"Perpepuum" isn't a word, to my knowledge; perhaps you're after the
phrase "perpetual motion machine". "Labour" means "job" or "physical
task", so "Lab Worker" might work better there.
—Tanner L. Swett
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 9:23 PM, Keba wrote:
> Proposal "Rights are important" (AI=3.5, II=1, distributable via fee)
> {{{
> Increase the power of Rule 101 "The Rights of Agorans" to 3.5.
An AI of 3 is sufficient for this, as an instrument with a power of 3
is not restricted.
—Tanner L. Swett
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
wrote:
> The shuttle has completed two very short journeys in quick succession.
> For each journey, every player who was active and not the enemy at the
> start of it has earned one farad.
>
> I award myself two capacitors for being onboard at the e
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> Grand Vizier: 3
> Head Gardner: 3
> Crown Prince: 1
Do you mean "Head Gardener: 2"?
—Proofreader Tanner L. Swett
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 5:23 PM, ais523 wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 17:17 -0400, Warrigal wrote:
>> Do you mean "Head Gardener: 2"?
>
> No; they're equal in the original proposal. And 2 is the default.
At least fix the spelling of "gardener".
—Proofreader Tanner L. Swett
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2842
>
> == Criminal Case 2842 (Interest Index = 2) ===
>
> Murphy violated Power-1 Rule 2143 by failing to publish an ATC's
> report in the week starting A
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 8:41 PM, ais523 wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 20:36 -0400, Sgeo wrote:
>> There is a nomic [of admittedly questionable nomicness, but not
>> existence, I think] called The Robot...
>
> Warrigal's one where causality works backwards?
No, H. Sgeo's one where all events take
"Labour" still means "work", not "worker". May I suggest "Undergrad"
or "Intern"?
—Tanner L. Swett
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 8:52 PM, wrote:
> AGAINST unless it's "labour"
Then it looks like my vote will effectively denounce yours.
—Disagreer Tanner L. Swett
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 8:09 AM, Keba wrote:
> Proposal "Leet Leadership" (AI=1, II=1, distributable via fee)
> {{{
> Create a new Rule with power=1 entitled "Leet Leadership":
>
> When an interested proposal consisting of exact 1337 words
> (excluding information like name, or adopti
Sgeo and I have created an informal alliance, which we're calling the
FSCN. The goal of the FSCN is to bring its own members a
disproportionate amount of power within Agora, and keep it. We shall
accomplish this by promoting proposals giving power to the elite, and
allowing players to accumulate po
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 8:23 AM, Keba wrote:
> Warrigal wrote:
>> I suggest adding a clause like this: "If there is ambiguity about the
>> number of words in a proposal (for example, if there are hyphenated
>> words), it SHOULD be interpreted as containing exactly 1337 wo
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn
wrote:
> I am, though I'm not sure of what I have to offer the FSCN.
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 9:21 AM, Keba wrote:
> I would like to join, as I like team play.
Well, then, you're in. I hereby inceive the FSCN, composed of me,
Sgeo, Tiger, and Keba.
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 7:57 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn
wrote:
> I think that could be accomplished by making capacitors a bit more
> accumulable. Are they tradeable, for example? I'd say up the price for
> creating them out of ergs, and instead make it so that they don't
> automatically go back to erg fo
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Keba wrote:
> Hm, I like the weekly destroying of ergs and capacitors, because I like
> the way the current economy works, so I am against a manual destroying.
Well, one of our stated purposes is to allow players to accumulate
power. How do you propose that this b
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 1:06 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> When an officer becomes inactive, all of eir offices become Assumed.
> Anyone can assume the office, and even immediately resign it if it
> seems likely that things will get done by deputization more
> efficiently when the office is empty.
F
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Keba wrote:
> Proposal "White Renaissance" (AI=1, II=1, distributable via fee)
> {{{
> Amend Rule 2199 "Ribbons" by removing:
>
> (except for White Ribbons, which can be awarded at any time
> within a month after they are earned)
>
> [So, no one posses
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 7:15 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 6:23 PM, Warrigal wrote:
>> While this does result in White Ribbons not being needed for a
>> Renaissance win (as White is no longer mentioned in the rule), it does
>> not result in White Ribbons
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 1:23 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> > On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 11:54 PM, Warrigal wrote:
>> > > The asset defined is not "white ribbon"; it is "ribbon". Every ribbon
>> > > then has a color. A white ribbon is a ribbon whose co
Note that "class" isn't actually defined by the rules. It could just
as easily be "type", or even "set". If the rules state that something
is a class of asset, that doesn't really tell us anything we didn't
already know.
Now, here's what the key thing to realize is, as I see it. An asset
only exis
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 5:45 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> My argument is that this is governed by R2140(c). A Proposal is an
> instrument of power, and if it attempts to create a token, it is
> "modifying a substantive aspect" of the rule defining the Tokens (my
> argument implies that it is the token
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 11:23 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Does fungibility break this?
No, because capacitors are not a currency.
