On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 9:40 PM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Without 3 proto-objections I proto-change the AAA contract as follows:
I still think it's more complexity than is necessary.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 9:43 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
c) A public statement that one performs an action is true if
and only if one succeeds in performing that action by
making that public statement, but violates this rule only
if one believes
comex wrote:
For every other action, If possible I do X and I attempt to do X
do not satisfy Rule 478's criterion-- that the person performing the
action announces that e performs it--
We have historically allowed quite a bit of latitude in the use
of conditionals. It's not codified, but we seem
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 10:47 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you don't believe it is a legitimate value then feel free to
propose a rate change.
I don't believe it's legitimate to allow (indeed, require) the
Protection Racket to constantly create assets that interest a very
small
NUM FL AI SUBMITTER TITLE
5636 D0 2ais523 Defining Monsterholdors
PRESENT
5637 O1 1Quazie Agora is my conditional value
FORx4
5638 O1 1.7 Murphy Pragmatize initiation of equity cases
FORx4
5639 D1 3Murphy Refactor clarity
PRESENT
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 5:07 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If it's obfuscation you want, here's another Python version:
Another variation on this that I was playing around with the other
day. This one is a bit more transparent than the other one I posted,
but I wanted to share it
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:34 AM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
5637 O1 1Quazie Agora is my conditional value
I change my vote to ENDORSE Agora x4
I don't think this works; under no circumstances can a rule take
effect before the votes on it are counted, so relying on a definition
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:40 AM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:34 AM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
5637 O1 1Quazie Agora is my conditional value
I change my vote to ENDORSE Agora x4
I don't think this works; under no circumstances can a rule
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:52 AM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I thought that ENDORSE Agora was already defined.. I remember seeing
it somewhere.. maybe it was in a proto and I got confused and thought
that it was in a rule..
Umm, you saw it in the proposal you're voting on conditionally.
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:04 AM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:52 AM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I thought that ENDORSE Agora was already defined.. I remember seeing
it somewhere.. maybe it was in a proto and I got confused and thought
that it was in a
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 1:23 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IIRC, the main benefit of creating contracts using pesos (rather than
defining their own currency) is a common exchange medium, which role
is already filled by the RBoA to some extent. Also, the more currencies
there are, the
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:14 AM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:04 AM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:52 AM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I thought that ENDORSE Agora was already defined.. I remember seeing
it somewhere.. maybe it
Add the following to the end of section 8:
An upgraded Digit Ranch produces 2 crops a week
A downgraded Digit Ranch produces 1 crop every 2 weeks
These may stack, i.e., an upgraded Digit Ranch actually produces 3
crops per week (1 for being a Digit Ranch, and 2 for being upgraded),
and a
On Monday 14 July 2008 08:40:02 am Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:34 AM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
5637 O1 1Quazie Agora is my conditional value
I change my vote to ENDORSE Agora x4
I don't think this works; under no circumstances can a rule take
effect
Wooble wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:34 AM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
5637 O1 1Quazie Agora is my conditional value
I change my vote to ENDORSE Agora x4
I don't think this works; under no circumstances can a rule take
effect before the votes on it are counted, so relying
Taral wrote:
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 9:43 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
c) A public statement that one performs an action is true if
and only if one succeeds in performing that action by
making that public statement, but violates this rule only
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BobTHJ wrote:
What's the objective here?
To enable the APA to award points.
It can via the PRS.
I thought the PRS wasn't a contest yet, either.
It will be as soon as the Assessor resolves voting on outstanding
On Monday 14 July 2008 04:12:48 am Taral wrote:
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 9:43 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
c) A public statement that one performs an action is true
if and only if one succeeds in performing that action by making
that public statement, but violates this rule
On Monday 14 July 2008 10:30:52 am Roger Hicks wrote:
I create a Digit Ranch (land #113) with a Seed of 5 and a WRV in the
possession of Pavitra.
I rename land #113 to Aphrodite's Grove.
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:50 AM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 8:30 AM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I create a Digit Ranch (land #111) with a Seed of 1 and a WRV in the
possession of Quazie.
I rename the above land to 1 Crop
While this is valid that name
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:17 AM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2008-07-14 at 11:09 -0400, ihope wrote:
Congratulations, Elliott Hird, you're a player.
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
If tusho is a player, I transfer 24 VP to tusho.
I attempt to act on behalf of tusho to cause them to transfer
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Sgeo wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:14 AM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:04 AM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:52 AM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I thought that ENDORSE Agora was already defined.. I
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Ben Caplan wrote:
On Sunday 13 July 2008 11:43:28 pm Ed Murphy wrote:
A public claim intended to mislead others (whether directly or
indirectly) regarding one's identity constitutes a false
statement, and SHOULD be severely punished.
