Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposals 7125-7134
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:06 AM, Arkady English arkadyenglish+ag...@gmail.com wrote: NttPF Well aware. I sent it to the public forum a minute later. :)
DIS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposals 7125-7134
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote: For the duration of this message, I am deputizing for Promotor. I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran Decision of whether to adopt it. For this decision, the eligible voters are the active first-class players at the time of this distribution, the vote collector is the Assessor, and the valid options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote). Then, I assign each listed proposal the ID number specified under 'NUM'. NUM AI AUTHOR TITLE 7125 3.0 Tanner Relax / Stroke Hell FOR 7126 1.0 scshunt The Government Needs to be More Transparent AGAINST 7127 1.0 omd AGAINST 7128 3.0 scshunt Fix 2351 FOR 7129 1.0 scshunt Why did we repeal that victory condition? FOR 7130 1.0 Arkady AGAINST 7131 2.0 Murphy Points are pointless unless scorekept FOR 7132 1.0 Pavitra SHALL Promises AGAINST 7133 1.0 omd Rule by Consent FOR 7134 2.0 ais523 Invasion Protection FOR
DIS: WTF Guys?
I pay barely any attention to you for a bit, and this is what happens? I hail Eris; this, I think, is the only thing in Agora that is certain.
Re: DIS: Draft ruling in CFJ 2152
On Sunday 21 September 2008 12:41:25 Kerim Aydin wrote: On Sun, 21 Sep 2008, Elliott Hird wrote: 2008/9/21 Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Please elaborate on how the technical issue makes Discharge appropriate. E had *some* way of communicating with the Agoran community, as shown in the evidence. Timezones made that very difficult, and besides, even if e gave me the perogative assignments, I could not perform them, as I am not pikhq. DISCHARGE. E purposefully came off hold, said e would do the task, then didn't. It is the players' responsibility to ensure they can send and receive, and this should be MORE stringent for members who have positions of responsibility (offices), not less. -Goethe In my defense: I will assign prerogatives on the 24th.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Humble request
On Saturday 20 September 2008 20:32:06 ihope wrote:
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 9:16 PM, Josiah Worcester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I humbly request for a list of those obligations of mine that are public.
I believe your only obligations are to act in accordance with the
contracts you're a party to (see one of ais523's Notary reports); to
judge, if you're assigned to a case or not Supine (see one of Murphy's
Dockets); and to perform any duties you have as an officer (see one of
the IADoP's reports).
I agree to the following: {This is a pledge. The Five-Ton Anvil is a
singleton asset whose recordkeepor is Josiah Worcester. Initially, it
belongs to Ed Murphy. Any person CAN terminate this contract by
announcement.}
Yes, I can make random people recordkeepors, and no, you don't
actually have to keep track of the Five-Ton Anvil, since you're not an
office. I can make random offices recordkeepors, and they would have
to keep track of those things. (And yes, I can agree to things on a
discussion forum. And no, I don't know how long you've been gone,
except that you left after Christmas.)
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
I've been back before, though I didn't do much, due to lack of time.
DIS: Re: OFF: [IADOP] Rulekeepor election
On 21:14 Wed 13 Aug , Geoffrey Spear wrote: This message serves to initiate the Agoran Decision to choose the holder of the Rulekeepor position. The eligible voters are the active players and the vote collector is the IADOP. The valid options are zefram (who is inactive), Wooble, and comex. All other nominees explicitly declined their nominations with the exception of root, who is inactive and who was nominated during the second half of the nomination period. -IADOP Wooble If Zefram is active by the time this election is resolved, I vote zefram. Otherwise, I vote comex.
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2053 assigned to pikhq
On 13:19 Sat 09 Aug , Ed Murphy wrote: Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2053 = Criminal Case 2053 = ehird violated rule 2149 by lying. Caller: tusho Judge: OscarMeyr Judgement: INNOCENT Appeal: 2053a Decision: REMAND Judge: pikhq Judgement: History: Called by tusho:30 Jun 2008 00:10:38 GMT Defendant tusho informed: 01 Jul 2008 21:40:34 GMT Pre-trial phase ended: 08 Jul 2008 21:40:34 GMT Assigned to OscarMeyr: 12 Jul 2008 15:25:22 GMT Judged INNOCENT by OscarMeyr: 13 Jul 2008 15:56:01 GMT Appealed by Taral: 13 Jul 2008 16:53:50 GMT Appealed by Zefram: 13 Jul 2008 19:06:02 GMT Appealed by Wooble: 13 Jul 2008 19:19:57 GMT Appeal 2053a: 13 Jul 2008 22:46:32 GMT REMANDED on Appeal: 21 Jul 2008 16:49:05 GMT Remanded to OscarMeyr: 21 Jul 2008 16:49:05 GMT OscarMeyr recused: 03 Aug 2008 13:16:22 GMT Assigned to ais523: 09 Aug 2008 14:31:13 GMT ais523 recused: 09 Aug 2008 16:36:56 GMT Assigned to pikhq: (as of this message) Caller's Arguments: I inititae a criminal CFJ against myself for lying (rule 2149), blah blah blah see above. Gratuitous Arguments by tusho: I did not state I am registered. I stated I register. An action failing is not illegal. Judge OscarMeyr's Arguments: In the message in question, Defendant stated: I join and not I am registered. As e argued, a failed action is not a false statement. I therefore rule INNOCENT. Gratuitous Arguments by Taral: Wait, didn't CFJ 2048 cover this one? If it's the same action, 2053 should be ALREADY TRIED. CFJ 2048 has judged ehird guilty, but has not gotten around to sentencing yet. ALREADY TRIED.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Inactivity
On 13:54 Mon 11 Aug , Geoffrey Spear wrote: On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 8:59 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I go on hold. Does anyone want to be Registrar? I'm required to make a nomination as soon as possible, and I'm fairly likely to just nominate every single player and install the one who doesn't notice in time to refuse eir nomination. Give me a week or two to get settled in at college, and I'll be able to take up the job. Note: I am not offering to become Rulekeepor or Promoter. Seriously, that's a bit much; I can handle Registrar, but the rules... Ugh.
Re: DIS: The Agoran Sovereignity Movement
On 23:07 Wed 30 Jul , Jeff Sheets wrote: Also, the Order of Malta has an extremely long history and tradition (depending on where you draw the line, from nearly 1000 years to about 500). The Order of Malta also at one time actually possessed sovereign territory, which gives precedent to the exceptions to my previous Wikipedia quote. It wouldn't be *Agora* if our claim was indisputable. :p That said, if Agora tries to become officially recognized by anything more than a micronation, I wish it the best of luck, and suggest that it begin increasing to a great extent its number of members. :) I suggest that we increase the amount of resident aliens. Perhaps make it so that all recognising micronations join a partnership? :p
Re: DIS: RE: [CotC] CFJ 1945 assigned to ais523
On 19:48 Mon 12 May , Elliott Hird wrote: 2008/5/12 Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 5/12/08, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If it's a serious problem to the rest of you I may have to come up with a ridiculous solution to it, like a line-wrap script in JavaScript which runs from public computers... No gmail? I can confirm that this is impossible due to said ridiculous reason. (Er, wait, ais523? Who is that guy?) ehird http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Smith_%28The_Simplest_Universal_Computer_Proof_contest_winner%29 ;)
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 1942-43 assigned to pikhq
On 21:53 Sat 10 May , Ed Murphy wrote: These are linked assignments. Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1942 = Criminal Case 1942 = comex breached Rule 1742 by not acting in accordance with eir obligations under the Ducks Platypuses agreement, by being a party to that agreement. = Criminal Case 1943 = ehird breached Rule 1742 by not acting in accordance with eir obligations under the Ducks Platypuses agreement, by being a party to that agreement. I am of the opinion that this is a case for the equity courts, myself. ;)
DIS: Re: BUS: Votes for Ambassador and Herald
On 12:35 Sun 11 May , Alexander Smith wrote: For Ambassador, I vote COMEX. For Herald, I vote IAMMARS. -- ais523 For both, I don't care, for I intend to run for the positions again. My soon-to-be-campaign speech: Rather than neglect my duties, I went on hold. Rather than leave all of Agora hanging, I informed all of you why I could not continue to be in my position. I'm back, and would like those positions back. The current format of the Heraldry is the result of a long series of labors by myself; this is something good I brought to Agora. When I was Ambassador, I actually posted my report monthly; this is something that no Ambassador in recent memory actually did. Sincerely, Pikhq, Agoran Spy and Minister Without Portfolio.
