On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 11:59 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> I interpret Rule 478 as requiring that in the definition of "by
>> announcement":
>>
>> Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed "by
>> announcement", a person performs that action by unambiguously
>> and clearl
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:01 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> omd wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 8:45 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> CFJ 2972 already found that eir registration in early February 2011
>>> succeeded.
>>
>> By the way, if G.'s CFJ is judged
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 5:12 AM, Charles Walker
wrote:
> On 4 April 2011 00:02, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> }{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
>>
>> title: Too many exceptions
>> ai: 2.0
>> proposer: omd
>>
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 4:44 PM, John Smith wrote:
> I strongly disagree with your reasoning here. The statement on a scrap of
> paper in Thailand is a different statement than the one I posted. I
> challenge this by initiating another CfJ using the following statement:
>
> Two instances of th
On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Eric Stucky wrote:
> First, I agree that ehird's content -is- a large bundle of cells and water,
> but I argue that it -takes the form- of text in the context of Agora, which
> is all that is required.
Eh. That's stretching the definition of "content".
> Secon
On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 4:31 PM, omd wrote:
> Most of these "restrictions" are intended to explicitly empower rules
> to do things, not to restrict what might be a rule.
(And yes, this is a chicken and egg scenario.)
On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Charles Walker
wrote:
> c) at least one of the Bets was for the correct outcome.
So if everyone bets for the wrong outcome, nobody loses points?
> (or in the same message)
Not necessary to state.
On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 8:07 PM, Eric Stucky wrote:
> Gratuitous: Ratifications, by definition in 1551, make minimal possible
> changes to the game state. In particular it "cannot include a rule change
> unless the ratified document purports to include the text, title, and/or
> power of the rul
On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 9:56 PM, Eric Stucky wrote:
> If (c) is true, the player(s) involved should get their original points back
> (up to fungibility), regardless of whether a betting market exists.
If no betting market exists, no points are destroyed.
On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 10:23 AM, ais523 wrote:
>> Gratuitous silliness: If ehird is a rule, then thanks to Rule 105, e
>> has not changed since 2007 in any way that affects eir operation.
>> Luckily, eir mother narrowly escaped violating the rules by creating
>> em, because rules were not explici
On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 10:41 PM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
>> 7022 1.7 Walker, etc. Not worth the paper it's not printed on
> AGAINST; the Rulekeepor is Wise, and should be allowed some discretion.
You should denounce the Rulekeepor instead.
On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 11:56 PM, Eric Stucky wrote:
> I don't think anything in these rules prevent me from betting all my points,
> then spending all my points. If I then bet wrong, the rule is impossible to
> satisfy since the way currencies are defined I think you can't have negative
> poin
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 12:28 AM, Aaron Goldfein
wrote:
> Proto: War
FOR
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 5:46 AM, Charles Walker
wrote:
> On 24 April 2011 04:30, omd wrote:
>> I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Aogran
>> Decision of whether to adopt it. For this decision, the eligible
>> voters are the active first-class player
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> So, every single exchange:
> "NoV: You did/didn't do X."
> followed by either:
> "I contest this, you missed message Y."
> "Sorry, my bad."
> or
> "ok I admit it, no contest."
But we don't actually do that. I don't have statistics, but as I
r
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 5:46 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
>> By eir own admission, Yally deliberately broke the rules multiple times
>> to find out how long e could avoid effective punishment, creating more
>> work for others in the process. On the other hand, e demonstrated a
>> loophole by example
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 5:40 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Oops; I publish a promise identical except that has the additional condition
> {This promise is not destroyed upon being cashed}.
N.b.: This promise will probably be destroyed if it's cashed before
"Fix promises" passes.
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 5:58 PM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> On 25 April 2011 22:56, omd wrote:
>> Proto: A person SHALL NOT appeal a judgement unless e believes it it
>> inappropriate.
>
> Since when does SHALL NOT stop Yally?
It allows the ninny to be punished with an increased
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> CFJ: Murphy's assignment of judges to the appeal case of this case's
> decision on sentencing was invalid, because he did not define Max(3, 1+2*R)
> judges. That is, e did not assign a panel of size undefined.
Arguments: Not having any qual
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 6:29 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> Arguments: Not having any qualified judges violates my R101 right to
> initiate a formal procedure for reconsideration of punishment.
Sure, but I wouldn't think you'd want to exercise it.
