On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
coppro wrote:
I officially contest this list of valid options; there are no valid
options (see below):
I officially contest this list of valid options; Rule 2105 (The Map
of Agora) is a Flag Candidate and thus a valid option.
The problem with this
Pavitra wrote:
I seem to be doing this a lot, so I might as well define a shorthand for
it. I agree to the following pledge:
{
This is a public contract and a pledge named Pocket Dictionary. Any
person CAN join or leave this contract by announcement.
Pavitra CAN amend the following list of
On Fri, 7 Aug 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
That won't work due to Vote Protection; if every vote was retracted it
would.
Hmm, if we just amend the rule to remove the self-modification and win
clauses, then the decisions could 'decide the flag' without having an
effect on the ruleset. That's
comex wrote:
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Geoffrey Speargeoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
NUM C I AI SUBMITTER TITLE
6421 D 1 4.0 Pavitra Great Cthulhu
AGAINT
Cute.
comex wrote:
6421 D 1 4.0 Pavitra Great Cthulhu
AGAINT
Note to new players: AGAINT has acquired a more-or-less permanent
taint of ambiguity due to
http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1260
http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1261
H. Assessor,
When do you plan to resolve 6406-6409 (apologies if I missed them).
-G.
Ed Murphy wrote:
Each player earns the deals e would have earned if this proposal had
been adopted immediately after the adoption of the Coda proposal,
minus any deals e actually earned for eir offices.
I believe this is none due to the interpretation chosen of priority.
G. wrote:
When do you plan to resolve 6406-6409 (apologies if I missed them).
They were resolved about half an hour ago.
On Fri, 7 Aug 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
G. wrote:
When do you plan to resolve 6406-6409 (apologies if I missed them).
They were resolved about half an hour ago.
My inbox was sorted funnily... sorry. -G.
C-walker wrote:
I become active.
It looks like I missed an interesting week!
Can someone tell me how the Absolv-o-matic thing ended? Do I still have a
rest?
I believe so, but you still have a card.
H. IADoP, are there any nomination periods in progress?
Yes, for the office of Tailor.
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
C-walker wrote:
I become active.
It looks like I missed an interesting week!
Can someone tell me how the Absolv-o-matic thing ended? Do I still have a
rest?
I believe so, but you still have a card.
Ok, thanks for
C-walker wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
C-walker wrote:
I become active.
It looks like I missed an interesting week!
Can someone tell me how the Absolv-o-matic thing ended? Do I still have a
rest?
I believe so, but you still have a card.
Ok,
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 11:48 PM, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
The Nomic game custom, even older than Agora's, is that a
definite and explicit contradiction between two rules is a discovery
that results in a reward for the discoverer.
The custom is also that the game immediately ends,
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 11:03 PM, Pavitracelestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote:
E can only do it once every thirty days. Isn't nonplayerhood for 0.99...
of the time enough?
I was thinking of proposing that we make time time limit between
registrations proportional to the number of times you've
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 5:22 AM, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
I buy two Digit Ranches and a Mill.
You can only buy 1 land per week...
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 02:11, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Each player earns the deals e would have earned if this proposal had
been adopted immediately after the adoption of the Coda proposal,
minus any deals e actually earned for eir offices.
I believe this is none
On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 10:51 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I think the irc logger needs a restart. -G.
Done, thanks for letting me know.
--
ais523
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 7, 2009, at 12:41 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, comex wrote:
If Contract A were a rule, it would be possible to use the without 15
objections mechanism to create a new rule; therefore, R1728
authorizes
it as long as the
On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 17:53 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
Sgeo wrote:
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, comex wrote:
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 8:52 PM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Non-recordkeepors, however, won't.
