On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 5:33 PM, ais523 wrote:
> Well, we already notified Hillary Clinton of a criminal CFJ against her
> (and she's been used as the standard example of a nonplayer ever since).
> There was even a response, although I think it was autogenerated.
> (http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 9:40 PM, John Smith wrote:
> Evidence:
> (from Rule 2351) "The game of Agora, but not any player of it, can make
> arbitrary changes to the gamestate."
> Agora is a player according to the most recent Census.
>
>
> Arguments:
> The rule quote in the Evidence is worded poorl
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 10:51 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Am I right when I say no one has actually won the game recently,
> not even Walker? Or did I miss a successful victory case or two?
> Or is the dumb system completely broken.
I satisfied Accumulation on July 12, but I forgot to initiate a vic
On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=3086
>
> == CFJ 3086 ==
>
> Agora's right to participate in the fora is substantially
> limited.
>
> ===
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 10:32 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Honestly a lot of this/almost all of this is up to the other Nomic.
Not necessarily. In Tiger's BlogNomic post:
> I now wish to leave the game, but use this account to re-enter
> the game with my current screen name, Agora Nomic. As I am th
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 6:42 PM, Tanner Swett wrote:
> Also, if I'm not mistaken, Proposals 7111 and 7115 do exist and were
> distributed; the Deputy Promotor implicitly submitted them by
> distributing them. So. CoE: the author of Proposals 7111 and 7115 was
> actually Deputy Pr
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 9:25 PM, omd wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 6:42 PM, Tanner Swett wrote:
>> Also, if I'm not mistaken, Proposals 7111 and 7115 do exist and were
>> distributed; the Deputy Promotor implicitly submitted them by
>> distributing them. So. CoE: th
for me not paying the fine
However, I did pay:
1906: 1 Note
Therefore, I have paid 1 out of 6 fines during my time as a player,
although 5 out of 6 were all imposed in the last two months.
Other statistics:
I have by far the record for criminal cases initiated against me:
omd 50
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> *7111 1.0 Tanner L. Points for the Big Guy
>> *7115 1.0 Tanner L. Relax / Stroke Hell
>
> CoE: not that either of these would have any effect due to
> insufficient AI, but these p
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Purported distributions don't self-ratify. Purported resolutions do
> (R2034), including (for decisions on proposals) the implicit claim that
> the proposal exists.
The rule which would invalidate it for missing essential parameters is
R107, w
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> The rule which would invalidate it for missing essential parameters is
>> R107, which includes the "lack is correctly identified within one
>> week" clause.
>
> Hm, not exactly. For a Decision to be initiated by R107, both:
> (1) The initiato
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Benjamin Schultz
wrote:
> omd, how did I get on your lists? I'm not even a current player.
The lists are based on Murphy's CotC database, and include all the old
CFJs in that database. :)
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 8:05 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> I CFJ on: {{Proposal 7117 amended Rule 2349.}}
>
> Arguments: In the purported distribution of proposal 7117, as well as
> in the message purporting to resolve the Agoran Decision to adopt it,
> it was listed as having an adoption index of 1
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Pavitra wrote:
> On 08/26/2011 07:03 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
>> I vote PRESENT on every proposal I can, unless someone persuades me that
>> that's a bad idea.
>
> I read this as a conditional vote dependent on a condition that cannot
> easily be evaluated by the vote
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 13:05, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> omd 2A
>>
>> Quorum 7 7 7 7 7 7
>> Voters 6 7 6 6 6 6
>
> hahahaha
is it time for me to surrender to B now?
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 8:16 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> If there were a rule that stated "Woggle CANNOT legally post messages
> on eir own behalf; only the passage a proposal containing eir message
> CAN do so" wouldn't you feel that your right to participate was being
> infringed upon?
Not if e wa
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 3:38 AM, Arkady English
wrote:
> I submit the following proposal to the ruleskeepor:
>
> In order to demonstrate their committment to justice, all standing judges are
> required to wear a sword at all times. Any player required to wear a sword
> found
> not to be wearing a
On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> I nominate omd for Rulekeepor.
For reference, I just updated my online ruleset to include the
proposal that was adopted a month ago.
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> Arguments: It'll come in with "BUS:" prefixed to the subject line if
> approved; no mail client is going to merge two messages with different
> subjects without any kind of threading info.
iirc, not if it already has BUS:, so you can make you
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 8:15 PM, Amar Chendra
wrote:
> when we have to compare two entities we have to define one thing first.
