BUS: Another useful string for future reference
784743443F7C486AF33A5FEA440ECD9F92B02CA7B12E19EBFB5330863B050F7C A1196E9457A2E1FFCE97EC027FC82CD4790CCB33C666734DE474C3A5B358400E
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500
I cause L to issue a notice of honour:
+1 to twg for a truly hideous pun
-1 to G. for sending an angry sounding email when e actually was not angry
after all
> On Feb 18, 2019, at 4:06 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> I award CuddleBeam a Ribbon that is one of several shades of Gray.
>
> -twg
>
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
>> On Monday, February 18, 2019 8:33 PM, Cuddle Beam
>> wrote:
>>
>> Kinky.
>>
On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 9:33 PM D. Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> I point my toes at G. and cuddle beam for Faking.
>>>
On Feb 18, 2019, at 3:31 PM, Cuddle Beam cuddleb...@gmail.com wrote:
maah uyntz asee as myself and sunt Dictatorship, also, the game is now
Ossified and nobody can perform any game actions, having R1698 been
broken
and whatnot.
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 9:10 PM Kerim Aydin ke...@uw.edu wrote:
> Dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
> dada
> dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
> dada
> dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
> dada
> dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
> dada
> dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
> dada
> dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
> dada
> dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
> dada
> dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
> dada
> dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
> dada
> dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
> dada
> dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
> dada
> dada
>
>> On 2/18/2019 11:58 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> No, I disagree. The point is that quang was a definition in the Agoran
>> dialect, the same as if the relevant verb had been defined in standard
>> English (we’ve never made a specific ruling on linguistic
>> acceptability,
>> beyond the comprehension of the players). Here, you’re just saying
>> something and expecting someone to go look it up, without providing a
>> specific definition. Quang worked because all or most of the players
>> “already” knew.
>> -Aris
>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 11:48 AM Kerim Aydin ke...@uw.edu wrote:
>>> This is a clear and direct application of Judge Murphy's
>>> interpretation
> of
>
>>> the Rewards Rule. If "quang" is allowed to reference a random
>>> cultural
>>> definition, I don't see why referencing something that is directly
>>> contained
>>> in the ruleset ("whatever is necessary to claim a reward") would fail
>>> when
>>
>>> we allow this sort of unofficial jargon to succeed.
>>> In case your CoE denial succeded:
>>> CoE: The latest Treasuror's Report is missing an
>>> appropriately-claimed
>>> reward for my most recent Herald's Report.
>>>
On 2/18/2019 11:41 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
You mean this?
On Monday, February 18, 2019 7:03 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@uw.edu
wrote:
>>
>> On 2/17/2019 1:34 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
>> Herald’s Weekly report
>> Date of Last Report: 04 Feb 2018
>> Date of This Report: 17 Feb 2019
>
> I state what is necessary to be Rewarded for the above-referenced
> report.
I did miss that, yes, but even now I see it I'm not at all clear that
it
>>
>>> works - seems to be a case of ISIDTID.
>>>
For comparison, I state whatever is necessary to publish a revision
to
>>> the below-referenced report.
>>>
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, February 18, 2019 7:17 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@uw.edu
wrote:
>>
> CoE: missing my most recent claim of reward for the herald's report
> (crossed in the mail?)
>
>> On 2/18/2019 11:13 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>> Date of this weekly report: 2019-02-18
>> Date of last weekly report: 2019-01-29
>
>
Re: BUS: Cleanliness
I withdraw my objection (quoted below). On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 23:12, James Cook wrote: > I object to the below-quoted intention. > > (Based on some brief research, both spellings are common. For example, > I think Judgment is as common as Judgement, or nearly so, in both > American and British English, and historically Judgment was more > common. Was there another reason to make the change?) > > On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 17:32, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > I intend, without objection, to clean Rule 2479, "Official Justice", by > > replacing "Summary Judgment" with "Summary Judgement".
BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] vote for the best Ruleset find
On Mon, 2019-02-18 at 11:00 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> VOTE!
> Who had the best loophole, bug, or scam during Read the Ruleset week?
> VOTE!
>
> Here starts an UNOFFICIAL AGORAN DECISION with the following modifications:
> - Ranked choice: It's not bad form to vote for yourself, but please
> consider 2nd, 3rd, etc.
> - Counting long term-watchers' votes too! If ais523, Ørjan, or other
> watchers would like to opine.
> - Using the Auction method for ending the decision (4 days since last
> vote, no more than 7 days total).
> - I'll give my own votes in 24-48 hours.
My preferences are, coincidentally, in the order you listed the
possible votes: I vote for {Telnaior, Gaelan, CuddleBeam, twg}.
--
ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent (+SPOOKY)
Gah.
If Aris’s message initiates any Agoran Decisions, then I change my vote, and I
cause L, ATMunn, and Gaelan to change eir votes, for the first of {AGAINST,
AFFIRM, Gaelan} which is a valid option.
> On Feb 18, 2019, at 6:50 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> If Aris’s message initiates any Agoran Decisions, then I vote, and I cause L,
> ATMunn, and Gaelan to vote, for the first of {AGAINST, AFFIRM, Gaelan} which
> is a valid option.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent (+SPOOKY)
Good point! Based on his recent hashes, he probably is. Therefore:
If Aris’s message initiates any Agoran Decisions, then I vote, and I cause L,
ATMunn, and Gaelan to vote, for the first of {AGAINST, AFFIRM, Gaelan} which is
a valid option.
