Proto: Spelling abuse capitalisation VLOP 2.0 (co-author=ais523, Bayes)
Amend Rule 2389 (Ordinary Chamber) to read:
Ordinary is a Voting Chamber.
Lexicographor is an office. Keyword is a player switch, tracked
by the Lexicographor, whose value is a string of case-sensitive
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 8:33 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Does not work, see Rule 1030.
Hmm - it probably ought to be be possible to defer to a lower-powered
rule, though.
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Tanner Swett wrote:
>> Hmm - it probably ought to be be possible to defer to a lower-powered
>> rule, though.
>
> You could still make this work; you'd just need different wording. In
> Rule 955, between items (a) and (b) (or before item (a)), say, "If the
> rule
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 5:02 AM, Charles Walker
wrote:
> Could you clarify when spivak is and is not appropriate?
As Machiavelli said, Spivak pronouns are singular. (And in singular,
we use "e" rather than "ey".)
>> This should only apply to decisions to adopt proposals.
>
> All decisions with
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 11:25 AM, wrote:
> As list administrator, your authorization is requested for the
> following mailing list posting:
>
> List:agora-offic...@agoranomic.org
> From:woggl...@gmail.com
> Subject: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset
> Reason: Message body
Updated version that allows for multiple words, but at a high (and
quadratic) cost, introduces a hand limit of 10, and tweaks the
numbers:
Proto: Spelling abuse capitalisation VLOP 2.0 (co-author=ais523, Bayes)
Amend Rule 2389 (Ordinary Chamber) to read:
Ordinary is a Voting Chamber.
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Campaign Speech:
I gently chastise scshunt for sending an 837kb message to the lists.
- The Distributor
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 7:50 PM, Fool wrote:
> Now, am I mistaken that the initiator is also a participant? If so it seems
> you've effectively made em a biased manager. Nothing prevents em and eir
> allies from watching the turn while it's in progress, and it would not be
> detected.
Indeed... s
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 8:33 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Fines can be avoided by disposing of the assets, for instance.
No, they can't. Fines are a SHALL destroy; if the ninny disposes of
eir assets, e can be found guilty of violating that and sentenced to a
different punishment.
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> No, they can't. Fines are a SHALL destroy; if the ninny disposes of
>> eir assets, e can be found guilty of violating that and sentenced to a
>> different punishment.
>>
> But if e disposes of eir assets while the judgement is not in effect, t
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Machiavelli voted AGAINST 7431:
> http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2013-May/031143.html
Admitted.
> omd only re-voted on 7426-34, and only after eir VVLOP was increased
> to 5 (not after it was in
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Tanner Swett wrote:
>> I do so.
>
> Since my original message was accidentally NTTPF, I think this is a
> reasonably clear and unambiguous synonym for submitting the quoted proposal.
As Promotor, so do I.
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Admitted in part and denied in part. When I re-voted, I cast either 4
>> or 5 additional votes per proposal (depending on how you interpret
>> it), so the total number of votes was greater than my final voting
>> limit of 7. However, I mistake
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Charles Walker
wrote:
> I initiate an election for Yak Herdor, nominating myself.
I initiate an election for IADoP and nominate myself. I publish the
following Proposed Budget:
Office Salary
Ambassador-aL 0
Assessor 0
CotC
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 7:26 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> Rulekeepor 0
>> Yak Herdor 0
>>
>
> INEFFECTIVE as you do not have the power to initiate an IADoP election by
> announcement.
And because it was nttPF.
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> The Registrar's report never recorded scshunt registering on Apr 1:
> http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2013-April/009991.html
>
> It also inconsistently recorded Machiavelli becoming inactive on May 13
> http://www
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> * If one provision claims precedence over the other and/or one
> defers to the other, then the conflict is decided by these
> claims of precdecence or deferrals; otherwise
This seems to allow lower-powered rules to ta
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> If you're looking for a not guilty now to immunize yourself from a guilty
> later, that
> doesn't work. R101 forbids multiple penalties, but not multiple trials.
> There is a
> specific precedent to this (I think I argued that a trial was
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Charles Walker
wrote:
> Note that the use of 'pending', which was defined by the Yaks
> proposal, means that the Promotor is never required to distribute a
> proposal in the same week in which it was submitted.
Oops, sorry! I guess the original wording makes more
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Tanner Swett wrote:
> I initiate a CFJ on the statement "If the time period for judging CFJ 3318a
> ends with no majority opinion among members of the panel assigned to it, then
> the Ambassador-At-Large will be REQUIRED to cause the panel to judge either
> REMA
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Charles Walker
wrote:
> In a given Agoran week, the Promotor SHALL, as part of eir
> weekly duties:
> a) distribute the MI pending proposals with the highest
> Distributability, breaking ties in favour of proposals which
> were s
Gratuitous evidence:
tswett: does Entreco have any players other than yourself?
