On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 15:43 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
ais523 wrote:
I took on Registrar because nobody else seemed to want it, but I'm not
too attached to it really. It's not even as if I get anything for doing
it (as both Notary and Mad Scientist earn me the same pitch of note).
Apart
On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 17:06 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
I actually considered nominating myself when I saw the options, but
I'd have to wait for the current election to end. Besides, the
Monster might actually make an interesting Registrar.
Would the
On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 09:26 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 1:09 AM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
LIST OF ASSETS (organized by backing document / recordkeepor)
CoE: this list omits chaos (a currency) and the Sacred Chao (a fixed asset).
(Rule 2181 requires a
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 9:57 AM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 09:26 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 1:09 AM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
LIST OF ASSETS (organized by backing document / recordkeepor)
CoE: this list omits chaos (a
On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 23:17 -0400, ihope wrote:
I submit a proposal, adoption index 1 and title Genocide I: Remove
all instances of a letter H in all power-1 rules and titles of said
rules.
I strongly recommend all Agorans to avoid all use of H in future
messages except if necessary.
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 9:54 AM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Further arguments: this is an obviously NetHack-themed pledge which
attempts to redefine 'ascend', possibly to scam ihope out of an
equation.
Seems to me that the type of ascension defined by that contract is
quite a bit harder
On 15 Oct 2008, at 15:13, ais523 wrote:
I join the PBA. I PBA-deposit an 8 crop. I PBA-withdraw a 4 crop.
(Yay, the PBA's first actual crop trade, as opposed to mere deposits!)
--
ais523
You now have a 4 crop, and the PBA has none. The PBA now has an 8
crop. You have no
coins.
All
On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 10:15 -0400, comex wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 9:54 AM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Further arguments: this is an obviously NetHack-themed pledge which
attempts to redefine 'ascend', possibly to scam ihope out of an
equation.
Seems to me that the type of
On 15 Oct 2008, at 01:13, Charles Reiss wrote:
This time, hopefully with effect:
I PBA-deposit a 0 crop. I PBA-deposit a 4 crop.
-woggle
All works out nicely. You have 26 coins.
--
ehird
On 15 Oct 2008, at 15:29, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
I join the People's Bank.
I PBA-deposit two 0 crops.
I PBA-withdraw an 8 crop.
--Wooble
You now have 10 coins and an 8 crop.
0 crop rate = 11, qty = 3
8 crop rate = 14, qty = 0
--
ehird
On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 20:09 -0400, ihope wrote:
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 4:18 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 2:26 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here and Gone Again: a Registrar's Report
Date of this Report: Thu 9 Oct 2008
Date of last Report: Fri 3 Oct
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 10:42 AM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 20:09 -0400, ihope wrote:
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 4:18 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 2:26 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here and Gone Again: a Registrar's Report
Date
On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 11:10 -0400, ihope wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 10:42 AM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 20:09 -0400, ihope wrote:
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 4:18 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 2:26 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 11:18 AM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 8:09 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Without objection, I intend to ratify the excerpted report.
Without objection, I ratify the excerpted report.
CoE: you might not have been a player when
On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 08:26 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I submit the following proposal, Toughen Ratifiation, AI-3:
--
[Ratification has been the source of scams lately. Too much traffic
to check all reports well. Thus,
On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 11:34 -0400, ihope wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 11:29 AM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think you should probably also make ratification self-ratifying; that
is, ratifications self-ratify as having worked. Otherwise, we could end
up in meta-ratification mixups...
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 11:29 AM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think you should probably also make ratification self-ratifying; that
is, ratifications self-ratify as having worked. Otherwise, we could end
up in meta-ratification mixups...
It would be weird if all self-ratifications were
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 9:12 AM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You just ratified oklopol as a player, the Monster as a player, and
Zefram as on hold.
The important thing is that I ratified myself as a player.
Wow, I missed that one altogether. A nice trivial scam...
