Cartographer's note section doesn't work to mark something disputed unless
there's some indication of disputation like a ! mark in the report's list
itself. Otherwise the report is internally inconsistent and doesn't
self-ratify.
(note I haven't actually checked whether this is the case here)
I was sloppy in these messages: I didn't explicitly state that these
were forgivable. But I think the imposition of an apology word
automatically makes it so.
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 9:03 AM, Rebecca wrote:
> I find both of these finger points valid. Because these are two
> separate
Yes. People not votes for quorum
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 3:10 PM, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> After reading Rules 2422 and 683, I think your vote still counts toward
> quorum, which is good.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 4:11 PM
last few months, but
> don't remember seeing the result (and couldn't find it in a quick Gazette
> search). Anyone remember? Boy I really really really need to get the CFJ
> database up-to-date again.
>
>
> On Fri, 27 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote:
> > I was sloppy with th
I was sloppy with these, too. Summary Judgement fines are not
forgivable by definition. Therefore I am not eligible for a Ref salary
this month.
On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 6:09 PM, Rebecca wrote:
> There is one person recently late on reports (myself) and three people
> very late on CFJ
months,
> but
> > don't remember seeing the result (and couldn't find it in a quick Gazette
> > search). Anyone remember? Boy I really really really need to get the
> CFJ
> > database up-to-date again.
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 27 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote:
>
Given the 2 uncontested cfjs ruling the votes at issue invalid, the answer
is 4 clearly
On Wed., 1 Aug. 2018, 1:55 pm Aris Merchant, <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 8:50 PM Edward Murphy wrote:
>
> > (I may be overlooking any number of things here; if I
sider, if others
are also confused."
On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 2:08 PM, Rebecca wrote:
> Actually, I just noticed and (if we accept those CFJs) there should be
> three invalid votes as opposed to four. One of those CFJs invalidated "I do
> the same as the last four people in this
at 1:58 PM, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> G. contested those, with supporting logic affixed, which is why this case
> exists. It wasn't an attempt to get around an appeal, either, if you look
> at the justification.
>
> -Aris
>
>
> On Tue
yer
> requirement implicitly only applies when a player is targeted.
> - It's not a notice of honor because it doesn't "provide a reason for
> specifying that Player" (and I never can, because Agora isn't a player).
> And
> the implicit rule mentioned above doesn't
you can move to reconsider your own judgements once automatically now.
On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 5:52 PM, Corona wrote:
> I support the move for reconsideration.
>
> On Thursday, August 2, 2018, Rebecca wrote:
>
> > I move for reconsideration of my judgement in CF
I can't resolve this Finger without knowing whether or not the document was
incorrect (or indeterminate, which it clearly isn't). Unless anyone can
point to a proposal that clearly existed that your ratification claimed did
not, and within a timely fashion from the Finger, I will likely acquit.
ons.
> On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 4:09 AM Rebecca wrote:
>>
>> There is one person recently late on reports (myself) and three people
>> very late on CFJs. One of them is Gaelan, a zombie, but the other two
>> are PSS and ATMunn, who have no excuse. Those CFJs were assigned on 24
damn time limits!! this would have been more fun with higher
participation/longer time but congrats aris.
On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 11:05 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
wrote:
> Yes. That is my third strike. Now, Aris is the only remaining player,
> assuming eir argument is ruled VALID
same, it's 5.
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 8:39 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> I object. I'd be fine with the lower value though.
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 6:23 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I hereby intend to ratify the following document,
you have a CFJ to judge somewhere
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 5:02 AM, ATMunn wrote:
> cool, thanks.
>
>
> On 7/19/2018 11:30 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> You know that sort of paragraph written weekly or biweekly is the most
>> useful form of newspaper. nothing fancy.
>>
>> I'd add that the
got it
On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 1:23 AM, Edward Murphy wrote:
> twg wrote:
>
>> Well, if the resolution message actually is self-ratifying, I see no
>> reason
>> why the following shouldn't work, assuming this message actually is
>> received
>> by a "reasonable number" of people. (So please
No, the economy shouldn't be optional. The only way to encourage engagement
with it is to make it unoptional in some way, which it really isn't now.
