the rule breach is
related to an abuse of an elected office, or failure to perform
duties, or other things related
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 9:48 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I mill 4 + 8 = 2.
> I mill 4 - 4 = 0.
Isn't 4+8=1 mod 11?
2008/7/3 Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 9:48 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I mill 4 + 8 = 2.
>> I mill 4 - 4 = 0.
> Isn't 4+8=1 mod 11?
>
Oh, someone already caught that. This is what I get for looking at
mistakes an
Taking the above into consideration, new proto:
AI=1.7
"Impeachment"
{
In rule 1504, between the paragraphs describing the sentences of FINE
and CHOKEY, add the following paragraph
{{
* IMPEACH from an elected office the defendant currently holds for a
specified period of time (possibly none), app
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Taking the above into consideration, new proto:
>
> AI=1.7
> "Impeachment"
> {
> In rule 1504, between the paragraphs describing the sentences of FINE
> and CHOKEY, add the following paragraph
&g
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 11:04 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 8:58 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 8:54 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> You're half right. I initiate an appeal on the question of sentence in
>>>
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 2:14 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> E is currently trying to convince Olipro to support it on IRC. If e
>> does, e can spend some VP and win.
>>
>> Eek! A call to action!
>
> I object to
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:23 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Buy Ticket
> Cost: 10VP
> Action: Object to Sgeo's attempt to Win by Extortion and do not
> retract this objection or support it. This ticket can be filled
> multiple times.
>
> tusho
>
I act on behalf of tusho to retract th
I act on behalf of tusho to cause tusho to take this pledge:
{
I, tusho, pledge not to post any tickets to try to get people to
oppose Sgeo's intent to act on behalf of Agora, nor take any other
action that might have the effect of causing Sgeo's attempt to win by
extortion to fail.}
I act on behal
tusho, you're not a player, which rule 1728 requires.
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 5:00 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 2:53 PM, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 2008/7/7 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> You have to object to an action *before* it's performed if you want it
>>> to have any effect.
>>>
>>> -roo
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 5:07 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/7/7 Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> As much as it pains me to be loyal to Agora
>
> Fixed that for you.
>
I SWHACK tusho for silliness (Canadian [nomic] in-joke)
> I rather prefer the current decentralization of the economy, which
> lets us experiment with multiple models at once. If players want to
> use Chits as legal tender, they can. Players who have no interest in
> the economy can just ignore it. I don't see a reason that any of this
> needs to be
AI=1.7
In Rule 1504, replace
{
* FINE, appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence.
When in effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours destroy one of
eir Notes. The ninny is only obliged to perform one
destruction per question on sentencing, even if sentences of
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 5:32 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:23 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> * FINE in a specified currency whose backing document specifies
>> a FINE amount, appropriate for rule breaches of small con
Fixing an objection raised by ais523
AI=1.7
In Rule 1504, replace
{
* FINE, appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence.
When in effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours destroy one of
eir Notes. The ninny is only obliged to perform one
destruction per question on s
Fixing BobTHJ's objections
AI=1.7
In Rule 1504, replace
{
* FINE, appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence.
When in effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours destroy one of
eir Notes. The ninny is only obliged to perform one
destruction per question on sentencing, eve
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:37 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> * FINE in a specified currency whose backing document specifies
>> a FINE amount and for which the ninny is bound by the cur
Fixing Spear's objections
AI=1.7
In Rule 1504, replace
{
* FINE, appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence.
When in effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours destroy one of
eir Notes. The ninny is only obliged to perform one
destruction per question on sentencing, even
Add some judicial discretion
AI=1.7
In Rule 1504, replace
{
* FINE, appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence.
When in effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours destroy one of
eir Notes. The ninny is only obliged to perform one
destruction per question on sentencing, e
Oops
AI=1.7
In Rule 1504, replace
{
* FINE, appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence.
When in effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours destroy one of
eir Notes. The ninny is only obliged to perform one
destruction per question on sentencing, even if sentences of
Grah
AI=1.7
In Rule 1504, replace
{
* FINE, appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence.
