Ed Murphy wrote:
The Corleone Partnership here announces that it is sending 0x44 and
comex to "sleep with the fishes".
I protest, those fish don't look anywhere near of legal age.
--
--
0x44;
Warrigal wrote:
> If I'm not mistaken, it's been at least 29 days and 30 nights since I
> last deregistered. Therefore, I would like to register.
I think this fails; it was published on 11/6 at 01:35:00 UTC, you
deregistered on 10/7 at 21:15:29 UTC.
BobTHJ wrote:
> On Proposals 5842 to 5941, I vote FOR x 8 if the proposal number is
> divisible by at least three of the first five primes, otherwise
> AGAINST x 8.
For convenience, the proposal numbers meeting the condition for FOR
are 5850, 5852, 5874, 5880, 5910, 5922, and 5940.
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 12:51 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I initiate an inquiry case on the following statements:
Fails? This is what linked CFJs are for.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 20:05, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BobTHJ wrote:
>
>> And the purpose of the scam is? I don't get it.
>
> "Vote for these and I'll be obligated to give you a share of the
> points", I think.
>
It doesn't work. Contests can only award points to their members...so
on
BobTHJ wrote:
> And the purpose of the scam is? I don't get it.
"Vote for these and I'll be obligated to give you a share of the
points", I think.
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 17:59, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6 Nov 2008, at 00:58, comex wrote:
>
>> With ehird and my own agreement, I make these changes.
>
>
> I did agree, via private mail.
>
> I also agreed to all the other contracts there.
>
And the purpose of the scam is? I don'
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 9:04 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> end hypothetical message */
I was going to do that but ehird vetoed it, due to concerns that it
might fail due to the excessive number of contracts (see:
Sparta-).
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 9:06 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Warrigal wrote:
>
>> ais523, I am surprised to see you publishing a Cantus Cygneus. Why did
>> you leave so spontaneously?
>
> E is not, by any reasonable interpretation, submitting it to the
> Registrar.
You're right, I guess.
Warrigal wrote:
> ais523, I am surprised to see you publishing a Cantus Cygneus. Why did
> you leave so spontaneously?
E is not, by any reasonable interpretation, submitting it to the
Registrar.
> (Are Cantuses Cygneus, or whatever the plural is, still broken?)
No, Rule 1789's power has been in
comex wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 8:09 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Is there a point to all of this?
> Yes.
> Lots of points.
Pun aside, is there a purpose (other than "because we thought it would
be cool") to the annoying extra verbiage, as opposed to the following?
/* begin
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 8:43 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 7:58 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On
>> behalf of Registrar ais523: ais523 publishes this Cantus Cygneus:
> ais523, I am surprised to see you publishing a Cantus Cygneus. Why did
> you leave so s
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 7:58 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On
> behalf of Registrar ais523: ais523 publishes this Cantus Cygneus: {NO!
> What is this? Who am I? A useless partnership, formed only as a
> bribe. Why did you submit me, evil comex? Will I even pass? If I fail,
> how will I sur
Regarding all this, I expect that it would be appropriate to add a new
R101 right, along the lines of "Every player/person has the right to
formally petition the people of Agora for redress of grievances." The
trappee could submit a proposal (the formal petition) to terminate the
contract, and the
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 8:09 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there a point to all of this?
Yes.
Lots of points.
On 6 Nov 2008, at 01:13, Ian Kelly wrote:
I object to all dependent actions that were buried in comex's message
titled "sheer cruelty (and lots of points)".
There are none, as far as I can tell.
--
ehird
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 5:54 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Then a good summary of
> my next message
>is P(x), for x
> from 2 to 100.
Is there a point to all of this?
-root
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 2:35 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Why? The judgement doesn't contradict CFJ 1307. If you want to
>> reverse the CFJ 1307 precedent, call a new case.
>
> The arguments explicitly do. Judge Wo
On 6 Nov 2008, at 00:58, comex wrote:
With ehird and my own agreement, I make these changes.
I did agree, via private mail.
I also agreed to all the other contracts there.