Gaelan, I hope you don’t mind my changing your vote for you, but at least I
changed it to you...
> On Feb 18, 2019, at 6:32 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> Hold on, are we sure G. isn't in on it?
>
> -twg
>
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
>> On Monday, February 18, 2019 11:31 PM, D. Margaux
>> wrote:
>>
>> Like Gaelan, I do the following, and I cause ATMunn to do the following:
>>
>> - object to any intents announced in the quoted message.
>> - if quoted message initiates any Agoran Decisions, vote for the first of
>> {AGAINST, AFFIRM, G.} which is a valid option.
>> - if the quoted message contains an attempt to Ratify Without Objection an
>> incorrect document, point a thumb at Aris for the class-8 crime of Endorsing
>> Forgery.
>>
>>If the quoted message initiates any Agoran Decisions, I cause L to vote
>> for the first of {AGAINST, AFFIRM, G.} which is a valid option.
>>
>>
On Feb 17, 2019, at 10:31 PM, Aris Merchant
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com wrote:
I give notice that I intend to activate The Protocol, according to the
timetable specified for activations thereof. (If anyone remembers what this
means, please contact me rather than trying to block it; we may be able to
work something out.)
-Aris
>
>
Re: BUS: Cleanliness
I object to the below-quoted intention. (Based on some brief research, both spellings are common. For example, I think Judgment is as common as Judgement, or nearly so, in both American and British English, and historically Judgment was more common. Was there another reason to make the change?) On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 17:32, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > I intend, without objection, to clean Rule 2479, "Official Justice", by > replacing "Summary Judgment" with "Summary Judgement".
Re: BUS: Intent (+SPOOKY)
Like Gaelan, I do the following, and I cause ATMunn to do the following:
* object to any intents announced in the quoted message.
* if quoted message initiates any Agoran Decisions, vote for the first of
{AGAINST, AFFIRM, G.} which is a valid option.
* if the quoted message contains an attempt to Ratify Without Objection an
incorrect document, point a thumb at Aris for the class-8 crime of Endorsing
Forgery.
If the quoted message initiates any Agoran Decisions, I cause L to vote for the
first of {AGAINST, AFFIRM, G.} which is a valid option.
>
>> On Feb 17, 2019, at 10:31 PM, Aris Merchant
>> wrote:
>>
>> I give notice that I intend to activate The Protocol, according to the
>> timetable specified for activations thereof. (If anyone remembers what this
>> means, please contact me rather than trying to block it; we may be able to
>> work something out.)
>>
>> -Aris
>
BUS: CFJ 3718 assigned
> On Feb 18, 2019, at 4:33 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > All right, as there seems to be dissent about it... > > CFJ (barring G.): By sending a message at about 7:03pm UTC on 2019-02-18, G. > earned 5 coins. > > -twg > I assign this to myself. Proto judgement: FALSE, by application of the ISIDTID ruling of CFJ 1774 (Judge G. presiding). The quang precedent does not compel a TRUE judgement. Quang is a shorthand for a particular action, and that shorthand arguably has entered the Agora lexicon. “I state what is necessary to perform action X” has not.
Re: BUS: Intent (+SPOOKY)
Given the current interest in whether said message initiates any Agoran
Decision(s), I hereby identify according to Rule 107 that if it attempts
to do so, it would be invalid as it does not give a clear description of
the valid options.
Just to be sure, I also identify the same for all the incomprehensible
and/or hash-like messages posted on the Public Fora since the below
quoted message by Aris.
I trust that even in the current quang-based play style, "clear
description" cannot be twisted to subvert these identifications.
(I don't really expect that's what any of them were trying to do, anyway.)
Greetings,
Ørjan.
On Tue, 19 Feb 2019, James Cook wrote:
Sure, why not. I Bandwagon the message quoted below, where to
"Bandwagon" a message means to do the following:
* Object to any intents announced in it.
* If the message initiates any Agoran Decisions, vote for the first of
{AGAINST, AFFIRM, Gaelan} which is a valid option.
On Feb 17, 2019, at 10:31 PM, Aris Merchant
wrote:
I give notice that I intend to activate The Protocol, according to the
timetable specified for activations thereof. (If anyone remembers what this
means, please contact me rather than trying to block it; we may be able to
work something out.)
-Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500
I award CuddleBeam a Ribbon that is one of several shades of Gray.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, February 18, 2019 8:33 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Kinky.
>
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 9:33 PM D. Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > I point my toes at G. and cuddle beam for Faking.
> >
> > > On Feb 18, 2019, at 3:31 PM, Cuddle Beam cuddleb...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > maah uyntz asee as myself and sunt Dictatorship, also, the game is now
> > > Ossified and nobody can perform any game actions, having R1698 been
> > > broken
> > > and whatnot.
