On Sun, 14 Jun 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
Distributability is a mess and has significantly removed the
attractiveness of submitting proposals. It is an oversolution to the
problem of bad proposals getting into the system.
Seems to be working fine to me. Just because things used to be Free
Kerim Aydin wrote:
Hence REASSIGN. I'm much more inclined to jump straight to reassign
for merely token efforts, especially for those with histories of token
efforts. It will happen more. I think a bigger issue is the Callers,
actually; standards of evidence and case preparation are way
2009/6/15 Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com:
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 10:21 PM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
I transfer one prop from myself to CotC Murphy for not getting all my ducks
in a row before the CFJ:
Another gratuitous argument on my most recent CFJ:
There was indeed
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 5:28 AM, Jonatan
Kilhamnjonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote:
Note to Conductor: this probably means that my attempt to spend 3
notes to make this undistributable failed.
What intent is e talking about here? As far as I can see, the proposal
was published, made
2009/6/15 Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 5:28 AM, Jonatan
Kilhamnjonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote:
Note to Conductor: this probably means that my attempt to spend 3
notes to make this undistributable failed.
What intent is e talking about here? As far as I can
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 3:28 AM, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
I disagree. Switching to REASSIGN doesn't deny salary, it just prevents
excess salary from being earned. The judge still gets salary for
judgments like TRUE because pigs were on an airplane or FALSE
because. Heck, you still get
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 9:32 PM, Geoffrey Speargeoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 3:28 AM, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
I disagree. Switching to REASSIGN doesn't deny salary, it just prevents
excess salary from being earned. The judge still gets salary for
judgments like
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Jonatan
Kilhamnjonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote:
As far as I can see, the flips I covered in my previous post are all
that matters. Between the time it was published and the time it was
made undistributable, it was made distributable at least once, through
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 11:23 PM, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
Distributability is a mess and has significantly removed the
attractiveness of submitting proposals. It is an oversolution to the
problem of bad proposals getting into the system.
Distributability has been around for a few
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 8:22 AM, Paul VanKoughnettallisp...@gmail.com wrote:
Proposal: Harder on bad judges (II=1, AI=1.7, please)
{
Amend rule 911 (Appeal Cases) by appending the following paragraph:
If an appeals panel delivers a judgement other than AFFIRM, it CAN destroy
any
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 01:42, Benjamin
Caplancelestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote:
Kerim Aydin wrote:
Result: strategy, more cards can be defined with probabilities a mix of
choice and random.
What do you think, worth the complication with it getting as cross-matrixed
as notes but associated
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 16:41, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
+ 1 * II per adopted proposal
Recommend +1 * II for highest II among adopted proposals per week.
Otherwise heavy proposers will severely outbalance those of use who
rarely propose.
(Frequency) is
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 11:26 PM, Roger Hickspidge...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 01:42, Benjamin
Caplancelestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote:
Kerim Aydin wrote:
Result: strategy, more cards can be defined with probabilities a mix of
choice and random.
What do you think, worth the
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Paul VanKoughnettallisp...@gmail.com wrote:
A card that allows you (with certain restrictions) to add a new card
to the deck.
I had the same thought: the Blank White Card. Maybe you can set its
effects without N objections and then add it to the deck as a new
(Sorry about posting this here, but I couldn't find any active nomic forum.)
I'm going to a gaming con in Sweden later this summer, and the theme
of the con is that it's going to declare itself a republic. There will
be some kind of LARP going on throughout the weekend about supporting
one of
On Sun, 2009-06-14 at 21:23 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
The punishments for breaking rules are not only disproportionate to the
penalties, but also completely out of proportion in general. Example: As
Tailor, I could publish No one has any Ribbons. as my report. This
would, if left undoubted,
On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 21:22 +0900, Paul VanKoughnett wrote:
More radically, I agree that Rests should go, or at the very least, be
reduced in scope. I think the game would be more interesting if each
crime had its own equity-style punishment. Making My Eyes Bleed, for
example, could require
On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 17:20 +0200, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
Since it's a republic, I toyed with the idea of making every vote open
to all the people - the entire con - and let the players ('Senators'
or 'Politicians') gather supporters who just come and vote (only works
if it's a fairly long
2009/6/15 Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk
On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 17:20 +0200, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
Since it's a republic, I toyed with the idea of making every vote open
to all the people - the entire con - and let the players ('Senators'
or 'Politicians') gather supporters who just come and
I believe merely forging banknotes is illegal in the UK. I'm pretty
sure defacing coins is.
On 2009-06-15, Paul VanKoughnett allisp...@gmail.com wrote:
So having tried that one before, I think the right answer is just to
convince appeals courts to be more ready to REASSIGN instead of REMAND in
On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 17:30 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote:
I believe merely forging banknotes is illegal in the UK. I'm pretty
sure defacing coins is.
Some of those laws are sensible (such as anti-counterfeit); others are
holdovers from ages ago that nobody could be bothered to repeal.
(There's an
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Elliott
Hirdpenguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
I believe merely forging banknotes is illegal in the UK. I'm pretty
sure defacing coins is.
I'm pretty sure forging banknotes is illegal just about everywhere.
In the US, it's perfectly legal to deface coins,
In the US, it's perfectly legal to deface coins, as long as you're not
doing anything fraudulent.
