se. It's not even a
> common definition. Hmm. SECURITY HOLE: A power-1 rule could just say
> "first class players are golems - all other players are second class."
> Or hey: "omd is a first-class player, all other players are second class".
> Since it's an Agora
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Ordinary is at least one counterexample that comes to mind. (In addition to
> the common meaning of ordinary, as least one scam IIRC depended on the
> confusion between "ordinary decision" (correct) and "ordinary proposal"
> (those don't actua
On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 8:40 PM, ais523 wrote:
> This looks very likely to cause a dictatorship scam via forcing through
> a proposal. Or is that the idea?
Actually, I'm investigating the possibility of switching from Gmail to
Mail.app, and was watching it download some old Agora mail.
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 3:58 PM, FKA441344 <441...@gmail.com> wrote:
> FIRST-CLASS PLAYERS (21)
It would be nice if you had a separate list for active players (since
that is usually the reason I look at the Registrar's report), rather
than listing all players then listing the subset that are inact
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Tanner Swett wrote:
>> 7207 3 Murphy Let newcomers vote on proposals
>
> I register. I vote FOR this proposal.
Just to state the obvious, this fails.
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 9:46 PM, John Smith wrote:
> As much fun as it would be to take over Agora with four golems and a
> President, I'd rather fix the problem than wait four months to abuse it. I
> cause BuckyBot to submit a proposal specified as follows:
> Title: Elder Things
> Text:
> {{
>
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 3:26 PM, FKA441344 <441...@gmail.com> wrote:
> FIRST-CLASS PLAYERS (23)
> Nickname E-mail address Since
> ###
> ---ACTIVE (16)-
Thanks.
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> No complaints, but since proposals exist after they've failed,
> (I think by precedent?) does specifying the same title run afoul
> of Definition/Continuity of Entities (or any other rule?)
CFJ 1358, ... I thought there was a more recent preced
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Erm, speaking of which, I just noticed, non-players can own
> golems, no? So a person can deregister and act through eir
> golem without punishment, no?
The person can be punished despite being deregistered (through Rule
2361, except it's brok
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Crimes aside, I'm trying to decide if non-player ownership (and ability
> to act on behalf of the golem) is a bug or feature, especially if
> we're contemplating voting golems...
I've always thought that non-player participation (and partnershi
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 6:01 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> The difference was that at the time of 1358, the rules didn't define
> or specify what a proposal's title was at all, and now you have to
> submit with the "associated title", so arguably that's a legislative
> override of 1358, and the submitte
On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 4:12 AM, FKA441344 <441...@gmail.com> wrote:
> AGAINST (the same wording is used in rule 2326 and 103 for the President)
Which is unfortunate; in contrast, Promises and the Acting on Behalf
rule that preceded it are defined in terms of sending messages.
On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Pavitra wrote:
>> 7218 2 BuckyBot, etc. Elder Things
> FOR
>
>> 7219 3 omd, etc. Untitled
> FOR. Incidentally, I notice that 2350 needs a more thorough cleanup.
No, I just screwed up rulekeeping it. I'll fix in a bit.
On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> The annotations are not quite right (though, to be fair, my judgement in
> CFJ 2981 was also insufficiently clear). Rule 2140 (c) doesn't talk
> about modifying an instrument, it talks about modifying an aspect of an
> instrument; and the idea be
On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 3:32 PM, omd wrote:
> On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> The annotations are not quite right (though, to be fair, my judgement in
>> CFJ 2981 was also insufficiently clear). Rule 2140 (c) doesn't talk
>> about modifying an
On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> (I believe each of these costs 1 ruble)
I don't think this clearly indicates an attempt to pay a ruble.
> c) For each office with weekly duties, one ruble is created in
> the possession of the player (if any) who held that offic
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 2:04 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> (I believe each of these costs 1 ruble)
>>
>>
>> I don't think this clearly indicates an attempt to pay a ruble.
>
>
> Why would I point out the cost of my own action without attempting
> (possibly implicitly) to pay it?
Parenthetical remarks d
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> However, there is some
> unfortunate phrasing in rule 2143:
>
> While performing weekly or monthly duties or publishing weekly
> or monthly reports, officers SHALL NOT publish information that
> is inaccurate or misleading.
>
> No
On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 12:13 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> E has some options (e.g. attempting and promising to flip it back and
> forth, if current sentiment is to leave it alone). If e makes a
> reasonable effort and still doesn't get consent, then "unavoidable,
> NOT GUILTY" is probably appropriate.