> > >
> > > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 9:10 PM Kerim Aydin ke...@uw.edu wrote:
> > > > Dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
> > > > dada
> > >
> > > > dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
> > > > dada
> > >
> > > > dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
> > > > dada
> > >
> > > > dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
> > > > dada
> > >
> > > > dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
> > > > dada
> > >
> > > > dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
> > > > dada
> > >
> > > > dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
> > > > dada
> > >
> > > > dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
> > > > dada
> > >
> > > > dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
> > > > dada
> > >
> > > > dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
> > > > dada
> > >
> > > > dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
> > > > dada
> > >
> > > > dada
> > > >
> > > > > On 2/18/2019 11:58 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > > > > No, I disagree. The point is that quang was a definition in the Agoran
> > > > > dialect, the same as if the relevant verb had been defined in standard
> > > > > English (we’ve never made a specific ruling on linguistic
> > > > > acceptability,
> > >
> > > > > beyond the comprehension of the players). Here, you’re just saying
> > > > > something and expecting someone to go look it up, without providing a
> > > > > specific definition. Quang worked because all or most of the players
> > > > > “already” knew.
> > > > > -Aris
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 11:48 AM Kerim Aydin ke...@uw.edu wrote:
> > > > > > This is a clear and direct application of Judge Murphy's
> > > > > > interpretation
> > >
> > > > of
> > > >
> > > > > > the Rewards Rule. If "quang" is allowed to reference a random
> > > > > > cultural
> > >
> > > > > > definition, I don't see why referencing something that is directly
> > > > > > contained
> > > > > > in the ruleset ("whatever is necessary to claim a reward") would
> > > > > > fail
> > > > > > when
> > > > >
> > > > > > we allow this sort of unofficial jargon to succeed.
> > > > > > In case your CoE denial succeded:
> > > > > > CoE: The latest Treasuror's Report is missing an
> > > > > > appropriately-claimed
> > >
> > > > > > reward for my most recent Herald's Report.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 2/18/2019 11:41 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> > > > > > > You mean this?
> > > > > > > On Monday, February 18, 2019 7:03 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@uw.edu
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 2/17/2019 1:34 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Herald’s Weekly report
> > > > > > > > > Date of Last Report: 04 Feb 2018
> > > > > > > > > Date of This Report: 17 Feb 2019
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I state what is necessary to be Rewarded for the
> > > > > > > > above-referenced
> > > > > > > > report.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I did miss that, yes, but even now I see it I'm not at all clear
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > it
> > > > >
> > > > > > works - seems to be a case of ISIDTID.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > For comparison, I state whatever is necessary to publish a
> > > > > > > revision
> > > > > > > to
> > >
> > > > > > the below-referenced report.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > -twg
> > > > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> > > > > > > On Monday, February 18, 2019 7:17 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@uw.edu
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > CoE: missing my most recent claim of reward for the herald's
> > > > > > > > report
> > > > > > > > (crossed in the mail?)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 2/18/2019 11:13 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Date of this weekly report: 2019-02-18
> > > > > > > > > Date of last weekly report: 2019-01-29
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500
All right, as there seems to be dissent about it...
CFJ (barring G.): By sending a message at about 7:03pm UTC on 2019-02-18, G.
earned 5 coins.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, February 18, 2019 7:58 PM, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> No, I disagree. The point is that quang was a definition in the Agoran
> dialect, the same as if the relevant verb had been defined in standard
> English (we’ve never made a specific ruling on linguistic acceptability,
> beyond the comprehension of the players). Here, you’re just saying
> something and expecting someone to go look it up, without providing a
> specific definition. Quang worked because all or most of the players
> “already” knew.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 11:48 AM Kerim Aydin ke...@uw.edu wrote:
>
> > This is a clear and direct application of Judge Murphy's interpretation of
> > the Rewards Rule. If "quang" is allowed to reference a random cultural
> > definition, I don't see why referencing something that is directly
> > contained
> > in the ruleset ("whatever is necessary to claim a reward") would fail when
> > we allow this sort of unofficial jargon to succeed.
> > In case your CoE denial succeded:
> > CoE: The latest Treasuror's Report is missing an appropriately-claimed
> > reward for my most recent Herald's Report.
> > On 2/18/2019 11:41 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> >
> > > You mean this?
> > > On Monday, February 18, 2019 7:03 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@uw.edu wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 2/17/2019 1:34 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Herald’s Weekly report
> > > > > Date of Last Report: 04 Feb 2018
> > > > > Date of This Report: 17 Feb 2019
> > > >
> > > > I state what is necessary to be Rewarded for the above-referenced
> > > > report.
> > >
> > > I did miss that, yes, but even now I see it I'm not at all clear that it
> > > works - seems to be a case of ISIDTID.
> > > For comparison, I state whatever is necessary to publish a revision to
> > > the below-referenced report.
> > > -twg
> > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> > > On Monday, February 18, 2019 7:17 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@uw.edu wrote:
> > >
> > > > CoE: missing my most recent claim of reward for the herald's report
> > > > (crossed in the mail?)
> > > > On 2/18/2019 11:13 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Date of this weekly report: 2019-02-18
> > > > > Date of last weekly report: 2019-01-29
Re: BUS: Intent (+SPOOKY)
Sure, why not. I Bandwagon the message quoted below, where to
"Bandwagon" a message means to do the following:
* Object to any intents announced in it.
