On Wed, 25 Aug 2010, com...@gmail.com wrote:
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Aug 25, 2010, at 9:03 PM, Keba wrote:
> > Perpepuum mobile is Latin for perpetual mobile machine
>
> Perpetuum actually, though I like Lab Labour
You mean Lab Laboor
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010, Keba wrote:
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 26 Aug 2010, Keba wrote:
> > > The Perpepuum mobile (PM) is a person and active player.
> >
> > Has an actual fix for The Robot scam been proposed yet? If so
> > I like this, if not... -G.
>
> Well, it's not clear
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 9:23 PM, Keba wrote:
> Proposal "Rights are important" (AI=3.5, II=1, distributable via fee)
> {{{
> Increase the power of Rule 101 "The Rights of Agorans" to 3.5.
An AI of 3 is sufficient for this, as an instrument with a power of 3
is not restricted.
—Tanner L. Swett
com...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Aug 25, 2010, at 9:03 PM, Keba wrote:
> > Perpepuum mobile is Latin for perpetual mobile machine
>
> Perpetuum actually, though I like Lab Labour
Oh, you're right. Well, you should never look up a word and use it often
with a mistake of wr
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> I intend to vote against any proposal that includes an act-on-behalf
> mechanism of any kind.
Oh, why? Just because of bad experiences of the past?
--
Keba
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Thu, 26 Aug 2010, Keba wrote:
> > The Perpepuum mobile (PM) is a person and active player.
>
> Has an actual fix for The Robot scam been proposed yet? If so
> I like this, if not... -G.
Well, it's not clear whether the scam has worked, but there should be a
fi
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 25, 2010, at 9:03 PM, Keba wrote:
> Perpepuum mobile is Latin for perpetual mobile machine
Perpetuum actually, though I like Lab Labour
Warrigal wrote:
> "Perpepuum" isn't a word, to my knowledge; perhaps you're after the
> phrase "perpetual motion machine". "Labour" means "job" or "physical
> task", so "Lab Worker" might work better there.
>
> —Tanner L. Swett
Perpepuum mobile is Latin for perpetual mobile machine and should be
"Perpepuum" isn't a word, to my knowledge; perhaps you're after the
phrase "perpetual motion machine". "Labour" means "job" or "physical
task", so "Lab Worker" might work better there.
—Tanner L. Swett
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010, Keba wrote:
> The Perpepuum mobile (PM) is a person and active player.
Has an actual fix for The Robot scam been proposed yet? If so
I like this, if not... -G.
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 7:55 PM, Keba wrote:
> I am going to propose something like this (but this is only a Protosal!)
>
> If anyone intents to vote against such a Proposal because e does not
> like a certain part of it, please let me know. This proposal could be
> split, if needed.
I intend to
I am going to propose something like this (but this is only a Protosal!)
If anyone intents to vote against such a Proposal because e does not
like a certain part of it, please let me know. This proposal could be
split, if needed.
Proposal "A Perpepuum mobile is possible" (AI=2, II=2, distributab
--- On Wed, 25/8/10, Warrigal wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 6:08 PM, omd
>
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 5:52 PM, Alex Smith
> >
> wrote:
> >> I intend, without 2 objections from members of
> City, to rename City
> >> to "The Robot".
>
> Claim of error: I perceive that this message wa
--- On Wed, 25/8/10, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> I create a new Threat:
>
> Name: The Robot
> map symbol: R
>
> H = 5
> d = 2
> e = 1
> a = 2
> s = 1
> p = 1
I intend, without 2 objections from members of City, to rename City
to "The Robot".
--
ais523
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 15:44, comex wrote:
> Having given notice, I initiate a new journey. Here is the map:
>
> @>---@
>
> (All Objects In Space are destroyed, including the so-called Robot.)
>
Does this actually work?
ais523 wrote:
> --- On Tue, 24/8/10, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> OIC.
>>
>> Proposal: Mother says not to run on the concrete
>> (AI = 3, II = 1, co-author = omd, distributable via fee)
>>
>> Amend Rule 106 (Adopting Proposals) by replacing this
>> text:
>>
>> If the Rules do not otherwise permit a
ais523 wrote:
> --- On Tue, 24/8/10, omd wrote:
>> In this case, the entity with the name "The Robot" will be
>> coppro *at the time of the enaction of the rule*. Also:
>>
>> A document referring to an entity by name refers to the
>> entity that had that name when the document first came to incl
omd wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 9:30 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> It's 22-20 and the voting period is over.
>>
>> Not yet confirmed (I need to evaluate several conditionals and add them
>> to the DB), but even if you're right, it's AI=2 so it would fail.
>
> For what it's worth, I get 20-19:
>
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 3:58 AM, Alex Smith
wrote:
> Possibly relevant here: CFJ 2775, which found that a nickname change wasn't
> effective unless Agoran players as a whole went along with it. The arguments
> are rather specific to nicknames in particular, though, rather than names in
> gener
On 25 August 2010 09:34, Alex Smith wrote:
> --- On Tue, 24/8/10, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> OIC.
>>
>> Proposal: Mother says not to run on the concrete
>> (AI = 3, II = 1, co-author = omd, distributable via fee)
>>
>> Amend Rule 106 (Adopting Proposals) by replacing this
>> text:
>>
>> If the Ru
--- On Tue, 24/8/10, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Aug 2010, omd wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Kerim Aydin
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, 23 Aug 2010, Sean Hunt wrote:
> > >> I change my nickname to 'The Robot'.
> > >>
> > >> -coppro
> > >
> > > See CFJ 1520.
> >
> > In this
On 08/25/2010 01:55 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
--- On Wed, 25/8/10, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
I contest this NoV. I initiate a criminal CFJ regarding this NoV and
submit it to the Justiciar.
Who is the Justiciar, anyway? And is this the first time that power's been
used, since its modern reintroduct
--- On Wed, 25/8/10, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> I contest this NoV. I initiate a criminal CFJ regarding this NoV and
> submit it to the Justiciar.
Who is the Justiciar, anyway? And is this the first time that power's been
used, since its modern reintroduction, in a non-scam manner?
--
ais523
On 08/25/2010 01:30 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
--- On Tue, 24/8/10, omd wrote:
In this case, the entity with the name "The Robot" will be
coppro *at the time of the enaction of the rule*. Also:
A document referring to an entity by name refers to the
entity that had that name when the document firs
--- On Tue, 24/8/10, Ed Murphy wrote:
> OIC.
>
> Proposal: Mother says not to run on the concrete
> (AI = 3, II = 1, co-author = omd, distributable via fee)
>
> Amend Rule 106 (Adopting Proposals) by replacing this
> text:
>
> If the Rules do not otherwise permit at least one current act
--- On Tue, 24/8/10, omd wrote:
> In this case, the entity with the name "The Robot" will be
> coppro *at the time of the enaction of the rule*. Also:
>
> A document referring to an entity by name refers to the
> entity that had that name when the document first came to include
> that reference,
26 matches
Mail list logo