DIS: Re: BUS: Catching Up
On 12:18 Sun 11 May , Iammars wrote: Between Shadowmoor and AP Testing, I didn't get to check up on my stuff I needed. CFJs and Reports should be coming up. For all votes in this message, I vote for that proposal in that manner as many times as I am allowed. 5508: FOR 5509: FOR 5510: FOR 5511: FOR 5512: FOR 5513: PRESENT For Ambassador: BobTHJ For Herald: Iammars I rename land #55 to Fire-Lit Thicket I rename land #62 to Graven Cairns In response, I end the turn. So sorry that all your spells on the stack didn't resolve. Now, if you will excuse me, I play the Reaper King, give it haste, flying, vigilance, and make it indestructible, and attack you for 50; good game. :p (obviously, the Reaper King there is exaggerated; who the fuck has that many Auras at once? ... And enough mana to play it?)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes for Ambassador and Herald
On 08:09 Sun 11 May , Ed Murphy wrote: pikhq wrote: When I was Ambassador, I actually posted my report monthly; this is something that no Ambassador in recent memory actually did. You still are Ambassador, and you still haven't addressed the unfulfilled duties referenced by CFJs 1918-19. I am? I would've *thought* somebody would've taken over that by now. . . And what unfulfilled duties are those?
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 1918-19 judged GUILTY (sentence invalid due to ambiguity)
On 08:49 Wed 09 Apr , Ed Murphy wrote: Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1918 = Criminal Case 1918 = pikhq breached Rule 2135 by misrepresenting Agora on the Nomic Wiki by failing to include my name in the players list. Caller: Iammars Barred: pikhq Judge: OscarMeyr Judgement: GUILTY History: Called by Iammars: 27 Mar 2008 00:28:30 GMT Defendant pikhq informed: 30 Mar 2008 22:24:19 GMT Pre-trial phase ended: 06 Apr 2008 22:24:19 GMT Assigned to OscarMeyr: 07 Apr 2008 02:28:10 GMT Judged GUILTY by OscarMeyr: 09 Apr 2008 01:11:19 GMT Gratuitous Arguments by Iammars: I don't know if I can add this in, but the first case is supposed to be in the timeframe of the month of January. Gratuitous Arguments by pikhq: Guilty as charged. Judge OscarMeyr's Arguments: [sentences from different cases are served concurrently; sentence interpreted as invalid because it does not clearly specify either two concurrent 30-day or two concurrent 60-day durations] As Defendant pikhq has pleaded guilty, I rule GUILTY on CFJs 1918 and 1919. (This makes pikhq the ninny.) I observe that as of now the player list on Nomic Wiki *still* has not been updated. As the violation addressed in these CFJs is of an ongoing nature, I sentence the ninny to CHOKEY for 30 days per CFJ = 60 days total, or until e updates the player list with accurate current information, whichever comes first. (The ninny holds the key to eir own chokey; e may open the door whenever e sees fit.) Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1919 = Criminal Case 1919 = pikhq breached Rule 2135 by neglecting his duty to update the Nomic Wiki page in the month of February. Caller: Iammars Barred: pikhq Judge: OscarMeyr Judgement: GUILTY History: Called by Iammars: 27 Mar 2008 00:28:30 GMT Defendant pikhq informed: 30 Mar 2008 22:24:19 GMT Pre-trial phase ended: 06 Apr 2008 22:24:19 GMT Assigned to OscarMeyr: 07 Apr 2008 02:28:10 GMT Judged GUILTY by OscarMeyr: 09 Apr 2008 01:11:19 GMT Caller's Arguments: At that time the page not only included an incorrect playerlist, but also wrote that many jobs were empty, which were filled by the end of January. Gratuitous Arguments by pikhq: Guilty as charged. Judge OscarMeyr's Arguments: [sentences from different cases are served concurrently; sentence interpreted as invalid because it does not clearly specify either two concurrent 30-day or two concurrent 60-day durations] As Defendant pikhq has pleaded guilty, I rule GUILTY on CFJs 1918 and 1919. (This makes pikhq the ninny.) I observe that as of now the player list on Nomic Wiki *still* has not been updated. As the violation addressed in these CFJs is of an ongoing nature, I sentence the ninny to CHOKEY for 30 days per CFJ = 60 days total, or until e updates the player list with accurate current information, whichever comes first. (The ninny holds the key to eir own chokey; e may open the door whenever e sees fit.) I would like to object to this charge; it is, at best, unfair to sentence someone when they are on hold, and therefore not keeping up with Agora. I have not had the opportunity to appeal this sentence whatsoever; I feel that, in this manner, my Rule 101 rights have been violated.
DIS: Re: BUS: Emergency!
On 19:47 Thu 08 May , Geoffrey Spear wrote: On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 7:40 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Agora is being INVADED by FOREIGNERS from IRCNomic, our rebellious once-protectorate! In fact, a rule was proposed to declare war on us! Among that game's ranks are ais523 and ehird, who certainly are scamsters born and bred... we must defend ourselves! I intend, with 2 Senate supporters, to call an Emergency Session. SUPPORT. --Wooble As a former IRCNomician, I SUPPORT. Let the fun begin.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Emergency!
On 19:19 Sat 10 May , Elliott Hird wrote: 2008/5/10 Josiah Worcester [EMAIL PROTECTED]: As a former IRCNomician, I SUPPORT. Let the fun begin. 'Former' is questionable, as you are in #ircnomic and have not opted out. ehird I don't pay attention much. I've opted out alreay.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Criminal Cases
On 19:49 Wed 02 Apr , Ed Murphy wrote: pikhq wrote: I disqualify Agora Nomic from this case. (Agora Nomic, by rule 2145, is a partnership, and therefore a person. I can disqualify any person I damned well want to. Have fun judging this one!) This fails on multiple points: * Rule 2171 (Rules Viewed as Binding Agreement) was repealed by Proposal 5469 last week, so Agora's status as an agreement is subject to natural-language interpretation. Whoever supported that should be lynched, thank you. * Agora does not devolve its legal obligations onto players, so it isn't a partnership. *looks through the rules* Hrm. Right there. * Agora is not a public contract, so even if it were a partnership, it wouldn't be a person. It seems absurd that every agreement discussed in the public forum is a public contract except for the entity defining contracts. XD * Disqualifying a partnership does not disqualify the members of its basis. Hrm. Pity. Oh, the scam potential you could have with that. . .
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 1917
On 18:58 Thu 03 Apr , Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 3 Apr 2008, Josiah Worcester wrote:
On 11:55 Thu 03 Apr , Iammars wrote:
I judge CFJ 1917 in the following manner:
{
The defendant has admitted to being guilty, and in fact has not published a
notary report last month, so I judge GUILTY.
}
I sentence em in the folowing manner:
{
This offense is not a major offense, but ignoring an office's report,
especially one as important as Notary, shouldn't be left unpunished. I
sentence APOLOGY, perscribing the words report, keyboard, printer,
amoeba, outlet, and llama.
}
In my report, the printer's keyboard went all amoeba. The outlet, in
response, turned into a llama. The llama ate my records, and left me
incapable of speaking comprehensibly.
Thanks, but I think I'm the guilty party on this one...
Wrong office. XD
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1907 judged GUILTY / CHOKEY
On 15:12 Sat 08 Mar , comex wrote: On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 1:43 PM, Josiah Worcester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I intend to appeal this. CHOKEY is unreasonable. I support this. A more reasonable judgement would be EXILE or, at the very least, a long CHOKEY. I disagree, but that's for the courts to decide.