On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 1:39 PM, FKA441344 <441...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Murphy and omd are tied. In accordance with Rule 955(c), as vote
> collector for this Agoran Decision I select Murphy as its outcome.
> Murphy remains the Assessor, Assessor remains Postulated, this
> electio
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 2:06 AM, ais523 wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-05-14 at 02:03 -0400, omd wrote:
>> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
>> > I judge CFJ 3190 NOT GUILTY (1504(a)). Arguably, also (d), but (a) is
>> > more clearcut.
>>
>> I inte
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Thanks. CFJ in question is 1361:
>
> "It is my view that, for the purposes of R559, a nickname is a name that
> a Player chooses for emself, that can be reliably used to pick em out in
> the full range of Agoran contexts. On this view, arbitra
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:10 PM, John Smith wrote:
> I CfJ on the statement "It is illegal for a player to announce intent to use
> Ratification Without Objection to ratify a document whose contents are
> identical to this sentence, without also specifying a reason for ratifying
> it."
>
> Arg
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:54 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Actually, isn't Rule 2358 contradictory in that any hypothetical
> situation mentioned arises from the case itself, because the case is
> what raises them?
indeed, I can't think of anything "arising from the case itself" that
does not also "o
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 12:45 AM, Schrodinger's Cat
wrote:
> Is it permissible to post to official fora with a second email account, for
> instance, my phone? It's on all 5 lists.
I've done it for a while, though only because Mail.app (either
version) doesn't support multiple name/email pairs.
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 2:26 AM, Noé Rubinstein
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 7:25 PM, Benjamin Schultz
> wrote:
>> I find it curious that GMail puts the insertion point at the top, but
>> adds the .sig file at the very end. This makes the .sig file semi
>> useless.
>
> I see it as en
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 9:54 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> I recuse omd from CFJ 3194.
Sigh. I've literally been procrastinating on that judgement since you
assigned 441344 to it. Sorry.
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 4:28 AM, FKA441344 <441...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 7:01 PM, FKA441344 <441...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 6:44 PM, omd wrote:
>>[...]
>>> 7244 3 omd Possibly fix costs
>> PRESENT
&
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 1:31 AM, Pavitra wrote:
> On 05/28/2012 09:29 PM, omd wrote:
>>>> 7246 3 omd Adoption reassociation
>>> AGAINST
>>
>> Why?
>
> Because it looks like a trivial rewording to no effect, which makes me
> suspect a sca
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 9:22 PM, John Smith wrote:
> I cause BuckyBot to announce that it intends to deputize for the Herald to
> award Bucky the Patent Title "Champion" in connection with the most recent
> Win by Paradox.
I do believe you already received such a Patent Title:
http://www.mail-a
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 2:01 PM, FKA441344 <441...@gmail.com> wrote:
> CoE:The last change to the ruleset was by proposal 7250, at 17:44 UTC Mon 04
> Jun
Context: the judgement that proposals take effect before they're resolved.
As far as I can tell, those out of 7218-7246 that passed would have
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 5:03 PM, John Smith wrote:
> I cash Dirty Work, the promise created above with the text "I taunt the
> police, specifying 1.".
C'mon, at least specify 14. Otherwise we'll never get up to 50 :)
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 10:06 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> So, I just realized the rules never took notice of proposal 6671, adopted on
> March 22, 2010 and affecting Rule 1367. This also means that parts of
> proposal 6717 were ineffective.
Um...
I guess so. Ugh.
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Tanner Swett wrote:
> My opinion is FALSE. Since my nickname change was not posted to a
> public forum, nor even a forum that most Agorans subscribe to, it was
> not known to Agora at large, making the name "Nuas Te" ambiguous.
> (Subjectively ambiguous, that is.)
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:10 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Even if that wasn't so, my preface "if I haven't already" probably would
> have rendered the assignments to FKA441344 ineffective.
>
> Proto: Refactor non-self-judgement
> (AI = 2, co-author = ais523)
>
> Amend Rule 1868 (Judge Assignment Gener
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 3:26 PM, FKA441344 <441...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I intend to, With Notice, initiate a criminal case: omd violated Rule
> 2143 by failing to distribute by the end of Sun. 24 June proposals in
> the proposal pool that were in there at the beginning of Mon. 18 Jun
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 10:23 PM, Pavitra wrote:
>> 7234 1 omd Notability is usually uncontroversial, but
>> .. support is sometimes lacking
> AGAINST, the With 2 Support mechanism should be kept since controversial
> cases are more likely
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Pavitra wrote:
> I morally object to this objection, as a player can straightforwardly
> determine whether e is included via the algorithm {return true;}.