CFJs should always be free. Proposals can and should be interacted with.
Paper is a super feels-bad unfun way to do it. Better, though, than nothing.
I vote as follows
8058* V.J. Rada 1.0 Medal of Honour Auctions V.J. Rada
FOR
8059* G. 1.0 honour is its own reward G.
AGAINST
8060* V.J. Rada 1.8 Notary-B-Gone V.J. Rada
FOR
8061+ Aris 1.0 Free Proposals
We fundamentally should not entirely repeal our current official currency
until there is a new one. The vestiges of land should go. But coins and
paydays should stay as a stopgap, at least.
On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 9:17 AM, Reuben Staley
wrote:
> On 07/05/2018 05:10 PM, Rebecca wrote:
>
&
as you can guess, no no and no
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 7:52 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1) Slightly interested.
> 2) Probably not.
> 3) No.
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 4:21 AM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> >
> > 1) Yes, it sounds interesting in
The above rule is invalid: no quirky spelling
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 1:06 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I present the following argument on the first docket to the court:
>
> Your Honor, My Fellow Counselor V.J. Rada seems to have made a
sorry
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 1:15 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "eksallance" is not a quirky spelling?
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 11:13 AM Rebecca wrote:
> >
> > The above rule is invalid: no quirky spelling
this is patently invalid. forgot everything had to include evidence.
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 11:14 AM, Rebecca wrote:
> Your honour, I submit the following argument to d0ket two:
> This court should rule that the purpose of a nomic is to develop into a
> perfect game, and nomics
haha gotcha i don't know crap about anything except american law i guess
and even that interest is very casual. i flaunt my own ignorance.
On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 12:16 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Indeed. Or perhaps "All Agorans are snerds".
>
> -Aris
> On
Never mind, this was really 36_6_4.
On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 8:22 PM Rebecca wrote:
> Okay, there are two CFJ 3644s. This one and the one regarding Humiliating
> Public Reminders (which appears as an Annotation in the FLR). Was this
> resolved?
>
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 9:24
Intent needs to be voted against you fools! It has direct affect on the
possibility of levying a CHoJ and is directly opposed to our history and
traditions. The rules being absolute and punishing violations that are only
ambiguously against them is important! Otherwise what fun would there be.
On
I wonder if imminence if not defined as a term of art just bears its
ordinary meaning; i.e, nobody can change "
the state or fact of being about to happen" of a proposal if a festival
happens. Presumably that would prohibit non-festive players from removing
proposals somehow?
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019
it's to be found in rule 217.
On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 1:25 PM James Cook wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 at 05:49, Rebecca wrote:
> > I suspect that the text is
> > not clear and therefore the four-part test must be applied.
>
> What's the four-part test?
>
--
>From V.J. Rada
sounds hard so no
On Sat, Jun 8, 2019 at 10:55 AM omd wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 12:59 AM Rebecca wrote:
> >
> > This exact thing was tried in about June of 2017 or 18, soon after the
> new
> > "boom and bust" money system came into effect (written by nic
he fact that the
> > responsibility to do so falls on any player. Until we know exactly who
> > SHALL do so, punishing anyone is premature. Even assuming that the action
> > isn’t required to perform itself, that still doesn’t tell us who exactly
> > SHALL do it.
> >
>
tion, only
the Rules themselves are liable.
This clause, I suspect, should be changed in some way. SHALL NOT seems like
the wrong term.
On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 1:12 PM Rebecca wrote:
> The Ritual, however, isn't one!
>
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 12:36 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk <
> ais...
twg is 100% correct on this, i have a very clear memory of this being the
law based on a prime minister election i resolved as ADoP.
HOWEVER, this CFJ regards the ability of Corona to be installed as Prime
Minister, not to be a candidate in the election, by the plain text of the
actual CFJ, and
The Ritual, however, isn't one!