DIS: Re: BUS: Enigma
On 20:23 Mon 03 Mar , Ed Murphy wrote: The Left Hand and I agree to the following, which thereby becomes a public contract. I intend, without 3 objections, to make it a contest. 1) The name of this public contract is Enigma. 2) The purpose of this contract is to be a contest that encourages asking and answering puzzles of moderate difficulty. 3) Any player CAN become a member of this contract by announcement. 4) The contestmaster of this contract CAN change as permitted by the rules. 5) The contestmaster CAN amend this contract without member objection. 6) For the purpose of this contest, a puzzle is a body of text clearly identified as such, accompanied by its correct answer, and sent privately to the contestmaster by a contestant (hereafter its author) who has not previously submitted a puzzle during the same week. The author of a puzzle SHALL NOT disclose its answer to any other contestant. 7) For the purpose of this contest, an eligible answer is a correct answer to a puzzle sent privately to the contestmaster by a contestant other than its author, during the same week in which the contestmaster published that puzzle. 8) The correctness of a given answer is left to the contestmaster's discretion. In particular, if the contestmaster believes that a puzzle cannot reasonably be answered correctly without having its correct answer disclosed by the author, then e may treat all non-author answers as incorrect. 9) As soon as possible after the end of each week, the contestmaster SHALL publish a list of all puzzles submitted during that week. 10) As soon as possible after the end of each week, for each puzzle published by the contestmaster and having at least one eligible answer during that week, the contestmaster SHALL award points in this order, up to a maximum of P points per puzzle (where P is the maximum number of points that a contest CAN award per week per contestant). For the purpose of this clause, contestanthood is measured at the end of the week. a) 1 point to its author. b) 2 points to the submitter of that puzzle's first eligible answer. c) 1 point each to the submitters of all other eligible answers for that puzzle, in order of submission. d) As many points as possible to its author. The Right Hand commends you for this.
Re: DIS: Prerogatives for March
On 10:58 Sat 01 Mar , Ed Murphy wrote: Sorry for being late again; I was badly ill on Wednesday. I'll take care of it later this morning. On the presumption that BobTHJ remains a player, I request that H. Herald pikhq award em Ministry Without Portfolio, so that e may take part in the next Prerogative lottery. Interestingly, since MwP is still a person but no longer a player, this would (1) leave me as Speaker and (2) give each MwP a 20% chance of being left out in a given month. Sorry for missing this; I spent 4 days or so down with the flu.
DIS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5451-5457
On 12:53 Sat 23 Feb , Zefram wrote: This distribution of proposals 5451-5457 initiates the Agoran Decisions on whether to adopt them. The eligible voters for ordinary proposals are the active players, the eligible voters for democratic proposals are the active first-class players, and the vote collector is the Assessor. NUM FL AI SUBMITTER TITLE 5454 O1 1Murphy Close Pandora's box FORx11 5456 O1 1.5 Goddess Er Secure the court FORx11 5457 O1 1Murphy Proposal reporting requirements FORx11
DIS: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Nomic: Acknowedgement of Recognition]
- Forwarded message from Robin [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 06:48:59 -0500 From: Robin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Nomic: Acknowedgement of Recognition Dear Mr. Ambassador: As the officially-elected Diplomat of Nomicide, I hereby inform you that we have formally acknowledged your communication of January 17th, wherein you informed us of our Neutrally recognized status with respect to Agora. Future official communications are welcome at this address. Your humble servant, Robin Packbat Zimmermann, Diplomat of Nomicide - End forwarded message - We seem to have further diplomacy. Sincerely, H. Agoran Ambassador Josiah 'Pikhq' Worcester
DIS: Re: BUS: pikhq!
On 16:28 Mon 18 Feb , Ed Murphy wrote: comex wrote: I initiate a criminal case. * Defendant: pikhq * Rule violated: 208 * Action: failing to resolve eir intent to appeal CFJ 1856 pikhq, you are hereby informed of this case and invited to rebut the argument for your guilt. I have already done so. I hereby end the pretrial phase.
DIS: Re: BUS: Long service awards
On 08:40 Mon 18 Feb , Levi Stephen wrote: I awared the AFO the Patent Title of Three Months Long Service Leave if e does not already bear it. I awared Levi the Patent Title of Three Months Long Service Leave if e does not already bear it. I awared zefram the Patent Title of Three Months Long Service Leave if e does not already bear it. I awared zefram the Patent Title of Six Months Long Service Leave if e does not already bear it. I awared zefram the Patent Title of Nine Months Long Service Leave if e does not already bear it. Levi I'm under the impression that I've been Scorekeepor for three months.
DIS: Re: BUS: pikhq!
On 18:18 Sun 17 Feb , comex wrote: I initiate a criminal case. * Defendant: pikhq * Rule violated: 208 * Action: failing to resolve eir intent to appeal CFJ 1856 Arguments: I think this deserves EXILE. Evidence: On Jan 8, 2008 3:26 PM, Josiah Worcester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tuesday 08 January 2008 14:19:04 Kerim Aydin wrote: There is insufficient proof of an Steve Wallace's direct knowledge of the fora which predates the contracted action, so the contract in question is NULL and VOID. This Court finds FALSE. -Goethe I intend to appeal CFJ 1856. It is unreasonable to legislate from the bench. Evidence: Rule 208/5 (Power=3) Resolving Agoran decisions The vote collector for an unresolved Agoran decision may resolve it by announcement, indicating the option selected by Agora. E SHALL do so as soon as possible after the end of the voting period. To be valid, this announcement must satisfy the following conditions: In my defence: those rules have unreasonable recordkeeping requirements. Also, you're liable to screw everyone *else* over who has not resolved a dependant action; I do believe you are yourself guilty of this (although I'll need to grep my logs for a specific instance). If I'm charged with this, then I'll be *sure* to initiate a case against you. BTW, I recommend that we EXILE every first-class player; let's at least be consistent in our attempts to lynch people.
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1906 assigned to pikhq
On 14:35 Fri 15 Feb , Ed Murphy wrote: Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1906 = Criminal Case 1906 = comex violated rule 2149 by claiming in message [EMAIL PROTECTED] that proposal 5419 passed while not believing that to be true. Caller: Zefram Barred: comex Judge: pikhq Judgement: History: Called by Zefram: 08 Feb 2008 17:02:02 GMT Defendant comex informed: 08 Feb 2008 21:46:58 GMT Pre-trial phase ended: 15 Feb 2008 21:46:58 GMT Assigned to pikhq: (as of this message) Caller's Arguments: CFJ 1893 has found that proposal 5419 was rejected, and there has been no call for its appeal. comex is presumably well aware of this. Caller's Evidence: Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 5418-5422 Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 11:51:22 -0500 On 2/2/08, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: x5419 D1 3comex Generalize Game Actions Claim of error: I claim that this proposal passed, in order to prolong its self-ratification for a bit (there is a reason for this). I recuse myself from thise case. As can be seen by my suggestions that comex be punished quite severely over this, I cannot be considered a reasonable, impartial judge for this, and therefore prefer not to judge it.
DIS: [Scorekeepor] Late
The scorekeepor's report will be a bit late; I have spent most of this weekend rebuilding my root partition, so have been unable to actually access the mailing lists. You may now take this opportunity to curse at Gentoo. Sincerely, The Honorable Scorekeepor, pikhq
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Proposal
On 17:01 Fri 08 Feb , Roger Hicks wrote: On Feb 8, 2008 3:08 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 8, 2008 5:04 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ah, yes. The strange ruleset formatting. I typically write my proposals either in gmail (text-only) or notepad. I recommend you get a good Windows editor like notepad++ or editpad lite or something. (Not a guarantee that those will work or even support hard wrapping; they're just apps I've heard of.) Because, you know, even when writing for B on Windows, I avoid Notepad at all costs. Aww, notepad is my trusted companion. I actually did all my coding on it as well up until about a year ago. You are *insane*. This message brought to you by GNU Emacs.
Re: DIS: senatus consultum ultimum try 2
On 17:43 Thu 07 Feb , comex wrote: On Feb 7, 2008 5:38 PM, Josiah Worcester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: However, take this proto: I dare you to propose that. Not while you're dictator.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Criminal CFJ
On 17:56 Thu 07 Feb , comex wrote: On Feb 7, 2008 5:53 PM, Josiah Worcester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I hereby initiate a criminal CFJ: Defendant: comex Rule violated: Rule 2149/8, Truthfulness Action: Falsely claiming that there exists a rule Making false statements is not proscribed by Rule 2149. No, but making statements you don't believe to be true is.
Re: DIS: senatus consultum ultimum try 2
On 17:22 Thu 07 Feb , comex wrote: On Feb 7, 2008 5:19 PM, Josiah Worcester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Every player that is not comex has the right to not be bound by this new ruleset. Sorry. CFJ 1772 That precedent is moot for the purposes of rule 101. However, take this proto: comex is hereby awarded the patent title Scamster. comex is hereby deregistered. Create the following rule (power=4): WHEREAS, comex has, several times, attempted to become dictator of Agora: comex is hereby forbidden from registering.
