coppro wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
coppro wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2405
You can't assign OscarMeyr, as e's sitting.
E changed from supine to sitting on March 15, then the bench was rotated
on March 19 (making em standing), then e became
On Tue, 2009-03-24 at 18:46 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
Alex Smith wrote:
READ ME by ais523:
Oh drat, I made a mistake! New answer (suffers no ambiguities!):
8414004
Answers only count if submitted privately. (You've made this bad enough,
make sure that your answer officially counts as it
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 9:11 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn
jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote:
Add the following after the third section of rule 2148 (the ambassador):
If a foreign nomic allows for one player to join on behalf of Agora,
only the ambassador may do so. The ambassador MAY then, without 3
ais523 wrote:
I intend to appeal CFJ 2426 with 2 support, because its reasoning is
based on that of CFJs 2424 and 2425, and they should therefore be
appealed as a set or not at all.
ITYM 2423.
On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 06:24 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
ais523 wrote:
I intend to appeal CFJ 2426 with 2 support, because its reasoning is
based on that of CFJs 2424 and 2425, and they should therefore be
appealed as a set or not at all.
ITYM 2423.
Oh, I misread your message, and thought
On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 10:27 -0400, comex wrote:
Testing, sorry for the spam
I object.
(Sorry, couldn't resist...)
--
ais523
On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 10:16 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 2:49 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
/me considers sending Enigma puzzles via private email to all
contestants to avoid a repeat of this sort of thing in the future...
-1, if non-contestants don't see the
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 2:49 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
/me considers sending Enigma puzzles via private email to all
contestants to avoid a repeat of this sort of thing in the future...
-1, if non-contestants don't see the puzzles until it's too late, then
they have less
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009, comex wrote:
Testing, sorry for the spam
Uh oh... any time-sensitive cron activities coming up...
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009, comex wrote:
Testing, sorry for the spam
Uh oh... any time-sensitive cron activities coming up...
Oh I'm sorry, that came out wrong. I'm meant to be Cassandra...
BEWARE.THE IDES.OF CRON...
2009/3/25 comex com...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 9:11 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn
jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote:
Add the following after the third section of rule 2148 (the ambassador):
If a foreign nomic allows for one player to join on behalf of Agora,
only the ambassador may do so. The
On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 19:12 +0100, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
Okay, I guess I didn't really know exactly what was allowed since I
just read outline changes to the gamestate. The only thing I can see
that would stop it is that it requires higher power than the 1 it gets
from adoption index, but
2009/3/25 Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk:
On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 19:12 +0100, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
Okay, I guess I didn't really know exactly what was allowed since I
just read outline changes to the gamestate. The only thing I can see
that would stop it is that it requires higher power than
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
although I can imagine a proposal creating a
platonic, power-1 obligation floating around in nomicspace somewhere...
It's called Invisibilitating and it is actually still a Crime, as
far as I know! So do it at your own risk!
-Goethe
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote:
But if I don't want to clutter the ruleset with If Agora has not
joined Internomic 2, the ambassador SHALL join internomic 2 in a
timely fashion, how should I do?
...the ambassador SHALL join Internomic 2 in a
comex wrote:
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote:
But if I don't want to clutter the ruleset with If Agora has not
joined Internomic 2, the ambassador SHALL join internomic 2 in a
timely fashion, how should I do?
...the ambassador SHALL join
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009, comex wrote:
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote:
But if I don't want to clutter the ruleset with If Agora has not
joined Internomic 2, the ambassador SHALL join internomic 2 in a
timely fashion, how should I do?
...the
ais523 wrote:
On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 10:16 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 2:49 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
/me considers sending Enigma puzzles via private email to all
contestants to avoid a repeat of this sort of thing in the future...
-1, if non-contestants
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
CoE: No CoE was submitted; the March 15 report has since self-ratified.
Taral has two Rests more than e should.
Yay!
--
Taral tar...@gmail.com
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
2009/3/25 Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com:
You could put them on a web page and announce the URL.
Aaargh! Think of the archivists!
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009, Taral wrote:
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
CoE: No CoE was submitted; the March 15 report has since self-ratified.
Taral has two Rests more than e should.
Yay!
I don't mind this at all, but I wonder if self-ratification shouldn't
be
Attempting to revive this because I think it had potential that was
never explored previously. In an effort to overcome comex's scam on
Nomic Wars II, and to combat past objections that the contract could
be used to mousetrap participants I have separated the nomic wars
game from the contract
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
Sean Hunt wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Denied. The history reflects that destruction. (The real discrepancy
is the creation of those rests in the first place; it happened on March
10, but I missed including it in the March 15 report.)
CoE: No CoE was
2009/3/25 Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu:
There was a previous time this came up, when some of ehird's rests
were judged
...by you :-)
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009, Elliott Hird wrote:
2009/3/25 Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu:
There was a previous time this came up, when some of ehird's rests
were judged
...by you :-)
well yeah, that's why I remember it... do you suppose you still have those
particular rests?
Kerim Aydin wrote:
Ooh boy.
But if rests are not fungible, the recordkeepor would be required to
track each rest as a distinct thing, and attempts to destroy rests
would have to match, e.g. I hereby destroy the rest that was created
when I broke rule foo. We don't do that.
There was a
2009/3/26 Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu:
well yeah, that's why I remember it... do you suppose you still have those
particular rests?
I think I do. I hope not to in the near future, though.
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
I withdraw the CoE, having noticed that the appeals panel can only
destroy those Rests created with regards to the previous judgment, and
that those Rests were never created according to the self-ratified March
15 Fnord!.
Taral wrote:
What makes you think Rests aren't fungible?
They aren't a currency, and the rules very very strongly imply that
non-currency assets are not fungible.
Getting a little off topic here... Internomic gives two weeks to respond to
all submitted proposals. Don't you think the ambassador should instead be
required to submit all of Internomic's proposals for voting so that the
general Agoran population can participate in each Internomic decision?
Aaron Goldfein wrote:
I flip my posture to sitting.
-Yally
I flip my judicial rank to Supreme.
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 21:42, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
I submit the following proposal, AI 1, II 0, named {coppro Discusses Too
Much}:
{{{
Amend rule 1922 by adding a bullet with the following text:
{{
(i) All Talk, to be awarded to someone who repeatedly and
32 matches
Mail list logo