> .AmarChandra
okay
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> As soon as possible after a Victory Announcement ratifies, or
> a judgement confirming the veracity of a victory announcement
> has been in effect and unappealed for one week, and provided
> the person(s) named have not alre
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 4:04 PM, John Smith wrote:
> I suggest that a Player file a Motion to Reconsider CfJ 3109. Among other
> objections, the judgment is inconsistent with the judge's arguments. All
> information necessary to render a judgment of TRUE or FALSE is public, and
> the statemen
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Pavitra wrote:
>> Mr. Smith, the statement is nonsensical because referring to the
>> Victory Condition of Being Bucky, without quotes, implies that there
>> is such an entity that is a Victory Condition.
>
> A question that presupposes a falsehood may be nonsensic
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Pavitra wrote:
> 1. There is no Victory Condition of Being Bucky.
> 2. For all X, X is not the Victory Condition of Being Bucky.
> 3. For all X, it is not the case that both X is the Victory Condition of
> Being Bucky and Mr. Smith has satisfied X.
> 4. For all X,
matched the referent you collectively are claiming did not make sense)
Yes, but if I said
{
I am the Speaker.
CfJ: Speaker omd is a player.
}
It would not be TRUE just because I am a player and it's clear what I
was referring to-- I'm still not the Speaker.
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 7:49 PM, Pavitra wrote:
> The point of a CfJ is to _resolve controversy_. You could give that
> argument for any question about which people disagree.
This is not an interesting controversy, because the ambiguity lies
entirely in the statement.
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 10:46 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Arguments:
> 1. Once the promise is in someone else's hands, G. generally can't
> prevent the breach from occurring (see R1504(e)).
> 2. This promise contained an illegal action when the promise was
> created. The judge is asked to also opi
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Pavitra wrote:
> On 10/24/2011 07:27 PM, omd wrote:
>> Proposal: No shame in trying (AI=1.7)
>>
>> Amend Rule 2343 (Victory Cases) by replacing "SHAME" with "NO GLORY".
>
> AGAINST. I like victory having flavorful
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 6:22 PM, Tanner Swett wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 7:29 PM, omd wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 1:53 AM, Sean Hunt
>> wrote:
>>> NUM AI AUTHOR TITLE
>>> 7135 1.7 G. Fixing Victory v2.02
>> ☑
>
> Is this
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 8:03 AM, Mister Snuggles wrote:
> i intend to deputise for the cotc to take each of the following actions:
>
> * rotate the bench.
> * recuse yally from cfj 3105.
> * assign cfj 3105 to g.
> * assign cfj 3105 to omd.
> * assign cfj 3105 to pavitra.
>
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 8:28 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I announce my intent to deputize for the cotc to recuse yally from
> cfjs 3105 and 3106, and to assign those cfjs to myself (G.) thus
> limiting ambiguity to date-of-assignment. Or Murphy can do this
> first of course; won't judge until so assi
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 8:44 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Considered it's only to be used when there's something buggy which
> would probably be fixed when caught, a good compromise is to add a
> sentence to another officer (Registrar?)
Perhaps just remove the requirement that switches be tracked by a
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 4:42 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> Amend Rule 2338 (Cashing Promises) by replacing "MUST" with "must".
>>
> Why not just make the action INEFFECTIVE if there is insufficient context?
I think lowercase "must" is fine (in fact, it's used elsewhere in the
same rule!), although it m
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 10:45 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> 7137 3.0 omd. okay, this has gotten silly
> 7138 1.0 omd. Whereto Paradox?
> 7139 1.7 omd. This is still an issue
CoE: My nickname is omd.
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 10:39 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> As the above announcement has just self-ratified, omd has just
> Won the Game.
>
> I award omd Champion (High Score).
Thanks!
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 7:39 AM, Tanner Swett wrote:
>> "perform a sequence of events" is ungrammatical,
>
> I don't see how. Are you saying that it's not the sequence that is
> performed, but the events within it?
You can't perform an event, only an action.
>> and the rule arguably fails to wor
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 11:14 AM, John Smith wrote:
> I would also point out that, in the unlikely event that I am found GUILTY,
> great care would need to be taken to select an appropriate sentence, because
> a sentence of APOLOGY (usually for crimes of class <4), FINE (I have no
> relevant as
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 9:28 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> * EXCLUSION, appropriate for rule breaches by a non-player. When
> a judgement of EXCLUSION has been in effect continuously for
> one week, the ninny CANNOT register for one month after that
> time.
How about just allow
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 9:56 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Voting results for Proposals 7136 - 7143:
>
> [This notice resolves the Agoran decisions of whether to adopt the
> following proposals. For each decision, the options available to
> Agora are ADOPTED (*), REJECTED (x), and FAILED QUORUM (!).]
