In the interest of spreading the judicial workload among as many players
as possible, I've updated the 'assign judge' web form to give preference
to hugging players for inquiry cases, similarly hanging for criminal.
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 12:37 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2017
== CFJ 2017 ==
I am a first-class partnership.
root wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 4:12 PM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First, let me explain why I made these proposals outright rather than
protoing them (which is what I'd normally do for proposals this complex);
it was merely a technicality due to the paradox cleanup rule. I was
ihope wrote:
So, um, a contract caused a win by paradox by saying if it's X, it
becomes Y; if it's Y, it becomes Z; if it's Z, it becomes X; if it's
X, stuff can happen, which is merely ambiguous?
Note to self, then: jump on top of every ambiguity, and always appeal
judgements of
ais523 wrote:
root wrote:
What is unknown about the current set of CFJs?
Whether comex filed an equity case against the Gnarlier Contract. (E
tried to, and it was found UNDECIDABLE whether this was possible, so
I can only include that it's undecidable whether e created the CFJ.
Murphy
Murphy wrote:
ais523 wrote:
root wrote:
What is unknown about the current set of CFJs?
Whether comex filed an equity case against the Gnarlier Contract. (E
tried to, and it was found UNDECIDABLE whether this was possible, so
I can only include that it's undecidable whether e created the CFJ.
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 1:17 AM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The contestmaster is the person the rules say it is, not the person
the contract says it is.
I thought other contests did something similar, I'll fix this too.
I think other contests say stuff like There is a position called X.
H. Distributor Eris,
Would you consider the creation of a new discussion forum, the Agora-Contests
(or -Contracts) forum?
Suggested Rule to accompany:
If a contract refers to a discussion forum as its official forum,
messages sent there SHOULD be considered announcements for the
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 1:41 AM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Silly B Nomic. But I thought they had a rule explicitly enabling ISIDTID?
What is ISIDTID?
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
Kerim Aydin wrote:
Would you consider the creation of a new discussion forum, the Agora-Contests
(or -Contracts) forum?
Most of us would have to be on it, and would be uninterested in most of
the traffic. I think there should be separate fora for each contest.
-zefram
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 1:58 AM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 8:58 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, the rules (especially rules with power less than 2, that of rule
2145, Partnerships) can't just create partnerships; to be a
partnership, something has to
ihope wrote:
What is ISIDTID?
I say I do, therefore I do. The cause of much philosophical debate
regarding actions that are defined only by the rules.
-zefram
root wrote:
I think it's
probably a good idea to have some way to fix Agora if things
go really bad. So this is an attempt to write a rule which can,
by itself and without help from other rules, get the game out
of just about any mess.
What might this protect us from that R1698 would
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 11:09 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With the consent of all Bankers, I intend to modify the Bank of Agora
contract by replacing Bankers shall act in good faith, keeping in
mind that the Bank of Agora's holdings belong to those people who have
pens, not the Bankers.
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, Zefram wrote:
ihope wrote:
What is ISIDTID?
I say I do, therefore I do. The cause of much philosophical debate
regarding actions that are defined only by the rules.
Specifically, all the actions we perform around here are speech acts,
enabled by the Rules (posting I
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 1:09 AM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think you mean Hercules. Also, the last sentence is a run-on.
Bah, that's a horrible Romanization anyway. His name was derived from
Hera, and the Romans were too dumb to rename him Junoculo or
something when they stole him
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, Alexander Smith wrote:
Finally, I can
imagine a situation where Agora winds up in a really drastically
unknown gamestate, where even though there is a way to pass a
proposal within four weeks, nobody is entirely sure how.
We're already in such a gamestate. Ref: The
Goethe wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, Alexander Smith wrote:
Finally, I can
imagine a situation where Agora winds up in a really drastically
unknown gamestate, where even though there is a way to pass a
proposal within four weeks, nobody is entirely sure how.
We're already in such a
E is only allowed to create or destroy land according to the contract. (I'm
assuming)
The contract states in order to create the land e must revoke 3 points.
Ergo, there is an argument to be made that announcing the creation of the
land, is also a de jure announcement that e has revoked the
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, Alexander Smith wrote:
Goethe wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, Alexander Smith wrote:
Finally, I can
imagine a situation where Agora winds up in a really drastically
unknown gamestate, where even though there is a way to pass a
proposal within four weeks, nobody is entirely
Goethe wrote:
The Annabel Crisis appeared in a 419 scam? Do tell! (And I'll tell
you :) ).