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ
On 18:06 Thu 07 Feb , comex wrote: I initiate an inquiry case on the statement: * There is a Rule . Arguments: The criminal case deals only with whether I believed a Rule to exist, not whether it actually /did/. Therefore, I think an additional CFJ is necessary. Agreed. My criminal CFJ was mostly for the purposes of punishment, not resolving the scam.
Re: DIS: senatus consultum ultimum try 2
On 16:54 Thu 07 Feb , comex wrote: http://pastebin.ca/895515 Was held ironically for moderator approval, on account of its length. By CFJ 1314, it was nevertheless sent to a public forum. From Rule 101: v. Every person has the right to not be considered bound by an agreement, or an amendment to an agreement, which e has not had the reasonable opportunity to review. Every player that is not comex has the right to not be bound by this new ruleset. Sorry.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Criminal CFJ
On 17:54 Thu 07 Feb , Kerim Aydin wrote: On Tu, 7 Feb 2008, Josiah Worcester wrote: When comex intended to ratify his Full Logical Ruleset, rule did not, at the time, exist. I recommend EXILE. You know, at least once someone ran a contest to actually *award* whoever came up with the best scam during Read The Ruleset Week. My point being, if e broke a Rule e should be convicted of it, but surely showing such Agoran Spirit(tm) is not worthy of a sentence of exile. I cited the rule he broke.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Criminal CFJ
On 18:12 Thu 07 Feb , Kerim Aydin wrote: On Thu, 7 Feb 2008, comex wrote: Hmm. Here is the rule at the time of CFJ 1314 Any communication which has been sent via a Public Forum shall be considered to have been made publicly. Same wording. The only difference is that while in that case the list moderator got it, here nobody got it. Why should I be penalized for the server's failure (or, perhaps, lack thereof) to log rejected messages? I agree, you shouldn't be, it amounts to an unwritten filter rule that the moderator can change. Still, that's what the rule says, and via is not the same thing as to. Does CFJ 1314 have any arguments discussing this (it looks like there are none, other than the fact that the message was sent). It's possible that this distinction was missed way back then and never analyzed. -Goethe PS. For those of you suggesting the use of R101, I thought y'all decided in opposition to its original intent, that the Rules weren't an agreement for the purposes of R101(v). Can't have it both ways... *I* think that that judgement was misguided at best.
DIS: Re: BUS: The Ever-so-Late Herald
On 18:32 Fri 01 Feb , Josiah Worcester wrote: I nominate myself for Herald. I SUPPORT this. I consent to this nomination. Could someone else support this? At the moment, I can't install myself as herald due to failed quorum.
DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Requirement
On 05:30 Wed 06 Feb , Kerim Aydin wrote: I hereby officially notify all Players of their Rule 1750-imposed duty. You have been warned. -Goethe Poor message. Allow me to do it better: Hear ye, hear ye! Agorans, gather all around, for this week is a special week! In accordance with Rule 1750, I encourage you all to break out your rulesets, for this week is Read the Ruleset Week! May there be joy, dancing, and humble worship to our Ruleset, the most high Law of the Land! I Dance the Dance of Ruleset, for all to see May we enjoy this week As allowed by Heros and First Speakers of lore I Dance the Dance of Ruleset, for all to see. Sincerely, The Honorable Agoran Spy pikhq
DIS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5434-5440
On 00:53 Wed 06 Feb , Zefram wrote: This distribution of proposals 5434-5440 initiates the Agoran Decisions on whether to adopt them. The eligible voters for ordinary proposals are the active players, the eligible voters for democratic proposals are the active first-class players, and the vote collector is the Assessor. NUM FL AI SUBMITTER TITLE 5434 O1 1Murphy Left in a Huff FORx10 5435 D0 3avpxIt's Alive! FOR 5436 O1 1.7 Murphy Refactor appeals FORx10 5437 O1 1.5 Goethe Patent Standards FORx10, unless someone can tell me why not. 5438 D1 2Wooble Judicial Immunity I defer to Root's decision. ROOT. 5439 O1 1.7 Murphy Reinforced panels FORx10 5440 D1 2BobTHJ Ostracism AGAINST. Interesting proposal, but I'm not one for getting rid of voters (aside from attempts to force others to be deregistered while angry)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Brainfuck Golf] Results of Hole #4
On 21:37 Mon 04 Feb , Kerim Aydin wrote: On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: Results of Brainfuck Golf Hole #4: There was only one entry. I hereby award 35 points to Goethe. Are any folks still trying, or is it pretty much game over here? -Goethe I'm sorry; other projects have distracted me.
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1896a assigned to panel of root, Wooble, pikhq
On 15:47 Sun 03 Feb , Ed Murphy wrote: Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1896a Appeal 1896a Justice:root Decision: Justice:Wooble Decision: Justice:pikhq Decision: History: Appeal initiated: 03 Feb 2008 23:42:52 GMT Assigned to root (panelist):(as of this message) Assigned to Wooble (panelist): (as of this message) Assigned to pikhq (panelist): (as of this message) Appellant Murphy's Arguments: Aww, crap, I trivially FALSEd where I meant to TRUE. I consent to either OVERTURN or REMAND.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1894 assigned to pikhq
On 16:18 Mon 04 Feb , Ian Kelly wrote: On Feb 4, 2008 3:09 PM, Josiah Worcester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: By rule 754, a difference in spelling, grammar, or dialect is inconsequential, so long as the difference is nonambiguous. A question in the role of a statement to be inquired into may well be a sufficiently nonambiguous change in grammar so as to be inconsequential by rule 754. As an example, I offer the following: Is the name of the game Agora? This can trivially be interpreted the same as The name of the game is Agora., and, for its usage in inquiry CFJs, is the only sensible such interpretation. I don't think that such an equality is trivially true. One is a statement of fact, and the other is a question. It's a whole different type of sentence, not just a difference in grammar. In the context of a CFJ, it *is* trivially equvilent. With a CFJ on The name of the game is Agora, we are, in essence, asking: Is 'The name of the game is Agora' true? Compare with Is 'Is the name of the game Agora?' true?.
DIS: Re: BUS: Denouement
On 07:52 Sat 02 Feb , [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This message has been sent from a cron job.
My contract with the AFO (created in my message dated Fri, 18 Jan 2008
11:29:20 -0500 and amended in my message dated Tue, 22 Jan 2008 18:25:55
-0500) has not been amended, terminated, or touched in any way other than as
I posted in those messages; I will call the agreement X. Here is its current
text:
{{
1. This contract is non-binding, and so it does not impose any
contractual obligations whatsoever.
2. comex may act on behalf of any party to this contract by announcement.
3. Each party to this contract allows comex to act on eir behalf by
announcement.
4. This is a public contract.
}}
With agreement from the AFO, and as allowed by Rule 1742 I modify X by
changing its set of parties to:
{comex, AFO, avpx, BobTHJ, Goddess Eris, Goethe, hedgehogcull, Iammars,
Jeremy, Levi, Murphy, OscarMeyr, Pavitra, Peekee, pikhq, root, woggle,
Wooble, Zefram}
This does not happen. Rule 101, which takes precedence over the
contract rules in this case, states:
v. Every person has the right to not be considered bound by an
agreement, or an amendment to an agreement, which e has not
had the reasonable opportunity to review.
I have not had the reasonable opportunity to review this contract *and
all of its implications*.
DIS: Re: BUS: bah
On 11:51 Sat 02 Feb , Geoffrey Spear wrote: On behalf of Comex, I deregister Comex. --Wooble I presume that this is via a private contract, made similarly to Comex's contract?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Denouement
On 11:38 Sat 02 Feb , Ben Caplan wrote: 1. This contract is non-binding, and so it does not impose any contractual obligations whatsoever. v. Every person has the right to not be considered bound by an agreement, or an amendment to an agreement, which e has not had the reasonable opportunity to review. 101(v) has no relevance here. We were never supposed to be bound by this contract; it is designed to be fully effective without it. Then it can't be a contract.