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 6:33 PM, John Smith wrote:
> CfJ (1), inquiry, barring scshunt:
> "Scshunt violated a rule with his judgment on the Criminal Case above."
Gratuitous: Purporting to do something impossible, even intentionally,
is not currently a rule violation.
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Pavitra wrote:
> I disfavor this case.
NttPF.
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 11:26 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> CFJ: If and when the Victory Announcement in the same message that
> created this CFJ self-ratifies, if the rules regarding victory have not
> changed since, then ais523 will Win the Game.
Gratuitous: "won via the same events" is an inherently
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Such as The President. Also, there was a scam a while back to
>> assign positive power to a first-class player (I think G.); did
>> that go through, and if so, did we reverse it?
>
> Yes, I had the arbitrary-changes-to-the-ruleset rule set my
his standard only applies in a relatively narrow
> range of cases. There are a great many situations where the text of the
> rules clearly allows some form of deliciously horrible scammy brokenness
> But when all else fails, choose the non-perverse reading.
>
> I cash the Promise (
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 4:39 PM, ais523 wrote:
> Yes. I don't want to give too much more information, though.
Maybe this is one of those cases where first there's a CFJ on a simple
statement - the judge selects whichever interpretation looks most
reasonable at first glance - then a scam is pulled
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 6:43 PM, omd wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 4:39 PM, ais523 wrote:
>> Yes. I don't want to give too much more information, though.
>
> Maybe
(On second thought, I guess e's going to submit a Victory Announcement
after a judgement on this case
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 3:16 PM, FSX wrote:
> Though I don't see any evidence of that, it stands that I don't have the
> power to make a 3.9... power rule. I'd need at least 3.
The relevant clauses:
(2) A term explicitly defined by the Rules, along with its
ordinary-language syno
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 7:36 PM, FSX wrote:
> 3.9... was meant to be 3 followed by an infinite number of nines, yes.
This is exactly 4.
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 10:44 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> That sure wasn't clear to me. While I'm assuming mathematical symbols
> count as "terms" in R754, the ellipsis could be confused with two dots
> and a period, or a typo, so I'm guessing it's not clear enough for R105.
> -G.
Indeed, I thought
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 11:19 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> 7145 2 omd A controversial proposal
>
> AGAINST (I think you meant "unambiguous" there at the end?)
The intent expressed in such a message is necessarily ambiguous, but
required to be unambiguous.
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 8:31 PM, 441344 <441...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I submit a proposal with title {fix to 1023/28} and text {Amend Rule
> 1023/28 by replacing the text {Agoran weeks begin at midnight UTC on
> Monday.} with {Agoran weeks begin when Mondays begin.} and replacing
> the text {Agoran m
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> At first I thought "putting on the revision number means it breaks if
> another proposal changes the revision number in the meantime" but then
> I thought "is it even possible to amend a specific revision number of
> a rule?" so maybe it break
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 5:02 PM, 441344 <441...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I retract case 3147. I retract case 3149.
You can't retract 3147 as it has already had a judge assigned to it.
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 9:37 PM, ais523 wrote:
> "a is true IFF b is true", as a hypothetical, can be invalidated by
> anything that's a hypothetical b but not an a, no matter how unlikely,
> surely?
There's no rule that says judgements should ignore the possibility of
rule changes but allow for
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 5:28 PM, 441344 <441...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I initiate a criminal case naming omd as the Accused, failing to
> publish the Promotor's report during the week Mon. 16 - Sun. 22 and
> distribute the proposals currently in the proposal pool that were in
>
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Tanner Swett wrote:
> —Machiavelli
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 8:53 PM, Tanner Swett wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 8:35 PM, omd wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Tanner Swett wrote:
>>> —Machiavelli
>
> ...Did I spell it wrong?
>
> —Machiavelli
No, but it has been generally used to refe
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 6:07 PM, ais523 wrote:
>> TTttPF
>
> And I went to all the trouble of writing
>
> "To:
> deliberately nttpf
> "
>
> and someone /still/ calls me on it…?
TTttPF != NttPF.
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 6:26 PM, ais523 wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-01-30 at 18:23 -0500, omd wrote:
>> TTttPF != NttPF.
>
> Wait, is it even possible to TTttPF someone else's message?
I vaguely recall that this has been tried before, but I'm too lazy to
look it up.
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 10:12 PM, Tanner Swett wrote:
>> With Agoran Consent, I intend to register the OmNom Constitution.
>>
>> (I intend to, later on, have the ONC state, "I support and do so",
>> then call a CFJ on its playerhood.)