When in effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours destroy one of
eir Notes. The ninny is only obliged to perform one
destruction per question on sentencing, even if sentences of
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 6:17 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Grah
> AI=1.7
> In Rule 1504, replace
> {
>* FINE, appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence.
> When in effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours destroy one of
> eir Notes. The ninny
Traditionally, when protos are done, who gets co-authorship? Certainly
Murphy, for wording it cleanly, thank you, but what about those who
pointed out minor problems here and there? (Thank you too)
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 1:18 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> 5588 D2 2Quazie Proposers Dilemma
>> PRESENT
>
> I retract this vote and vote AGAINST, since R2186 does not allow the
> proposal to do what it c
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 11:49 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-07-07 at 16:36 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> I issue 4 sell tickets:
>>
>> Action: Goethe will award MwoP Titles such that, among those winning
>> by extortion on or about July 7, you will be among the last
I was sort of assuming that contracts like the Vote Market that wanted
to make VPs finable would define a redistribution mechanism that
would, when there are enough VP in the L&FD, distribute points to all
persons bound by the contract..
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 12:05 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was sort of assuming that contracts like the Vote Market that wanted
> to make VPs finable would define a redistribution mechanism that
> would, when there are enough VP in the L&FD, distribute points to all
> 5634 O1 1.7 Taral Specific crinimality
AGAINSTx4
> 5635 O1 1.7 SgeoImpeachment
FORx4
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 2:26 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree to the following, known as "??":
> {
> This is a public contract.
>
> This is a pledge iff it has one party.
>
> Any person may join or leave this contract by announcement.
>
> This co
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 4:27 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 2:07 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I go on hold. I come off hold. I repeat the last two actions 999 more times.
>
> I'm just going to infer from CFJ 1774 t
> I will note that performing the same action 1,000 times takes at least
> 9 copies and 14 pastes; the same action 10,000 times takes at least 13
> copies and 17 pastes, which is not significantly more effort.
>
> -root
>
1 copy, 1 paste:
for i in range(1000):
print "I go on hold. I come off
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 7:06 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 4:31 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Note the following excerpt from the judgement of 1774:
>>
>>> If the effort is an obvious or apparent scam or abuse of other
>>> player's time and efforts
[Allow e.g. Chits to be used for FINEs]
AI=2
Amend Rule 2126 (Notes) by appending a maximum FINE amount.
Amend Rule 1504 (Criminal Cases) by replacing this text:
...
with this text:
* FINE with an amount of one currency, appropriate for rule
breaches of small consequence. An amou
This is how VP can be used for FINEs:
{
13. The maximum FINE amount of VPs is 7VP [just an example]
14. If, at any point, the Lost and Found Department has more VP than
there are parties to this contract, the Broker SHALL, as soon as
possible, give floor(N/P) VP to each first-class player who is
*testing*
Testing
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 10:04 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Testing
>
Why do I get DIS: BUS: here, but the other thread had a-b emails
listed under DIS:?
Sorry
I agree to the following pledge
{
I pledge to, upon a player giving me eir entire supply of a currency,
give said player all of my supply of that currency, including what
that player gave me, as soon as possible.
}
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 10:36 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 10:29 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I agree to the following pledge
>> {
>> I pledge to, upon a player giving me eir entire supply of a currency,
>> gi
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 10:46 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 7:39 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 10:36 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 10:29 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 3:49 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 9:42 AM, Ben Caplan
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thursday 10 July 2008 08:18:54 pm Sgeo wrote:
>>>this amount of the currency, specifies a
>>>
Any opinions on what the maximum fine amount for notes should be?
Also, what II should the proposal be?
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 4:08 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 3:49 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Why have a maximum fine amount?