DIS: Re: BUS: An attempt to debunk claims as to the invalidity of my scam
On 14:21 Sat 02 Feb , comex wrote: Thirdly, there is the issue that Rule 1742 defines a contract as a binding agreement. As watcher notes, Rule 1742/12 (Power=1.5) Contracts Any group of two or more persons may make an agreement among themselves with the intention that it be binding upon them and be governed by the rules. Such an agreement is known as a contract. (...) I argue that, whether or not it actually was binding (plenty of contracts have been created that do not impose obligations) the parties of myself and the AFO did in fact *intend* (intention is quite a loose concept) that, were obligations added, that X would be binding upon us. There was no clause about bindingness originally. However, once I amended the contract to add the non-binding clause, I ceased to agree to any such thing, although the contract remained a contract. Therefore, although R1742 previously defined contracts as binding agreements, it not only no longer does so but no longer requires that contracts be binding. If your agreement is nonbinding, then you cannot change the parties to it. If it is binding, then rule 101 takes over. Either way, your scam fails. Finally, if you persist in trying this scam, then I will recommend your exile. You will have violated the last line of rule 101, which, though not enforced, very much *defines* the spirit of the game. In violating the spirit of the game, you have determined (to me) that you do not belong here. In conclusion: May the Second Mousetrap never prevail. Sincerely, Honorable Agoran Spy Pikhq
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: An attempt to debunk claims as to the invalidity of my scam
On 17:54 Sat 02 Feb , comex wrote: On Feb 2, 2008 4:52 PM, Josiah Worcester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If your agreement is nonbinding, then you cannot change the parties to it. Um, why? Because there are no rules allowing to do so. Finally, if you persist in trying this scam, then I will recommend your exile. You will have violated the last line of rule 101, which, though not enforced, very much *defines* the spirit of the game. In violating the spirit of the game, you have determined (to me) that you do not belong here. If you persist in trying to get other players to deregister, I will recommend your exile. You will have violated Rule 2029 which, though not enforced, very much *defines* one particular aspect of the spirit of the game-- namely, that scams are encouraged. Are you familiar with the Mousetrap scam? Among other things, it created the Writ of FAGE mechanism: everyone was so irritated at being bound by a contract they had not agreed to (nor, in this case, even been able to read) that a lot of players left in protest. You have basically managed to redo the Mousetrap scam. Way to go, destroyer of Agora.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 5418-5422
On 19:42 Sat 02 Feb , comex wrote: On Feb 2, 2008 2:24 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Voting results for Proposals 5418-5422: x5419 D1 3comex Generalize Game Actions CoE: P5419 passed. Well, I think it passed, and I'm not sure a second CFJ on this is necessary when one already exists. I'd say my CFJ suffices as the claim of error if it's found false.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1892 assigned to Goethe
On 23:10 Sat 02 Feb , Charles Reiss wrote: On Saturday 02 February 2008 22:27:05 Kerim Aydin wrote: comex's non-binding agreement 'X' is a contract. Proto-judgement: FALSE. a non-binding contract is a contradiction in legal terms, and a meaningless semantic construct. R1742, and R2169, both explicitly and explicitly link the concept of contract with the concept of it being binding in law. Further, the primary definition of Contract (M-W online) is: a binding agreement between two or more persons or parties; especially : one legally enforceable. By both common definition and Agoran Law, a contract is a contract only as long as it is binding, and when it ceases to be binding (or if it never binding), it ceases to be legally enforceable, or have a legal impact on the Rules (for example, it ceases to govern delegations, powers of Attorney, devolution of obligations, transfer of rights and/or duties). -Goethe I don't think relying on an ordinary-language definition of contract is warranted because R1742 seems to define it. I think you should also examine the possiblity that the X agreement is a contract but is binding (in spite of its text). I dunno; maybe in this case, the ordinary-language definition supplements the rule's definition, since the rule's definition *does* seem to be merely attempting to formalise the ordinary-language definition. . .
DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Late to the Party as Always
On 15:48 Fri 01 Feb , Kerim Aydin wrote: HERALD'S REPORT for Feb 1, 2008 [I think there's still some long-service awards missing that Zefram made a long time ago, but I can't find them]. --- OTHER DEFINED PATENT TITLES --- SCAMSTER Troublemaker at Large, Waggie, Goethe, Steve, Murphy, root, OscarMeyr Claim of error: IIRC, I am a Scamster.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Late to the Party as Always
On 18:27 Fri 01 Feb , Josiah Worcester wrote: On 15:48 Fri 01 Feb , Kerim Aydin wrote: HERALD'S REPORT for Feb 1, 2008 [I think there's still some long-service awards missing that Zefram made a long time ago, but I can't find them]. --- OTHER DEFINED PATENT TITLES --- SCAMSTER Troublemaker at Large, Waggie, Goethe, Steve, Murphy, root, OscarMeyr Claim of error: IIRC, I am a Scamster. Denied: OscarMeyr discussed making me a Scamster if my win attempt succeeded; it did not, so I am not a scamster.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Late to the Party as Always
On 18:34 Fri 01 Feb , Ian Kelly wrote: On Feb 1, 2008 6:30 PM, Josiah Worcester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Denied: OscarMeyr discussed making me a Scamster if my win attempt succeeded; it did not, so I am not a scamster. comex, however, was awarded the Scamster title by P5282. -root Good catch. Allow me to say that I, as Herald, will always make my report on-time, and will, to the best of my abilities, keep the report accurate. (I make no guarantees about patent titles from before one can find consistent archives, however) Moreover, I will keep the Herald's report in SVN, as I have with my other two offices. This, I hope, will be a valuable service to any who wish to archive the reports of my offices, as Agoran archivists may well desire.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Late to the Party as Always
On 20:53 Fri 01 Feb , comex wrote: On Feb 1, 2008 8:34 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 1, 2008 6:30 PM, Josiah Worcester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Denied: OscarMeyr discussed making me a Scamster if my win attempt succeeded; it did not, so I am not a scamster. comex, however, was awarded the Scamster title by P5282. What? No! I was hoping to award myself Scamster as dictator. But it seems I already have it. Then, my goal will be to revoke it from myself (overriding Rule 1922). I suggest making a new patent title: Dictator.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1888 assigned to OscarMeyr
On 21:28 Wed 30 Jan , Kerim Aydin wrote: Gratuitous evidence: I often don't have ag-dis delivery turned on, so such messages are frequently not sent to me (I do, obviously, read them from the archives). -Goethe Do you understand and have you carefully weighed the full implications of failing to do so, as rule 478 would have you do?