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 01:40, Ed Murphyemurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
I award:
* 8 x-points to c-walker
* 6 x-points to Wooble
* 4 x-points to coppro
* 8 y-points to Wooble
* 6 y-points to c-walker
* 4 y-points to BobTHJ
* 2 y-points to Wooble
Is this in compliance with the Cookie
On Fri, 7 Aug 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
however the e SHALL only perform these actions as explicitly
permitted by the Rules. E MAY transfer, play, or destroy cards
in eir own possession as any other player generally MAY.
No. Creation is specifically outlawed by e SHALL only here
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:15, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
You used this to win the game in a direct breach of trust by performing
an officer's duty 33 times as explicitly forbidden. This is worth 33 NoVs
and removal from office IMO; it's the precise purpose of writing the
rules
On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 21:43 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, comex wrote:
Note that Rule 1728 takes precedence over Rule 2140 (Power Controls
Mutability), so any issue of the power of the contract is moot.
No it's not; it's been previously held that it's the power of whatever
On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 21:54 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote:
The only valid option is currently GOETHE'S FLAG CANDIDATE, below (note
with one option, quorum does not apply):
I vote for GOETHE'S
On Fri, 7 Aug 2009, ais523 wrote:
On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 21:54 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote:
The only valid option is currently GOETHE'S FLAG CANDIDATE, below (note
with one option, quorum does not
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Roger Hickspidge...@gmail.com wrote:
* 8 y-points to Wooble
* 6 y-points to c-walker
* 4 y-points to BobTHJ
* 2 y-points to Wooble
Is this in compliance with the Cookie Jar agreement? I thought prizes
only paid to 3rd place? Why 4th place for CFJs but
On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 08:42 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 11:03 PM, Pavitracelestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote:
E can only do it once every thirty days. Isn't nonplayerhood for 0.99...
of the time enough?
I was thinking of proposing that we make time time limit between
On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 10:19 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:15, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
You used this to win the game in a direct breach of trust by performing
an officer's duty 33 times as explicitly forbidden. This is worth 33 NoVs
and removal from
On Fri, 7 Aug 2009, ais523 wrote:
Even if the scam worked I still think this warrants 33 NOVs (well, as
many as can be supported) for violating the SHALL.
The scam failed, the sort of card coppro created was a different sort of
card from what e subsequently attempted to play.
Heh, I'm
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:28, Geoffrey Speargeoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Roger Hickspidge...@gmail.com wrote:
* 8 y-points to Wooble
* 6 y-points to c-walker
* 4 y-points to BobTHJ
* 2 y-points to Wooble
Is this in compliance with the Cookie Jar
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:32, ais523callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
The scam failed, the sort of card coppro created was a different sort of
card from what e subsequently attempted to play.
Huh?
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:44, Roger Hickspidge...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:32, ais523callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
The scam failed, the sort of card coppro created was a different sort of
card from what e subsequently attempted to play.
Huh?
Nevermind - I get it.
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 12:37 PM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Heh, I'm guessing that was on purpose... trolled me in anyway. Destroy
the 33 and I'd be happy with a single penalty :| ...
If so, violates Truthiness for knowingly claiming to decrease caste
with a Lobbyist.
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 02:48, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
I spend Lobbyist to reduce Murphy's caste.
I spend Lobbyist to reduce Murphy's caste.
I spend Lobbyist to reduce Murphy's caste.
I spend Lobbyist to reduce Murphy's caste.
I spend Lobbyist to reduce Murphy's caste.
I spend
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 7, 2009, at 12:20 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Gratuitous:
But how it got to that value does matter, and R1688 has precedence
over
R2141. Note: to act, the contract must have power as if it were a
rule,
not act as if it were a rule of power.
c-walker wrote:
Can someone tell me how the Absolv-o-matic thing ended? Do I still have a
rest?
Recently fixed by Proposal 6409. Yes, I think so.
On Fri, 7 Aug 2009, comex wrote:
On Aug 7, 2009, at 12:20 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Gratuitous:
But how it got to that value does matter, and R1688 has precedence over
R2141. Note: to act, the contract must have power as if it were a rule,
not act as if it were a
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 02:48, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
I create 33 Local Election cards in my own possession.