No.
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Charles Walker
wrote:
> Do you intend to distribute all proposals as usual, or will you distribute
> only those with positive distributability as if P2425 hadn't failed to amend
> R1607?
I am required to distribute them all, at least this week. Next week,
since y
I offer to vote for any candidate with salary > 1 for a price of 2x
salary, to be paid only if that candidate wins.
(I'd submit a promise, but I'm still unsure whether the Tree is
actually functional; Ienpw III hasn't judged the relevant case within
the time limit and the Assessor hasn't yet resol
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 8:55 PM, omd wrote:
> For my own record, I'll note that the first error was not mine (it was
> in woggle's deputy Registrar report), but the second was. My
> apologies, Machiavelli.
Actually, the first error was also mine because the deputy Re
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 7:07 PM, comex wrote:
> 7453 2 0 O scshunt Criminal Accountability
> 7466 1.7 40 O scshunt Victim's Rights
> 7467 370 O scshunt New Precedents
> 7468 240 O scshunt Fix Bug
> 7469 3 0 O scshunt Proposal editing
Minor correction:
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 7:07 PM, Tanner Swett wrote:
> Not-really-a-CoE: I don't recall whether or not I was an active player at the
> time that I purported to nominate myself. If I was not, then I am not a
> candidate.
You were not.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 7:18 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I believe that at least one IADoP report will have ratified my playerhood
> since.
Meh, you're right. In that case, your playerhood has been flipping
between dates one week after publications of Registrar's reports and
IADoP's reports, and you
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 9:49 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Since I just realized that AssessorDB got quorum wrong on the Agoran
> Decision to adopt proposal 7435, since it's based on the players at
> initiation, I submit a proposal identical to 7435 and then I initiate
> an election for Assessor (it has b
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 10:43 PM, woggle wrote:
> CoE: I submitted a proposal in my Rulekeepor's notes on proposals
> 7418-7425.
Indeed. I need to write a script to double-check messages to detect
proposals hidden in the middle of messages which already spuriously
match my search terms.
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Charles Walker
wrote:
> - Promotor distributes in the first 4 days of each week (currently a proposal
> submitted on a Monday could wait just under two weeks before distribution
> without the Promotor breaking a rule)
I always considered that a bit of a perk that
In the interests of speeding up the game, I'm providing a gratuitous
early warning for Proposals 7453-7470, which are in danger of failing
quorum and having their voting periods doubled in two days. The
following active players have not yet voted on all of them despite
being eligible:
ehird
G
ext "taunt" or "naught" since the adoption of the PVN and Virtue.)
>>
>>
>> Inconstant indeed. I once again intend, without objection, to ratify
>> the above-quoted claim.
Now that this is ratified, I note that CFJ 3211, "omd violated Rule
2356 by taunting the police.", was called several months after the
last modification to that rule. ;p
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 8:21 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> CoE: At the very least, Machiavelli was inactive at the time of
>> distribution. Quorum was 5.
>
>
> Denied. Machiavelli was inactive, but Ienpw III registered at
> about the same time.
Ah. In that case, quorum was still 5 because scshunt was
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I intend, without objection, to award Murphy the Patent Title of
> "Indispensable Do-Nothing"
PRESENT
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Tanner Swett wrote:
> it regulates the game
> by instructing the players to interpret the rules as if the statement
> "it is LEGAL to shout 'CREAMPUFF' if and only if it is ILLEGAL to
> shout 'CREAMPUFF'" were true. If the statement were true, then TRUE
> would be
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jun 2013, Tanner Swett wrote:
>> 'CREAMPUFF'
>
> I disfavor everything contained in the above-cited message.
Because of the word CREAMPUFF? It's an interesting and fundamental
CFJ, in my opinion, despite its verbosity.
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> by human decisions which face the need to escape absurd
> literalism
I'm not quite sure this entirely applies to Agora. :)
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Fool wrote:
> Is this (and a bunch of other CFJs on the topic of paradoxes) all about rule
> 2358? Why not just change that?
Although Rule 2358 mostly depends on the traditional interpretation of
paradoxes as causing fundamental logical indeterminacy, and might ha
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 1:08 AM, Charles Walker
wrote:
> I play stones at (lat, lon): (3, -3), (2, -3), (1, -3).
Where are you all getting stones from? Igora was adopted after the
start of the week.