I think it's not, but not because you're insulting the image of the
person featured on the coin, but because you're stealing some of the
metal.
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Aaron Goldfeinaarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
In the US, it's perfectly legal to deface coins, as long as you're not
doing anything fraudulent.
I think it's not, but not because you're insulting the image of the
person featured on the coin, but because you're
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 12:25 PM, comexcom...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Aaron Goldfeinaarongoldf...@gmail.com
wrote:
In the US, it's perfectly legal to deface coins, as long as you're not
doing anything fraudulent.
I think it's not, but not because you're insulting
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Aaron Goldfeinaarongoldf...@gmail.com
wrote:
I initiate an Agoran decision to decide the holder of the Janitor office.
The eligible voters are the active players, the vote collector
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Aaron Goldfeinaarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
Quazie has not performed his duties as Janitor for two consecutive weeks
(and he only has performed them once).
Yes. That's exactly why I voted for em.
Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
(Sorry about posting this here, but I couldn't find any active nomic forum.)
I'm going to a gaming con in Sweden later this summer, and the theme
of the con is that it's going to declare itself a republic. There will
be some kind of LARP going on throughout the weekend
Paul VanKoughnett wrote:
I disagree. Switching to REASSIGN doesn't deny salary, it just prevents
excess salary from being earned. The judge still gets salary for
judgments like TRUE because pigs were on an airplane or FALSE
because. Heck, you still get salary for UNDETERMINED because I'm too
2009/6/15 Benjamin Caplan celestialcognit...@gmail.com:
Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
(Sorry about posting this here, but I couldn't find any active nomic forum.)
I'm going to a gaming con in Sweden later this summer, and the theme
of the con is that it's going to declare itself a republic. There
2009/6/15 Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com:
I intend, without objection, to make Siege inactive.
I pledge that if Siege objects to the above intent, I will submit a
proposals that has the effect of making Siege inactive.
I support.
--
-Tiger
The Janitor is a creative office;
The Anarchist is a creative office;
They both seem destructive rather than creative... Perhaps creative destruction.
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 1:30 AM, Elliott
Hirdpenguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
I believe merely forging banknotes is illegal in the UK. I'm pretty
sure defacing coins is.
When I thought of this, I assumed nobody would be good enough at it
for it to count as a forgery. It's more of a
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 3:52 AM,
C-walkercharles.w.wal...@googlemail.com wrote:
I pledge to vote for the player who submits the best (in my opinion)
Janitor-style proposal in the next six days.
Hint: there is a spelling error in a sentence dealing with Rests.
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 8:08 AM, Kyle Marek-Spartzzeckal...@gmail.com wrote:
The Janitor is a creative office;
The Anarchist is a creative office;
They both seem destructive rather than creative... Perhaps creative
destruction.
The Anarchist is creative used correctly. The
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 6:47 PM, Aaron Goldfeinaarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
I used II=2 because I thought it would be a controversial change.
Controversy != complexity.
--
Taral tar...@gmail.com
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
Okay, so I've thought about how to deal with crimes, and I propose the
following solutions:
- Rules can define crimes, but do not define their class. Violation of
a given rule is an implicit crime; the rule can define separate ones
as a means of giving them creative names or
- The
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
Kerim Aydin wrote:
So having tried that one before, I think the right answer is just to
convince appeals courts to be more ready to REASSIGN instead of REMAND in
lazy cases; loss of salary plus loss of judicial rank would do fine if
that happened; it's
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Paul VanKoughnett wrote:
I think the game would be more interesting if each
crime had its own equity-style punishment.
HahahahahahaHAHAHAHAHAhahahaha. I like you. -G.
Proto (outline only):
A judge can DISMISS a case without prejudice if e feels that the
statement is poorly worded for the question the caller is hoping
to answer, or if the caller provided a lack of reasonable effort
in presenting the arguments or evidence for eir case. The
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Paul VanKoughnett wrote:
I think the game would be more interesting if each
crime had its own equity-style punishment.
HahahahahahaHAHAHAHAHAhahahaha. I like you. -G.
Thanks! Does this
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 11:37 PM, Paul VanKoughnettallisp...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree to the mid central lax unrounded vowel contract.
I believe there are still two, although your having quoted one likely
causes it to be unambiguously the one you joined.
Equity grows teeth; fake teeth.
(ancient Agoran proverb)
On 2009-06-16, Paul VanKoughnett allisp...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Paul VanKoughnett wrote:
I think the game would be more interesting if each
2009/6/15 Craig Daniel teu...@pobox.com:
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 11:37 PM, Paul VanKoughnettallisp...@gmail.com
wrote:
I agree to the mid central lax unrounded vowel contract.
I believe there are still two, although your having quoted one likely
causes it to be unambiguously the one you
On Tue, 16 Jun 2009, Paul VanKoughnett wrote:
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Paul VanKoughnett wrote:
I think the game would be more interesting if each
crime had its own equity-style punishment.
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Warrigalihope12...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/6/15 Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com:
I agree to the U+0259 quoted.
I intend, without objection from any party to U+0259, to act on behalf
of U+0259 to intend to register.
Can this be resolved after 24 hours? Just in
46 matches
Mail list logo