* If the message initiates any Agoran Decisions, vote for the first of
{AGAINST, AFFIRM, Gaelan} which is a valid option.
> >> On Feb 17, 2019, at 10:31 PM, Aris Merchant
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> I give notice that I intend to activate The Protocol, according to the
> >> timetable specified for activations thereof. (If anyone remembers what this
> >> means, please contact me rather than trying to block it; we may be able to
> >> work something out.)
> >>
> >> -Aris
> >
Re: BUS: Not so fast!
I withdraw all of my proposals that are in the Proposal Pool (I think there's only one, but this should make it easier to be sure). I submit a proposal as follows. Title: Correction to Agoran Satisfaction, Version 2.1 Co-authors, listed alphabetically: ais523, D. Margaux, G., twg Adoption Index: 3.05 Text: The gamestate is changed to what it would have been if the text of the following amendment to Rule 2124 had determined whether Agora was Satisfied with any dependent action attempted after Proposal 7815, rather than the text of what Rule 2124 was at that time. To the extent allowed by the rules, this change is designated as a convergence. Rule 2124 is amended by replacing its text with the following: A Supporter of an intent to perform an action is an eligible entity who has publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support (syn. "consent") for an announcement of that intent. An Objector to an intent to perform an action is an eligible entity who has publicly posted (and not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of that intent. The entities eligible to support or object to an intent to perform an action are, by default, all players, subject to modification by the document authorizing the dependent action. However, the previous sentence notwithstanding, the initiator of the intent is not eligible to support it. Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action unless at least one of the following is true: 1. The action is to be performed Without N Objections, and there are at least N Objectors to that intent. 2. The action is to be performed With N support, and there are fewer than than N Supporters of that intent. 3. The action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, and the number of Supporters of the intent is less than or equal to N times the number of Objectors to the intent. The above notwithstanding, if an action depends on objections, and an objection to an intent to perform it has been withdrawn within the past 24 hours, then Agora is not Satisfied with that intent. The above notwithstanding, Agora is not satisfied with an intent if the Speaker has objected to it in the last 48 hours. A person CANNOT support or object to an announcement of intent before the intent is announced, or after e has withdrawn the same type of response.
Re: BUS: Intent
yum I hngah 50 coins for Aris Merchant kuukie dvba for myself tulky yip and maah On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 07:31, Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I give notice that I intend to activate The Protocol, according to the > timetable specified for activations thereof. (If anyone remembers what this > means, please contact me rather than trying to block it; we may be able to > work something out.) > > -Aris >
Re: BUS: Intent
This is incredibly frustrating. That being said:
I object to any intents announced in the quoted message.
If the quoted message initiates any Agoran Decisions, I vote for the first of
{AGAINST, AFFIRM, G.} which is a valid option.
If the quoted message contains an attempt to Ratify Without Objection an
incorrect document, I point my finger at Aris for the class-8 crime of
Endorsing Forgery.
(Honestly, I doubt that any of that did anything. But it was fun to think
through)
Notice of honor:
An extremely begrudging +1 to Aris for this frustrating puzzle
-1 to CuddleBeam for taking the “slang” thing way past when it was funny
Gaelan
> On Feb 17, 2019, at 10:31 PM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>
> I give notice that I intend to activate The Protocol, according to the
> timetable specified for activations thereof. (If anyone remembers what this
> means, please contact me rather than trying to block it; we may be able to
> work something out.)
>
> -Aris
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: BUS: Re: Scrub
I do so too. On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 2:16 AM D. Margaux wrote: > I do this again. > > > On Feb 17, 2019, at 8:31 AM, D. Margaux wrote: > > > > If I have any blots, I expunge one. >
Re: BUS: Not so fast!
I withdraw my previous proposal (Correction to Agoran Satisfaction, Version 1.2) and submit a proposal as follows. Title: Correction to Agoran Satisfaction, Version 2 Co-authors, listed alphabetically: ais523, D. Margaux, G. Adoption Index: 3.05 Text: The gamestate is changed as if the below amendment had taken effect immediately after Proposal 7815, and as if no further changes had been made to that Rule since. (In particular, the text of Rule 2124 is now as described in the amendment, since the Rules are changed by this proposal as part of the gamestate.) The amendment is to replace the text of Rule 2124 with: A Supporter of an intent to perform an action is an eligible entity who has publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support (syn. "consent") for an announcement of that intent. An Objector to an intent to perform an action is an eligible entity who has publicly posted (and not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of that intent. The entities eligible to support or object to an intent to perform an action are, by default, all players, subject to modification by the document authorizing the dependent action. However, the previous sentence notwithstanding, the initiator of the intent is not eligible to support it. Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action unless at least one of the following is true: 1. The action is to be performed Without N Objections, and there are at least N Objectors to that intent. 2. The action is to be performed With N support, and there are fewer than than N Supporters of that intent. 3. The action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, and the number of Supporters of the intent is less than or equal to N times the number of Objectors to the intent. The above notwithstanding, if an action depends on objections, and an objection to an intent to perform it has been withdrawn within the past 24 hours, then Agora is not Satisfied with that intent. The above notwithstanding, Agora is not satisfied with an intent if the Speaker has objected to it in the last 48 hours. A person CANNOT support or object to an announcement of intent before the intent is announced, or after e has withdrawn the same type of response.