Notes on recordkeeping: As of the time of initiation for this scam
coppro was owed 4 draws from the Deck of Government (2 for Poobah
weekly salary, and 2 for IADoP weekly
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 12:32 AM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
[Since it seems to be an evening for them, the following, I admit, is
an Outright Scam; by my taxonomy definitely against the intent of the
rule in question].
I initiate an Agoran decision to decide the Flag of Agora.
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Not over R1688 it doesn't. Stipulated by the rules is not the same
as stipulated by a contract acting as if it were a rule. -G.
I'd say that R1728's CAN perform... as if is such a stipulation-- an
implicit one, but no
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 12:44 AM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, comex wrote:
I CFJ on the statement: If I don't receive 15 objections, it will be
POSSIBLE for me to indirectly cause a Rule Change using Contract A.
I favor this case. -G.
Can you please retract
On Fri, 7 Aug 2009, comex wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 12:44 AM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, comex wrote:
I CFJ on the statement: If I don't receive 15 objections, it will be
POSSIBLE for me to indirectly cause a Rule Change using Contract A.
I favor this
On Fri, 7 Aug 2009, comex wrote:
Can you please retract this? I have no doubt you would provide a good
fair judgement, but I don't really like having a 100% chance of the
case being assigned to a judge who's established emself as a defendant
to my plaintiff.
You can't, so I retract my CFJ
On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 12:57 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 12:18, ais523callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
I PBA-deposit a 7 crop.
I PBA-withdraw three 3 crops. (N.B. I have no idea what the PBA rates
are, but suspect that this is possible by now.)
I do not intend to
On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 20:01 +0100, ais523 wrote:
On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 12:57 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 12:18, ais523callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
I PBA-deposit a 7 crop.
I PBA-withdraw three 3 crops. (N.B. I have no idea what the PBA rates
are, but suspect
Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Fri, 7 Aug 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
It has been pointed out to me that I misread Rule 2253, thinking it also
provided an exception for creating cards, which it does not.
Gratuitous:
When planning something that is clearly against the spirit of a rule,
claiming to
Roger Hicks wrote:
I think this is especially the case when scamming a power granted to
you as a result of an office you hold. For the good of the game
Officers should be overly cautious in exercising any powers granted to
them for their office as these powers are typically defined to ensure
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
As a point, self-interest aside, I think its bad if expressing opinions in
discussion disqualifies one to judge. That's a little chilling... are you
saying it's better to favor a case and stay quiet rather than have a
On Fri, 7 Aug 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
I consider it to be a bug in the rules that a player can be found NOT
GUILTY if it is at all reasonable for em to have believed e was not
breaking the rule, even if e did not believe so at the time.
I don't think it's so broken; I think judges not be
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 13:20, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
I submit that people should consider my past performance of duties in
all offices, and not just the scam, when chosing to vote in this and
other ongoing elections for my offices. There is abusable power in the
Grand Poobah office,
On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 13:31 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
Also to clarify one other thing: I'm not opposed to officers abusing
their powers for a scam, I just think it should (in most cases) lead
to a new office holder. Take for instance my bribery attempt when the
Grand Poobah and castes were
On Fri, 7 Aug 2009, comex wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
As a point, self-interest aside, I think its bad if expressing opinions in
discussion disqualifies one to judge. That's a little chilling... are you
saying it's better to favor a case
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
I appreciate that; I apologize and withdraw my pledge on the matter.
Thank you. Now let's get back to arguing about the case. :)
Actually, I believe the existing without-15-objections mechanism is
subtly broken: Rule 105
On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 12:37 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
FWIW, I favored it because it's an interesting case (favoring aside I
thought about raising the II)
I thought about that too. Maybe we should have a card to raise IIs? It
would probably be simpler than the current method.