--
ehird
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 6:42 PM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anyway, I publish the following Writ of FAGE:
I thank you,
Registrar,
you who have ensured
that I follow the Rules,
and you.
But when I said
That there were many more to
On Wednesday 05 November 2008 06:38:54 pm Ed Murphy wrote:
> Pavitra wrote:
> > On Wednesday 05 November 2008 03:29:17 pm comex wrote:
> >> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 3:48 PM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > wrote:
> >>> I intend, with 2 support, to initiate a criminal case against
> >>> ehird t
ais523 wrote:
> although
> it used to be impossible to use power of attorney to deregister someone
> (although you could do anything else with it as long as you didn't
> violate R101), the modern version seems to allow deregistration (for
> instance when ehird was ripped apart by walnuts). (Note t
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 7:42 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Depends on whether comex means "we do not have perfect information
> before it is judged" or "we do not have perfect information even after
> it is allegedly judged (because the allegation could be wrong)". I
> assume e meant t
Wooble wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 4:35 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Why? The judgement doesn't contradict CFJ 1307. If you want to
>>> reverse the CFJ 1307 precedent, call a new case.
>> The arguments expli
Pavitra wrote:
> On Wednesday 05 November 2008 03:29:17 pm comex wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 3:48 PM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>> I intend, with 2 support, to initiate a criminal case against
>>> ehird the first-class player for violating rule 2170 in the above
>>> message by
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 4:35 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Why? The judgement doesn't contradict CFJ 1307. If you want to
>> reverse the CFJ 1307 precedent, call a new case.
>
> The arguments explicitly do. Judge Wo
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 5:07 PM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It is probably worth mentioning that some of
> the relevant language (to do with Executors) is still left in rule 2170,
> although it no longer seems to have an effect on the rules.
Actually, R2170's definition of Executor is
On 5 Nov 2008, at 23:36, comex wrote:
which ehird and I have
privately agreed to.
Yep.
--
ehird
On 5 Nov 2008, at 23:18, comex wrote:
For P1,
a public contract between ehird and me,
Confirmed.
--
ehird
On Wed, 2008-11-05 at 23:10 +, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 12:06 -0800, Charles Reiss wrote:
> > I submit the following Sell Ticket:
> > Cost: AUCTION
> > Action: In a timely fashion after waters rights are enforced in
> > December, transfer min(400, floor(Z * 1.5)) coins to the f
On Mon, 2008-11-03 at 11:01 -0700, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 8:12 AM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I call an equity case relating to the Vote Market which (according to
> > the notary, although it seems to omit me, so I added myself) has the
> > following parties:
> > BobTHJ,
On Sun, 2008-11-02 at 12:41 -0600, Pavitra wrote:
> On Sunday 26 October 2008 11:30:38 am Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On Sun, 26 Oct 2008, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > > On Sat, 25 Oct 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> > >> Revisiting my B.N. thesis (11/29/07) on partnerships, I've
> > >> identified the following gene
On Wednesday 05 November 2008 02:51:48 pm Ed Murphy wrote:
> I initiate an inquiry case on the following statements:
>
> Creating a contract in a public message constitutes an
> implicit but nevertheless clear indication that it will be public
> when it forms, unless published with an explici
On Wednesday 05 November 2008 03:29:17 pm comex wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 3:48 PM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > I intend, with 2 support, to initiate a criminal case against
> > ehird the first-class player for violating rule 2170 in the above
> > message by choosing a nickname
On 5 Nov 2008, at 21:28, Roger Hicks wrote:
Any chance you could special case either the RBOA transactions or the
non-RBOA transactions for past events? Constantly re-writing past game
history kind of sucks. Feel free to adopt whatever policy you wish
going forward...it's just the past items tha
On Sun, 2008-11-02 at 08:14 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
> == CFJ 2246 ==
>
> CFJ 2245 was retracted.
>
>
Very long proto-judge's-arguments that don't even come to a
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 14:07, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5 Nov 2008, at 20:47, Roger Hicks wrote:
>
>> Our reports were in agreement yesterday. Any chance you can remedy this?
>
>
> Either transfers do as much as possible, or fail if it's not exact.