In practice, it only applies to players who have been inactive for at
least 3 months - 4-14 days; that may or
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> These days, "AGAINT" is treated the same as any other Rule 754 (1) typo
> (see Judge Zefram's arguments in CFJ 1885). I thought we'd decided
> otherwise, but apparently I remembered wrong (or at least it's only
> ambiguous if the poster says "ha
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 4:51 PM, ais523 wrote:
> There used to be a rule limiting it to five
> per player per week, but the limit isn't really needed in practice. Two
> or three is perfectly fine, though.
Actually, that limit still exists:
An excess case is a new case whose initiator previ
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 11:00 PM, ais523 wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-06-28 at 19:52 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Jun 2012, ais523 wrote:
>> > I couldn't actually find any useful scams to use it on (although they
>> > may well come up in future, and it'll be useful then); I just like the
>> >
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 8:17 PM, Tanner Swett wrote:
> I'm treating this as ineffective, on the grounds that for many users,
> an unreasonable amount of effort is required to determine the meaning
> of "🌜🏁🕗".
You and what report?
🎅
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 11:59 PM, ais523 wrote:
> [When the rule was changed from being written in negatives to being
> written in positives, the change in part (d) seems not to have taken De
> Morgan's Law into account.]
Actually, it's not a typo. Part (d) was changed alone by Proposal
6932 (scs
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 1:03 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Indeed; as it was, all the accused needed to be able to do was present
> an argument that what they were doing was legal, and (d) would
> exonerate them by virtue of them having an argument.
I don't think that was a bad idea, actually. Wooble's
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I don't see how the power-1 Rule 2365 "rules to the contrary
> notwithstanding...creating a proposal has a cost of 1 ruble"
> takes precedence over the power-3 "A player CAN create a proposal
> by announcement" by virtue of the power-1 Rule 2354
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>> On Jul 6, 2012, at 7:00 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> > 3240: UNDECIDABLE
>> >
>> > I accept the caller's arguments. Ozymandias has not won the game, so
>> > neither TRUE nor FALSE is appropriate.
>> >
>> > CFJ: It would be ILLEGAL for a play
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 6:39 PM, John Smith wrote:
> Admitted. Trying again.
>
> I, Bucky, satisfy the Victory Condition of Paradox (on CfJ 3212) while also
> not satisfying any Losing Conditions. (This is a Victory Announcement)
(You satisfied it one week after it was judged UNDECIDABLE, but d
Proto: It's really a matter of communication
[Even if Rule 2367 were fixed, any rule written in terms of logical
statements probably can't act quite right: it should be legal to
publish "'This statement is incorrect' is a messy statement" or "The
judgement of CFJ was appropriate", but under a
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 4:32 PM, ais523 wrote:
> Regardless of whether the message has the right form to initiate a CFJ
> or not (I think it might do, the effort required to decode it is not too
> extreme), it doesn't contain a statement (the characters that appear
> after the colon cannot reasonab
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 5:41 PM, ais523 wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 17:13 -0700, omd wrote:
>> "an attempt to perform any Agoran action" is much more general than
>> "posting a message with the new ruleset". In any 'normal' nomic, you
>> woul
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 7:51 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Counterarguments:
>
> Those actions are intended to be disallowed for non-players.
Arguments:
I intend these actions to be disallowed for ais523.
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 5:31 PM, ais523 wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 17:13 -0700, omd wrote:
>> If that's true, then deregistering someone violates their right to
>> participate in the fora, since it disallows the vast majority of game
>> actions.
> Nonplayers don&#x
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Second, in general, attempting to perform an Agoran action by
> announcement is not explicitly prohibited or regulated, thus by R101(i)
> persons have the right to so attempt. Specific forms are ILLEGAL (e.g.
> Endorsing Forgery), but then R101(v
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 7:10 PM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> On 11 July 2012 01:19, Noé Rubinstein wrote:
>> How the hell would this not be trivially TRUE by rule 754/1?
>
> Those are full-width characters; they are certainly not the usual
> means we would expect actions to be presented in, but more
>
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 11:43 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Proposal, "Not clever anymore", AI-2 please:
>
> ---
>
> Amend Rule 869 (How to Join and Leave Agora) by appending:
>
> Initiating a frivolous judicial case on the success or
>
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> then the encoding is interpreted as if its plaintext had been
> published at the time the original encoding was published.
i think this is too vague - what if the plaintext is "I deregister"?