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be deliberate.
http://osdir.com/ml/sysutils.pcp/2005-12/msg9.html is archived
by one of the same websites that archives Agora mailing lists, and
contains both the
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, Alexander Smith wrote:
Goethe wrote:
The Annabel Crisis appeared in a 419 scam? Do tell! (And I'll tell
you :) ).
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be deliberate.
http://osdir.com/ml/sysutils.pcp/2005-12/msg9.html is archived
by one of the same websites that
comex wrote:
[snip]
Mr. Monopoly 46 sets the withdrawal rate of 9 crops to 1.
Mr. Monopoly 46 sets the withdrawal rate of 1 crops to 1.
Mr. Monopoly 46 transfers 716 Pens to the AFO. I terminate Mr. Monopoly 46.
[snip]
Ironically, I'd thought up a scam very similar to this one independently,
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 6:43 AM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, Zefram wrote:
Kerim Aydin wrote:
Would you consider the creation of a new discussion forum, the
Agora-Contests
(or -Contracts) forum?
Most of us would have to be on it, and would be uninterested in
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 7:37 AM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I intend, with the consent of the other bankers, to case the Bank of
Agora to amend its contract, replacing Pens are a currency. with
Pens are a currency, ownership of which is restricted to Players.
I don't consent,
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 3:08 AM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ineffective. Proposal effects are instantaneous, not continuous.
Where does it say that?
When a proposal is adopted, it takes effect. It does not go into
effect and henceforth remain there. That's what rules are for.
On 6/18/08, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I submit the following proposal, titled Repeal Partnerships (AI=2, II=0):
I wouldn't support repealing partnerships altogether-- for example,
the AFO provides a nice place for Murphy and I to store crops-- but
there are definitely some negatives:
-
comex wrote:
On 6/18/08, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I submit the following proposal, titled Repeal Partnerships (AI=2, II=0):
I wouldn't support repealing partnerships altogether-- for example,
the AFO provides a nice place for Murphy and I to store crops-- but
there are definitely
On 6/18/08, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Non-persons can't register. Nor can they even attempt to register,
since they cannot perform actions by definition.
It is possible for judicial panels to take actions, even though they
are not persons.
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 9:23 AM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
comex wrote:
On 6/18/08, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I submit the following proposal, titled Repeal Partnerships (AI=2, II=0):
I wouldn't support repealing partnerships altogether-- for example,
the AFO
BobTHJ wrote:
Any contract (which meets the requirements) may become a Partnership
without 3 objections? It works for contests, why not partnerships?
That inserts one of the paradox escalation holes that I've just been
trying to get rid of, but I like the principle. (If a contract is set
up so
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 11:19 AM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about: a person can only be part of one partnership at a time,
partnerships only become eligible to register 24 hours after they
become public? This would make things a little more sane while
keeping partnerships in the
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 6:12 AM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't believe the rules (especially those with power below 3) can
just create binding agreements among people, as Every person has the
right to refuse to become party to a binding agreement. The absence
of a person's explicit,
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 7:19 AM, Chester Mealer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
E is only allowed to create or destroy land according to the contract. (I'm
assuming)
Per Rule 2166/5:
An asset whose backing document is not a rule generally CAN be
created by its recordkeepor by
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, comex wrote:
How about: a person can only be part of one partnership at a time,
partnerships only become eligible to register 24 hours after they
become public? This would make things a little more sane while
keeping partnerships in the rules.
Holy Groups!
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 11:51 AM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
rules, or regulation[s] determining the methods or course of a game
or the like (OED), and as such lack the capacity and do not claim to
[...]
Rule is defined by R2141, so the appeal to common definition is incorrect.
Well
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 11:19 AM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about: a person can only be part of one partnership at a time,
partnerships only become eligible to register 24 hours after they
become public? This would make things a little more sane while
keeping partnerships in the
my statement should satisfy CFJ 712 as unambiguous enough to refer to em.
--
Chester Mealer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
another idea, clearly not a proposal yet
Agoran Stock Market
1. This contract is known as the Agoran Stock Market.
2. This contract creates a currency known as SMDs which are fungible.
3. This contract creates a currency known as shares which contain a stock
symbol.
4. A stock symbol is a
cdm014 wrote:
I submit the following proposal as player cdm014.
Co-Authors are:
Zefram
avpx
ihope
-root
the player who sends e-mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Murphy.
