Since the ``Pineapple Partnership'' doesn't exist, as a person,
player, or partnership, this response is addressed to Goethe, who in
any case is the person who signed the message.
On 4/29/07, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While intent is not evidence, it does suggest this to be a
On 4/28/07, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
comex,
I don't think the text in the Subject: line has any legal effect, so
you might want to post a message to agora-business with body ``I
register'' to make sure.
--
C. Maud Image (Michael Slone)
Holy cow! This means This Time to the Public
Maud wrote:
Are you sure about this? I thought we had had cases before (not
necessarily brought to CFJ) where a rule change was implemented based
on the rule number mentiioned, even though an incorrect title was also
used.
Not entirely sure... it seemed reasonable, but if there's an
Michael Slone wrote:
I don't think the text in the Subject: line has any legal effect,
I think in this case it conveys intent with sufficient clarity.
you might want to post a message to agora-business with body ``I
register'' to make sure.
I agree. Clearer would be better.
-zefram
On 4/29/07, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
CFJ 1628 statement hereby assigned to Zefram:
Zefram is wearing a hat.
CFJ 1629 statement hereby assigned to Peter:
There are elephants to the left.
CFJ 1630 statement hereby assigned to Levi:
We're all mad, here.
Uh... These should
Michael Slone wrote:
Uh... These should all pretty clearly be DISMISSED as irrelevant to
the rules. Or did we get rid of that?
Actually as I read R1565 is doesn't *require* a judgement of DISMISSED,
but merely *permits* it in this sort of case. I suggest that the calling
of these CFJs forms
On Apr 28, 2007, at 1:21 PM, Taral wrote:
I, The Goddess Eris, register.
I, Promotor OscarMeyr, welcome you back. How was your vacation?
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
Quazie wrote:
I'm not sure if the rules allow me to do this or not. I request to not
judge the above linked CFJs.
I'm happy to turn you again w/o 2 objections so you don't have to judge
this round, and keep turning you until you say you'd like to judge CFJs
again... would you prefer that?
Kerim Aydin wrote:
Quazie wrote:
I'm not sure if the rules allow me to do this or not. I request to not
judge the above linked CFJs.
I'm happy to turn you again w/o 2 objections so you don't have to judge
this round, and keep turning you until you say you'd like to
quazie wrote:
I'm not sure if the rules allow me to do this or not. I request to not
judge the above linked CFJs.
You're allowed to make the request, but it doesn't actually make
you ineligible. Eris, now that you're back (well come!), can you
comment on the [bracketed] portions of my
Quazie wrote:
no i should be good for judging, just not that one.
Well, I fulfilled your request :). I'm happy to fulfill such
requests for not doing specific CFJs as long as I'm allowed
(e.g. if you're not the only one eligible).
-Goethe
On 4/29/07, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At least one player is ineligible solely due to being turned.
You are supposed to list at least one such player. I am aware of the
``failing to meet these requirements does not deprive the Notice of
effect'' clause, but I don't consider this to
Kerim Aydin wrote:
I assign the following linked CFJs to Goethe.
CFJ 1638:
where a proposal contains the form of words Amend rule by XXX.
Amend rule by YYY., this constitutes two separate attempts at
rule changes, even though both attempt to amend the same rule
CFJ 1639:
quazie wrote:
is this you calling and assigning the CFJs?
I called them in the message CFJ on interpretation of amendments.
-zefram
Maud wrote:
You are supposed to list at least one such player.
O. In this phrase:
The Clerk of the Courts shall only do
so when all open CFJs without a Trial Judge have no players
eligible to be assigned, and at least one of them has at least
On 4/29/07, quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wish there was the ability to bar yourself from types of CFJs like there
used to be. I have been slacking on the judging front at the moment i
realize (i will make sure to judge future CFJs promptly) but I would like
the ability to bar myself from
On 4/29/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You'll have to contend with Rule 1450, though.
Ah, I hadn't noticed that you were Speaker.
--
Michael Slone
Goethe wrote:
Fair enough. But the point was, when Zefram and I were looking at if
we could block Murphy et al.'s proposal, we noticed that a CotC could
legally mint an unbounded number of VCs, by an as-long-as-you-want
list of linked, trivial CFJs. Instant, overpowering voting, worse
than
Maud wrote:
It does seem to be standard practice (although I'm not entirely happy
about that), but this particular exploit clogs up the Stare Decisis
and needlessly cranks up the CFJ number (just as the hundreds of CFJs
from ~1994 did).
Zefram and I did talk about that... I apologize for
On 4/29/07, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
== CFJ 1627 ==
The text in exhibit A, if enacted into a Rule, would conflict
with Rule 101.
Michael Slone wrote:
As I read it, rule 101 preserves the right to *invoke* judgement. But
this does not require that judgement be returned.
I interpret this differently. If I call a CFJ and it is then refused
by an Oligarch, then no judgement has occurred, and my actions have
thus failed to
Oh, this seems a good time to point out: the would-be Oligarchs could
have avoided the whole VC race by simply distributing the Oligarch
proposal last week, so that it would be contested under that week's
unchangeable VLOPs. We certainly couldn't have voted it down under
those circumstances.
On Apr 29, 2007, at 7:52 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I spend one VC to increase Zefram's VPOP by 1.
I spend one VC to increase Zefram's VPOP by 1.