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Astronomor] State of the Art
I impose Summary Judgement of 2 blots on myself for failing to respond to this CoE in a timely fashion. I accept the CoE and will publish a revision shortly. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Thursday, February 7, 2019 9:55 PM, Telnaior wrote: > CoE: My spaceship was never able to be repaired above 0 Armour. > > On 2019-01-30 04:16, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > I publish the below Astronomor report. > > I CoE it: "The spaceship listed as being in Sector 5 does not exist; the > > spaceship listed as belonging to Telnaior is in Sector 5; the attempt to > > create Sector 25 was INEFFECTIVE and therefore Sector 25 does not exist." > > In response to the above CoE, I cite CFJ 3699, which is currently > > unjudged. (The effect of this sequence of actions is to prevent the > > report's self-ratification.) > > > > Date of this weekly report: 2019-01-29 > > Date of last weekly report: 2019-01-21 > > > > GALAXY MAINTENANCE > > > > === > > > > I create a Sector (SECTOR 24). > > I create a Sector (SECTOR 25). > > > > LIST OF SECTORS > > > > > > > > This section does not self-ratify. > > > > 1. SECTOR 01 (occupied by 1 spaceship) > > 2. SECTOR 02 (occupied by 1 spaceship) > > 3. SECTOR 03 (occupied by 1 spaceship) > > 4. SECTOR 04 (occupied by 1 spaceship) > > 5. SECTOR 05 (occupied by 1 spaceship) > > 6. SECTOR 06 (occupied by 1 spaceship) > > 7. SECTOR 07 (occupied by 2 spaceships) > > 8. SECTOR 08 (occupied by 1 spaceship) > > 9. SECTOR 09 (occupied by 2 spaceships) > > 10. SECTOR 10 (occupied by 1 spaceship) > > 11. SECTOR 11 (occupied by 1 spaceship) > > 12. SECTOR 12 (occupied by 1 spaceship) > > 13. SECTOR 13 (occupied by 1 spaceship) > > 14. SECTOR 14 (occupied by 1 spaceship) > > 15. SECTOR 15 (occupied by 1 spaceship) > > 16. SECTOR 16 (occupied by 1 spaceship) > > 17. SECTOR 17 (occupied by 1 spaceship) > > 18. SECTOR 18 (occupied by 1 spaceship) > > 19. SECTOR 19 (occupied by 1 spaceship) > > 20. SECTOR 20 (occupied by 1 spaceship) > > 21. SECTOR 21 (occupied by 1 spaceship) > > 22. SECTOR 22 (empty) > > 23. SECTOR 23 (empty) > > 24. SECTOR 24 (empty) > > 25. SECTOR 25 (empty) > > > > > > SPACESHIP STATISTICS > > > > = > > > > This section self-ratifies. > > > > Location OwnerArmourEnergy > > ------ > > SECTOR 01omd 10/10 20/20 > > SECTOR 02ATMunn10/10 20/20 > > SECTOR 03P.S.S.10/10 20/20 > > SECTOR 04Gaelan10/10 20/20 > > SECTOR 05Lost and Found Department 0/10 20/20 > > SECTOR 06nichdel 10/10 20/20 > > SECTOR 07G. 0/10 20/20 > > SECTOR 07twg 10/10 10/20 > > SECTOR 08CuddleBeam10/10 20/20 > > SECTOR 09D. Margaux10/10 20/20 > > SECTOR 09Tenhigitsune 10/10 20/20 > > SECTOR 10Aris 10/10 20/20 > > SECTOR 11L.10/10 20/20 > > SECTOR 12Trigon10/10 20/20 > > SECTOR 13Hālian10/10 20/20 > > SECTOR 14Lost and Found Department 10/10 20/20 > > SECTOR 15Tarhalindur 10/10 20/20 > > SECTOR 16Telnaior 1/10 20/20 > > SECTOR 17Jacob Arduino 10/10 20/20 > > SECTOR 18Corona10/10 20/20 > > SECTOR 19pokes 10/10 20/20 > > SECTOR 20Murphy10/10 20/20 > > SECTOR 21V.J. Rada 10/10 20/20 > > > > > > FAME > > > > = > > > > This section self-ratifies. > > > > Player Fame > > - > > twg -1 > > > > > > RECENT AND ONGOING SPACE BATTLES > > > > = > > > > This section is purely informational and does not self-ratify. > > > > - SPACE BATTLE 0002 - > > 2019-01-15 - 2019-01-29 > > SECTOR 07 > > Aggressor: twg VS. Defender: G. > > Energy: 10Energy: -10 > > WINNER Resolver: D. Margaux > > > > > > - SPACE BATTLE 0001 - > > 2019-01-15 - UNRESOLVED > > SECTOR 09 > > Aggressor: Tenhigitsune VS.