A person SHALL NOT
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
Taral wrote:
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 9:43 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
c) A public statement that one performs an action is true if
and only if one succeeds in performing that action by
making that public statement,
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, ihope wrote:
This is 6 FOR, 5 AGAINST, 1 PRESENT.
Congratulations, Elliott Hird, you're a player.
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
I believe I retracted my FOR vote and voted AGAINST. Please re-check.
-Goethe
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 12:03 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
Taral wrote:
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 9:43 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
c) A public statement that one performs an action is true if
and only if one
On Mon, 2008-07-14 at 09:04 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, ihope wrote:
This is 6 FOR, 5 AGAINST, 1 PRESENT.
Congratulations, Elliott Hird, you're a player.
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
I believe I retracted my FOR vote and voted AGAINST. Please re-check.
-Goethe
Maybe,
2008/7/14 Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I retract my previous claim of error, I forgot to search for other people
voting on my behalf (below). -goethe
phew
On Monday 14 July 2008 11:02:04 am Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Ben Caplan wrote:
On Sunday 13 July 2008 11:43:28 pm Ed Murphy wrote:
A public claim intended to mislead others (whether directly
or indirectly) regarding one's identity constitutes a false
statement, and
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 8:55 AM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:50 AM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 8:30 AM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I create a Digit Ranch (land #111) with a Seed of 1 and a WRV in the
possession of
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Sgeo wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 12:03 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As an Officer, I've been forced by one Rule's asap to attempt to perform
actions that I knew for a fact (due to another rule) would fail. -goethe
Details for the curious please?
A
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Ben Caplan wrote:
On Monday 14 July 2008 11:02:04 am Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Ben Caplan wrote:
On Sunday 13 July 2008 11:43:28 pm Ed Murphy wrote:
A public claim intended to mislead others (whether directly
or indirectly) regarding one's identity
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 1:15 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Upon the adoption of this proposal, ehird deregisters emself by announcement.
If this would be effective, this would create a whole new ugly
precedent of This proposal says you say you do, therefore you say you
do and do.
On Mon, 2008-07-14 at 12:28 -0500, Ben Caplan wrote:
On Monday 14 July 2008 12:21:10 pm Elliott Hird wrote:
2008/7/14 comex [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Proposal: a probably unsuccessful attempt at deregistering ehird
because I forgot to vote AGAINST 5582
Stop being a dick.
I support ehird's
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 1:15 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Proposal: a probably unsuccessful attempt at deregistering ehird
because I forgot to vote AGAINST 5582
Upon the adoption of this proposal, ehird deregisters emself by announcement.
Please make it ehird is deregistered and wait
2008/7/14 ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 1:15 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Proposal: a probably unsuccessful attempt at deregistering ehird
because I forgot to vote AGAINST 5582
Upon the adoption of this proposal, ehird deregisters emself by announcement.
Please make
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 2:33 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe the power threshold for causing a message to be sent is 2.
My reasoning: it's established that a contract can allow other people
to act on behalf of its parties. As I understand it, this is implied
by the fact that if
On Mon, 2008-07-14 at 15:11 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
I become bound to the following contract:
{{
1. The name of this contract is Welcoming Committee. This is a
public contract under the rules of Agora and a pledge.
2. Parties to this contract SHALL NOT terminate it, amend it, or
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 3:27 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's not really that much of a stretch to let contracts do that stuff,
especially considering the analogy with partnerships.
In fact, if I'm blind, preventing me from delegating the
responsibility to use email clients to a
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, comex wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 2:54 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's a good thing we ratify things.
In CFJ 1695, it was ruled that not allowing partnerships to act
infringes the right of participation in the fora of the partnership.
This does not apply in
2008/7/14 Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
For the current case, I think I act on behalf of myself is what a
speech act is by definition; whenever we say I do X we are implicitly
saying that we are acting on behalf of ourselves. So the pledge is
a tautology, I act on behalf of myself to do X
On Monday 14 July 2008 02:29:45 pm comex wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 3:27 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's not really that much of a stretch to let contracts do that
stuff, especially considering the analogy with partnerships.
In fact, if I'm blind, preventing me from delegating
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Ben Caplan wrote:
On Monday 14 July 2008 03:06:54 pm Roger Hicks wrote:
To pave the way for future changes as have been discussed:
With the majority consent of the Vote Market parties I intend to
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 3:27 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In CFJ 1695, it was ruled that not allowing partnerships to act
infringes the right of participation in the fora of the partnership.