On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 12:36 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk <
ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 2019-06-04 at 12:16 +1000, Rebecca wrote:
> > I think if there was a provision that said "the ADoP CAN publish an
> Officer
> > re
This is an interesting case. Although I believe that the best reading of
the rule holds all players liable, I call for judgement on the following
question, barring Aris
{If no player activates Rule 2596 'The Ritual' in a certain week, all
players playing the game that week have violated the rule,
s situation would be incorrect.
> On Monday, June 3, 2019, 9:36:19 PM CDT, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk <
> ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2019-06-04 at 12:16 +1000, Rebecca wrote:
> > I think if there was a provision that said "the ADoP CAN publish an
> Officer
:
> What if we kept the existing language but changed SHALL NOT to
> CANNOT--"the rules CANNOT be interpreted..."?
>
> > On Jun 13, 2019, at 1:50 AM, Rebecca wrote:
> >
> > It wouldn't gut contracts because anything specified by a Contract _is_
> > re
Coe I bid eight coins so I should win the third zombie
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019, 12:09 PM James Cook wrote:
> The zombie auction I initiated 2019-06-06 has ended.
>
> Lots:
> 1. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> 2. Corona
> 3. Hālian
> 4. Tarhalindur
>
> Bids (all times UTC):
> 2019-06-07 17:01:
Yes, I am convinced that you are absolutely right. I guess nobody has any
zombies then.
On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 12:51 PM Rebecca wrote:
> Oh sorry, I missed the key "if" in there
>
> On Sat, 15 Jun 2019, 12:44 PM James Cook wrote:
>
>> Could you elabourate? Even
hink anything would allow me to transfer
> them to the winner of the auction.
>
> On Fri., Jun. 14, 2019, 22:17 Rebecca, wrote:
>
> > Unlike the argument about blogs, this argument stretches annoying textual
> > ism beyond its breaking point. To transfer in this context mean
Unlike the argument about blogs, this argument stretches annoying textual
ism beyond its breaking point. To transfer in this context means to change
from the ownership of one entity to anothwr. So the auctioneer CAN transfer
the switch: from agora to the auction winners.
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019,
Anyone dumb enough to consent to a contract forbidding breathing deserves
any blots that may be imposed, in my view. No such protections are needed,
and if somehow somebody scams someone into such a contract, the referee can
use eir discretion to not punish. I stand by my original stance/
On Mon,
But it's a truism that the rules only regulate what they regulate, we don't
need a special rule to say what is already implicit.
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 9:49 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On 6/16/2019 4:28 PM, Rebecca wrote:
> > G., I strongly suspect, very strongly, that the
The regulated action would be breaching a contract you consented to, which
is unlawful under the rules. It wouldn't matter what was in the contract. I
think any reasonable human judge would rule as such.
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 12:40 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On 6/16/2019 6:10 PM, Rebecca
i bid 8 coins
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 12:06 PM James Cook wrote:
> There is one ongoing zombie auction.
>
> Lots:
> 1. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> 2. Corona
> 3. Hālian
> 4. Tarhalindur
>
> Bids:
> 2019-06-07T17:01Z. Rance. 7 Coins.
> 2019-06-08T00:59Z. omd. 10 Coins.
> 2019-06-10T08:17Z.
i favor this one
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 10:28 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On general principle - yep! The Rules can delegate to other documents like
> that. A good example is Tournaments (R2464) where winning is delegated -
> at times we've allowed tournaments to hold/award Coins and change
; Jason Cobb
>
> On 6/10/19 8:53 PM, Rebecca wrote:
> > i favor this one
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 10:28 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> >> On general principle - yep! The Rules can delegate to other documents
> like
> >> that. A good example is T
CoE: there is no astronomor or clork post te sidegame suspension act
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 7:18 PM Edward Murphy wrote:
> =Metareport=
> You can find an up-to-date version of this report at
> http://zenith.homelinux.net/adop/report.php
>
> Date of last report: 2019-05-19
> Date of
Oh sorry! You're right, go ahead.
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 11:52 PM D. Margaux wrote:
> R. Lee-- Is this not the operative decision on Cfj 3736? Seems to hold that
> CHOJ is broken.