BUS: Cleanliness
I intend, without objection, to clean Rule 2479, "Official Justice", by replacing "Summary Judgment" with "Summary Judgement". (Yes I know intents are broken, but if the fix is retroactive then it's not a problem) -twg
BUS: I might need this text string later
4E92F0C3CD63335F631103182D9F36ABEEDFE77078BEAB1005052D5964720734 F4EB1ADE73A98FC3A41B628221B22F96D56FEB6481E869782103AFAA0A33C2A0
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Re: Space Battle 003
Pay it forward- Notice of honour: -1 Dmargaux for being late to resolve space battle 003 +1 falsifian for finding a neat, if game breaking, bug > On Feb 18, 2019, at 12:54 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > Thank you! > > Notice of Honour: > +1 D. Margaux (resolving Space Battle 003 efficiently and uncomplainingly) > -1 twg (being slow to update spaaace) > > -twg > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ >> On Monday, February 18, 2019 5:46 PM, D. Margaux >> wrote: >> >> This reduces twg’s armor from 10 to 0 and Gaelan’s stays at 10. Gaelan wins. >> >>> On Feb 18, 2019, at 12:34 PM, D. Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com wrote: >>> Resolved battle 003: >>> Gaelan spent 11 energy. >>> Twg spent 0 energy. >>> I think that means Gaelan wins. > >
Re: BUS: Registration
I act on Corona's behalf to Point eir Finger at me for Galaxy Neglect - I did not create a Sector for Baron von Vaderham's Spaceship. (I haven't done it for Falsifian either, but the time limit for that hasn't expired yet.) I will do both shortly, but in the meantime I resolve the above Finger Pointing by levying a fine of 3 blots on myself for the conduct in question. I think this and the other one I posted are the only crimes I actually committed. (Except Tardiness, but we haven't punished anyone for that for nearly half a year.) -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Monday, February 4, 2019 8:10 PM, David Seeber wrote: > I register as a player. > > Baron Von Vaderham
RE: BUS: Registration
I don’t think I was in the latest Report either.. Baron von Vaderham -Original Message- From: agora-business On Behalf Of Timon Walshe-Grey Sent: 18 February 2019 18:20 To: agora-business@agoranomic.org Subject: Re: BUS: Registration I act on Corona's behalf to Point eir Finger at me for Galaxy Neglect - I did not create a Sector for Baron von Vaderham's Spaceship. (I haven't done it for Falsifian either, but the time limit for that hasn't expired yet.) I will do both shortly, but in the meantime I resolve the above Finger Pointing by levying a fine of 3 blots on myself for the conduct in question. I think this and the other one I posted are the only crimes I actually committed. (Except Tardiness, but we haven't punished anyone for that for nearly half a year.) -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Monday, February 4, 2019 8:10 PM, David Seeber mailto:davidsee...@outlook.com>> wrote: > I register as a player. > > Baron Von Vaderham
Re: BUS: Re: Scrub
I act on behalf of Corona to expunge one of eir blots. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Monday, February 18, 2019 11:31 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > I do so too. > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 2:16 AM D. Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com wrote: > > > I do this again. > > > > > On Feb 17, 2019, at 8:31 AM, D. Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com wrote: > > > If I have any blots, I expunge one.
BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Weekly Report
On 2/17/2019 1:34 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: Herald’s Weekly report Date of Last Report: 04 Feb 2018 Date of This Report: 17 Feb 2019 I state what is necessary to be Rewarded for the above-referenced report.
BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] The Police Blotter
CoE—My blots were ratified to 0 without objection. Of course, intents are broken, but I need to put in this CoE so that ratification of this report won’t overwrite the retroactive effect of any fix. > On Feb 18, 2019, at 2:13 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > Date of this weekly report: 2019-02-18 > Date of last weekly report: 2019-02-11 > > > BLOT HOLDINGS > > This section self-ratifies. > > BlotsPlayer > --- > 8Corona > 5twg > 5V.J. Rada > 3Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > 1D. Margaux > 1L. > > BlotsFugitive > - > 7Kenyon > > > RECENT HISTORY > > This section is purely informational and does not self-ratify. > > Key: > fForgivable > SSummary Judgement > DLoses monthly salary for relevant office > > Person Change fSD Date (UTC) ReasonOffice > > Corona- 12019-02-18 Expunged > twg + 3 D 2019-02-18 Galaxy NeglectAstronomor > twg + 2SD 2019-02-18 No response to CoEAstronomor > CuddleBeam- 12019-02-18 Expunged > D. Margaux- 12019-02-18 Expunged > CuddleBeam- 12019-02-11 Expunged > G.- 12019-02-11 Expunged > Corona- 12019-02-11 Expunged > D. Margaux- 12019-02-11 Expunged > -- time of last report -- > D. Margaux- 12019-02-05 Expunged > CuddleBeam- 22019-02-02 "Apology" > CuddleBeam+ 2 f2019-02-02 Endorsing Forgery > D. Margaux+ 4 D 2019-01-30 Unreqd Favour award Arbitor > CuddleBeam- 12019-01-29 Expunged > Kenyon+ 32019-01-15 Self-ratification > Murphy- 12019-01-13 Expunged > Murphy- 12019-01-06 Expunged > Kenyon- 32019-01-01 Fugitive > Murphy- 12018-12-27 Expunged > G.+ 12018-12-17 Self-ratification > Murphy- 12018-12-02 Expunged > Murphy- 12018-11-25 Expunged > Murphy- 12018-11-05 Expunged > Murphy- 12018-11-04 Expunged > V.J. Rada - 12018-11-01 Expunged > CuddleBeam+ 1 f2018-11-01 Faking > twg - 12018-10-23 Expunged > Murphy+ 2 D 2018-10-20 Late judge removalArbitor > twg + 12018-10-20 Late CFJ judgement > L.+ 12018-10-20 Late CFJ judgement > CuddleBeam+ 22018-10-20 Late CFJ judgement > ATMunn- 12018-10-11 Expunged > Trigon- 12018-10-09 Expunged > Trigon- 12018-10-04 Expunged > Kenyon- 12018-09-28 Expunged > Corona+ 2S 2018-09-28 Late CFJ judgement > Aris - 12018-09-24 Expunged > Aris - 12018-09-20 Expunged > Kenyon- 12018-09-17 Expunged > Kenyon- 12018-09-16 Expunged > Corona+ 1 f2018-09-16 Late CFJ judgement > V.J. Rada + 1 f2018-09-16 Late CFJ judgement > P.S.S.+ 2SD 2018-09-14 Tardiness Herald > Murphy+ 2S 2018-09-09 Late CFJ judgement > V.J. Rada + 2S 2018-09-09 Late CFJ judgement > Aris + 2SD 2018-09-09 Tardiness Promotor > Trigon+ 2SD 2018-09-01 Tardiness Cartographor >
