DIS: Rests
H. Insulator, I believe this is the current status of Rests; I'm removing the non-note-related parts from the Conductor's report: Rests - comex - 6 ehird - 5 Murphy - 12 pikhq - 2 Quazie - 2 root - 1 Sgeo - 2 Taral - 2 w1n5t0n - 2 All other persons have no Rests. History --- Fri 9 Jan 01:28:24 - root gains 1 Rest from CFJ 2312. Fri 9 Jan 02:07:33 - ehird gains 1 Rest from CFJ 2326. Sat 17 Jan 20:58:44 - Taral gains 1 Rest from uncontested NoV Thu 22 Jan 20:58:42 - Murphy gains 2 rests (R1868) Fri 23 Jan 14:25:32 - comex spends FF#GAAbAb to destroy 6 of eir Rests Fri 23 Jan 14:25:32 - AFO spends EE to destroy one of comex's Rests Fri 23 Jan 14:32:24 - ehird spends CCC#F#GG# to destroy 3 of eir Rests Sat 24 Jan 13:44:55 - comex gains 2 rests (R2169) Sat 24 Jan 13:44:55 - ehird gains 2 rests (R2169) Sat 24 Jan 13:44:55 - Quazie gains 2 rests (R2169) Sat 24 Jan 13:44:55 - Sgeo gains 2 rests (R2169) Sun 25 Jan 15:06:43 - w1n5t0n gains 1 rest (CFJ 2348) Mon 26 Jan 02:54:51 - Wooble gains 4 rests (accepted NoVs) Mon 26 Jan 08:26:53 - Taral gains 1 rest (accepted NoV) Mon 26 Jan 23:23:02 - comex gains 2 rests (CFJ 2352) Wed 28 Jan 09:37:04 - ais523 gains 1 rest (accepted NoV) Wed 28 Jan 09:37:04 - ais523 spends C#D to destroy eir rest Fri 30 Jan 00:18:16 - w1n5t0n gains 1 rest (uncontested NoV) Fri 30 Jan 00:18:16 - comex gains 1 rest (uncontested NoV against Bayes) Fri 30 Jan 00:18:16 - ehird gains 1 rest (uncontested NoV against Bayes) Fri 30 Jan 00:54:40 - ehird gains 2 rests (uncontested NoV) Sat 31 Jan 23:23:59 - ehird loses 4 rests (Fugitive) Mon 2 Feb 15:06:10 - Wooble spends to destroy 4 of eir rests Tue 3 Feb 16:56:22 - comex spends F#F# to destroy one of eir rests Tue 3 Feb 16:56:22 - comex attempts to spend GGG#G#G#G#G#G# to destroy 4 of eir rests; fails (disputed; see CFJ2366) Sat 7 Feb 16:23:05 - pikhq, ais523, comex, Murphy gain 2 rests each (AFO) Sat 7 Feb 16:23:05 - Murphy gains 8 rests (uncontested NoVs) Sat 7 Feb 18:45:32 - ais523 spends A#A#BB to destroy 2 Rests
DIS: Re: OFF: [Dep. Anarchist] Repealment proposals
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 2:49 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote: The following proposals are made as a part of the Anarchist's weekly duties. Said duties have not been performed within the tme limit, so I hereby deputise for the office regarding this duty. Proposal: Repeal R2147 Repeal Rule 2147 (Protectorates) Proposal: Repeal R2173 Repeal Rule 2173 (The Notary) Proposal: Repeal R1922 Repeal Rule 1922 (Defined Regular Patent Titles) You need to specify the interest index of these as 0 for them to satisfy the Anarchist's duties, and the first 2 need an adoption index of 2 to satisfy the duties. I'm (well, the PNP is) treating this as submitting 3 interested proposals, 2 of which would be no-ops. IMO, this also doesn't satisfy the requirements to gain a Cyan ribbon.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Dep. Anarchist] Repealment proposals
Geoffrey Spear wrote jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote: The following proposals are made as a part of the Anarchist's weekly duties. Said duties have not been performed within the tme limit, so I hereby deputise for the office regarding this duty. Proposal: Repeal R2147 Repeal Rule 2147 (Protectorates) Proposal: Repeal R2173 Repeal Rule 2173 (The Notary) Proposal: Repeal R1922 Repeal Rule 1922 (Defined Regular Patent Titles) You need to specify the interest index of these as 0 for them to satisfy the Anarchist's duties, and the first 2 need an adoption index of 2 to satisfy the duties. I'm (well, the PNP is) treating this as submitting 3 interested proposals, 2 of which would be no-ops. IMO, this also doesn't satisfy the requirements to gain a Cyan ribbon. I realised that after posting. Is there anything I could do officially to fix this? Post another message adding to that one, posting a new one declaring that one void, or nothing at all?
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Dep. Anarchist] Repealment proposals
On 2/9/09, Jonatan Kilhamn jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote: I realised that after posting. Is there anything I could do officially to fix this? Post another message adding to that one, posting a new one declaring that one void, or nothing at all? I believe you can validly retract those proposals, then deputise to submit corrected ones.
DIS: Still learning this...
From the thread going on in Business right now: --- On 2/9/09, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: I contest the last 5 of these. Punishing em 6 times for what is essentially the same inaction is manifestly unjust, and may break R101. Alright, then I submit the following NoVs: (snip) --- The mail adress this message comes from is shown as agora-discussion@agoranomic.org. Exactly who posted it, and why from that adress? Or is it just a bug in my end?
