On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 7:04 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> == CFJ 1922 ==
>
> Murphy has at least one bean.
>
> == CFJ 1923 ==
>
> pikhq has a bean.
>
=
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Ben Caplan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've secretly hoped for some time that Agora could establish embassies
in various graphical MMOs. I believe I came to the conclusion that EVE
would be the best place to start, at least in principle. (
On Tuesday 15 April 2008 5:14:56 Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 3:58 PM, Ben Caplan wrote:
> > I strongly suspect that a Second Life embassy would fall to the same
> > fate as Nomic Hall. Precisely because SL is so powerfully scriptable,
> > there is essentially no central government
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 3:58 PM, Ben Caplan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I strongly suspect that a Second Life embassy would fall to the same
> fate as Nomic Hall. Precisely because SL is so powerfully scriptable,
> there is essentially no central government (so to speak): each region
> of in-g
On Tuesday 15 April 2008 4:14:32 Ian Kelly wrote:
> This is starting to sound a lot like the Nomic Hall MOO that some
> Agorans tried to start back around 2004, which
[...]
> before long the interest in keeping
> it going ran out. If an effort like that were to hap
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> This is starting to sound a lot like the Nomic Hall MOO that some
> Agorans tried to start back around 2004, which was envisioned as a
> sort of meeting place where various nomics could establish embassies.
Since then, we've had (a few) more interactions wi
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008, Charles Reiss wrote:
> Uh, okay...
>
> I withdraw my previously submitted proposal titled "Agree2Support II"
> (submitted in the message at
> http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2008-April/010098.html).
> Goethe, did you not notice this?
I did, in
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Ben Caplan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 15 April 2008 3:19:47 Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> > Bah. Unless the MMO engines release their source and democratically
> > apply patches submitted by Players, we should shun them entirely.
> >
> > Now excuse me wh
On Tuesday 15 April 2008 3:19:47 Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> Bah. Unless the MMO engines release their source and democratically
> apply patches submitted by Players, we should shun them entirely.
>
> Now excuse me while I try to figure out how I could get myself enough
> free time to implement a 3D
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Ben Caplan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've secretly hoped for some time that Agora could establish embassies
> in various graphical MMOs. I believe I came to the conclusion that EVE
> would be the best place to start, at least in principle. (In practice,
> it
On Tuesday 15 April 2008 12:57:36 Ian Kelly wrote:
> It seems to me that the reference to "minimum number of parties" is
> The key difference between a pledge and
> another contract is not the minimum number of parties, but the fact
> that a regular contract constitutes an agreement between its mem
On Monday 14 April 2008 7:11:10 Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 5:26 PM, David Nicol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > has anyone set up any Agora space on Second Life?
>
> Not so far as I'm aware, but now that you mention it, a Second Life
> Nomic could be pretty interesting. Like Nomic
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 6:08 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> As soon as possible after the nomination period ends, then: (a) if
>> there is only one consenting candidate, the IADoP SHALL install em
>> in the Office by ann
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 11:57 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So it seems to me that this should just read
> "by a party without objection, if the contract is a pledge".
Plus the ugly verbiage about blocking changes, of course.
-root
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 11:48 AM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Issue: A makes a pledge 'if someone X, then I will Y as soon as
> possible.' B does X in reference to the pledge. Then before the
> deadline arrives, co-conspirator C joins the pledge and terminates it
> with the agree
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> root wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 12:06 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> [Zefram, root, you voted against the previous version of this; would
> >> you support this revision?]
> >
> > What's the diffe
root wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 12:06 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [Zefram, root, you voted against the previous version of this; would
>> you support this revision?]
>
> What's the difference from the previous version?
Mainly "any of these" in both parts of the revised R2
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 10:59 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This removes the bit about allowing parties to the pledge to block the
> change by announcement. As I recall, the purpose of that clause was
> to protect parties to pledges who don't have first-class members in
> their ba
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 12:06 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Zefram, root, you voted against the previous version of this; would
> you support this revision?]
What's the difference from the previous version? I voted against the
last one because I generally dislike "cleaning" propos
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>A case to consider. You offer to give me a quatloo for a tingo. I say
>"okay" and give you a tingo. You say "I've changed my mind, here's the
>tingo back." Is the contract broken, or is equity satisfied?
Both.
-zefram
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 7:32 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The way I read the rules, Murphy CANNOT install comex, Pavitra, or
> woggle (since none of them have consented), so there's no waiting
> period in effect for the action of installing them.
So if one of them were to co
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 6:31 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 4:26 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I read "and consents" there as meaning I only SHALL do that if another
> > active player consents to eir nomination within the minimum waiting
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 6:08 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As soon as possible after the nomination period ends, then: (a) if
> there is only one consenting candidate, the IADoP SHALL install em
> in the Office by announcement; (b) if there are two or more
> c
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 8:20 AM, Iammars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 7:59 AM, Iammars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 7:56 AM, Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 11:38 PM, Iammars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
>
Never mind. I forgot the number 1 rule of internet knowledge. When in doubt,
go to Wikipedia.
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 7:59 AM, Iammars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 7:56 AM, Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 11:38 PM, Iammars <[EMAIL PRO
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 7:56 AM, Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 11:38 PM, Iammars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >3. These should be fixed by the new Rule 8. I already have the
> rule
> > in my head, and I added a bit so you can punish me if I change it. If
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 11:38 PM, Iammars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>3. These should be fixed by the new Rule 8. I already have the rule
> in my head, and I added a bit so you can punish me if I change it. If you
> want, I can send it to somebody so they know I'm not cheating, but I'd have
Taral: Ah. Gotcha.
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 11:38 PM, Iammars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Current proto-text:
>
> 1 - Contractness
> The name of this contract is "The Fight Arena". This is a public
> contract.
> 2 - Referee
> The Referee is responsible for maintaining this contract. I
28 matches
Mail list logo