Title: Agoran Welcoming Committee
Agora does not use the convention of proposals implicitly
Goethe wrote:
Solutions proposed:
1. judicially declare all actions performed by annabel to be
(retroactively) ineffective because, in retrospect, the messages didn't
constitute clear communication as to whom they applied to (I still think
this would have and did work, hence no
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 6:46 AM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I initiate the following Equity Case:
contract: The Bank of Agora
parties: AFO, BobTHJ, Ivan Hope, Wooble, root, Teh Cltohed Mna
state of affairs whereby events have not proceeded as envisioned by
the contract: comex
cdm014 wrote:
2. This contract creates a currency known as SMDs which are fungible.
What is this an initialism for? which are fungible should be removed;
it's a broken version of what Rule 2166 (Assets) already covers (e.g.
instances should not be fungible while they have different owners).
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 5:05 AM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would you consider the creation of a new discussion forum, the Agora-Contests
(or -Contracts) forum?
I would create such a forum if the accompanying rule passed. I would
vote against the creation of such rule, however.
--
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 8:34 AM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That inserts one of the paradox escalation holes that I've just been
trying to get rid of, but I like the principle. (If a contract is set
up so that it's ambiguous or paradoxical whether it meets the
requirements,
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
It is customary to allow a scamster to retain the fruit of eir scam.
In my opinion comex should be allowed to keep the crops that he robbed
from the bank.
Custom is for either a permanent memento (e.g. patent title) or a
minor competitive advantage (a
Taral wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 8:34 AM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That inserts one of the paradox escalation holes that I've just been
trying to get rid of, but I like the principle. (If a contract is set
up so that it's ambiguous or paradoxical whether it meets the
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
Goethe wrote:
Solutions proposed:
1. judicially declare all actions performed by annabel to be
(retroactively) ineffective because, in retrospect, the messages didn't
constitute clear communication as to whom they applied to (I still think
this would
Poll: How would you prefer your large messages: in multiple parts, or as a URL?
I suspect I'm going to get a lot of not at all answers, what with
the whole I make 10,000 CFJs thing.
But then again, what fun is that? Some of the best scams arise when
something perfectly normal is taken out of
not a proposal but when it is Murphy is Co-Author, anything else I
overlooked?
Stock Market V 2
Agoran Stock Market
1. This contract is known as the Agoran Stock Market.
2. This contract creates a currency known as Stock Market Dollars or SMDs.
3. A stock symbol is a string of one to five
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, comex wrote:
Poll: How would you prefer your large messages: in multiple parts, or as a
URL?
Weren't URL's judged against in your object/I support picture?
Anyway, don't worry about message length, worry about number of actions
some poor recordkeepor has to note or make.
comex wrote:
Oh, and if it would be possible to make 46 Mr. Monopoly contracts
without restating the contract's text every single time, I could avoid
large messages much more easily. But then again, that's not game
custom, is it?
Game custom holds that locally defined abbreviations are
Goethe wrote:
In one I drained the deck of cards like you drained the bank:
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2004-May/002849.html
but I was the recordkeepor and in fact the scam tested (and was found
when I was creating) my automation methods.
which
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Ben Caplan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 17 June 2008 9:27:14 comex wrote:
scam
I initiate a criminal CFJ against comex. E violated rule 1742 by
violating the requirements of several of the Mr. Monopoly and Rich
Uncle Pennybags series of partnerships to
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 5:03 PM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That text wasn't in the BOA yet, was it?
The good faith clause has been in the BOA agreement from the beginning
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, comex wrote:
Poll: How would you prefer your large messages: in multiple parts, or as a
URL?
Weren't URL's judged against in your object/I support picture?
If I just post a URL, especially a URL of a
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
which involved several instances of
As required to satisfy a pending draw, I transfer a random card from the
deck to Goethe, which is It's a Surprise!
Was the deck otherwise empty at this point?
Yah, it was a bootup issue because the cards were not
comex wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, comex wrote:
Poll: How would you prefer your large messages: in multiple parts, or as a
URL?
Weren't URL's judged against in your object/I support picture?
If I just post a URL,
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 2:25 PM, Ben Caplan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 17 June 2008 10:44:05 Quazie wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 8:42 PM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 7:27 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I make the following contract with the AFO: {{
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 5:23 PM, Chester Mealer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If possible, I submit the following votes. If one or more votes is not
possible for me to submit, I submit those votes which are possible.