>
> -- Forwarded message -
> From: omd
> Date: Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 12:43 AM
> Subject: Re: BUS:
There is a directly on point CFJ in re pledges and that "no prohibition"
clause, that being 3538. To quote it
"I agree that the pledge, if effective, would be a severe enough
restriction on V.J. Rada's participation in the Fora as to run afoul
of Rule 478 (as even though e is not strictly
It wasn't a claim of error, so don't claim money for this!
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 4:06 PM James Cook wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 at 01:16, Jason Cobb wrote:
> > This is wrong, but I don't know if it counts because it is in a purely
> > informational section:
> >
> > > Jason Cobb + 2c.
This CFJ shouldn't be a CFJ, just find the messages where this happened or
self-ratifying reports making Baron have 0 coins at the time e bid, and
then draw that to the attention of the auctioneer and treasuror. Making the
judge do that wastes their time.
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 4:40 PM David
> >
> > That would require rewriting the tournaments wording, and it's kind of
> > close to the Birthday tournament to be doing that.
> >
> > Jason Cobb
> >
> > On 6/19/19 11:38 PM, Rebecca wrote:
> > > what if you repeal regulations and change
what if you repeal regulations and change regulations to mean this
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 1:38 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> I would suggest "regulating", but I feel like that could easily get
> confused with regulations.
>
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 6/19/19 11:24 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > I'd
Basically I like this proposal, which is good (although Oaths should also
be binding, right?) but I can't vote for it unless it slashes and burns
rules mwa ha ha.
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 1:49 PM Rebecca wrote:
> If they've never been useful in the past... I don't see a future use for
>
for regulations to exist, but I'd like
> them to be used. If there's something that can be done to make it so
> people actually start using them more widely (where appropriate, of
> course), I'd like to do it.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 8:49 PM Rebecca wrote:
> >
&
A CFJ did hold that blots can't be expunged, yes.
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 2:26 PM Edward Murphy wrote:
> I earn 5 coins for publishing the latest ADoP report.
>
> I expunge my Blot (if I can, which I suspect I can't).
>
> Notice of Honour:
> -1 Murphy (dragging heels on Prime Minister election)
I hope we actually have a birthday tournament that works this year though
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 1:43 PM Rebecca wrote:
> tournaments should just be contracts with special powers anyway.
>
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 1:40 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
>
>> That would require rewriti
tournaments should just be contracts with special powers anyway.
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 1:40 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> That would require rewriting the tournaments wording, and it's kind of
> close to the Birthday tournament to be doing that.
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 6/19/19 11:38
(I argue that although this conditional appears to rest on a future CFJ's
interpretation, making it inextricable, there is objectively only one "law"
which judges in the Agoran system merely discover, so this conditional
should work)
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 7:31 AM Rebecca wrote:
just hold that to limit encompasses SHALL NOT, that's clearly what it means
and it fits well within the confines of "limit" and doesn't break the game.
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 9:58 PM D. Margaux wrote:
> I offer this proto for comment.
>
> ***
>
> Judge Trigon recused emself believing that no
s to this case, where the rule takes two methods
of "limiting" actions, impossibility and illegality. Limit, not being a
term of art, easily encompasses both.
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 10:53 PM Rebecca wrote:
> just hold that to limit encompasses SHALL NOT, that's clearly what it
&
omd found th
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 3:27 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> Nice find - thanks!
>
> On 6/20/2019 10:19 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> > omd pointed out this CFJ [0] that decided that "interpeting the rules"
> means
> > to do it in a formal setting rather than just reading them and thinking,
>
Whoops sorry, that was non sens
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 7:16 AM Rebecca wrote:
> omd found th
>
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 3:27 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>>
>> Nice find - thanks!
>>
>> On 6/20/2019 10:19 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
>> > omd pointed ou
I can find more reputable dictionaries but "limit" is certainly capacious
enough to include a prohibition by law. For example if Congress "limits"
campaign finance donations, it doesn't physically stops them, it prohibits
them.
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 12:30 PM Rebecca wrot
12:31 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I maintain that a SHALL NOT limits the permissibility of an action, not its
> performance. If the rule referred to a limit on an action, rather than the
> performance of an action, I might agree with you.