This does not apply in the case of first-class players acting on
behalf of each other, which is
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 2:19 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, comex wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 2:54 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's a good thing we ratify things.
In CFJ 1695, it was ruled that not allowing partnerships to act
infringes the right of
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 2:32 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 3:27 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In CFJ 1695, it was ruled that not allowing partnerships to act
infringes the right of participation in the fora of the partnership.
This does not apply in the case
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
SPLIT DECISION should be evaluated as follows:
---
for (int i = 0; i myevlod/2; i ++)
{
vote FOR;
vote AGAINST;
}
vote PRESENT;
---
In other words, you vote cycle [FOR, AGAINST]?
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:18 PM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I intend to test the above but, instead of a secretary I will have a
friend send a message though my e-mail account, registering emself.
I think that this would be similar to CFJ 1719. However, if you asked
your friend to perform
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If a proposal is Democratic I vote FOR it.
If a proposal is written by me I vote FORx5 on it.
if a proposal does not fit into the above two categories I vote SPLIT
DECISION on it.
SPLIT DECISION should be evaluated as follows:
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 9:45 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Either the sky is always red or, if I do not hereby initiate an
inquiry case on this sentence, then the sky is always green.
I don't believe you believe that.
-root
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 9:55 PM, Ben Caplan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 13 July 2008 10:45:42 pm ihope wrote:
Either the sky is always red or, if I do not hereby initiate an
inquiry case on this sentence, then the sky is always green.
(R v (~I = G))
Since ~G, it follows that I
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:51 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 9:55 PM, Ben Caplan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 13 July 2008 10:45:42 pm ihope wrote:
Either the sky is always red or, if I do not hereby initiate an
inquiry case on this sentence, then the sky
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 3:39 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
SPLIT DECISION should be evaluated as follows:
---
for (int i = 0; i myevlod/2; i ++)
{
vote FOR;
vote AGAINST;
}
vote PRESENT;
---
In other words, you
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 4:57 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:51 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 9:55 PM, Ben Caplan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 13 July 2008 10:45:42 pm ihope wrote:
Either the sky is always red or, if I do not
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I initiate a criminal case against the CotC (Murphy) for violating
R2019 by not assigning the Default Justice (myself) to be member of
this appeals panel.
Seriously? In my experience, Default Justice is a curse, not a
comex wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If a proposal is Democratic I vote FOR it.
If a proposal is written by me I vote FORx5 on it.
if a proposal does not fit into the above two categories I vote SPLIT
DECISION on it.
SPLIT DECISION should be
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I initiate a criminal case against the CotC (Murphy) for violating
R2019 by not assigning the Default Justice (myself) to be member of
this appeals panel.
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 4:16 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 4:42 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If a proposal is Democratic I vote FOR it.
If a proposal is written by me I vote FORx5 on it.
if
On Monday 14 July 2008 05:51:06 pm Ian Kelly wrote:
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 9:55 PM, Ben Caplan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 13 July 2008 10:45:42 pm ihope wrote:
Either the sky is always red or, if I do not hereby initiate an
inquiry case on this sentence, then the sky is always
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 7:06 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As an aside, your statement could also be parsed as (I = (R ^ ~G)) ^
(~I = (~R ^ G)), which is false for any assignment of I.
Assuming ^ is XOR and R and G are both false, that expression you
devised is false for all I. The
On Monday 14 July 2008 06:09:59 pm Ian Kelly wrote:
Seriously? In my experience, Default Justice is a curse, not a
bonus.
Perhaps we should have some way to abdicate prerogatives; they are
theoretically supposed to be rewards, I think.
On Monday 14 July 2008 06:22:28 pm ihope wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 7:06 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
As an aside, your statement could also be parsed as (I = (R ^
~G)) ^ (~I = (~R ^ G)), which is false for any assignment of I.
