784743443F7C486AF33A5FEA440ECD9F92B02CA7B12E19EBFB5330863B050F7C
A1196E9457A2E1FFCE97EC027FC82CD4790CCB33C666734DE474C3A5B358400E
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.
>
>
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
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
>
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
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
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?)
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
> 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
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
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
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
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,
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:
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.
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
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.
>
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
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
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
4E92F0C3CD63335F631103182D9F36ABEEDFE77078BEAB1005052D5964720734
F4EB1ADE73A98FC3A41B628221B22F96D56FEB6481E869782103AFAA0A33C2A0
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
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
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
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,
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.
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:
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
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
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.
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
Dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
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
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
please take me off the judges' list for the moment.
(er, not like a literal moment, more like until further notice).
35 matches
Mail list logo