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> The rule specifying the secret should additionally specify the
> encryption (I hate this word in this context, fwiw) method and the
> rule allowing secrets should define explicitly what sort of actions or
> information can be contained within. Fo
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>up until the time the recordkeepor announces
>its Declassification.
I would just do "up until the time it becomes Declassified".
>
>The Rules may specify a date or event after which a particular
>type of Cypher
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 3:18 PM, FKA441344 <441...@gmail.com> wrote:
> CoE: The fourth paragraph of this rule consists of the text
Yeah, I already self-CoEd, but sent it from my iPhone and neglected to
trim the quote, so the post was moderated for containing the entire
ruleset. Oops. Anyway, I f
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> x7267 1.0 G. Still Crazy after all these Years
> x7268 3.0 G. allow secret votes
http://wiki.teamfortress.com/w/images/6/65/Engineer_jeers01.wav
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> All Recognition switches are at their default values.
You're not actually required to publish this:
c) Optionally, exactly one office whose holder tracks instances
of that switch. That officer's report includes the value of
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> because of Rule 2166: "If an asset would otherwise lack an owner, it
> is owned by the Lost and Found Department."
I transfer a prop to scshunt for noticing this.
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 3:03 PM, FKA441344 <441...@gmail.com> wrote:
> scat ag...@lesidhetree.com *3 18 May 12 e
ITYM *2
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> The rest of this rule notwithstanding, a promise CANNOT be cashed,
> directly or indirectly, as a part of the outcome of cashing that same
> promise.
What would this solve? The promise's text could include creation of
an identical promise
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> CFJ: { I can cash a promise named A Million Bucks. }
For completeness, since this is phrased like a turtle, any reason you
think this should be UNDECIDABLE as opposed to UNDETERMINED?
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 3:10 PM, ais523 wrote:
> Why?
Because it's silly.
H. Ambassador-At-Large ais523, it has come to my attention (because I
planned it) that someone has falsely claimed to a nomic (that I
started ten minutes ago) to be an ambassador of Agora. (Although the
nomic's rules[1] do not attempt to define how to contact it, since
such a definition might not
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 5:04 PM, omd wrote:
> H. Ambassador-At-Large ais523, it has come to my attention (because I
> planned it) that someone has falsely claimed to a nomic (that I
> started ten minutes ago) to be an ambassador of Agora. (Although the
> nomic's rules[1] do not
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 9:12 PM, ais523 wrote:
> Actually, thinking about this, I think it's impossible under the current
> rules for anyone to inform a nomic (including Agora) of anything,
> because the rules don't define a mechanism for doing so, and nomics are
> legal fictions.
Well, if you as
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Taral wrote:
> Okay, folks, I know I've brought this up before, but I still really do
> need to move the lists. They're hosted on a server that is going away,
> and I don't have any reliable place to put them. So if you're
> interested in taking over Distributor-sh
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 11:20 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> If the rules of the nomic do not provide such a forum in a manner
>> reasonably accessible without undue effort, it is IMPOSSIBLE for the
>> ambassador to inform the nomic - or at least not reasonably possible.
I argue that it is reasonably po
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 3:34 PM, omd wrote:
> THE SHORT LOGICAL RULESET
CoE: last week has been really crazy for me and i haven't updated
this. will do it later.
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:42 PM, FKA441344 <441...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I transfer a prop to ais523 (for establishing friendly relations with
> deepNomic) from scshunt (for not publishing a report or distributing
> proposals last week).
For the record, this was scshunt's only prop.
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 6:58 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Out of curiosity, what would your opinion have been given the current
> ruleset if I'd have asked it correctly. Eg. "I CFJ on the following:
> the CotC is currently required to assign this case to a judge".
>
> I think the current precedent, i
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> These do the same thing.
They have different Chambers. I'm not making this an ordinary
proposal because it's my own fault that I didn't try to veto or
otherwise defeat the original proposal, so it's a bit lame to then
propose a repeal; but if t
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> 7306 3.0 omd Support Democracy Considered No Fun
> AGAINST
>> 7307 1.0 omd unrevive lame pun 1
> AGAINST. I veto this Agoran Decision.
The latter veto is, by the way, my reasoning for the former proposal
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 11:33 PM, omd wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 11:21 PM, Elliott Hird
> wrote:
>> ☃
>
> I create a promise with text "☃" and transfer it to ehird.
