Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CRIMINAL CASES
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 11:16 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > comex wrote: > >> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Partnerships can't initiate criminal cases, either. >> >> I am willing to give chits, VP, and/or crops for a pledge that you >> will accept a few more CFJs from me. (The refused ones are more >> interesting than the ones that got through, anyway.) > > May as well generalize this: For one VP per excess case, I will not > refuse that case; this ticket can be filled multiple times. > > I would support awarding Bachelor of Nomic for someone who compiled a > coherent summary of how valuable VPs have been in practice. Part of > my low involvement in the Vote Market has been due to not having a > grasp for what would constitute a ridiculously high or low price for > any given thing. > > I've been considering writing something up about our contract regulated economy and its effect upon the game. Haven't gotten that far yet. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CRIMINAL CASES
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Partnerships can't initiate criminal cases, either. I am willing to give chits, VP, and/or crops for a pledge that you will accept a few more CFJs from me. (The refused ones are more interesting than the ones that got through, anyway.)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CRIMINAL CASES
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 10:01 AM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2008/7/16 Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> and, for that matter, why hasn't ##nomic registered yet? >> > > ##nomic registers. Since I'm not aware of any public partnership by that name, I'm treating this as ineffective. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CRIMINAL CASES
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, ais523 wrote: > Arguably, it's possible to infer a mechanism to Dance a Powerful Dance > from the Town Fountain. I tend to think of pretty much everything > mentioned in the rules as potentially definable, or defined, by them. Except R754 defers to a dictionary unless an explicit definition is used. Otherwise we'd have to define "the", "and", etc. Oh, and "Etc." Proto: Replace the text of R754 with the following text: #include -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CRIMINAL CASES
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 8:55 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 17:01 -0700, Quazie wrote: >> E actually violated a contract instead. ##nomic was a contract >> forbidding the eating of cake at the time (if i have my timing >> correct). > Actually, ##nomic still claims to be a public contract forbidding the > eating of cake, but it is obviously lying as it has never been > published. > -- > ais523 > Does that mean we can make a criminal case against ##nomic? and, for that matter, why hasn't ##nomic registered yet?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CRIMINAL CASES
On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 17:01 -0700, Quazie wrote: > E actually violated a contract instead. ##nomic was a contract > forbidding the eating of cake at the time (if i have my timing > correct). Actually, ##nomic still claims to be a public contract forbidding the eating of cake, but it is obviously lying as it has never been published. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CRIMINAL CASES
On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 16:50 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Zefram wrote: > > comex wrote: > >> - action: claiming to dance in eir message with message-id > > > > The term "dance" has a specialised meaning in the context of Agora, > > referring to a verbal (rather than kinaesthetic) activity. By that > > meaning, Goethe did in fact dance in that message. > > Bull. Dancing is not defined by the Rules, and while it may have > some metaphorical uses, we are still bound to treat it as "a series > of rhythmic and patterned bodily movements usually performed to music." > > -Goethe Arguably, it's possible to infer a mechanism to Dance a Powerful Dance from the Town Fountain. I tend to think of pretty much everything mentioned in the rules as potentially definable, or defined, by them. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CRIMINAL CASES
On Jul 15, 2008, at 7:50 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Zefram wrote: comex wrote: - action: claiming to dance in eir message with message-id The term "dance" has a specialised meaning in the context of Agora, referring to a verbal (rather than kinaesthetic) activity. By that meaning, Goethe did in fact dance in that message. Bull. Dancing is not defined by the Rules, and while it may have some metaphorical uses, we are still bound to treat it as "a series of rhythmic and patterned bodily movements usually performed to music." Trust me on this -- dancing is sometimes neither rhythmic nor patterned. - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CRIMINAL CASES
2008/7/16 Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > E actually violated a contract instead. ##nomic was a contract > forbidding the eating of cake at the time (if i have my timing > correct). That was after.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CRIMINAL CASES
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 4:50 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Zefram wrote: >> comex wrote: >>> - action: claiming to dance in eir message with message-id >> >> The term "dance" has a specialised meaning in the context of Agora, >> referring to a verbal (rather than kinaesthetic) activity. By that >> meaning, Goethe did in fact dance in that message. > > Bull. Dancing is not defined by the Rules, and while it may have > some metaphorical uses, we are still bound to treat it as "a series > of rhythmic and patterned bodily movements usually performed to music." > > -Goethe > I've ordered Goethe to dance at least once, and the definition of "a series of rhythmic and patterned bodily movements usually performed to music." is what it ment both then and now.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CRIMINAL CASES
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 4:46 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > comex wrote: >>- rule: 2149 >>- action: eating cake. > > R2149 does not regulate gustatory activity. > >>- rule: 2149 >>- action: claiming that eating cake is a violation of Rule 2149 E actually violated a contract instead. ##nomic was a contract forbidding the eating of cake at the time (if i have my timing correct). > Ah, finally, a non-trivial issue. We haven't actually established whether > the initiation of a criminal CFJ constitutes an unqualified allegation > of rule violation. R1504 speaks of an "allegation" internally, but > only as a way to identify the parameters of the case. For the record, > I was undecided about this issue when I drafted it. > > -zefram >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CRIMINAL CASES
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Zefram wrote: > comex wrote: >> - action: claiming to dance in eir message with message-id > > The term "dance" has a specialised meaning in the context of Agora, > referring to a verbal (rather than kinaesthetic) activity. By that > meaning, Goethe did in fact dance in that message. Bull. Dancing is not defined by the Rules, and while it may have some metaphorical uses, we are still bound to treat it as "a series of rhythmic and patterned bodily movements usually performed to music." -Goethe
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. . .