>
>
I mean it's totally informal, so I hereby decree instant run-off and vote
TRUE, IRRELEVANT
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 2:38 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If we’re doing this, it should be instant runoff.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 9
wrote:
> > I’m for this solution. Moots are kinda lousy at consensus building, due
> to
> > the limited number of voting options.
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 8:39 PM Rebecca
> wrote:
> >
> >> why don't we just judge this cfj
eans to do.
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 12:18 PM Reuben Staley
wrote:
> Using your interpretation of "limit" would certainly get us out of this
> specific case, but it would set some ugly precendent about the word that
> I'm not sure I'm comfortable with.
>
> On 6/20/19
I agree with omd. Once again, the only good solution is to follow my
interpretation of the word "limit". Additionally, I strongly object to
whoever called this CFJ being granted a win by paradox, because they
haven't found an actual paradox!
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:57 AM omd wrote:
> On Thu,
The definition as verb is to "
set or serve as a limit (the noun) to" so it's just the same
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 12:29 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> That's the definition of "limit" as a noun, not a verb. Rule 2125
> clearly uses it as a verb.
>
> Jason Cobb
>
&
why don't we just judge this cfj irrelevant because no consequences can be
imposed for any crimes anyway, and nobody would sign such a stupid contract
as the one at issue here, and then moot the issue by passing a fix proposal
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 1:34 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> Why would this
ibing
> unregulated actions.
>
> (because "interpreting rules" is something we all do continuously in an
> unregulated fashion, whenever we play the game).
>
> On 6/20/2019 6:01 AM, Rebecca wrote:
> > See eg. CFJ 3635 where I held that "allowed" generally mea
I would oppose this because of my usual opposition to rules that state
things that are obvious and known by all, the fact that I am Oath-bound to
vote AGAINST proposals that add net text, and the fact that rules are not
fun and implied doctrines are very fun.
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 2:33 PM Aris
thing. Implicit doctrines create messes. They have
> their place, but they should be codified and made binding law.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:45 PM Rebecca wrote:
> >
> > I would oppose this because of my usual opposition to rules that state
> > things th
Well, one of the many such precedents stretching back forever.
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 4:00 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk <
ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-06-21 at 22:57 -0700, omd wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 10:53 PM Jason Cobb
> wrote:
> > > In my view, "inherent
Does any language have inherent meaning? :thinking:
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 5:07 PM omd wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 11:12 PM Aris Merchant
> wrote:
> > I think you’re making it worse rather than better. I’d drop the “with no
> > inherent meaning” bit; a judge could easily interpret it to
emain as Promotor, if the public doesn’t mind.
> > >>
> > >> -Aris
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 4:40 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> I support the intent for ADoP.
> > >>>
> > >>> If any non-incumb
Don't be sorry for interpreting the rules! I say this only because it's
just what I've always remembered. Also I've taken the office so it doesn't
matter now!
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 12:55 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> Ah sorry about that then.
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 6/21/19 10:53 PM
gt;> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I would like to remain as Promotor, if the public doesn’t mind.
> >>>>
> >>>> -Aris
> >>>>
> >>>> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 4:40 PM Kerim Aydin
You could still bribe them with getting a win in the scam, if it's proposal
based. Maybe with the text "X gets a win, then Y gets a win", therefore
making the scammer the speaker. This is actually my one regret with the one
time I win the game, I should have made me win last haha.
On Sat, Jun 22,
ion depends on support, the performer has supported
> the
> >>>intent, and the rule authorizing the performance does
> not
> >>>explicitly prohibit supporters from performing it;
> >> Rule 2598 ("Side-Game Suspension&qu
CFJs are technically nonbinding, platonically, so a SHOULD is fine.
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 1:53 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> A few small nitpicks:
>
> > On the objective timeline, the consequences of an action or event
> Consistent capitalization please :)
>
>
> > and cannot be retroactively
Correct! Unfortunately there is no remedy for illegal things right now bc
no CHoJ. Soo...shrug?