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 7:37 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> From 2002 (when I started) to 2005 no one thought about paradoxes at all in
> this sense. Paradoxical CFJ statements were simply DISMISSED as meaningless.
> I think the aforementioned lawyer had a hand in creating this system (before
> my time
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> If so, can this be used for a
> scam - e.g. if I break two entirely unrelated rules with entirely
> unrelated actions, can I do a single case accusing myself of doing both
> 'X and Y' and thus avoid individual punishments?
Note that criminal
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Flameshadowxeroshin
wrote:
> I become active.
Welcome back!
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Fool wrote:
> For that matter, is the card paradox still compelling? I had a look at the
> current ruleset and I'd guess that nowadays the card paradox would be
> resolved by R1030 ("In a conflict between rules...") or R2240 ("In a
> conflict between clauses of the
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 9:58 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> 1. As you say, one Rule says you played a card and have it, and
> another rule says you cancelled the play. The rules conflict, so
> the play of the lower-powered is "conflicting" and void.
But the odd thing is, the latter rule isn't conflic
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:20 PM, omd wrote:
> (this has actually been tried, though I
> don't remember the outcome)
On further review, this was actually only in a rule I purported to
prepare to scam in using a very lame mechanism on April Fool's Day a
few years ago. Any
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Some may, in certain circumstances, have a value that is not
> immediately discernible solely by taking the rules and some other
> subset of game state, and performing a calculation. This indicates to
> me that they are properly considered as game
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 2:11 AM, Charles Walker
wrote:
> I don't know what you mean by 'out of time': it's past the ASAP deadline but
> the awards CAN still be made.
If the time limit is already broken, I don't think the awards are
"required by the Rules" any longer, so I think they would be ille
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Charles Walker
wrote:
> On 17 Jun 2013, at 20:19, Sean Hunt wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 1:24 AM, omd wrote:
>>> 7468 240 O scshunt Fix Bug
>>
>> I submit a proposal identical to this one and threaten to resign
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 4:02 PM, woggle wrote:
>> == CFJ 3327 ==
>>
>> It was POSSIBLE for me to cash 'ZipZop Series G-002' when I
>> attempted to do so.
>>
>>
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jun 2013, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> 7474 2 0 O omdRepeal unusable auctions
>> DENOUNCE the vote cast by G. on Proposal 7481.
>
> Kudos for a nice quid-pro-quo setup. Though so far, it looks
> l
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 9:27 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> but I have missed the context on why this was happening; i.e. what
> different reports were ratifying em in and out of the game? Sorry
> if I missed an obvious explanation on the list somewhere.
Gratuitous: The reports I used for those dates
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jun 2013, omd wrote:
>> Incidentally, if G. rules that Proposal 7441 did not fail quorum,
>
> Incidentally, omd, did you note my earlier request to you on the
> case (if speed is of the essence...)
Just responded :)
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> I object to any intents to make me inactive.
Would you mind voting on distributions, then?
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 7:36 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> PROTO (omd, scshunt, pls comment!).
>
> I'n not convinced by the above explanation. I think it is more reasonable
> to say that ratifying a non-player into office would add inconsistencies
> and by R1551 would simply fai
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 8:09 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> I just emailed Peter Suber, inviting him to our events and asking for any
> commentary he might have. I will forward any response I receive.
Any others? Michael Norrish, some of the other initial players
(perhaps other than Steve and David
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 10:17 AM, wrote:
> I vote in favor of my own proposal.
I propose that a rule be enacted to read:
"Upon the enactment of this rule, each player who voted for it shall
receive 30 points, and each player who voted against shall lose the 10
points they gained for voting agai
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Flameshadowxeroshin
wrote:
> CFJ: Only sentient artificial intelligence systems are second-class persons.
Note that "person" is currently explicitly defined by the Power-3 Rule
2150. CFJ 1700 does not mention root's keyboard; CFJ 1685, which
does, was called shor
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Gratuitous: I generally left it implicit and got no complaints.
>
> Do you have your own database set up or would you like me to continue
> updating the existing one?
While a database of proposal text + results would be handy (mostly
while brow
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 10:36 PM, Aaron Goldfein
wrote:
> Have I missed something? I thought CotC was postulated.
CotC and Assessor were made Assumed when Murphy recently received a
TIME OUT sentence.
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Does anyone have an argument as to why this is not in fact
> UNDECIDEABLE? I'm thinking that there must be exactly one Speaker, but
> there is nothing to indicate who that Speaker is, so it may as well be
> Michael Norrish just as it might be, sa
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 12:13 AM, Charles Walker
wrote:
> On 19 Jun 2013 06:30, "Aaron Goldfein" wrote:
>> As an aside, I find it funny that I still think of Roujo as a "new"
>> player, despite the fact that e has been playing for two and a half years
>> now and that only two players have last re
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> I sometimes think of everyone who registered after me (6 years ago) as
>> a newbie. Of course we have at least one player who played Agora's
>> spiritual predecessor and made vaguely precedential posts 15 years
>> before that, so...
