ehird wrote:
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!
Oh, you could post them directly to a-b when it came time to report
the results.
Goethe wrote:
But if it's found that assets that we've treated as fungible are
not in fact fungible, then all attempts to destroy rests, at least,
have failed. Right?
The self-ratification of the March 15 report has papered over any
errors earlier than that.
11. (Rating=4, Owner=null) Creating a new section is a Battle Action
with a cost of 2.
Exactly what is a section? I don't really get it, the rest of the
rules imply that players create rules against each other, but what you
can create is sections. How do you get war-rules into your sections?
--
On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 13:21 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
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
On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 16:54 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
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
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
Goethe wrote:
But if it's found that assets that we've treated as fungible are
not in fact fungible, then all attempts to destroy rests, at least,
have failed. Right?
The self-ratification of the March 15 report has papered over any
errors earlier
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 03:04, Jonatan Kilhamn
jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote:
11. (Rating=4, Owner=null) Creating a new section is a Battle Action
with a cost of 2.
Exactly what is a section? I don't really get it, the rest of the
rules imply that players create rules against each other, but
The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
Proposal pool: empty
This is outright incorrect. No CoE is formally required due to the fact
that it isn't self-ratifying, but this most certainly does not count as
as fulfillment of the PNP's duties to report the Proposal Pool.
This sort of thing is why I'm
2009/3/26 Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com:
This is outright incorrect. No CoE is formally required due to the fact
that it isn't self-ratifying, but this most certainly does not count as
as fulfillment of the PNP's duties to report the Proposal Pool.
This sort of thing is why I'm running for
Elliott Hird wrote:
Comex triggered the activation himself, obviously. This is clearly not
standard operating procedure.
That doesn't change the fact that the PNP is being sloppy.
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 12:18 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
1. Attempting to ratify a false fact essentially misleads everyone
in the game into accepting it as truth or effectiveness.
2. In terms of double penalties, comex is wholly unrepentant on
repeated uses of such
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, comex wrote:
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 12:18 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
1. Attempting to ratify a false fact essentially misleads everyone
in the game into accepting it as truth or effectiveness.
2. In terms of double penalties, comex is wholly
2009/3/26 Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu:
I submit the following Proposal, enough again already, AI-2:
--
[The PNP was the last partnership which seemed to justify
partnerships existing. Now it is also compromised.
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 12:26 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
Proposal 6167 (Democratic, AI=3.0, Interest=1) by comex
Foo
Create a Power=3 Rule which reads: { comex CAN cause this rule to amend
itself
by announcement. }
On Thu, 2009-03-26 at 09:39 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I submit the following Proposal, enough again already, AI-2:
--
[The PNP was the last partnership which seemed to justify
partnerships existing. Now it is also
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Attempts to ratify a deliberately inaccurate gamestate are inherently
misleading. This may be EXCUSED if the gamestate can't be reconstructed
(so there's a reason for it), but otherwise it is not. -Goethe
You're
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 10:39 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
I submit the following Proposal, enough again already, AI-2:
--
[The PNP was the last partnership which seemed to justify
partnerships existing. Now
2009/3/26 Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu:
Bayes has been quiet lately... are you still doing anything with it
actively? -G.
I haven't got round to it and I plan to remove some of the more
irritating things it did before re-activating it, but I do intend to
revive it.
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
On Thu, 2009-03-26 at 08:56 -0700, The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
Proposal pool: empty
I NoV against comex for violating the power-2 rule 1742 by violating the
PNP by causing it to fail to meet all its obligations. I
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, comex wrote:
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 12:26 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
Proposal 6167 (Democratic, AI=3.0, Interest=1) by comex
Foo
Create a Power=3 Rule which reads: { comex CAN cause this rule to
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Repeal Rule 2145 (Partnerships).
FOR, vehemently so.
--
Taral tar...@gmail.com
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
2009/3/26 Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu:
I guess my options are ignore one out of three, response to all and
get annoyed/frustrated/exhausted, or just deregister for a time and
take a breath. Not sure which is best right now.
-Goethe
's just a game.
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
On Thu, 2009-03-26 at 09:39 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I submit the following Proposal, enough again already, AI-2:
--
[The PNP was the last partnership which seemed to justify
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, Elliott Hird wrote:
2009/3/26 Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu:
I guess my options are ignore one out of three, response to all and
get annoyed/frustrated/exhausted, or just deregister for a time and
take a breath. Not sure which is best right now.
-Goethe
's just
On Thu, 2009-03-26 at 10:13 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I object to the intent. I vote AGAINST 6167. I raise the point
that a record of votes is part of resolving a decision, but not actually
part of anyone's Report as far as I can tell (that must be explicitly
defined as being part of a
2009/3/26 The PerlNomic Partnership perlno...@nomictools.com:
NUM C I AI SUBMITTER TITLE
6167 D 1 3.0 comex Foo
I vote AGAINST this proposal.
--
-Tiger
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 8:56 AM, The PerlNomic Partnership
perlno...@nomictools.com wrote:
This distribution of proposal 6167 initiates the Agoran
Decisions on whether to adopt it. The eligible voters for ordinary
proposals are the active players, the eligible voters for democratic
Charles Reiss wrote:
Actually, let's try this again.
I retract all my votes on the decision to adopt proposal 6167.
I submit the following ballot:
{
decision to adopt proposal 6167: AGAINST
}
-woggle
woggle's got the right idea here.
I retract all my votes on the decision to adopt
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, comex wrote:
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Attempts to ratify a deliberately inaccurate gamestate are inherently
misleading. This may be EXCUSED if the gamestate can't be reconstructed
(so there's a reason for it), but
ais523 wrote:
On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 13:21 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
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
Goethe wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
Goethe wrote:
But if it's found that assets that we've treated as fungible are
not in fact fungible, then all attempts to destroy rests, at least,
have failed. Right?
The self-ratification of the March 15 report has papered over any
Rodlen wrote:
Oh right, and I had better hail Eris.
Hail Eris.
There.
I yell CREAMPUFF.
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Oh, you're right. Taral, how hard would it be to allow overriding
the usual Reply-To: by, say, including {{{ Reply-To: ais...@foo.bar }}}
somewhere within the first 5 lines of the body?
I dunno. What's the use-case here?
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
Taral wrote:
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Oh, you're right. Taral, how hard would it be to allow overriding
the usual Reply-To: by, say, including {{{ Reply-To: ais...@foo.bar }}}
somewhere within the first 5
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
I initiate an equity case regarding the PerlNomic Partnership, the
parties to which are Dvorak, RainerWasserfuhr, Wooble, ais523, comex,
ihope. The state of affairs not envisioned by the contract was
comex's willful
35 matches
Mail list logo