You know, on ordinary proposals (I believe Zefram's distributions have
a column
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
sender (though a posted transcription might be a compromise if there
was no debate on content and at least one witness reasonably close to
the time of announcement). -Goethe
What's to prevent someone from posting a URL that displays different
text to
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 12:43 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I change myself to This contract is a pledge. The parties to this
contract SHALL ensure that it fulfills its obligations. Any party to
this contract can leave it by announcement. I agree to myself.
ISIDTID?
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 11:10 AM, Chester Mealer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
another idea, clearly not a proposal yet
Agoran Stock Market
1. This contract is known as the Agoran Stock Market.
2. This contract creates a currency known as SMDs which are fungible.
3. This contract creates a
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 8:01 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 12:43 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I change myself to This contract is a pledge. The parties to this
contract SHALL ensure that it fulfills its obligations. Any party to
this contract can leave it by
5. This contract defines a position called SEC member, when a player joins
this contract if there are fewer than five SEC member e becomes a SEC
member.
I don't like this part. I'd definitely prefer a system where
*everyone* has a say rather than it being a race to become an SEC
member.
snip
On Jun 18, 2008, at 8:46 PM, ihope wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 8:37 PM, Benjamin Schultz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I initiate a criminal case against OscarMeyr for violating rule 2158
by judging INNOCENT on CFJ 1995.
I'm glad this already got withdrawn. Do we seriously need a Rule
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 8:45 PM, Nick Vanderweit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do like the idea of a stock exchange, but it needs some work.
Really, I prefer leaving organization to the companies themselves
(through contracts) and then having this only manage the investment
part.
The Bank of
Ivan Hope wrote:
{The name of this contract is The Corporation. This is a public
contract. Parties to this contract SHALL ensure it fulfills all its
obligations.
Shares of stock (shares, for short) are a currency. Ownership of
shares is restricted to players.
This contract can be
On Jun 18, 2008, at 9:24 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
Proto-Proposal: Decriminalization
(AI = 2, please)
Create a rule titled Decriminalization with Power 2 and this text:
If a rule defines a method of breaching it as decriminalized,
then
no person SHALL initiate a criminal case
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 8:45 PM, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let's make this official, as I haven't seen any further discussion on this
point in the past two days.
With the consent of the rest of the appeal panel in CFJ 1966c, I intend to
cause the panel to rule OVERRULE with a
OscarMeyr wrote:
There's potential here for recursion -- file a criminal case over
R2158, then counter-file a criminal case over Decriminalization.
That's the whole point.
And how DO you get the rule paragraph margins properly double-indented?
Hmm?
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 8:56 PM, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I STILL don't recall seeing an apology for CFJ 1942, and I see nothing in
the business archive at agoranomic from comex indicating otherwise. Would
someone please verify my memory, lest I file a trivially INNOCENT
On Jun 18, 2008, at 10:19 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
OscarMeyr wrote:
There's potential here for recursion -- file a criminal case over
R2158, then counter-file a criminal case over Decriminalization.
That's the whole point.
Well okay, if you want to make that a feature.
And how DO you
OscarMeyr wrote:
On Jun 18, 2008, at 10:19 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
OscarMeyr wrote:
There's potential here for recursion -- file a criminal case over
R2158, then counter-file a criminal case over Decriminalization.
That's the whole point.
Well okay, if you want to make that a feature.
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 10:43 AM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
E changed his text to something that devolved his obligations onto his
parties, this being an unregulated action. Presumedly, agreeing to
something is the same as agreeing to its text; therefore, these people
agreeing to ehird's
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
Even if it works for actions that are legal fictions defined by the
rules, there's no reason to suppose that it should work for arbitrary
fictional actions made up off the top of somebody's head, since
these aren't even actions in any Agoran sense.
This
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, comex wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 8:45 PM, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let's make this official, as I haven't seen any further discussion on this
point in the past two days.
With the consent of the rest of the appeal panel in CFJ 1966c, I intend to
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 6:51 PM, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We need to rewrite this sentence from R2158:
A judge SHALL NOT assign an inappropriate judgement to any judicial
question.
The intent here is to make sure that a judge does eir duty diligently and
does not blatantly
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, Kerim Aydin wrote:
CFJs 1615-1616. Nutshell: If you claim you are something you're not
(I am an avacado!) the courts can use common-sense evidence to find
the claim factually false, even if making the claim is unregulated or
strictly-speaking rules-irrelevant.
Goethe wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
Even if it works for actions that are legal fictions defined by the
rules, there's no reason to suppose that it should work for arbitrary
fictional actions made up off the top of somebody's head, since
these aren't even actions in any
80 matches
Mail list logo