>
> Due to the RBoA, I have now
root wrote:
> Couldn't Airstrip One be reinstated just by having Murphy re-agree to
> it as a public pledge, with provisions for initializing props as they
> would be if the contract had been continuous?
I'll do that if the CFJs are judged in favor of it having terminated.
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why? The judgement doesn't contradict CFJ 1307. If you want to
> reverse the CFJ 1307 precedent, call a new case.
The arguments explicitly do. Judge Wooble uses "I award a Bean to the
player who first assigned a judgment to
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 3:48 PM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I intend, with 2 support, to initiate a criminal case against ehird the
> first-class player for violating rule 2170 in the above message by
> choosing a nickname that had generally been used to refer to another
> entity (namel
On 5 Nov 2008, at 20:47, Roger Hicks wrote:
Our reports were in agreement yesterday. Any chance you can remedy
this?
Either transfers do as much as possible, or fail if it's not exact.
Due to the RBoA, I have now picked the former.
--
ehird
On 5 Nov 2008, at 20:35, Alex Smith wrote:
I support. Not that I think ihope is Dvorak, though, but randomly
claiming to be em is still against the rules. Leave that sort of thing
to spoon-discussion not agora-business, please.
--
ais523
Further reinforcing the non-funness of Agora.
--
ehir
On Wednesday 05 November 2008 02:46:03 am Ed Murphy wrote:
> I inform the parties of the AAA of this case:
> http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2255
I suggest waiting to see whether the current W3O attempt to fix the
contract goes through, and then evaluating the equitability of
ais523 wrote:
> Wasn't proposal 5810 just a proposal to import the critical-mass rule
> into B, though, given the circumstances? Proposal 5777 had already
> passed, and I don't think Agorans would be likely to have missed its
> significance. I've been approving Monster proposals due to significanc
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 1:44 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
>
>> CoE: At the time of this report, Airstrip One did not exist. (I've been
>> going through my records; it was a private pledge with one party before
>> proposal 5817 passed, and thus became a private contract wi
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 13:44, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
>
>> CoE: At the time of this report, Airstrip One did not exist. (I've been
>> going through my records; it was a private pledge with one party before
>> proposal 5817 passed, and thus became a private contract with
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 15:18, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 4 Nov 2008, at 22:13, Roger Hicks wrote:
>
>> therefore the RBOA rules for transactions apply, not the PBAs
>
>
> That's a great way to cause mass confusion.
>
> So now I get to special-case the RBoA in my program...
>
Er...
On Wed, 2008-11-05 at 12:42 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Taral wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 8:48 AM, Elliott Hird
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Without 2 objections I intend to cause the Monster to repeal rules 2214,
> >> 2192 and 2193.
> >
> > I object.
>
> I also object. Proposal 58
ais523 wrote:
> CoE: At the time of this report, Airstrip One did not exist. (I've been
> going through my records; it was a private pledge with one party before
> proposal 5817 passed, and thus became a private contract with one party
> afterwards and ceased to exist due to coming to have insuffi
On Wed, 2008-11-05 at 20:39 +, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-11-01 at 20:14 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > I call for judgement on the following statement:
> >All non-public pledges that existed at the time of passage
> >of Proposal 5817 are null and void (i.e. no longer exist).
> As
On Sat, 2008-11-01 at 20:14 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I call for judgement on the following statement:
>All non-public pledges that existed at the time of passage
>of Proposal 5817 are null and void (i.e. no longer exist).
As Notary, I've been acting as if this were TRUE, although I have
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 12:23, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 8:43 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I redeem a set of credits (Eb, G, Bb) specifying that Taral spend the
>> corresponding notes to increase my caste.
>
> Need some on-behalf-of logic in that cont
On 5 Nov 2008, at 19:36, Alex Smith wrote:
Why? This is basically just fixing a buggy proposal via Monster. It'll
be fixed by proposal otherwise, but this way is faster.
Agora nationalism?
--
ehird
On Wed, 2008-11-05 at 11:28 -0800, Taral wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 8:48 AM, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Without 2 objections I intend to cause the Monster to repeal rules 2214,
> > 2192 and 2193.