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 9:00 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I stand up.
You can't.
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> On 26 April 2011 03:38, Elliott Hird wrote:
>> Um, yes? All purple bananas are poisonous, and all FLRs published in
>> April are incomplete. "The FLR published in April" = "The member of
>> the empty set".
"All" and "the" are not quite the
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 2:36 AM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> Proposal: War (AI = 2)
> Hostility is a switch for subsets of players of size 2 tracked by the
Missing "create a rule".
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> omd wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 11:44 PM, Elliott Hird
>> wrote:
>>> On 17 April 2011 04:29, omd wrote:
>>>> Oh, fine. Â I judge TRUE.
>>>
>>> I intend to Motion to Reconsider
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> Proposal: War (AI = 2)
I don't think this addresses the issue with simultaneous point gains, does it?
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
>> However, the punishment isn't being "replaced." I would be
>> simultaneously punished with two TIME OUTs.
>
> Since "two simultaneous time-outs" is still an identical net
> punishment, this argumen
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:43 PM, Aaron Goldfein
wrote:
> Note that because appeal a was judged AFFIRM, the sentence of TIME OUT
> has already been reassigned. Thus, judging this case AFFIRM would be
> violating my R101 right to not be punished more than once for a single
> action as I would recei
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Note, even though the Appeals cases in practice cannot be assigned due
> to high numbers of justices needed, this does not violate a R101
> right to appeal a sentence. The appeal was successfully initiated by
> the defendant, and (importantly)
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 7:41 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> No, because I appealed, and so the sentence was suspended. Then I
>> appealed again. Then the first appeals panel voted AFFIRM, so the
>> sentence was reapplied. If then second panel votes to affirm, it would
>> be applying a second sentence w
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> For each of the following CFJs
Whew... for a second I thought you wanted me to write annotations for
all those cases!
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 9:08 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> You just judged that the promise was uncashable. I don't think
> that omd's use of "caching" instead of "cashing" matters, nor
> do I see any other implicit loopholes in the issue.
volatile promise *
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Trying to remember; I know there was at least one case before where
> the same action could be performed by announcement or dependently;
> there was quite some discussion on whether if a dependent "attempt"
> failed whether the by-announcement
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Arguments: Here are all the questions of interpretation that I see:
>
> 1) Does support implicitly withdraw one's earlier objection?
Gratuitous: Why would it?
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On 05/17/11 20:17, omd wrote:
>> On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> Amend Rule 683 (Voting on Agoran Decisions) by replacing "one" with
>>> "two".
>> This amendment mo
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 11:17 PM, omd wrote:
> This amendment modifies two clauses; the unexpected one is this (sigh):
>
> An eligible voter on a particular Agoran decision submits a
> ballot to the vote collector by publishing a valid notice
> indicating which two o
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 11:38 PM, omd wrote:
> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 11:17 PM, omd wrote:
>> This amendment modifies two clauses; the unexpected one is this (sigh):
>>
>> An eligible voter on a particular Agoran decision submits a
>> ballot to the vote coll
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 12:28 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 11:20 PM, omd wrote:
>> Yes, it still is that big. :)
>
> Good thing we voted agora-public out of existence, then.
We didn't.
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 12:58 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> > > Since an "action statement" states that the performer is performing
>> > > the action, "This may be ineffective." is equivalent to "This
>> > > statement might be false." The precedent of 2069 etc. is that some
>> > > actions, including
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I think the 2069 precedent is irrelevant here (as Judge Tanner L. Swett says
> in 2830).
I disagree; even though 2069 was FALSE because an announcement is an
action, ais523 made a stronger argument in eir reasoning.
> I think your 3000 judgem
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 10:03 AM, Charles Walker
wrote:
> Priority is an undistributed proposal switch with values of the
> integers (default zero), tracked by the Promotor. A player CAN
> destroy a Point in eir possession to increase or decrease the
> Priority of a specified p
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 12:31 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Interpreting "single" as a noun doesn't make sense, because Rule 2347
> refers to "The" Speed switch. Rule 2347 mentions exactly one other
> singular entity, the Assessor, so it could be interpreted as implicitly
> specifying Speed as possessed
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:45 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Tue, 31 May 2011, omd wrote:
>> > 7063 2 G. Switcher Fixer Upper
>> AGAINST
>> > 7072 1.7 woggle Judicial Rank is Dead
>> AGAINST
>> > 7073 3 woggle Compression Arti
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Benjamin Caplan
wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-05-31 at 23:40 -0400, omd wrote:
>> > 7068 2 Walker Spending Points
>> AGAINST; I think I can perform multiple spending actions with a single
>> destruction (but a general-purpose defin
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:16 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 3 Jun 2011, Charles Walker wrote:
>> > take effect
>> > 1. To become operative, as under law or regulation.