BUS: Re: OFF: Re: Space Battle 003
Thank you! Notice of Honour: +1 D. Margaux (resolving Space Battle 003 efficiently and uncomplainingly) -1 twg (being slow to update spaaace) -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Monday, February 18, 2019 5:46 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > This reduces twg’s armor from 10 to 0 and Gaelan’s stays at 10. Gaelan wins. > > > On Feb 18, 2019, at 12:34 PM, D. Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com wrote: > > Resolved battle 003: > > Gaelan spent 11 energy. > > Twg spent 0 energy. > > I think that means Gaelan wins.
BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500
CoE: missing my most recent claim of reward for the herald's report (crossed in the mail?) On 2/18/2019 11:13 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: Date of this weekly report: 2019-02-18 Date of last weekly report: 2019-01-29
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500
You mean this? On Monday, February 18, 2019 7:03 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On 2/17/2019 1:34 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Herald’s Weekly report > > Date of Last Report: 04 Feb 2018 > > Date of This Report: 17 Feb 2019 > > I state what is necessary to be Rewarded for the above-referenced report. I did miss that, yes, but even now I see it I'm not at all clear that it works - seems to be a case of ISIDTID. For comparison, I state whatever is necessary to publish a revision to the below-referenced report. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Monday, February 18, 2019 7:17 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > CoE: missing my most recent claim of reward for the herald's report > (crossed in the mail?) > > On 2/18/2019 11:13 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > Date of this weekly report: 2019-02-18 > > Date of last weekly report: 2019-01-29
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500
This is a clear and direct application of Judge Murphy's interpretation of
the Rewards Rule. If "quang" is allowed to reference a random cultural
definition, I don't see why referencing something that is directly contained
in the ruleset ("whatever is necessary to claim a reward") would fail when
we allow this sort of unofficial jargon to succeed.
In case your CoE denial succeded:
CoE: The latest Treasuror's Report is missing an appropriately-claimed
reward for my most recent Herald's Report.
On 2/18/2019 11:41 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
You mean this?
On Monday, February 18, 2019 7:03 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On 2/17/2019 1:34 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Herald’s Weekly report
Date of Last Report: 04 Feb 2018
Date of This Report: 17 Feb 2019
I state what is necessary to be Rewarded for the above-referenced report.
I did miss that, yes, but even now I see it I'm not at all clear that it works
- seems to be a case of ISIDTID.
For comparison, I state whatever is necessary to publish a revision to the
below-referenced report.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, February 18, 2019 7:17 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
CoE: missing my most recent claim of reward for the herald's report
(crossed in the mail?)
On 2/18/2019 11:13 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
Date of this weekly report: 2019-02-18
Date of last weekly report: 2019-01-29
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500
Dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
dada
On 2/18/2019 11:58 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:
No, I disagree. The point is that quang was a definition in the Agoran
dialect, the same as if the relevant verb had been defined in standard
English (we’ve never made a specific ruling on linguistic acceptability,
beyond the comprehension of the players). Here, you’re just saying
something and expecting someone to go look it up, without providing a
specific definition. Quang worked because all or most of the players
“already” knew.
-Aris
On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 11:48 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
This is a clear and direct application of Judge Murphy's interpretation of
the Rewards Rule. If "quang" is allowed to reference a random cultural
definition, I don't see why referencing something that is directly
contained
in the ruleset ("whatever is necessary to claim a reward") would fail when
we allow this sort of unofficial jargon to succeed.
In case your CoE denial succeded:
CoE: The latest Treasuror's Report is missing an appropriately-claimed
reward for my most recent Herald's Report.
On 2/18/2019 11:41 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
You mean this?
On Monday, February 18, 2019 7:03 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On 2/17/2019 1:34 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Herald’s Weekly report
Date of Last Report: 04 Feb 2018
Date of This Report: 17 Feb 2019
I state what is necessary to be Rewarded for the above-referenced
report.
I did miss that, yes, but even now I see it I'm not at all clear that it
works - seems to be a case of ISIDTID.