DIS: A CFJ
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED TO BE PUBLIC - The AFO joins the Vote Market. I transfer 1 VP to the AFO. The AFO transfers 1 VP to me. The AFO leaves the Vote Market
DIS: Re: A CFJ
On 18:17 Wed 30 Jan , Josiah Worcester wrote: THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED TO BE PUBLIC - The AFO joins the Vote Market. I transfer 1 VP to the AFO. The AFO transfers 1 VP to me. The AFO leaves the Vote Market I CFJ on the following: The above message was a public message. [Note: the above message was posted to agora-discussion]
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1886 assigned to Zefram
On Tuesday 29 January 2008 04:58:57 Zefram wrote: H. parties to the Vote Market: I hereby inform you of equity case 1886 and invite you to submit arguments regarding the equitability of the situation described therein. == CFJ 1886 == BobTHJ has not deregistered. Caller: Murphy Barred: BobTHJ, pikhq, Goethe, comex Judge: Zefram Judgement: History: Called by Murphy: 28 Jan 2008 19:02:26 GMT Assigned to Zefram: (as of this message) Caller's Arguments: Contract: Vote Market Parties: BobTHJ, Fookiemyartug, P2P Partnership, Goethe, comex, Murphy, pikhq On January 14, BobTHJ incurred an obligation to deregister. On January 16, e published a Cantus Cygneus, and was deregistered in a Writ of FAGE, but e has not satisfied eir obligation to deregister (Rule 869 defines the active to deregister as a proper subset of the passive to be deregistered). Furthermore, e avoided the 30-day wait imposed by Rule 869 following normal voluntary deregistration. It could be argued that this scam should be rewarded by allowing it to work as intended. Since the obligation comes from a contract, a criminal judge cannot effectively waive punishment; if e delivers a judgement less severe than EXILE, then a subsequent equity case could still impose a new requirement to deregister, and a second criminal case could then bypass the double-jeopardy restriction by attempting to punish the violation of the new requirement. Thus, I recommend that the judge consider whether to impose a new agreement absolving BobTHJ of eir original obligation. I (the person responsible for causing BobTHJ to need to deregister) agree to let BobTHJ get away with his Writ of FAGE method of scamming it.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1879: assign Goddess Eris
On Tuesday 29 January 2008 15:56:20 Kerim Aydin wrote: On Tue, 29 Jan 2008, Josiah Worcester wrote: Why? If we passed a Power-4 Rule This rule can't be changed or repealed, and the creation of any system which can overrule this Rule is annulled before taking effect and we otherwise carried on as normal, we're still as much of a nomic as we ever were. -Goethe *echm* To be nkeped means to be removed from the ruleset. Rule UNCHANGABLE is hereby nkeped. Except by Rule INVISIBLE, all game actions preceded by *echm* are nkeped. -G. It's a good thing game actions don't happen in the ruleset, then. :p
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1879: assign Goddess Eris
On Tuesday 29 January 2008 09:51:33 Kerim Aydin wrote: On Tue, 29 Jan 2008, Zefram wrote: comex wrote: Nevertheless, a standard Nomic game that made one rule completely unamendable still deserves to be called a nomic. I'm not sure that it does. I think that's violating the fundamental concept of nomic. I think that the existence of entirely unamendable rules is a good criterion to distinguish between nomics and non-nomic rule systems. Why? If we passed a Power-4 Rule This rule can't be changed or repealed, and the creation of any system which can overrule this Rule is annulled before taking effect and we otherwise carried on as normal, we're still as much of a nomic as we ever were. -Goethe *echm* To be nkeped means to be removed from the ruleset. Rule UNCHANGABLE is hereby nkeped.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Corporate judges
On Tuesday 29 January 2008 17:04:08 Ben Caplan wrote: R2144 only applies to partnerships with identical bases. I'm also concerned about overlapping non-identical bases. Aha, so e.g. 3 players could create and register 4 partnerships (AB, AC, BC, ABC), and it gets worse as the number of conspirators increases. Would it suffice to prevent a partnership from standing up if any member of its basis is also a member of the basis of a standing player? I think that something like this issue has been true for voting on proposals for some time now. Frankly, I'm a little surprised it hasn't been scammed yet. (Or has it? If it had, I would have assumed it would have been patched in legislation...) watcher It's not that much of a bug, actually; you'd still need to spend notes to increase the VVLOP of each partnership, so you gain no votes by doing this. However, you *do* end up getting more notes per proposal. . .
Re: DIS: Proto: Quorum Busting
On Monday 28 January 2008 19:20:21 Charles Reiss wrote: On Monday 28 January 2008 21:02:55 Jeremy Koo wrote: With the following I hope to eliminate situations where a vote of OBJECT would result in a given vote achieving quorum, making the objector's vote that allows the vote to be accepted. Uh, perhaps you didn't notice that the quorum on dependent actions (the only Agoran decisions for which SUPPORT or OBJECT is a sensible option) is zero? Also perhaps you didn't notice that SUPPORT and OBJECT are not valid options on Agoran decisions on whether to adopt proposals (though perhaps they are valid synonyms for such options). -woggle The courts have ruled that they are valid synonyms (I don't remember the case number).
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1879: assign Goddess Eris
On Monday 28 January 2008 21:36:12 comex wrote: On Jan 28, 2008 10:48 PM, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Statement: Canada is a nomic. I judge CFJ 1879 FALSE. This has been endlessly debated, but in the end it is a matter of definitions. I believe that nomics are first and foremost *games*, intended for the purpose of enjoyment. Canada does not satisfy this, and thus is not a nomic. I intend [with two support] to appeal this. Arguments: Judgement is not sufficiently verbose and does not appeal to sufficiently esoteric sources for its logic. I object. Brevity in judgements is, at times, welcome, and esoteric sources are not needed for judgements.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Vote Market change
On Saturday 26 January 2008 10:37:07 Ian Kelly wrote: On Jan 26, 2008 10:29 AM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I CFJ on the following statements (requesting linked assignments): Where the above referenced decision on amending the Vote Market agreement able to be validly resolved as of the calling of this CFJ would Pavitra's vote of OBJECT be valid? Where the above referenced decision on amending the Vote Market agreement able to be validly resolved as of the calling of this CFJ would pikhq's vote of OBJECT be valid? Those are questions, not statements. -root He's probably been doing too much in B Nomic, where you consult on a question. ;)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Anyone want this sinecure?
On Saturday 26 January 2008 12:11:31 Ed Murphy wrote: pikhq wrote: On Saturday 26 January 2008 11:46:17 comex wrote: On Jan 26, 2008 10:08 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I nominate comex, Eris, OscarMeyr, and Wooble for Accountor. I consent. I nominate the AFO for Accountor. The AFO consents. I object to your nomination. I support the AFO's nomination. Could we of the AFO come up with some agreement whereby we work as a group to prepare Accountor reports? Given that there are (AFAIK) currently no assets that the Accountor actually needs to report on, this shouldn't be too difficult. Fair enough.
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal
On Wednesday 23 January 2008 16:04:47 comex wrote: Proposal: Generalize Game Actions (AI=3) Create a new Rule, at Power=4, titled Dictator, with the text: comex CAN and may at any time by announcement make any explicit change whatsoever to the gamestate, including but not limited to enacting, repealing, or amending a rule. This rule takes precedence over all other rules. [Requesting comments on whether or not this has a bug.] This rule takes precedence over all other rules. is needlessly redundant; the only other Power 4 rule is the Fountain. CFJs have determined that you need not hail Eris, so you're good. ;)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal
On Thursday 24 January 2008 20:28:56 comex wrote: On Jan 24, 2008 10:25 PM, Josiah Worcester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your proposed rule is power 4. R101 is power 3. So, your proposed rule takes precedence over R101. Only by virtue of R1482, which R101 would take precedence over. R101 does not take precedence over R1482. R1482 only dictates what rules of non-equal power take precedence over, and R101 only takes precedence over rules restricting rights and privileges. So, at the end of this, we have a Power 4 rule which takes precedence over R101, since R101 does not take precedence over rules which merely define what non-equal power means. ;)
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1881 assigned to comex
On Thursday 24 January 2008 20:33:51 comex wrote: On Jan 24, 2008 9:57 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1881 == CFJ 1881 == rule 2029 requires Agorans to always Dance a Powerful Dance. Proto-judgement (yes, it is serious): Rule 2029/0 (Power=4) Town Fountain /\ /\ / \ / \ T his Power-4 Rule (the first ever) was placed to honor The Agoran Spirit Of The Game by Goethe, Steve, Murphy, root and OscarMeyr, Scamsters. Look on our works, ye Marvy, but do always Dance a Powerful Dance. Hail Eris! If Rule 2029 does in fact impose any obligations, it does so only to Marvies. I had always thought that marvy was an actual word. However, as far as I can tell from the dictionary, it is not. It has, however, been defined in Agora. From an old ruleset: Rule 1686/10 (Power=1) Official Reports ... The rules may specify conditions under which a player is marvy; that player is not marvy unless the rules explicitly state at least one such condition and all such conditions are satisfied. As soon as possible after a player becomes marvy, the Speaker shall announce this fact. The only condition for marviness is membership in the Outer Cabinet. Rule 1905/1 (Power=1) The Cabinet The Cabinet, or Inner Cabinet, consists of the Speaker and all electees to office. The Outer Cabinet consists of all Oligarchs who are not members of the Inner Cabinet. Rule 1932/4 (Power=2) The Oligarchy (a) The Oligarchy is the set of all Players who are Oligarchs. (b) An Oligarch may resign eir position in the Oligarchy by publicly announcing that e does so. Upon such an announcement, e ceases to be an Oligarch. The change that introduced marviness was Proposal 4250: Amended(10) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002 ...well before 4329 and the creation of the Town Fountain. Rule 754 says that the Town Fountain should be interpreted with its ordinary-language meaning. Since I do not know any other definition of 'marvy', the meaning I would interpret were it used in ordinary language, and applied to Agora, would be the closest current Agoran version of what a marvy was. This, then, would be any Oligarch who is not an officeholder. The Oligarchy was a paid position, something which we don't have an exact equivalent or namesake of. However, we do have Senators, which are somewhat similar. Since Senators-- or indeed, non-officeholders-- are a subset of Agorans in general, CFJ 1881 is hereby judged FALSE, regardless of whether Rule 2029 imposes an obligation. In honor of this brilliant proto-judgement, I (as an unregulated action), give you two Bead Necklaces. I recommend trading them with other, more barbaric, Nomics, which consider such things a rarity.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal
On Thursday 24 January 2008 20:05:13 comex wrote: On Jan 24, 2008 9:41 PM, Josiah Worcester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This rule takes precedence over all other rules. is needlessly redundant; the only other Power 4 rule is the Fountain. CFJs have determined that you need not hail Eris, so you're good. ;) Not necessarily. Let's say I wanted to violate someone's R101 rights. R101 takes precedence over any rule which would allow restrictions of a person's rights or privileges. While, if I tried to violate those rights, R1482 would say that my rule wins, you could argue that R1482 is then allow[ing] restrictions of a person's rights and so R101 claims to take precedence over it. Hmmm, although on second thought, this just ends up in the 'case of problematic precedence' section. My rule's claim would just mix the situation up further, not resolve it. Your proposed rule is power 4. R101 is power 3. So, your proposed rule takes precedence over R101.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract
On Thursday 24 January 2008 20:45:08 comex wrote: On Jan 24, 2008 10:39 PM, Josiah Worcester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You may as well have said: 1. Any party may leave this contract by announcement. Binding: 3. Imposing or commanding adherence to a commitment, an obligation, or a duty: binding arbitration; a binding agreement. The agreement is non-binding by virtue of imposing no obligations. Leaving the contract has nothing to do with it-- the Agoran definition of being in a contract is wholly different from the ordinary-language one, the latter implying obligations. Fair enough... One more bead necklace for you!