Re: DIS: Still learning this...
2009/2/9 Jonatan Kilhamn jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com: From the thread going on in Business right now: --- On 2/9/09, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: I contest the last 5 of these. Punishing em 6 times for what is essentially the same inaction is manifestly unjust, and may break R101. Alright, then I submit the following NoVs: (snip) --- The mail adress this message comes from is shown as agora-discussion@agoranomic.org. Exactly who posted it, and why from that adress? Or is it just a bug in my end? fromcom...@gmail.com reply-toagora-discussion@agoranomic.org to agora-business agora-busin...@agoranomic.org Your mail client is broken. *goes back to the basement*
Re: DIS: Still learning this...
On Mon, 2009-02-09 at 20:17 +0100, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: From the thread going on in Business right now: --- On 2/9/09, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: I contest the last 5 of these. Punishing em 6 times for what is essentially the same inaction is manifestly unjust, and may break R101. Alright, then I submit the following NoVs: (snip) --- The mail adress this message comes from is shown as agora-discussion@agoranomic.org. Exactly who posted it, and why from that adress? Or is it just a bug in my end? agora-discussion@agoranomic.org is the default reply-to address for the Agora mailing lists. It's something of a bug at your end, in that your mail client's showing the reply-to rather than the From as the author. There's probably some way to change that setting somewhere in your email client; you'll see who's actually sending the messages then. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Still learning this...
On Mon, 9 Feb 2009, Alex Smith wrote: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org is the default reply-to address for the Agora mailing lists. It's something of a bug at your end, in that your mail client's showing the reply-to rather than the From as the author. There's probably some way to change that setting somewhere in your email client; you'll see who's actually sending the messages then. No it has to do with showing names/aliases. That's the name that shows up in the archives themselves when no name outside of the actual address is supplied. Look at the archive list's address shown on comex's last two messages: one was sent from comex com...@gmail.com and shows up as comex while the one from just com...@gmail.com shows up as agora-discussion. (http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2009-February/date.html) -Goethe
Re: DIS: Still learning this...
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: No it has to do with showing names/aliases. That's the name that shows up in the archives themselves when no name outside of the actual address is supplied. Look at the archive list's address shown on comex's last two messages: one was sent from comex com...@gmail.com and shows up as comex while the one from just com...@gmail.com shows up as agora-discussion. (http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2009-February/date.html) Umm... that's odd. I sent that message with gmail, albeit in basic HTML mode. I don't know why it arrived without a name. However, the automated ruleset postings have been sent without a name just because I didn't bother to supply one; since it seems to cause issues, I've just changed that.
Re: DIS: Still learning this...
2009/2/9 comex com...@gmail.com: On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: No it has to do with showing names/aliases. That's the name that shows up in the archives themselves when no name outside of the actual address is supplied. Look at the archive list's address shown on comex's last two messages: one was sent from comex com...@gmail.com and shows up as comex while the one from just com...@gmail.com shows up as agora-discussion. (http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2009-February/date.html) Umm... that's odd. I sent that message with gmail, albeit in basic HTML mode. I don't know why it arrived without a name. However, the automated ruleset postings have been sent without a name just because I didn't bother to supply one; since it seems to cause issues, I've just changed that. It's really not that big a problem: I have just turned off digest mode, so I now get all the messages directly to my mail. Before I just read it through the archives. -Tiger
Re: DIS: Missing pledge?
ais523 wrote:
Murphy wrote:
{{{
I pledge to transfer a prop from myself to the eventual judge of these
CFJs for giving em eight cases at once.
}}}
Did this ever happen? (A reminder seems to make more sense than an
equity case for something like this...)
I've already given you one this week for FRContest stuff, I'll take care
of this one next week.
DIS: Re: BUS: Following Wooble's lead
On Mon, 9 Feb 2009, Ed Murphy wrote: Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, any Notice of Violation alleging a rule violation prior to the adoption of this rule is invalid. If this rule has existed for at least 200 days, then any player CAN (by announcement) cause it to repeal itself. I would prefer a more general statement of principle: While the ultimate time limit is 200 days, it is unfair (and thus generally deserving of discharge) to initiate a case when the information required to initiate the case (both facts and interpretation of law) has been fully and generally available for 30 days or more. While a judge could set this precedent anyway, perhaps it's better to legislate it? Before I attempt it, any comments (on N30 days or other questions)? -Goethe
DIS: Re: OFF: [Insulator] Fnord!
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 7:03 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: Fri 13 Feb 18:15:40 comex +2 02/09:001 (if uncontested) 02/09:001 18:15:40 comex Murphy 18682CFJ 2339 Hmm?
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Insulator] Fnord!
comex wrote: On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 7:03 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: Fri 13 Feb 18:15:40 comex +2 02/09:001 (if uncontested) 02/09:001 18:15:40 comex Murphy 18682CFJ 2339 Hmm? Sorry, copied the wrong name. Fixed in draft.
DIS: lol, rotation
I entered a rotation into the database, but forgot to add the comment before assigning 2363. (I blame my head cold.) The net effect of this is that I'm sitting instead of standing; all other sitting players would be sitting anyway, due to recent assignments.