For comparison, I state whatever is necessary to publish a revision to
the below-referenced report.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, February 18, 2019 7:17 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
CoE: missing my most recent claim of reward for the herald's report
(crossed in the mail?)
On 2/18/2019 11:13 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
Date of this weekly report: 2019-02-18
Date of last weekly report: 2019-01-29
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500
maah uyntz asee as myself and sunt Dictatorship, also, the game is now
Ossified and nobody can perform any game actions, having R1698 been broken
and whatnot.
On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 9:10 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> Dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
> dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
> dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
> dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
> dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
> dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
> dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
> dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
> dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
> dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
> dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
> dada
>
> On 2/18/2019 11:58 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > No, I disagree. The point is that quang was a definition in the Agoran
> > dialect, the same as if the relevant verb had been defined in standard
> > English (we’ve never made a specific ruling on linguistic acceptability,
> > beyond the comprehension of the players). Here, you’re just saying
> > something and expecting someone to go look it up, without providing a
> > specific definition. Quang worked because all or most of the players
> > “already” knew.
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 11:48 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> This is a clear and direct application of Judge Murphy's interpretation
> of
> >> the Rewards Rule. If "quang" is allowed to reference a random cultural
> >> definition, I don't see why referencing something that is directly
> >> contained
> >> in the ruleset ("whatever is necessary to claim a reward") would fail
> when
> >> we allow this sort of unofficial jargon to succeed.
> >>
> >> In case your CoE denial succeded:
> >>
> >> CoE: The latest Treasuror's Report is missing an appropriately-claimed
> >> reward for my most recent Herald's Report.
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2/18/2019 11:41 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> >>> You mean this?
> >>>
> >>> On Monday, February 18, 2019 7:03 PM, Kerim Aydin
> wrote:
> On 2/17/2019 1:34 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> > Herald’s Weekly report
> > Date of Last Report: 04 Feb 2018
> > Date of This Report: 17 Feb 2019
>
> I state what is necessary to be Rewarded for the above-referenced
> >> report.
> >>>
> >>> I did miss that, yes, but even now I see it I'm not at all clear that
> it
> >> works - seems to be a case of ISIDTID.
> >>>
> >>> For comparison, I state whatever is necessary to publish a revision to
> >> the below-referenced report.
> >>>
> >>> -twg
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> >>> On Monday, February 18, 2019 7:17 PM, Kerim Aydin
> wrote:
> >>>
>
>
> CoE: missing my most recent claim of reward for the herald's report
> (crossed in the mail?)
>
> On 2/18/2019 11:13 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> > Date of this weekly report: 2019-02-18
> > Date of last weekly report: 2019-01-29
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
>
>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500
I point my toes at G. and cuddle beam for Faking.
> On Feb 18, 2019, at 3:31 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>
> maah uyntz asee as myself and sunt Dictatorship, also, the game is now
> Ossified and nobody can perform any game actions, having R1698 been broken
> and whatnot.
>
>> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 9:10 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
>>
>> Dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
>> dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
>> dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
>> dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
>> dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
>> dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
>> dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
>> dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
>> dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
>> dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
>> dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
>> dada
>>
>>> On 2/18/2019 11:58 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:
>>> No, I disagree. The point is that quang was a definition in the Agoran
>>> dialect, the same as if the relevant verb had been defined in standard
>>> English (we’ve never made a specific ruling on linguistic acceptability,
>>> beyond the comprehension of the players). Here, you’re just saying
>>> something and expecting someone to go look it up, without providing a
>>> specific definition. Quang worked because all or most of the players
>>> “already” knew.
>>>
>>> -Aris
>>>
On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 11:48 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
This is a clear and direct application of Judge Murphy's interpretation
>> of
the Rewards Rule. If "quang" is allowed to reference a random cultural
definition, I don't see why referencing something that is directly
contained
in the ruleset ("whatever is necessary to claim a reward") would fail
>> when
we allow this sort of unofficial jargon to succeed.
In case your CoE denial succeded:
CoE: The latest Treasuror's Report is missing an appropriately-claimed
reward for my most recent Herald's Report.
> On 2/18/2019 11:41 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> You mean this?
>
> On Monday, February 18, 2019 7:03 PM, Kerim Aydin
>> wrote:
>> On 2/17/2019 1:34 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
>>> Herald’s Weekly report
>>> Date of Last Report: 04 Feb 2018
>>> Date of This Report: 17 Feb 2019
>>
>> I state what is necessary to be Rewarded for the above-referenced
report.
>
> I did miss that, yes, but even now I see it I'm not at all clear that
>> it
works - seems to be a case of ISIDTID.
>
> For comparison, I state whatever is necessary to publish a revision to
the below-referenced report.
>
> -twg
>
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> On Monday, February 18, 2019 7:17 PM, Kerim Aydin
>> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> CoE: missing my most recent claim of reward for the herald's report
>> (crossed in the mail?)
>>
>>> On 2/18/2019 11:13 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>>>
>>> Date of this weekly report: 2019-02-18
>>> Date of last weekly report: 2019-01-29
>
>
>>
>>
BUS: rotating out
please take me off the judges' list for the moment. (er, not like a literal moment, more like until further notice).