--
ais523
On Fri, 7 Aug 2009, ais523 wrote:
On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 13:31 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
Also to clarify one other thing: I'm not opposed to officers abusing
their powers for a scam, I just think it should (in most cases) lead
to a new office holder. Take for instance my bribery attempt when
ais523 wrote:
On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 12:37 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
FWIW, I favored it because it's an interesting case (favoring aside I
thought about raising the II)
I thought about that too. Maybe we should have a card to raise IIs? It
would probably be simpler than the current method.
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 03:36, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
I award comex two On the Nods and a Roll call for eir performance as
Rulekeepor.
I can't find where c. performed a non-empty set of rulekeepor duties
last week, no SLR or FLR was published from what I can tell. I believe
these
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 08:13, Roger Hickspidge...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 02:11, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Each player earns the deals e would have earned if this proposal had
been adopted immediately after the adoption of the Coda proposal,
minus any
Roger Hicks wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 08:13, Roger Hickspidge...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 02:11, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Each player earns the deals e would have earned if this proposal had
been adopted immediately after the adoption of the Coda
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 13:48, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
I award myself a Roll call and a Debate-o-Matic for my performance as IADoP.
As I mentioned in another mail I believe you are still owed two salary
draws for Poobah.
I did not publish a caste report.
but you did publish a DoG
2009/8/7 ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk:
On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 10:51 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I think the irc logger needs a restart. -G.
Done, thanks for letting me know.
--
ais523
while true; do ./loggic; done
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 13:52, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
Roger Hicks wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 08:13, Roger Hickspidge...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 02:11, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Each player earns the deals e would have earned if this
On Fri, 7 Aug 2009, comex wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
I appreciate that; I apologize and withdraw my pledge on the matter.
Thank you. Now let's get back to arguing about the case. :)
This isn't an argument, it's just contradictions :) (No
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 14:10, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
I intend, with Support, to publish an NoV alleging that ais523 violated
the 1-power Rule 2143 by failing to report the Recognition switch during
the month of July.
I intend, with 2 Support, to publish an NoV alleging that Murphy
Roger Hicks wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 14:06, Roger Hickspidge...@gmail.com wrote:
Tailor
Initiated: 2009-08-07 03:55
Candidates: BobTHJ, coppro
Unaccepted Nominations:
Nominations Declined by:
CoE: but not here.
further CoE: Although Wooble is a candidate for tailor (see message
Roger Hicks wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 14:10, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
I intend, with Support, to publish an NoV alleging that ais523 violated
the 1-power Rule 2143 by failing to report the Recognition switch during
the month of July.
I intend, with 2 Support, to publish an NoV
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 3:53 PM, Elliott
Hirdpenguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
2009/8/7 ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk:
On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 10:51 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I think the irc logger needs a restart. -G.
Done, thanks for letting me know.
--
ais523
while true; do
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Roger Hickspidge...@gmail.com wrote:
Wooble did not earn Registrar salary last week (e did publish deputize
to publish a Registrar report but did not subsequently publish one
once e attained the office), therefore the last of these draws was
illegal.
I was the
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 14:26, Geoffrey Speargeoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Roger Hickspidge...@gmail.com wrote:
Wooble did not earn Registrar salary last week (e did publish deputize
to publish a Registrar report but did not subsequently publish one
once e attained
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 14:29, comexcom...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 1:02 PM, comexcom...@gmail.com wrote:
I initiate a Motion to Amend, specifying the following amendment (in
diff format). The eligible voters are the parties to the IBA, the
options are FOR, AGAINST, and
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 14:30, Geoffrey Speargeoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
Wooble did not earn Registrar salary last week (e did publish deputize
to publish a Registrar report but did not subsequently publish one
once e attained
comex wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 12:44 AM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, comex wrote:
I CFJ on the statement: If I don't receive 15 objections, it will be
POSSIBLE for me to indirectly cause a Rule Change using Contract A.
I favor this case. -G.