>>
>> —Machiavelli
>
> Okay, honestly, that action is never goi
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 12:12 PM, FSX wrote:
> CFJ: I committed the Class-1 Crime of Naughtiness. ehirs committed the
> Class-14 Crime of Naughtiness.
If you want a criminal case, you need to specify the rule number.
(maybe this initiated one or two inquiry cases?)
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 2:59 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Proposal 7144 (AI=1.7) by Murphy
> Extraterritorial jurisdiction
>
> Amend Rule 1504 (Criminal Cases) by inserting this text immediately
> before the bullet point for EXILE:
Amendment fails due to insufficient power.
Ruleset updated, sorry abou
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I CFJ (linked) on:
> (1) The Prisoner is a player.
> Arguments: E never explicitly consented (R101iii).
>
> (2) The Prisoner's R101(vii) rights have been violated.
> Arguments: If e is a player, eir ability to deregister is
>
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> [It's often bothered me that R101 could be gotten around by redefining
> "person" (for example via R2150).
This is only a problem now that Rule 2150 is Power 3...
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Didn't this come up in another scam, that "otherwise impossible"
> includes things that are "regulated" as being "otherwise impossible to
> change" except as defined? I say "came up", I don't say I remember the
> decision!
http://zenith.homel
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2012, omd wrote:
>> THE SHORT LOGICAL RULESET
>
> COE: The text of R2130 is incorrect (and 1006 too).
>
> The ruleset (and omd's rules website) seems to be missing some effects
> of Proposal 6959 (
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:04 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Gratuitous: The first method being limited to the announcer is an
> inherent part of it, and similarly without-objection is an inherent
> part of the second. Past exceptions to this common-sense approach
> have depended on alternate constructi
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:09 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> I create a Slave Golem named Number Two.
>
> I announce that I will never cause Number Two to deregister.
>
> I cause Number Two to announce that e wants to deregister.
I announce that I want to deregister.
...But my R101 rights haven't been v
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> CFJ: The Registrar's Report includes within its list of all players a list
> of all Golems.
Why wouldn't it?
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 6:24 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> I cash the promise titled {Anyone Can Mislead The Leader}.
>
>
> Note to H. Promotor omd: if this was effective (I don't remember
> anyone causing the President to taunt the police), then it caused
> FKA441344 to sub
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 11:31 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> The first multiple-statement CFJ that I
> remember is CFJ 1266, which was dismissed due to a different but
> similar rule.
Obligatory digging: CFJ 6 most likely counts
(http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/stare_detail/06.txt).
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 11:28 PM, omd wrote:
> I intend to call for reconsideration of this judgement with two
> support. Changing Activity is regulated per R2125 c) and e) and thus
> impossible to perform "except as allowed by the rules", while Rule
> 1688 states that se
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Disputant omd's arguments are either purposefully or idiotically
> obtuse. I have clearly and directly stated in my original
> judgement why security is applicable in spite of the rules in
> question being >=2. It is clear in context that the
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 8:03 PM, FKA441344 <441...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 2:33 AM, Elliott Hird
> wrote:
>> On 28 February 2012 00:01, FKA441344 <441...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Fri 17 Feb 03:33 Mr. Incredible changes eir name to '. I cause'.
>>> Fri 17 Feb 03:33 '. I cause' der
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 11:10 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> I judge CFJ 3169 TRUE.
By the way, I add as supporting evidence that "implicitly caused it to
explicitly" has been game custom since CFJ 2101. (Although, as
usually happens when I read my past judgements, the writing comes off
as rubbish, I st
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> I register.
> --
> bayes 2012-03-21 02:22:50 +
This is a good idea.
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 9:52 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Proposal: Truisms (AI=3)
> {{{
> Enact a new 3-power rule entitled "The Cold Hard Truth" reading "Every
> rule has an exception."
> }}}
AGAINST, Rule 104 does not have an exception.
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 10:43 PM, Aaron Goldfein
wrote:
> I intend, with two support, to appeal this case. I request a with
> prejudice ruling as Judge omd inappropriately discharged eir duties in
> this case.
Gratuitous: The lack of arguments aside, without any evidence as to
what sor
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 3:12 AM, FKA441344 <441...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Speaker FKA441344 04 Feb 12
Nice.
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 2:36 PM, FKA441344 <441...@gmail.com> wrote:
> v Golem-1 c/o FKA441344 04 Mar 12 05 Mar 12
> v Golem-2 c/o FKA441344 04 Mar 12 05 Mar 12
> ...