>> > 2. To produce the desired reaction.
>
> H. Rulekeepor omd,
>
> Is it p
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:48 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> the proposal's adpotion, constitute a single change to the
typo
> gamestate and will all be canceled if the proposal would leave the
> game as something other than a Nomic.
Unclear whether this refers to the earlier clause or is a n
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:37 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I kind of want to experiment with a zero-sum currency. Some actions, such as
> raising the AI for a proposal, would be paid to the person maligned (the
> author of the proposal). Other actions would be paid into some system of
> roughly equally d
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 1:28 AM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> As another take, the number of coins could be directly tied to the
> number of players; if a player leaves, all their coins are destroyed,
> and then N coins or the total amount of coins in everything's
> possession are destroyed so that the le
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> [Crossing the AAA with some ideas from the board game Puerto
> Rico. Thoughts?]
Generally: I (personally) don't want to play the AAA again.
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> 7076 1 omd No harm in knowing there's a betting market
> AGAINST
Can I ask why?
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Tanner Swett wrote:
> H. Murphy, would it be possible to somehow annotate CFJ 1776 in the
> database so that doing a statement text search for "rotating the
> bench" would make it show up?
I don't know if anyone reads those things, but I just updated the FLR
annot
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I think the timing of truth values and disclaimers is in fact "more
> complex and less clear." For example, if disclaimers work immediately
> forward, it would imply they could work immediately backwards, with
> connotations that a "message" n
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 10:58 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> CoE on 7069: Wooble also voted PRESENT. It is adopted (and, now
> that 7074 has taken effect, it also takes effect).
I'm confused. Did you ever actually resolve 7069 correctly? (The CoE
does not include a list of ballots...)
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Er, maybe in the old version you'd be right, but it's pretty explicit now:
> For the purpose of protecting this right, a rule
> change which would otherwise take effect without its
> substance being
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 11:10 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> CFJ: Rule 2344 was amended in the same message that this case
> was initiated.
>
> Evidence: the above text.
Gratuitous: The President's power is 0 because 7067 failed quorum.
While you're at it, two suggestions:
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> A proposal with a decision on which the option selected by Agora
> is not ADOPTED does not take effect, rules to the contrary
> notwithstanding.
This is worded this way due to an old scam. It re
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Yeah, I stared at this for a while when cutting and pasting just now and
> wondered why it was this way but just left it. How's this:
>
> If a decision to adopt a proposal does not result in an outcome of
> ADOPTED, it does not take
On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 12:21 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Hows:
> "If there is no Agoran Decision to adopt a particular proposal that
> has an outcome of ADOPTED, that proposal CANNOT take effect, rules
> to the contrary notwithstanding."
Looks fine-- although, by the way, I'm not s
On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> [Disclaimer: This only works if "the President" in Rule 103 refers
> to Rule 2326 (The President). I think we have precedent on this,
> but don't remember what to search for.]
It was from the Monster era.
On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 6:47 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Looks fine-- although, by the way, I'm not sure this clause is
>> necessary in the first place.
>
> Without it, is there anything stopping a Power 1 Rule from being made that
> allows a proposal to take effect using the R106 mechanism? E.g. p
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Charles Reiss wrote:
> R683 (Voting on Agoran Decisions) specifies that an author "submits a
> ballot ... by publishing a valid notice indicating which two of the
> available options e selects" but also specifies that a ballot is valid
> only if "identifies *the* o
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I
> think the example was (omd?) publishing an image that actually changed in
> text between Support/Object but I'm not finding it... anyone have better
> luck?
Not quite-- CFJ 1831.
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 6:43 PM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> Arguments: We have precedent that the truth value of an action
> statement is true if it succeeds and false if it does not; as many
> Perl I/O functions also follow such a convention, we should treat the
> boolean value of an AGAINST vote as t
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> The contestmaster's decision on these awards is final. Making these awards
> ends any ongoing Expedition. The Contestmaster CANNOT award emself Pitons.