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Watcher
On Thursday 24 January 2008 20:51:39 Ian Kelly wrote: On Jan 24, 2008 8:47 PM, Ben Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I request to be registered as a watcher. If the above causes me to be registered as a player, then I switch my posture to Leaning. R869 is pretty clear on the definition of to be registered, so I'm interpreting this as a successful registration as a player. -root As am I. I'm guessing that Ben Caplan here wants to be known as 'watcher'.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract
On Thursday 24 January 2008 20:28:10 comex wrote: On Jan 24, 2008 10:10 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As pikhq notes, contracts are binding. So one might interpret your change to the contract to make it non-binding as an act of dissolution. Nonsense. They merely have to be made with the intention that [they] be binding. There's no reason they can't be modified later to no longer be so. By making it non-binding, one makes it so that any party may leave the contract. ;p
DIS: Re: OFF: Resolving CotC election
On Wednesday 23 January 2008 15:56:54 Levi Stephen wrote: This notice resolves the Agoran Decision for the holder of the Clerk of the Courts office. Votes: ZEFRAM: Zefram, root, Eris COMEX: Iammars MURPHY: Goethe, Murphy, OscarMeyr, Wooble, avpx, BobTHJ, comex The option selected by Agora is Murphy. I hereby install Murphy as Clerk of the Courts. Levi INVALID. I voted Zefram. (not that it changes the results)
DIS: Election, please
If Murphy's initial attempt to resolve the voting period for those proposals was correct, you are now obligated to initiate a few elections. (Mad Scientist and Tailor)
Re: DIS: Canada
On Monday 21 January 2008 13:32:14 Taral wrote: Well, that settles that. Canada is not a game either, by the definitions cited. Then judge that way, please, so I don't have to notify Canada.
Re: DIS: Canada
On Monday 21 January 2008 13:42:50 Ian Kelly wrote: On Jan 21, 2008 1:32 PM, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, that settles that. Canada is not a game either, by the definitions cited. Are you suggesting that Canadian politics is not a competitive activity? -root The Left Hand does not Canada.
Re: DIS: Canada
On Monday 21 January 2008 19:18:06 Iammars wrote: On Jan 21, 2008 8:57 PM, Josiah Worcester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Monday 21 January 2008 18:54:41 Iammars wrote: The mathematics of game theory would like to have a word with you. I thought the normal-language usage took precedence over the mathematical usage? Okay then, try this: a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators. usually != always game. (n) A pursuit or activity with rules performed either alone or with others, for the purpose of entertainment. There's more than one dictionary.
Re: DIS: Canada
On Monday 21 January 2008 19:28:47 Ian Kelly wrote: On Jan 21, 2008 7:23 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jan 21, 2008 7:21 PM, Josiah Worcester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: game. (n) A pursuit or activity with rules performed either alone or with others, for the purpose of entertainment. There's more than one dictionary. Then a poker tournament is not a game, as the purpose there is to redistribute wealth. Consider also Robert Jordan's game of houses, wherein noble families vie for power. And then there are those who would contend that the purpose of democracy is to keep the bourgeois entertained (or at least subdued), so as not to interfere with the oligarchy wielding the actual power. -root I can at least see that CFJ 1879 *really* needed to be called. ;)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Ratification
On Monday 21 January 2008 19:37:28 Ian Kelly wrote: On Jan 21, 2008 7:21 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I intend to ratify my message alleging to announce the voting results of proposals 5390-5404. Support: me (implicitly) Object: none I hereby ratify the message described above. This doesn't work, because the voting results aren't part of an official report. -root However, my claim of error was denied, and the document has not been challenged since. So, the voting results self-ratified.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Ratification
On Monday 21 January 2008 19:45:09 Levi Stephen wrote: Josiah Worcester wrote: On Monday 21 January 2008 19:37:28 Ian Kelly wrote: On Jan 21, 2008 7:21 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I intend to ratify my message alleging to announce the voting results of proposals 5390-5404. Support: me (implicitly) Object: none I hereby ratify the message described above. This doesn't work, because the voting results aren't part of an official report. -root However, my claim of error was denied, and the document has not been challenged since. So, the voting results self-ratified. I would say even that is not certain. As Murphy was not assessor at the time it could be claimed it wasn't a valid publication in the first place. e.g., if I published voting results, they wouldn't self-ratify (well, I assume they wouldn't). Levi Worse. They aren't described as self-ratifying.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Ratification
On Monday 21 January 2008 19:54:45 Ed Murphy wrote: woggle wrote: They would self-ratify. Quoth R2034: A public document purporting to resolve an Agoran decision is self-ratifying. No they wouldn't, because messages purporting to resolve Agoran decisions generally aren't public documents. Fix proposal coming up. A public document is part of a public message. Everything sent to a public forum is a public message.
Re: DIS: Proto: Generalize ratification
On Monday 21 January 2008 20:08:03 Ian Kelly wrote: On Jan 21, 2008 8:02 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Any player CAN, without objection, ratify a specified public document. I bet the distributor could come up with nice scams based on this. -root Without objection. Good luck getting that scammed. ;)
Re: DIS: Proto: Generalize ratification
On Monday 21 January 2008 20:16:28 Ian Kelly wrote: On Jan 21, 2008 8:11 PM, Josiah Worcester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Without objection. Good luck getting that scammed. ;) It's easy if nobody else is aware that there's something to object to. Of course, the same is also true for existing without objection and with Agoran consent actions, but none of those are so readily abusable. -root It's easy to do anything if nobody else is aware of the game.
DIS: Proto-notification 2
The Office of Ambassador of Agora Nomic presents its compliments to the Canadian Embassy in Denver and directs the attention of the latter to the following: This message is being sent to you in order to inform you of an occurrence in a game of Nomic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomic called Agora http://www.agoranomic.org/. As required by the Rules of Agora, I hereby inform you that Agora has recognised Canada as a fellow Nomic with Neutral recognition status.
DIS: Alerting root or Zefram: Consent to judgement in 1849a!
Goethe and I have agreed to affirm 1849a. We need consent to actually judge, and you managed to screw up our chances of judging on time. Please, let us judge.
DIS: Re: BUS: [Brainfuck Golf] Hole #3
On Sunday 20 January 2008 19:51:47 Ian Kelly wrote: I think the mathematical tasks may be tiring to some, so I'm going to try something else this time. The third task for Brainfuck Golf is to implement Unix sort. The input is to be read as a sequence of ASCII lines, each terminated with a newline character (0x0A) and/or EOF (0x00). The same lines are to be output in lexicographically sorted order, each terminated by a newline character. The program can either: (a) output each unique line the same number of times that it appears in the input (i.e. just sort them); or (b) output each unique line exactly once (i.e. sort -u or sort | uniq), which is worth 3 points. Note: the input lines never contain newline characters except as terminators, and EOF will never appear in the input itself. -root What's tiring for me is the programs that are moderately complex. Try something much, much simpler. . . This allows people's skills at tiny code to truly shine. (I'm reminded of a golf round I played in a chatroom to do an output of the alphabet. . . I got it down to 30 chars, IIRC.)