Is it even possible
On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 10:35 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 9:12 AM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You just ratified oklopol as a player, the Monster as a player, and
Zefram as on hold.
The important thing is that I ratified myself as a player.
Wow, I missed that
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 9:12 AM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You just ratified oklopol as a player, the Monster as a player, and
Zefram as on hold.
The important thing is that I ratified myself as a player.
Wow, I
On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 10:35 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 9:12 AM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You just ratified oklopol as a player, the Monster as a player, and
Zefram as on hold.
The important thing is that I ratified myself as a player.
Wow, I missed that
On 15 Oct 2008, at 15:05, ais523 wrote:
I intend, without objection, to make the IRC channel ##nomic on the
IRC
server irc://irc.freenode.net:6667 a Discussion Forum.
I proto-object. I don't think ##nomic should be tied to anything -
it's an unofficial,
non-partisian service.
--
ehird
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 10:39 AM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think R101's relevant here when a contract isn't involved (one
was in the case of CFJ 1856). It would, probably, prevent me ratifying
the IIB as a player, as its personness is in doubt for
contract-law-related reasons.
On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 10:44 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 10:39 AM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think R101's relevant here when a contract isn't involved (one
was in the case of CFJ 1856). It would, probably, prevent me ratifying
the IIB as a player, as its
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 9:52 AM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the Mad Scientist would be required to act on behalf of the
Monster to publish on time (publishing a report is something the Monster
SHALL do if it's an officeholdor). There isn't an obvious Monsterkeepor,
although we
Goethe wrote:
Append the following sentence to R2202:
A player SHALL NOT ratify nor support the ratification
of a report e knows to be false.
This criminalizes ratification to patch over errors that no one is
much interested in fixing another way. In such cases, the defendant
comex wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 9:52 AM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the Mad Scientist would be required to act on behalf of the
Monster to publish on time (publishing a report is something the Monster
SHALL do if it's an officeholdor). There isn't an obvious Monsterkeepor,
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 12:39 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Goethe wrote:
Append the following sentence to R2202:
A player SHALL NOT ratify nor support the ratification
of a report e knows to be false.
This criminalizes ratification to patch over errors that no one is
On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 14:59 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
I intend, without objection, to ratify the portion of this report
purporting to list the current holders of offices (so that when the
Monster elections are resolved, throwing the game into an ugly split
state depending on whether it's a
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 9:26 AM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 11:18 AM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 8:09 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Without objection, I intend to ratify the excerpted report.
Without objection, I ratify the
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 1:30 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe we should also pragmatise ratification, making it any person who
can ratify rather than any player.
FOR
-root
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 1:33 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 1:30 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe we should also pragmatise ratification, making it any person who
can ratify rather than any player.
FOR
Of course, the natural next crisis from here is
On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 15:40 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 6:05 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I act on behalf of the Monster to deputise for the IADoP to resolve the
Agoran Decision to choose the holder of the Mad Scientist option as
follows:
CoE: there is no
On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 16:16 -0400, ihope wrote:
I object to everything I can object to. I support everything I can support.
Please, retract those objections and supports. It makes things (like the
AAA contract changes) much harder to work out.
--
ais523
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 12:39 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Goethe wrote:
Append the following sentence to R2202:
A player SHALL NOT ratify nor support the ratification
of a report e knows to be false.
This criminalizes ratification
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 10:39 AM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think R101's relevant here when a contract isn't involved (one
was in the case of CFJ 1856). It would, probably, prevent me ratifying
the IIB as a player, as its personness is in
On Wednesday 15 October 2008 07:18:58 pm Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 12:39 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
Goethe wrote:
Append the following sentence to R2202:
A player SHALL NOT ratify nor support the ratification
of a report e knows to
ais523 wrote:
On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 20:09 -0400, ihope wrote:
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 4:18 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 2:26 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here and Gone Again: a Registrar's Report
Date of this Report: Thu 9 Oct 2008
Date of last Report:
38 matches
Mail list logo