>
> 15 ye
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Charles Walker
wrote:
> I'd love to hear players' views on what causes these eras (if you don't think
> they are just arbitrary labels), or rather what makes a particular system
> stable enough to make it last that long. Does Agora simply create new things
> tha
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2013, omd wrote:
>> http://agoranomic.org/propgraph/pg.html
>
> Well, yes. Yes you have.
Incidentally, just fixed that graph to deal with H. Former Promotor
Machiavelli's crazy Unicode subject lines.
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> Meanwhile, VCs all reset whenever anyone's voting limit becomes high
> enough. It /is/ possible to get a win via VCs (although we should
> reintroduce a Clout rule so that it can be done via a method less
> disruptive than knocking everyone else
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> I've been meaning to write a big post about this for a while. I'm a bit
> too tired/distracted with other things for a big post right now, but
> here's a small one:
I should write a longer "rebuttal" (not really a rebuttal, but an
explanation o
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 6:03 PM, Fool wrote:
> 305 (Chuck):
>>
>> I propose that the following rule be created:
>>
>> No rule may award or penalize players based on their votes on proposals
>> whose voting period ended before or at the same time as the time at which
>> the current form of said rul
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> What's really missing? It seems pretty evident to me that a power-3.1
> rule that says, "after this ratifies, we treat everything going forward
> as if this history was true" is pretty straightforward and overrules
> everything.
But that's no
I propose that a rule be enacted as follows:
A player may transfer points to another player by posting to that
effect on the mailing list.
I further propose that Rule 112 be made mutable.
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
>> Time to do a total copout, I guess, given that I'm not paying enough
>> attention to sort this out by myself:
>>
>> For each colour of ribbon, I attempt to award myself a ribbon of that
>> co
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 6:23 PM, Fool wrote:
> Now, usually to win it is necessary to stop others from winning. Around here
> the two things are often unrelated. Win by paradox seems like a perfect
> example, it looks like it basically does nothing, so this doesn't affect
> anyone else's chances o
On Friday, June 21, 2013, Fool wrote:
> Here I just number and repeat the new proposal.
>
May I request that you always start a new thread for such numberings so
that it's harder for proposals to get lost in the confusion?
Thanks.
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 1:32 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-06-21 at 15:24 +1000, Michael Norrish wrote:
>> Very cool. I'm glad that's being used. I don't know how long it took me,
>> but I
>> certainly shifted well away from being a Platonist as the game progressed.
>> Clearly I was youn
I submit three proposals:
- that 112 be made mutable (again - note that this requires unanimous consent);
- that it be amended by replacing "GMT" with "UTC" (for clarity) and
by removing "There is no other way to win." (because 219 is intended
to provide another way to win); and
- that it be amende
On Saturday, June 22, 2013, Fool wrote:
>
> > IMHO, only a moron in a hurry would interpret the wording as having
> > either bug.
>
> I am, in fact, kind of in a hurry. So I will not deliver a legal judgement
> on either now. By rule 215, I have 24 hours.
(For reference for any players who may no
On Saturday, June 22, 2013, Jonathan Rouillard wrote:
> I recuse Wes from CFJ 3329, and assign that CFJ to Walker.
> I make Wes supine, since e doesn't seem be active enough to take care
> of eir assignements.
> I recuse Wes from CFJ 3318, rotate the bench and assign that CFJ to G.
> I recuse Wes
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
>> Time to do a total copout, I guess, given that I'm not paying enough
>> attention to sort this out by myself:
>>
>> For each colour of ribbon, I attempt to award myself a ribbon of that
>> c
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 1:49 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> For each player in the quoted list other than Murphy and FSX, I
> intend, without objection, to make em inactive.
I remind H. scshunt that these intents are now mature.
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Now, R2395 reads:
> There exists an office of Governmental Waste. This office shall
> have no duties, shall make no reports, and shall exist as the
> sole result of governmental waste.
Arguments: The facts that (a) the entity that
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Arguments: The facts that (a) the entity that "shall make no reports"
>> is the office rather than the officer and (b) the other two shalls are
>> both prescriptive rather than obligatory strongly suggest to me that,
>> contrary to what the Ca
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> omd's Agora-related stuff also disappeared at some point.