> If no Delves occurred during a Delving Period, the Contestmaster CAN instead
> announce
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 12:40 AM, Charles Reiss wrote:
> [Just republishing my protojudgments as judgments.]
I'll update the ruleset tomorrow.
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 9:11 PM, Tanner Swett wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Anyway, I thought 'perl-or' wasn't the Boolean logical 'or'. I thought
>> 'perl-or' was "Do X or die" so that 'or' == 'otherwise'.
>
> If I'm not mistaken, 'or' in Perl evaluates its lef
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 10:17 PM, Pavitra wrote:
> On 06/26/2011 09:03 PM, omd wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Charles Walker
>> wrote:
>>> I intend, without objection, to make Droowl inactive.
>>> I intend, without objection, to make Roujo inacti
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 12:01 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On 11-06-26 08:47 PM, Gondola Gorgonzola wrote:
>>
>> Very well, I maybe got carried away. So when should I expect to be
>> accepted as a member?
>> Gondolier
>
> As soon as your earlier email was sent.
Indeed, you can see your name on the most
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Charles Walker
wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> {{ Flawless Victory (AI 1.7)
>
> Amend Rule 2343 (Victory Cases) by removing "with support".
>
> Award the Patent Title Champion to Walker.
>
> }}
Maybe also decrease the appeal period for victory cases
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 6:17 PM, ais523 wrote:
> Arguments: The alleged "statement" of the CFJ created earlier in this
> message is not actually a statement, but an email header, which cannot
> sensibly have a truth value, and is anyway not a statement in the
> ordinary-language sense. Thus, with
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 5:32 AM, Charles Walker
wrote:
> I CFJ on "Chamber is a switch."
>
> Arguments: FALSE as no officer tracks it. The same goes for adoption
> index, which means that no recent proposals have actually had an
> adoption index. This might mean that proposals with a simple majori
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I intend, with two support, to file a motion to reconsider. While I'm not
> sure if I agree at all with the conclusion that AI is a useless property, I
> would note that any comparison against an undefined value is, by convention,
> false where
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> I'm now seeing this on the first message in any thread to the lists if
> it was posted by a gmail user. I wonder if gmail's suddenly not liking
> how the mailing list is resending messages "from" gmail users.
I bug reported it.
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 4:27 AM, Charles Walker
wrote:
> If a player violates a Rule by failing to meet the requirements
> of an office, such as performing eir weekly or monthly duties,
> then the IADoP SHALL initiate a valid criminal case on the
> matter as soon as possible af
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 3:36 AM, Charles Walker
wrote:
> A person can publish a Declaration of Victory by announcement,
> explaining the Victory Condition they believe they have met and
> how they met it. If a Victory Case is initiated regarding a
> Declaration of Victory, no D
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Joshua Murphy wrote:
> Seconded.
>
> -Math321 aka Joshua aka Math321
FYI, you're still not sending in plain text.
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 7:53 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Such declarations are self-ratifying
> in terms of whether the indicated Victory Condition was met and that
> the person(s) names as meeting the condition have in fact won the
> game.
...but are always false
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:52 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Personally, I'd be happy with: (a) Announce a win (b) Wait 4 days or a week
> to see if anyone calls a case about it,
for that matter, what's wrong with the old system: (a) announce a win;
(b) win platonically succeeds or fails, and Champion
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 12:30 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I prefer the old version where the Champion was partial pragmatic;
> awarded by the Herald (hopefully when e's pretty sure the dust has
> settled) but the award fails if the win failed.
Wasn't e technically violating an ASAP requirement by wa
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 3:38 PM, Pavitra wrote:
> Bad form, sir. It's an interesting question; at least provide a sentence
> or two of arguments.
Perhaps bad form, but it's the kind of failed pedantry that's been
CFJed to death and the caller is not a new player.
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> Spelunking the Rules picks for Delve 2
>
> 82 selects Rule 2157/6 (Power=1.7).
> 57 selects Rule 2138/13 (Power=1).
> 35 selects Rule 2338/1 (Power=3).
For reference (can you include titles next time?) these are:
Judicial Panels
The In
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 6:35 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Jul 2011, omd wrote:
>> THE FULL LOGICAL RULESET
>
> CoE: Rule 2344 should include "Murphy CAN cause this rule to make
> arbitrary rule changes by announcement."