Can you
coppro wrote:
A very broken system. As the criminal rules are written, you don't even
need to actually believe you were in the right, it just needs to be
reasonable for you to have done so. I completely support criminal reform
(N.B. my reform proposal would not have repaired this error) as
BobTHJ wrote:
Actually, I retract this. I don't see where the Assessor has a weekly
report (or am I missing something?). If so then Murphy got some extra
deals out of this (which isn't a big deal, but makes a difference
going forward).
No, eir report is entirely monthly. Eir non-report
coppro wrote:
Roger Hicks wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 14:10, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
I intend, with Support, to publish an NoV alleging that ais523 violated
the 1-power Rule 2143 by failing to report the Recognition switch during
the month of July.
I intend, with 2 Support, to
On Fri, 7 Aug 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
* Viva la fuente! is a Flag Candidate.
Arguments:
Rule 2265 (Placeholder Arms) says ...each active first-class player
may create exactly one Flag Candidate without three objections. G.
attempted to create Viva la fuente! as a Flag Candidate by
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 4:20 PM, ais523callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
I act on behalf of 0x44 to cause em to transfer all eir assets to me.
If I'm not mistaken, this is 134 coins.
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
My first instinct is that if any part of the authorization chain that
contains a permitted by or other allowing mechanism falls down to
power-0, the chain is broken. But that's a first (or by now second)
instinct.
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
Roger Hicks wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 03:36, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
I award comex two On the Nods and a Roll call for eir performance as
Rulekeepor.
I can't find where c. performed a non-empty set of rulekeepor
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 10:23 PM, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
This distribution of proposal 6406 initiates the Agoran
...
Proposal 6403 (Democratic, AI=2.0, Interest=1) by c-walker
Proposal Tweaking Part 2.1
Which proposal is the real 6406?
--
-c.
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 12:26 PM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Not for a Non-election, Non-AI decision where the rule describes the
valid options without including PRESENT. Unless it changed in the last
couple weeks. -G.
At the moment it's a valid ballot but not a valid option
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
I contest this: Two reasons:
1. The rule mandates text and title in that order. Viva la fuente!
is a title.
It still doesn't describe a Flag or other suitable Symbol for Agora.
(Depending on your view, a dictatorship
Sean Hunt wrote:
or indirectly, intentionally cause the coup to end uncessfully.
unsuccessfully.
Upon a win announcement that a coup d'etat concluded
unsuccessfully, the persons who were members of the Government in
Exile at the conclusion of the coup all satisfy the
Kerim Aydin wrote:
the MAY is only for transfer, play, or create. NOT create.
Er, what? Surely 'create' is an element of the set {'transfer', 'play',
'create'}.
Sean Hunt wrote:
Pavitra wrote:
Nice try, but R217 actually says this:
Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or
unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom, common sense,
past judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the
game.
On Fri, 7 Aug 2009, Pavitra wrote:
I agree that that is the very old, very strong custom and precedent.
Nevertheless, we are bound by the text of the rules.
Proto-proposal: amend R217 by deleting , inconsistent,.
I think it's important to keep. Current custom and good-of-the-game
is in
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 15:17, Ed Murphyemurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Admitted, but OTOH it isn't a frequent error (most weeks see the same
quorum as the previous week, and most proposals achieve quorum by a
comfortable margin). That said, I'll see about revamping the system
this weekend for
Pavitra wrote:
Sean Hunt wrote:
or indirectly, intentionally cause the coup to end uncessfully.
unsuccessfully.
Upon a win announcement that a coup d'etat concluded
unsuccessfully, the persons who were members of the Government in
Exile at the conclusion of the coup
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 16:01, Geoffrey Speargeoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 4:20 PM, ais523callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
I act on behalf of 0x44 to cause em to transfer all eir assets to me.
If I'm not mistaken, this is 134 coins.
If there is interest in reviving the
89 matches
Mail list logo