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1864: assign Goddess Eris
On Sunday 20 January 2008 20:59:22 Taral wrote: On 1/14/08, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I hereby assign Goddess Eris as judge of CFJ 1864. I judge TRUE. One of the members of the Left Hand has stated that the Right Hand agreement provides for one or another of the partners to satisfy the obligations. The Rules do not currently require anything more. I would cause the Left Hand to celebrate this, but instead, I shall wait a bit.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5410-5416
On Saturday 19 January 2008 12:16:24 comex wrote: On Jan 19, 2008 1:42 PM, Josiah Worcester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 5410 D0 2Murphy 4'33 FOR. Damned good name, too. I don't get it :/ It's a piece of music. 4 minutes and 33 seconds of rests.
Re: DIS: Official document repository
On Friday 18 January 2008 13:09:54 Ian Kelly wrote: As a bit of an experiment, I've set up the Registrar's report in a Subversion repository (http://www.periware.org/svn/agora) and a Mercurial repository (http://www.periware.org/cgi-bin/hgwebdir.cgi/agora). If anybody else wants to set up Mercurial repositories for other official documents, then I can do regular pulls to update both repositories. -root I've added the Scorekeepor's report in a Subversion repository, as well. svn://nonlogic.org/pikhq/scorekeepor should be the address. (trunk in svn://nonlogic.org/pikhq/scorekeepor/trunk, tags in svn://nonlogic.org/pikhq/scorekeepor/tags. . . What do you expect? :p) Ambassador's report is forthcoming.
DIS: Canada?
I seem to be unable to come in contact with a Canadian embassy. Should anyone else be capable of contacting a Canadian embassy, I am be willing to enter into a contract allowing em to do so on my behalf.
Re: DIS: Official document repository
On Saturday 19 January 2008 13:23:49 you wrote: On Friday 18 January 2008 13:09:54 Ian Kelly wrote: As a bit of an experiment, I've set up the Registrar's report in a Subversion repository (http://www.periware.org/svn/agora) and a Mercurial repository (http://www.periware.org/cgi-bin/hgwebdir.cgi/agora). If anybody else wants to set up Mercurial repositories for other official documents, then I can do regular pulls to update both repositories. -root I've added the Scorekeepor's report in a Subversion repository, as well. svn://nonlogic.org/pikhq/scorekeepor should be the address. (trunk in svn://nonlogic.org/pikhq/scorekeepor/trunk, tags in svn://nonlogic.org/pikhq/scorekeepor/tags. . . What do you expect? :p) Ambassador's report is forthcoming. svn://nonlogic.org/pikhq/ambassador
DIS: Proto-notification of Recognition of Canada
Dear Canadian Embassy, This message is being sent to you in order to inform you of occurances in a game of Nomic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomic), called Agora (http://agoranomic.org/). By Agora's ruleset, I am obligated to inform you that Agora has recognized Canada as a fellow Nomic with Neutral recognition status. Sincerely, Josiah pikhq Worcester Ambassador of Agora
Re: DIS: Proto-notification of Recognition of Canada
On Saturday 19 January 2008 21:19:02 Ian Kelly wrote: On Jan 19, 2008 7:56 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Above and beyond the URLs? Absolutely. They're likely to perceive this as some sort of joke, You mean it's not a joke? I know I'm laughing.
DIS: Re: BUS: Ribbons
On Thursday 17 January 2008 20:26:22 comex wrote:
Ribbons can only be used to win. You can only have one of each kind.
They cannot be transferred or spent on anything else, and are
therefore otherwise useless.A Renaissance victor would have to do
*all* of the following (in addition to other stuff) each time e
attempted to win:
- be named a mentor
- acknowledge Agora's birthday
- win the game another way
- be awarded a Patent Title
- get a degree
By the time anyone managed to get all of those things done chances are
Ribbons would be repealed anyway.
Therefore, Ribbons are pointless and I submit the following proposal
(Power=2) titled Repeal Ribbons:
{{
Repeal Rule 2126.
}}
The same applied to a win by VCs. Surely you don't mean to suggest that *that*
was useless? ;)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notification of Recognition
On Wednesday 16 January 2008 10:05:30 Ian Kelly wrote: On Jan 16, 2008 6:47 AM, Josiah Worcester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear Fantasy Rules Commision, This message has been sent in order to fullfill the rules of Agora. I, as Ambassador, am now informing you that you're Recognition in Agora is Neutral. Sincerely, H. Ambassador Pikhq Commission has two s's, and the C stands for Committee anyway. Fulfill only has three l's. The possessive of you is your, not you're. I hope that the H. Ambassador will strive to avoid this sort of faux pas in the future. -root My apologies. I wrote that letter as I was drinking coffee. As you might imagine, I'm not a good speller pre-coffee.
Re: DIS: Proto-Judgement on CFJ 1860
On Wednesday 16 January 2008 11:11:00 Ed Murphy wrote: Goethe wrote: On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Zefram wrote: Iammars wrote: The statement here boils down to Is Steve Wallace a Nomic? since if Steve Wallace is a Nomic, the statement is true, where as if Steve Wallace isn't a Nomic, the answer is false. This misses the possibility that Steve Wallace might be the appropriate medium through which to contact some nomic. Can't it be judged on the preponderance of the evidence that e isn't one? (It bugs me that inquiry case judges feel obliged to consider every remote possibility. I prefer the evidence is for X, of course there is some twisted and remote logic sequence that would allow Y, but since that's so remote and there's no evidence for it, X.) This is not so remote a possibility; for all we know, pikhq and Steve Wallace may have met in the course of playing some other nomic. What bugs me is that judges don't always ask simple questions and enter the answers (or lack thereof) into evidence, e.g. Judge pikhq, is Steve Wallace a contact point for any nomic (in the traditional sense of nomic)? pikhq Not that I know of. Judge So noted. This should be overturned only on the grounds of positive evidence that pikhq is mistaken or lying. Insofar as I'm aware, Steve Wallace is not the contact point for any nomic, except perhaps himself (as this case will estabilish).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notification of Agoran Recognition, to Nomicapolis
On Wednesday 16 January 2008 15:25:47 Kerim Aydin wrote: On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Josiah Worcester wrote: Pikhq 14:16 If you're quoting Pikhq chapter 14 verse 16 at them, I wouldn't be surprised if they declared war. That was the automatic timestamp; it's a wiki nomic.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notification of Agoran Recognition, to Nomicron
On Wednesday 16 January 2008 15:32:33 Ian Kelly wrote: On Jan 16, 2008 3:30 PM, Pikhq [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear Nomicron, This message has been sent to you in order to inform you of Agora's rule-defined recognition of this nomic. This nomic has now been Neutrally recognized by Agora. Sincerely, pikhq, H. Agoran Ambassador You know, Neutrally recognized sounds a lot like neutralized... -root Shit.
DIS: Re: BUS: Cantus Cygneus
On Wednesday 16 January 2008 16:30:34 Roger Hicks wrote: H. Clerk of the Courts, Though I have attempted to get along with my fellow players and participate in reasonable play within Agora, certain players has attempted to thwart me at every turn. The most recent abuse by pikhq in purchasing my deregistration through the Vote Market agreement, and then blatantly disregarding the spirit of that agreement in eir efforts to be free of it is truly more than I can take. The camel's back has been broken, and the straw has been scattered about around it's limp body. It is therefore with great sadness and frustration that I am forced to resign from Agora. I sincerely hope this is a lesson to those players who would persecute another fellow player. Soon they shall find themselves playing in the sandbox all alone. This message shall serve as my Cantus Cygneus. Sincerely, BobTHJ the Unreasonable Pot calling the kettle black.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Non-Assessor] Voting Limits Non-Report
On Wednesday 16 January 2008 17:01:54 Ian Kelly wrote: On Jan 16, 2008 4:44 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Noted, although I think I have just ceased to be the Assessor. I intend to become Assessor with Agoran Consent. Anybody else who is interested in the position is welcome to run against me. -root Murphy has already been nominated for assessor; I assume this still applies. ;)