I agree with ais523 in eir gratuitous argu
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> *7083 3.0 Walker Re-jigged Re-jiggery
So, this proposal put language about proposals in a rule titled
"Decisions with Adoption Indices". On the bright side, it repealed
Priority...
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Charles Walker
wrote:
> On 4 July 2011 19:56, omd wrote:
>> Pool report: The Proposal Pool is empty.
>
> CoE: Not true. There's "18th Birthday Bash" by scshunt, "Like Me,
> Missing Its Birthday By A Few Days" and &quo
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> R106 says that Proposals can and do
> make changes in general and provide a mechanism (just as the president can
> take actions in general by way of a different mechanism)
Gratuitous: CFJ 2213 is highly relevant. I misremembered the
preceden
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Not a god, no. An Instrument of the gods.
>
>> but, as above, I think the implication is "actions that the President CAN
>> take".
>
> ...as an Instrument.
Well, you said that "CAN take actions" counts as R105 permission to
take the action of
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Charles Walker
wrote:
> Amend Rule 1607 (Distribution) by replacing the paragraph beginning
> "The Promotor CAN distribute a proposal which..." with:
>
> Priority is an undistributed proposal switch with values of the
> integers (default zero), tracked by
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Eric Stucky wrote:
>> 7086 3 G., etc. Jig-jiggery jig-jiggery
> MURPH/PRESENT
Although the intent is clear, I think the language of R2280 makes this
evaluate to "MURPH*2, PRESENT*2".
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Pavitra wrote:
>
>> The intent is proxied through Rule 2328, which has power 2.
>
> We've previously determined that the rules aren't an agreement. Is
> Agora as a whole? Does Agora count as having been "published"?
The requirement is that the
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 8 Jul 2011, Pavitra wrote:
>> On 07/08/2011 10:18 PM, omd wrote:
>> > *arguably Agora would cease to be a person in the interval between the
>> > adoption of a proposal and the publication of an upda
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 4:26 AM, Arkady English
wrote:
> Is there a game-mechanical difference between "support" and "weakly"
> support? Or does this simply indicate that omd may be willing to change eir
> mind?
It was meant as the latter (actually, I intended t
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Eric Stucky wrote:
> Someone who is sleeping may not be a person, but they have certainly been
> both a person and a first-class person at some point, so there's nothing
> wrong with loosening the requirements to:
> A player who is not a person and has never
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 4:13 PM, ais523 wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-07-23 at 13:06 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> CoE, accepted: CFJs 3038 (if it exists) and 3039 were judged by
>> Yally, not Walker. (The body was correct, the subject was wrong.)
>
> CoE: That isn't a CoE because subject lines are not sel
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 10:28 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Then I do so without resolving the intent.
n.b. "without resolving the intent" is meaningless
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 5:07 PM, omd wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Sean Hunt
> wrote:
>>> I initiate a criminal case accusing omd of violating Rule 1504
>>> (Criminal Cases) by failing to destroy the 13 Points e was FINED in
>>> CFJ 3054 within the
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 7:39 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 10:28 PM, Sean Hunt
>> wrote:
>>> Then I do so without resolving the intent.
>>
>> n.b. "without resolving the intent" is meaningless
>
> No it isn't, it clearly means "I do so by announcement (by virtue of
> being the
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Charles Walker
> wrote:
>> You can get the SLR and the FLR at agora.qoid.us
>
> The ones at http://www.nomictools.com/agora/rules/ are actually up to
> date, but probably less likely to remain that way once
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 9:55 PM, Pavitra wrote:
y> It seems like the obvious place to avert that would be while drafting
> the bank charter.
>
> What cap would you suggest? I feel that anything lower than 6 would
> block legitimate applications, but that anything higher than 3 would
> enable abus
On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Charles Reiss wrote:
> Background: Currently, one can pay two FINE and a Spending Action with
> the same Points.
This is pretty similar to my proposal "General Costs", which failed
due to a bug. This reminds me to submit a fixed version, hope you
don't mind.
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Charles Reiss wrote:
> If any modification to the Asset rules would be effective
> at changing the properties of Promises, then clearly that gives a
> escalation scam at Power 2.
The way it's supposed to work now is a compromise: a power-2 scam
could transfer exist
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 11:53 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> - assign static rather than dynamic ip addresses
>
> The router acts like it allows this, then ignores it.
Just be rude and have the server use a static IP rather than DHCP.
501 - 600 of 1475 matches
Mail list logo