>
> Because without it I can't create a shell corporation to hold all of
> my assets, giving me some arbitrary curr
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 4:09 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Ben Caplan
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> We want to restrict fines to currencies whose backing documents opt-in
>> to fineability. Now, we could make it binary rather than scalar
>> (instead
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 4:28 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 4:20 PM, Ben Caplan
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> That wouldn't be an effective scam, unless the judge was in on it. E's
>> under no obligation to specify your shell corporation's currency for
>>
> NUM FL AI SUBMITTER TITLE
> 5636 D0 2ais523 Defining Monsterholdors
PRESENT
> 5637 O1 1Quazie Agora is my conditional value
FORx4
> 5638 O1 1.7 Murphy Pragmatize initiation of equity cases
FORx4
> 5639 D1 3Murphy Refactor clarity
PRESENT
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:40 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:34 AM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> 5637 O1 1Quazie Agora is my conditional value
>> I change my vote to ENDORSE Agora x4
>
> I don't
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:04 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:52 AM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I thought that ENDORSE Agora was already defined.. I remember seeing
>> it somewhere.. maybe it was in a proto and I got conf
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:14 AM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:04 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:52 AM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I thought that ENDORSE Agora was alread
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 12:03 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Taral wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 9:43 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
c) A public statement that one performs an action is true if
and
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 2:11 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 11:52 AM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> currency's backing document binds the ninny or the ninny has
>> this amount of the currency, and the backing document specif
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 11:57 AM, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 2008/7/15 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
The problem is that partnerships aren't people.
>>>
>>> They are if they're public and have a basis of
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 4:28 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 13:25 -0700, Taral wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:12 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Amend Rule 1504 (Criminal Cases) by replacing this text:
>> >
>> > * UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if th
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 1:40 PM, The PerlNomic Partnership
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I transfer 75 chits each to Woggle, ais523, Ivan Hope, tusho, and woggle
>
Woggle twice?
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 10:46 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 14:31 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote:
>> 2008/7/16 ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> > Actually, you got that backwards, in Canada, Dancing created a dance,
>> > rather than getting rid of one. OTOH, it might be qui
This is just a proto of a contract. I do not agree to this contract at
this time.
{
This is a public contract called "Vote Market Insurance". Parties to
this contract are known as Insurees.
Any entity that either possesses VP or is bound by the Vote Market may
join this contract by announcement.
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 8:33 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is just a proto of a contract. I do not agree to this contract at
> this time.
>
> {
> This is a public contract called "Vote Market Insurance". Parties to
> this contract are known as In
> 7 Jul 2008 15:49:00 -0400
> Attempted action by Sgeo: "With Agoran Consent, I act on behalf
> of Agora to award myself and all supporters a Win." Success of
> action subject to CFJ 2055.
>
> 7 Jul 2008 15:59:46 -0400
> Sgeo posts (or
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 11:09 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 11:04 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I agree to the following contract:
>> {
>> This is a public contract.
>> Sgeo SHALL give 50 VP to ihope as soon as
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/7/17 Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> I submit the following proposal:
>>
>> Exorcism
>> AI: 1
>> II: 0
>> {
>> Upon adoption of this proposal each proposal whose title includes the
>> word "Demon" which is in the Pr
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 3:25 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 1:14 PM, Elliott Hird
>> Exorcism
>> AI: 1
>> II: 0
>
> This will likely need to be a higher AI.
>
> Side note: looks like the first thing to do for minor a
> Maybe you could have Refreshing cards, which are automatically generated
> at the end of the week; e.g. if a card has Refreshing 4, everyone is
> restored up to 4 of them at the end of each week. Then you could have
> Refreshing cards for proposals and CFJs, to implement an excess-proposal
> limi
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Official Claim of Error:
>
> I believe/claim that to the best of my knowledge, the results of
> Proposal 5582 have been incorrectly reported in a manner that would
> change their outcome, by leaving out OscarMeyr's vote AGA
As part of my project to flood Agora with Canada references, I'm
considering a contest along these lines, though I'm still not sure how
Power-1 Dances would be obtained. I was thinking 2 Power-N dances
could be converted to 1 Power-(N+1) Dance, Dances of Power-4 or
greater are Powerful Dances, and
1 - 100 of 351 matches
Mail list logo