...and, in a separate message to avoid any question of whether this
affects the interpretation o
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 8:27 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Well, that's quite the bug, seeing that someone could do the same thing
> right now with a "nasty" proposal... and no real AI limit there, either.
Such proposals could be democratized, since people didn't like my
proposal to repeal it... playe
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> I spend a ruble to increase my voting limit on the decision to adopt
> Proposal 7302 by 1.
>
> I spend a ruble to increase G.'s voting limit on the decision to adopt
> Proposal 7302 by 1.
Nice.
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> I have published an ATC report.
scshunt, any arguments on this one?
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Arkady English
wrote:
> I spend a ruble
To do what?
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Henri Bouchard wrote:
> I might have asked this already, but how can I reply to a bullet so that I
> create another sub list in the discussion archives?
>
> Thanks
You should set your mailing list preferences to send individual emails
(Gmail makes it fairly easy t
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 4:08 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Oh crap. There's a quorum bigger bug here
What bug? If the number of voters is less than 5, then a single
eligible voter with a positive voting limit who didn't vote is enough
to force FAILED QUORUM. Which I'd like to change, since now that
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 5:36 PM, omd wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 5:36 PM, omd wrote:
>> I retract my objection to democratization.
>
> And support it.
By the way, I meant democratization of the proposal, not the decision.
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 8:19 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Oops, missed omd's vote in the next message. Informally, looks like it
> passes 9/1 by scshunt's interpretation of voting limits, or 6/1 by mine.
I award scshunt the Patent Title "Mandate of the Apathetic".
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Playing with the nesting a bit:
>
> scshunt purports [Murphy purports [result]]
But such a message would probably include enough context to make it
clear that it's purporting to do something that indirectly causes the
decision to be resolved -
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 7:28 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> If a promise when cashed is officially a message from Murphy;
> Then a failed promise is no message (empty text).
If the condition fails, then the promise can't be cashed; but the
message says the promise *is* cashed, so to the extent we're ra
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 11:03 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Also: fun's fun, but I will also deregister if scshunt persists in these
> changes. Consider that an objection, as well.
Oh, come on. Although I feel obliged to counter-scam (not that it's
particularly likely to work, since we already elect
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Ah, yes. I create a slave golem named "scshunt CAN deregister. G. can cause
> this rule to amend itself by announcement. No one "
Since slave golems are supposed to be repealed in the same set of
actions as the creation of the Machiavelli r
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> The rule says the text needs to be the "name of a person". Once a
> name has been associated with a person, that text is still the name
> of a particular person even if that person ceases to exist.
It's not the name of a person if the entity
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Is "Abraham Lincoln" the name of a person? Yes it is.
I'd say it's arguable - well, maybe a clearer example, since dead
persons can be considered persons (but aren't in Agora), is whether
"Bill Clinton" is the name of a world leader: the answ
On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 5:53 PM, Arkady English
wrote:
> Huh.
>
> I appear to have sent it to Agora Official... does that count? *Puppy dog
> grin.*
It would, but I did not receive it on that list either.
I was hoping that the giant Marker Felt was just a composing artifact...
On Saturday, September 29, 2012, omd wrote:
> This is a big mess (and not properly cleaned up) because I'm on a borrowed
> phone to avoid being beaten by the repeal of relevant rules.
> Explanation/more
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> R106 provides a precises description of how a proposal takes effect,
> and is sufficiently powered to do so. Thus R106 is the rule defining
> the substantive aspects of the proposal: namely what it does when it
> takes effect. Nothing prevents a
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> For the record, this reflects the rule changes scshunt attempted two
>> days ago, but not mine from yesterday.
>>
>
> No it doesn't?
Yes it does? - look at the bottom. Did I miss anything?
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 6:45 PM, FKA441344 <441...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Oops, accepted.
Don't forget to issue a humiliating public reminder.
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Benjamin Schultz
wrote:
> I'm curious this Morning (capitalization deliberate) how Mafia would adapt
> to a Nomic environment. I'd like to help with the game set-up, but not so
> much that I'm spoiled for the game.
We tried it a while ago but it didn't pan out du
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> The AAA also interacted with Agora.
Well, even just contracts were a very Agoran form of gameplay...
libertarian style?
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 6:36 AM, FKA441344 <441...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> - "In this message, I caused (possibly indirectly) the repeal of rule 2380
>> and, at the time, it included the word 'omd'."
> Looking at the uses of "2380" in the public for
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 12:34 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Judge: G.
701 - 800 of 1475 matches
Mail list logo