> v Golem-50 c/o FKA441344 04 Mar 12 05
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Mister Snuggles wrote:
> i am not a player.
>
> i register.
>
> cfj arguments: to agora, all nonplayers are interchangeable.
>
> mister snuggles
Huh, and I always thought it was G..
This message appears to have been sent from Gmail (also, the DKIM
signature is c
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 7:49 AM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> On 14 March 2012 13:16, FSX wrote:
>> I am not Mister Snuggles.
>
> You and everybody else. Posting it to a-b might give it more weight in
> the form of the illegality of lying, though.
Lying is not illegal anymore.
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 8:30 AM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> The actual judgement on the case is not what I'm getting at here, as
> it is rather trivial. The purpose of this appeal is to challenge the
> process of judges discharging their duties and deliberately assigning
> inappropriate opinions on c
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> NOT GUILTY. The caller has provided no evidence that omd emself
> violated Rule 2170, but rather, that the golem formerly known as Mr.
> Incredible did.
(Maybe we should bring back the pre-trial period.)
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> omd wrote:
>
>> On Mar 22, 2012, at 3:34 PM, omd wrote:
>>
>>> THE SHORT LOGICAL RULESET
>>
>>
>> CoE: The implicit list of Notable cases here is incorrect
>
>> because I haven't yet
NttPF
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:04 PM, John Smith wrote:
> CfJ, inquiry:
> "The Executor of the message quoted in the evidence cannot be determined with
> reasonable effort except by judicial declaration"
Gratuitous: IRRELEVANT, as "Mister Snuggles" has never attempted to
support any intents, and the
Or: "The basis of a Golem is the basis of its owner; if this would
result in circularity, it has an empty basis and is Emancipated. A
non-Emancipated Golem with an empty basis is in Storage."
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 11:44 PM, Mister Snuggles wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 12:13 AM, omd wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:04 PM, John Smith wrote:
>>> CfJ, inquiry:
>>> "The Executor of the message quoted in the evidence cannot be determined
>
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> omd wrote:
>
>>> 7196 3 scshunt Truisms
>>
>> AGAINST
>>>
>>> 7198 1 scshunt Xenophobia
>>
>> AGAINST
>
>
> I think maybe you something out here.
I didn't, see my followup message.
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Proposal, "Untitled", AI-3 please:
>
> !#//c!#//c!#//c!#//c!#//c!#//c!#//c!#//c!#//c!#//c!#//c!#//c!#//c!#//c
Wash your mouth out this instant!
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 10:54 AM, FKA441344 <441...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 7193 3 omd I think these turned out to be too much work
> I spend a ruble to double my voting limit on this and vote AGAINST it.
>> 7196 3 scshunt Truisms
> I spend a ruble to double
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 12:04 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Thought: Do not allow on arbitrary slave golems. Create a new class of
> vote-eligible golems with more restricted creation rules.
Meh. I don't want to force people to create Golems with game
mechanics that require using one to achieve the max
On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 1:14 PM, John Smith wrote:
> I cause BuckyBot to initiate an Inquiry CfJ with this statement: "BuckyBot's
> Rule 101 rights to initiate a process to resolve matters of controversy have
> been violated."
> If BuckyBot has not successfully initiated a CfJ, I initiate an Inqu
Here's a vague proposal: There are N named tokens, which grant both +2
voting limit and additional ruble income (to add a bit of permanence);
every so often, tokens are returned to the LFD and auctioned off for
rubles.
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 12:07 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> A non-player should not be under obligation to pay attention to any
> forum. Adding penalties that require action (to avoid accumulating more
> penalties) create this requirement for a non-player.
I think I agree with you, but note that I did
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 12:16 AM, John Smith wrote:
> Arguments: Cashing a promise causes its text to be effectively published by
> its author; it doesn't actually cause them to send a message. The person who
> most directly caused the message to be sent is the person who cashed the
> promise.
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 1:27 AM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> IIRC this was originally part of anti-invasion stuff. I'd be happy to see it
> go.
It does prevent a simple scam: post dictatorship proposal, have large
numbers of sockpuppets register one minute before the end of the
voting period.
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 7:01 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Idea for a voting mechanic:
>
> The Ancient Golems are numbered and ordered. Possibly named? There
> will be a resetting cycle, similar to the old Poobah's monthly
> mechanic, which I will refer to regularly.
>
> Ancient Golems have a voting limi
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> The eligible voters on a decision with an adoption index are
> those entities that were active first-class players at the start
> of its voting period. Setting or changing an entity's voting
> limit on such a decision,
601 - 700 of 1475 matches
Mail list logo