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 12:47 AM James Cook wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 at 06:40, David Seeber
> wrote:
> > I cfj the following
> >
> > {Baron von Vaderham's bid of 11 coins in the most recent
(That's why I've made a proposal to create spaceships, yeah)
Can you find the message where we ratified out the space ru
On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 12:42 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On 6/22/2019 7:19 PM, Rebecca wrote:
> > Does the previous state of spce carry over or does
Or i mean i could do that it does seem like my job
On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 12:45 PM Rebecca wrote:
> Sorry, I meant the space rules? That would enable me to recall the CFJ I
> filed.
>
> On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 12:44 PM Rebecca wrote:
>
>> (That's why I've made a proposal
Sorry, I meant the space rules? That would enable me to recall the CFJ I
filed.
On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 12:44 PM Rebecca wrote:
> (That's why I've made a proposal to create spaceships, yeah)
>
> Can you find the message where we ratified out the space ru
>
> On Sun, Jun 23, 2
"ha who reads things when they can just complain instead" - me
On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 12:13 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I thought Proposal 8181 did that?
>
> -Aris
>
> On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 7:11 PM Rebecca wrote:
> >
Does the previous state of spce carry over or does it all reset? Are
you planning to battle your spces? discuss today
--
>From R. Lee
e section "D. Margaux's attempt to ratify without objection
> failed." in my judgement of CFJ 3726 at
> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3726
>
> On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 at 02:47, Rebecca wrote:
> >
> > Awesome. I withdraw my pending CFJ with th
i favour this
On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 6:13 PM omd wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 3:40 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> >
> > CFJ: An Agoran decision to select the winner of the election has
> > a voting method of AI-Majority.
> >
> > Rule 1950 (Decisions with Adoption Indices, Power=3):
> >
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:16 AM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 12:53 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > Please review if you have an interest in a pending case - did I miss
> anything?
> >
> > Cases listed open in the Court Gazette May 27
> >
ID numbers are entirely informal so anyone can assign them if they like.
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:31 AM Rebecca wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:16 AM Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 12:53 PM Kerim Ayd
It wouldn't gut contracts because anything specified by a Contract _is_
regulated under the rules. It's just designed to prohibit _criminal_
liability for "interpret[ing]" the rules.
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 1:56 PM James Cook wrote:
> On Proposals 8180 through 8187 I vote as follows, where
Gratuitous Argument
The Pledge rule states that "N is 2 unless the pledge explicitly states
otherwise". But it doesn't say what N is when the pledge _does_ explicitly
state otherwise. Therefore, N is indeterminate and there is no explicit
Class for this crime, so it defaults to a base value of 2.
Oh it was rejected. Never mind!
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 8:26 PM Rebecca wrote:
> Hey guys, see that "IAR writs repeal proposal, which I think passed? Why is
> that still in the ruleset?
>
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 7:28 AM Edward Murphy wrote:
>
> > > 8058* V.J. R
Gratuitous argument. Even if "deputisation" or "temporary deputisation" are
totally distinct categories, the Cyan Ribbon category uses the word
"deputises" rather than "deputisation". A person who engages in "temporary
deputisation", even if distinct from "deputisation" still engages in the
_verb_
Hey guys, see that "IAR writs repeal proposal, which I think passed? Why is
that still in the ruleset?
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 7:28 AM Edward Murphy wrote:
> > 8058* V.J. Rada 1.0 Medal of Honour Auctions V.J. Rada
> AGAINST
> > 8059* G. 1.0 honour is its own reward
Fines can be levied, surely, per the revised version of CFJ 3736, which
says they CAN, but not by announcement
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 10:13 PM D. Margaux wrote:
> As stated, this CFJ is trivially FALSE because no fine CAN be imposed for
> anything. Maybe there is a different way to pose the
As I said, per the revised version of that CFJ, the referee CAN impose the
CHoJ, by announcement or some other mechanism
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 10:21 PM D. Margaux wrote:
> I publish the below report and claim a 5 coin reward for doing so.
>
> Referee’s Weekly Report
> Date of This Report:
1 - 100 of 462 matches
Mail list logo
