BUS: [FRC] An Argument on the Second Docket (Hopefully, not my final strike)

I submit the following argument on the second docket to the court: Your Honor, I believe that an example of a Nomic that has clearly defined goals is BlogNomic. In BlogNomic, the goal seems to be to have fun, as denn0nstrated by the varied topics that are discussed. However, I believe that an

BUS: [FRC] Docket 2

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 therefore should ultimately "work themselves pure", removing nomic elements over time for game elements. -- >From V.J. Rada

Re: BUS: [FRC] Resubmission with Corrections

I classify this as being on the first docket. On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 8:45 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > > Your Honor, My Fellow Counselor V.J. Rada seems to have made a fatal > error in the presentation of eir reasons for G.A.N. of Agora's eksallance. In > eir argument, e stated

BUS: [FRC] Resubmission with Corrections

Your Honor, My Fellow Counselor V.J. Rada seems to have made a fatal error in the presentation of eir reasons for G.A.N. of Agora's eksallance. In eir argument, e stated that e would present six reasons. However, he proceeded to present five reasons. Your Honor, I do not believe that making such

BUS: aaand... back to land

[I should be on (+3, -2)] I take all liquid assets from the facility at my location. I destroy 1 apple to move to (+3, -1). I destroy 1 apple to move to (+4, -1). I take all liquid assets from the facility at my location. I destroy 1 apple to move to (+4, 0). I take all liquid assets from the

BUS: [FRC] Today's Judgements

INVALID #9 Aris 9 Jul 2018 21:29:46 -0700 (DOCKET #1) Eff-arr-quee should be considered vastly superior to all other games. I will refute the arguments of My Fellow Counselor, V.J. Rada, on this matter. -Eff-arr-quee is as theoretically flexible as Agora, but has settled into a more stable

BUS: [frc] minor request

Counsellors are respectfully requested to put each new rule submission in a new thread with a distinct title, and limit in-thread replies to discussion of each submission. As this is only for the good of my harried Clerk, whom I suppose can be classified as a person, no style or other penalty

Re: BUS: [FRC] Docket #2

"Nomic itself has no intent or goal on its own if we're referring to this ghostly common reverie that comprises it, this "ghost" itself has no purpose", as in that the ghost itself has no goal because it has no qualia, so it can't intend to do anything, therefore it can't have a goal of its own.

Re: BUS: [FRC] Docket #2

I present the following to the second docket. The g0al of of a nomic (as a game in general, not Suber's original item per se, which had a more instrumental goal; which was Suber's interests for making nomic in the first place at the time) is to satisfy its players. Whether it be the thrill of

Re: BUS: [FRC] Docket #2

Whoops, forgot spelling. I submit this: Your honor, I would like to bring another matter before the court. I hereby > open arguments in docket #2, with the question "What is the goal of Nomic"? > > Docket #2 > > I hereby request that the court consider a matter of the utmost urquincy. > We're

BUS: [FRC] Docket #2

Your honor, I would like to bring another matter before the court. I hereby open arguments in docket #2, with the question "What is the goal of Nomic"? Docket #2 I hereby request that the court consider a matter of the utmost urgency. We're gathered here, in the Great and Ancient Nomic of Agora,

BUS: [FRC] Evidence

I present the following argument on the first docket to the court: Your Honor: ​ ​ My Fellow Counselors Aris' and VJ Rada's arguments are based on their opinions only. I submit that in order to make further discussion more meaningful, he♫cef☻rth every argument submitted to the first docket by one

BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [FRC] Tournament Update

This is absolutely correct. Aris's argument was INVALID with apologies to Aris for my making a mistaken decision close to the deadline. On Wed, 11 Jul 2018, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > Not an argument: Your Honor, I believe that My Fellow Counselor Aris > violated FRC-6, by

BUS: [FRC] An Argument

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 fatal error in the presentation of eir reasons for Agora's eksallance. In eir argument, e stated that e would present six reasons. However, he proceeded to present

Re: BUS: [FRC] Mantaining Respect for Games and Others

I present the following procedural argument to the court: Your most humble and gracious honour: the ridiculous requirements on us 411 regarding the f0rm of our arguments are piling up, detracting from the quality of our arguments. I therefore ask the court to rule that no further such

BUS: CFJ 3649 judgement

This is a judgement in CFJ 3649. twg attempted to act on Kenyon's behalf to acknowledge Agora's birthday to give em a magenta ribbon. The question presented is whether that's in the scope of the zombie rules, which allow an agent to generally act on behalf of a principal with a few limited

BUS: [FRC] Mantaining Respect for Games and Others

I present the following procedural argument to the court: Your Honor, My Fellow Counselors V.J. Rada and Aris seem to have no respect for the Great and Ancient Nomics. I ask the court that all Counselors SHALL refer to FRC and Agora as the Great and Ancient Nomic of the FRC and the Great and