Assuming ^ is XOR and R and G are both false,
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 4:39 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Proposal: Prerogatives imply choice
(AI = 2, please)
Amend Rule 2019 (Prerogatives) by replacing section b) with this text:
b) Justiciar. Within three days after an appeal case comes to
require a judge, the
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 4:45 PM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 4:39 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Proposal: Prerogatives imply choice
(AI = 2, please)
Amend Rule 2019 (Prerogatives) by replacing section b) with this text:
b) Justiciar. Within three
On Monday 14 July 2008 06:45:00 pm Quazie wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 4:39 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Proposal: Prerogatives imply choice
(AI = 2, please)
Amend Rule 2019 (Prerogatives) by replacing section b) with this
text:
b) Justiciar. Within three days
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, ihope wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For the current case, I think I act on behalf of myself is what a
speech act is by definition; whenever we say I do X we are implicitly
saying that we are acting on behalf of ourselves. So
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 7:53 PM, Ben Caplan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 14 July 2008 06:45:00 pm Quazie wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 4:39 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
b) Justiciar. Within three days after an appeal case comes
to require a judge, the Justiciar CAN declare
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 7:16 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
for (int i = 0; i myevlod/2; i ++)
{
vote FOR;
vote AGAINST;
}
vote PRESENT;
It seems clear enough too me.
For one thing, Quazie's EVLOD is 5, right?
On Monday 14 July 2008 06:57:43 pm ihope wrote:
Unless the CotC did something stupid, like act on behalf of the
Justiciar to say both.
Which, in the Spirit of the Game, is not at all implausible.
On Jul 14, 2008, at 7:04 PM, Quazie wrote:
The proposal was an ordinary proposal. Thus, I can vote up to my
evlod on it. Thus i vote an equal number of FORs and AGAINSTs and if
there are any left over I vote PRESENT.
Then maybe we should define SUPPOSE as exactly that simple wording.
-
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 5:39 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 7:16 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
for (int i = 0; i myevlod/2; i ++)
{
vote FOR;
vote AGAINST;
}
vote PRESENT;
It seems
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 5:53 PM, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 14, 2008, at 12:40 AM, Quazie wrote:
(upgrading and downgrading lands)
Will the consecutive integers wrap around? May I harvest 89X0 to upgrade a
land?
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr
Goodness,
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 5:32 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I tell my secretary to type something and press send, e will use my
email address and put my name on it; e will have sent it, but I will
have written it and consented to its being sent under my name. The
rules say that the
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:07 PM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 5:39 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 7:16 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
for (int i = 0; i myevlod/2; i
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 4:06 PM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Assuming I'm a Banker Without 3 proto-objections I proto-change the
RBOA contract as follows:
---
Add the following to the end for the RBOA conract:
9. Whenever a Player transfers a Mill to the Bank of Agora, and the
I still need 3 more votes on whether to lynch Pavitra.
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:35 PM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 4:06 PM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Assuming I'm a Banker Without 3 proto-objections I proto-change the
RBOA contract as follows:
---
Add the following to the end for the RBOA conract:
Quazie wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 4:45 PM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 4:39 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Proposal: Prerogatives imply choice
(AI = 2, please)
Amend Rule 2019 (Prerogatives) by replacing section b) with this text:
b)
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 5:56 PM, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The action in question was failure to act in accordance with the contract,
and I draft rule that root did not commit such a failure. INNOCENT seems
correct here.
Would it help if we just merged the two options?
Well,
comex wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 7:16 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
for (int i = 0; i myevlod/2; i ++)
{
vote FOR;
vote AGAINST;
}
vote PRESENT;
It seems clear enough too me.
For one thing, Quazie's
Taral wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 5:56 PM, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The action in question was failure to act in accordance with the contract,
and I draft rule that root did not commit such a failure. INNOCENT seems
correct here.
Would it help if we just merged the two
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:57 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I thought I'd protoed a new judgement for X did something that
violates Z - OVERGENERAL, perhaps? Feel free to propose it.
I though put in a proposal to require people to specify which action
violates the rule...
--
Taral
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:52 PM, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, the problem is that there's two ways to phrase the CFJ:
X did Y that violates Z -- UNIMPUGNED
X did something that violates Z -- INNOCENT(?)
Now that's just confusing. Officially the rule violated isn't even
part of the
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:07 PM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 5:53 PM, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 14, 2008, at 12:40 AM, Quazie wrote:
Will the consecutive integers wrap around? May I harvest 89X0 to upgrade a
land?
Goodness, never thought of
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 8:01 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
{action=X violated Z by Y, rule=Z} -- INNOCENT
This looks like UNIMPUGNED to me.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 11:57 PM, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 8:01 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
{action=X violated Z by Y, rule=Z} -- INNOCENT
This looks like UNIMPUGNED to me.
It's INNOCENT if the action, X violated Z by Y, did not occur,
UNIMPUGNED if X
On Monday 14 July 2008 08:41:47 pm Ed Murphy wrote:
I still need 3 more votes on whether to lynch Pavitra.
May I suggest no. (I posted what I think are fairly reasonable
arguments why to do so some time back.)
87 matches
Mail list logo