I spend one VC to increase Zefram's VPOP by 1.
I spend one VC to increase Zefram's VPOP by 1.
I spend one VC to increase Eris's VPOP by 1.
I spend one
Kerim Aydin wrote:
(I can't remember how many I have, the last ones probably didn't work).
By my counting, Goethe had 9 VCs immediately before this message.
E therefore increased by VLOP by 4 and Eris's by 5, and the final three
attempted spends failed.
To help the Promotor to check eir
On Apr 29, 2007, at 9:12 PM, Zefram wrote:
Oh, this seems a good time to point out: the would-be Oligarchs could
have avoided the whole VC race by simply distributing the Oligarch
proposal last week, so that it would be contested under that week's
unchangeable VLOPs. We certainly couldn't have
Ed Murphy wrote:
They don't even need to be linked - the CotC merely needs to not do
anything about the excess ones.
The benefit of using linked CFJs is that a set can be all assigned
to one judge, who then reaps all the VCs. Unlinked CFJs have to be
assigned evenly, due to turning, so the VCs
Zefram wrote:
Eep, here's another message with datestamps crossing midnight. (I just
CFJed about this concerning Quazie's VC spending.) Headers:
I think the normal domain of technical control argument should
continue to hold.
I remove Proposal Racket from the pool.
It was titled
OscarMeyr wrote:
On Apr 29, 2007, at 9:12 PM, Zefram wrote:
Oh, this seems a good time to point out: the would-be Oligarchs could
have avoided the whole VC race by simply distributing the Oligarch
proposal last week, so that it would be contested under that week's
unchangeable VLOPs. We
Correction. I went through the VC changes so much, I missed the new
partnership. Here's the corrected Voting Limit list.
VLOP is for the week starting 30 April 2007
VLOP-nw is projected for the week starting 7 May 2007
PlayerVLDP VLOP VLOP-nw VCs
I think that the past week's activity has been the most truly Agoran
activity I've seen in a couple of years, even more fun than the card-
based rebellion I instigated in late 2005. There should be enough
material in all of this for somebody to write a Nomic History thesis.
-
Benjamin
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
Voting Limits and Credits
Date of this report: Mon 30 Apr 2007
Date of last report: Wed 25 Apr 2007
VLOP is for the week starting 30 April 2007
VLOP-nw is projected for the week starting 7 May 2007
PlayerVLDP VLOP VLOP-nw VCs
On Apr 29, 2007, at 7:09 PM, Zefram wrote:
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
Your Privacy Invaded: A Report on Everybody
(Combined reports of Herald, Registrar, and IADoP)
What about the list of Threats, required in the Herald's Report by
R1377
item b?
Current ruleset is up at
On Apr 29, 2007, at 7:59 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
I remove Proposal Racket from the pool.
As Zefram noted, there is no such proposal in the pool.
Proposal: Protection Racket
To tell apart the two proposals, this proposal has been entered as
Protection Racket (2).
-
Benjamin Schultz
Michael Slone wrote:
but this particular exploit clogs up the Stare Decisis
and needlessly cranks up the CFJ number (just as the hundreds of CFJs
from ~1994 did).
Ah come now, the effect is small in this case, and anyway it's not like
we're going to run out of numbers, or fill up the
On Apr 29, 2007, at 7:05 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
CFJ 1631 callied by Murphy:
comex registered on or about Sat, 28 Apr 2007 22:00:01 -0400.
is hereby assigned to OscarMeyr.
Caller's arguments:
On or about the time in question, comex sent a message to agora-
business
with subject I
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
I think that the past week's activity has been the most truly Agoran
activity I've seen in a couple of years, even more fun than the card-
based rebellion I instigated in late 2005. There should be enough
material in all of this for somebody to write a Nomic History
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
What threats?
These ones:
Rule 1377/21 (Power=1)
The Herald
The Herald is an office; its holder is responsible for keeping
track of the History of Agora and its players.
The Herald's report shall include the
On Apr 29, 2007, at 10:12 PM, Zefram wrote:
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
What threats?
These ones:
Rule 1377/21 (Power=1)
The Herald
The Herald is an office; its holder is responsible for keeping
track of the History of Agora and its
Zefram wrote:
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
I think that the past week's activity has been the most truly Agoran
activity I've seen in a couple of years, even more fun than the card-
based rebellion I instigated in late 2005. There should be enough
material in all of this for
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
Which is more important, Zefram -- the Herald's report or all the VCs
and proposals?
What does my opinion matter? Let us consult the ruleset. The rules
don't appear to judge importance per se, but if we take Power to be a
measure of importance then VCs (R2126, Power=3)
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
Kindly RTF follow-up.
Yes, I saw that (and Quazie's claim of error) immediately after posting.
Sorry.
Your correction was not to the PF, btw. Don't think that makes much
difference, now that we don't have the formal COE procedure any more.
-zefram
quazie wrote:
I curse Goethe and Zefram.
I contemplate how curses can be incorporated into agora.
Proto-Proposal I curse thee!
*I want some interesting play mechanics, but i don't think that VC will
allow the idea i have. As chromodynamics failed we have no real
currency. I will gladly
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
I'll rephrase: Which did you want done first -- the Herald's Report
to include something new and with no current effect, or the hour + of
effort to log all the VC changes, proposals, and contribute to
meaningful activity?
You were of course correct to concentrate on
43 matches
Mail list logo