>
> I object.
>
Why? This is basically just fixing a buggy proposal via Monst
ais523 wrote:
> What's happening to the Werewolves contract at the moment? As far as I
> can tell, there's no current session, but there ought to be.
I need to clean up the cross-nomic-game-with-B language, I'll probably
get to it tonight (I was waiting for B to get out of emergency but that
happ
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 10:48, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 12:43 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I see my AddUser proposal at PerlNomic was rejected. Any chance that
>> could be reversed? I'm interested in joining for legitimate reasons.
>
> You'v
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 9:54 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 9:29 AM, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 5 Nov 2008, at 16:00, comex wrote:
>>
>>> I transfer one prop from BobTHJ to CotC Murphy for this.
>>
>>
>> I transfer one prop from BobTHJ to CotC
On 5 Nov 2008, at 17:48, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
You've stated publicly that you don't know perl and your request was
made shortly after you bribed a partner to cause the PNP to distribute
a proposal for you. I think it was probably a fair inference that you
wanted to join so you could have the p
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 12:43 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I see my AddUser proposal at PerlNomic was rejected. Any chance that
> could be reversed? I'm interested in joining for legitimate reasons.
You've stated publicly that you don't know perl and your request was
made shortly af
I see my AddUser proposal at PerlNomic was rejected. Any chance that
could be reversed? I'm interested in joining for legitimate reasons.
BobTHJ
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 9:23 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 3:31 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2238
>>
>> == CFJ 2238 ==
>>
>>When a pe
On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 14:30 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> BobTHJ wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 14:43, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I agree to the following: { This is a pledge. If BobTHJ has filled
> >> the Get Out of Jail Free Card, then e CAN act on my behalf to assign
> >> a judg
On 5 Nov 2008, at 16:43, Roger Hicks wrote:
I deposit four 0 crops and eleven 4 crops in the PBA.
I PBA-withdraw a C Credit, E Credit, and a G Credit.
Works fine.
--
ehird
What's happening to the Werewolves contract at the moment? As far as I
can tell, there's no current session, but there ought to be.
--
ais523
On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 11:36 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:24 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I intend, with the consent of ehird, to amend the Protection Racket
> > Agreement to add:
> > {{ 15. ehird CAN act on behalf of BobTHJ to retract any Equity Cas
On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 16:37 -0800, Charles Reiss wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 16:30, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 7:12 PM, Elliott Hird
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I repeal rules 2214, 2192 and 2193.
> >
> > This fails because you are not an instrument (see
On 5 Nov 2008, at 15:48, Ed Murphy wrote:
Someone suggested in ##nomic (I think you were AFK)
comex, I think.
--
ehird
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 10:22 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> why is it voting for everything
I just tweaked it a little based on what we discussed on IRC:
Created commit 9b8f612: use *H* instead of spambayes' weird algorithm
(SORRY EHIRD FOR COMMITTING AS BAYES)
1 files changed, 4
ehird wrote:
> On 5 Nov 2008, at 12:34, Bayes wrote:
>
>> Bayes votes as follows:
>>
>>> 5837 O 1 1.0 Murphy The rules command you
>> FOR*8 (60% sure)
>>
>>> 5838 O 0 1.0 ais523 Reformed Bank of Agora
>> FOR*8 (50% sure)
>>
>> --
>> bayes 2008-11-02 18:44:42 +
>
>
On 5 Nov 2008, at 12:34, Bayes wrote:
Bayes votes as follows:
5837 O 1 1.0 Murphy The rules command you
FOR*8 (60% sure)
5838 O 0 1.0 ais523 Reformed Bank of Agora
FOR*8 (50% sure)
--
bayes 2008-11-02 18:44:42 +
why is it voting for everything
--
ehird
I wrote:
> Assessor will require adding date_resolved and was_adopted columns
> (and I'll have to see how many levels of endorse/denounce I can automate
> in a reasonably simple fashion).
http://zenith.homelinux.net/assessor/notes.php
("%-25s %-40s %s %s %s", date, name, number, interest inde
71 matches
Mail list logo