This too is due to an unexpected need to move to a new server. Just
tried to fix this, but it's crufty and complicated and my internet
connection has enough latency to make it quite mise
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 6:54 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> What did it for me was the fact that R2143 is very clear that duties
> belong to 'persons', so you can say that the sum of a "person's" duties
> includes the combined sum of the duties of all eir offices.
> (and that as I mentioned, we don't go
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 1:09 AM, Fool wrote:
> 326 (Chuck):
>>
>> I propose that rule 311 be amended by deleting the text “There is no
>> other way to win.”
>
>
> 327 (Walker):
>>
>> I propose to amend Rule 310 by replacing "inpermissible" with
>> "impermissible".
>
>
> 328 (Walker):
>>
>> I propo
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
> I announce {{{I call a CFJ on the statement "This is a CFJ."}}}
> I attempt to announce {{{I call a CFJ on the statement "This is another
> CFJ."}}}
>
> Arguments: Clearly, just calling a CFJ by itself works. How many levels
> of ISIDTID indire
I propose that Rule 214 be amended to read:
The Speaker shall choose Judges randomly from the set of qualified
players. The players qualified to judge a statement are the Speaker
and those Voters who voted on the rule change whose voting period most
recently ended, except for the player who invok
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 2:03 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Amend Rule 2409 (Star Chamber) inserting "- publish the list of codes
> (but not the corresponding options)" as the second item in the
> bulleted list.
> [Allows the Assessor to know whether or not each vote cast is valid
> for the purposes of ex
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> (especially
> if the initiator is also the vote collector [whatever happened to the
> rule against that?]).
FWIW, as the first person to be both Promotor and Assessor as long as
I can remember (mainly because Murphy's been Assessor for almost al
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 12:37 PM, omd wrote:
> scshunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.edu 3 Jun 13
CoE: Per recent judgement about ratification, scshunt is an elder by
legal fiction. This does not self-ratify, so no further mess has
occurred.
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Fool wrote:
> Just have any invalid code = PRESENT. The assessor knows directly whether
> quorum is met, without decoding, or even having to cross-reference with
> anything.
Yeah, this would work - it would just be a bit weird for "invalid vote
= PRESENT" to only
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 8:27 PM, The UNDEAD wrote:
> I do not register. I propose repealing rule 327.
Well... even though there are supposed to be a few days left, I don't
want to delay this further lest someone else beat me to it :)
I invoke judgement on the statement "The legality of The UNDE
On Wednesday, June 26, 2013, Malcolm Ryan wrote:
> Let's make this interesting.
>
> I propose that a rule be enacted reading:
>
> "If a player proposes a rule change which is not adopted at the end of its
> voting period, that player must immediately forfeit the game."
>
For.
"equally likely or
>> unlikely" that omd sent the message based applying the principle of
>> indifference to omd's claim. But in a legal sense, one must establish
>> where the burden of proof lies. So far, the default assumption has
>> been "assume
On Wednesday, June 26, 2013, wrote:
> I invoke judgement on the following statement: The selection of a Judge
> for this statement is a move whose legality cannot be determined with
> finality.
I think you need to wait until a purported selection actually occurs.
In any case, this might be enou
On Wednesday, June 26, 2013, wrote:
>
> As for any ordering of actions occuring in the same message, that's
> tradition (possibly law?) in Agora itself, but I don't know whether Agoran
> tradition carries over to Agora XX.
>
By the way, I'm not saying that my principle would necessarily hold
in Ag
[Note which I request the Speaker to include:
At this point the best strategy to win is obviously to avoid
controversial proposals, and I suspect this might make me lose, but I
like this idea enough that I'm proposing it anyway. Basically, after
a winner is determined on the anniversary, allow asy
On Thursday, June 27, 2013, Fool wrote:
> CFJ: a player who forfeits the game can still vote and/or transfer points.
>
>
In most games, after a player loses or forfeits, e is no longer considered
a player and can no longer make any type of move, and Rule 113 concurs with
this in contrasting forfei
On Friday, June 28, 2013, Fool wrote:
>
> I call for judgement on the statement "a player can change eir
>> vote."
>>
>
> My 8-sided virtual die comes up omd
> You have 24 hours.
> -Dan
FALSE. In many types of elections it is not possible to chan
On Friday, June 28, 2013, Sgeo wrote:
> I register.
Welcome back!
However, you can't register, because nobody actually deregistered you. You
remain an inactive player.
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Charles Walker
wrote:
> I happened to stumble across the message quoted below:
Ah! That reminds me, since we have some additional players here who I
didn't attempt to contact before: if anyone happens to have any
archives of list mail from before 1997 (after whi
901 - 1000 of 1475 matches
Mail list logo