—Tanner L. Swett
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I was also thinking towards the end that it's a pretty good Prisoner's
> Dilemma situation set up. Towards the end (when chance was pretty
> near 50/50) there were a few people who could better their position by
> one by rebelling; then there w
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 4:41 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Hawkishness (Rule 1871) of active players
> -
>
> Hovering: Tanner L. Swett
> Taral
>
> All other active players are hemming-and-hawing.
CoE: this is no longer defined.
—Tanner L. Swett
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> No, PD is was exactly at one point. The logic: "All of us non-rebels left
> will move lower on the list if the rebellion wins. So we (collectively)
> want the rebellion to fail, so we shouldn't rebel (that's cooperation).
> However, individua
I say if the report was published at time T, and it does not say it's
a report from time S, then it's a report from time T.
—Tanner L. Swett
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 9:24 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> CoE: This is missing about 6 proposals. Quite possibly every single
> one proposed since I stopped record keeping.
It is indeed missing every single one proposed since you stopped
recordkeeping. I wasn't aware that there were any; somehow,
> To create a Team Balancer means to create a new second-class
> Player entitled "Team Balancer " followed by the smallest
> positive integer that would cause the player to have a unique
> name, which means there has never existed a player with that
> name. Such a
On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 8:34 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Proposal: P fix (AI=1.7, II=0, Distributable)
I'm interpreting this as meaning that you thereby make this proposal
Distributable.
—Promotor Tanner L. Swett
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 12:53 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Sep 2010, Warrigal wrote:
>> Also, I question whether violating a SHALL is a rule violation if
>> GUILTY is inappropriate.
>
> Can you elaborate on what you mean by this?
I momentarily forgot the text of "
On Tuesday, September 7, 2010, Warrigal wrote:
> Without two objections from members of my team, I intend to change its
> name to "Confederate".
>
> —Confederator Tanner L. Swett
If possible, I do so.
--
Cantr, a browser-based RPG: http://www.cantr.net/ Create a Lojba
Note to self: I now have 21 Rests.
—Pariah Tanner L. Swett, still dangerously close to the edge
Conclusion: List-of-Succession-like things are a huge headache. Let's
go back to VLOPs.
—Tanner L. Swett
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 1:44 AM, comex wrote:
> Proposal: Erratification
>
> Ratify the following incorrect document: { 1 + 1 = 3 }
The definition: "When a public document is ratified, the gamestate is
minimally modified so that the ratified document was completely true
and accurate at the time i
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 8:57 PM, Taral wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 5:35 PM, omd wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Taral wrote:
>>> 9. omd is the Pariah, and Rule 2312 applies to all players, including
>>> judges.
>>
>> No I'm not.
>
> Oh? I was pretty sure I checked the records...
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 6:17 PM, ais523 wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-09-26 at 18:10 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> I intend, without objection from 2 members of Imperial and without
>> objection from 2 members of Team 4, to move Tiger to Team 4.
>
> I object.
> I note that it's in Sgeo's and Yally's bes
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 7:23 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> I have no problem with missing a proposal. Announcing that it's
> inconsequential because you think the proposal is stupid isn't
> something I think we expect from our Promotor, though.
Noted. I will be more civil in the future.
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 11:46 PM, omd wrote:
> I hereby invoke my R101 right to request formal reconsideration of a
> judicial determination that I should be punished, and appeal the
> judgement of CFJ 1631, as ruling that I registered three days later
> than my original attempt prevents me from t
Gratuitous gratuitous evidence: to my knowledge, making a judicial
declaration is not a regulated action.
—Tanner L. Swett
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2865
>
> === CFJ 2865 (Interest Index = 1) ===
I believe that I did not distribute proposals or publish a pool report
last week, and thus I am in contravention of the rules requiring me to
do so. I will try to get them distributed later today.
—Tanner L. Swett
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:33 AM, Keba wrote:
> I resign all my offices and go on hold.
>
> (What happens with the speaker office now?)
I think that since the office of the Speaker is Imposed, you cannot resign it.
—Tanner L. Swett
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 4:55 PM, John Smith wrote:
> CfJ:The second NoV quoted below is not valid
>
> Arguments: According to Rule 2230, "A NoV is valid if and only if... no
> previous valid NoV specified substantially identical information (i.e. the
> same violation for the same specific act)."
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 8:22 PM, omd wrote:
> Maybe all recursive statements should just be considered
> indeterminate, regardless of how they would come out if we attempted
> to break them apart?
Due to Rule 2215, it would be illegal for me to make an unqualified
public statement consisting of th
2010/10/11 :
> That statement still depends on its own truth value, just indirectly.
Due to Rule 2215, it would be illegal for me to make an unqualified
public statement consisting of the following string (expect with the
number 3000 incremented), followed by a quotation mark, followed by
the sam
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 5:49 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> CFJ, disqualifying Tanner L. Swett: In the message quoted in
> evidence, Tanner L. Swett gained at least one erg.
I don't think you've assigned this CFJ yet. Do you intend to?
—Tanner L. Swett
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> === CFJ 2888 (Interest Index = 0)
>
>> Judge: Tanner L. Swett
>
> CoE, accepted: this was ineffective, Tanner was supine (I hadn't
> yet updated the DB to be aware of it).
201 - 246 of 246 matches
Mail list logo
