I deputize for the Chroniclor to publish the following report:

PROCEEDINGS OF AGORA FOR THE WEEK OF JULY 12-19, 2010
-----------------------------------------------------

The week began on the backup lists, as agoranomic.org was down,
although it was restored early in the week.

There was controversy as Registrar Wooble published a purported Cantus
Cygneus for Warrigal, with a corresponding Writ of FAGE, although this
was later ruled to be invalid as the CC did not, in fact, detail
grievances against Agora.  Herald coppro purported to award Warrigal
the patent title Left in a Huff, then subsequently proposed ratifying
the fact that e never held such a title.

coppro came off hold after a brief absence, cleaned up some old
ribbons held by the Lost & Found Department, and resigned as Chroniclor.

Wooble assumed the office of IADoP, and elections for IADoP,
Chroniclor, Herald, PSM, and Ship Computor were initiated.

comex gave notice that e intended to add some gameplay to Agora by
beginning a Journey.

Ways to attract more players to Agora were discussed.  Murphy posted
some concise FAQs, while comex suggested making the mailing list
archives public and providing a webmail interface.


2 Proposals were distributed this week:

    P6749, by ais523, to create Teams.

    P6750, by Wooble, to stop awarding late judges with Capacitors.

Voting on P6748 was extended an extra week as quorum had not been met.


7 CFJs were judged:

    CFJ 2809, Murphy ruled that P6745 awards a win to one or more
    persons.

    CFJ 2810, ais523 ruled that the Enemy has no report.

    CFJ 2811, Yally ruled that Warrigal was a player (see above).

    CFJ 2812, G. ruled that P6740 should be interpreted to award a win
    to each player who did not acknowledge its existance.

    CFJ 2813, Murphy ruled that coppro could not ratify eir claim that
    Warrigal never held the patent title Left in a Huff because e
    disclaimed eir purporting that the claim was part of an official
    report.

    CFJ 2815, Murphy ruled that coppro purported the claim mentioned
    in CFJ 2813, but then intended to appeal eir own ruling.

    CFJ 2816, G. ruled that a garbled apparent CFJ by coppro was
    invalid as it contained no statement to be evaluated.

Reply via email to