On 18 Jun 2013 03:40, Flameshadowxeroshin flameshadowxeros...@gmail.com
wrote:
I join Agora XX.
So do I.
-- Walker
From only having Watched with half an ear, how does Agora XX work and which
list would I have to be on to play it? I've gathered it's a speed Agora,
right? I'm only on the discussion list currently, so I miss half the
conversation of pretty much everything.
-Tiger
For the benefit of anyone subscribed only to agora-discussion,
I am reposting the 1st report here.
I did originally designate agora-business for this game, but
I do now designate agora-discussion.
-Dan
Original Message
Subject: Agora XX: 1st report: Vigintennial Blitz game
Good day Agorans,
This time of day (around 11:00 UTC) will be my usual reporting time.
There's not much to report today. There have been no proposals. The
ruleset is unchanged, I will not repeat it.
There are three new Voters: omd, Flameshadowxeroshin, and Walker joined,
in that order,
On 17/06/2013 9:06 PM, omd wrote:
Vigintennial Blitz CFJ: If a proposal purports to reward or penalize
voters based on the votes they cast on that proposal, or based on any
other action taken / not taken by any player prior to the end of the
voting period on that proposal, then that proposal
On 18/06/2013 4:46 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
From only having Watched with half an ear,
and Listened with one eye,
how does Agora XX work and which list would I have to be on to play
it? I've gathered it's a speed Agora, right?
Yup, speed Agora, this list, and I reposted the 1st report
I join Agora XX.
Chuck
I propose that Rule 211 be amended to read:
Voters who voted against proposals which are adopted receive 2 points
apiece. Players whose proposals are adopted shall receive a random number of
points in the range 1-10 inclusive.
Chuck
On 18 Jun 2013, at 13:08, Chuck Carroll games...@chuckcarroll.org wrote:
I propose that Rule 211 be amended to read:
“Voters who voted against proposals which are adopted receive 2 points
apiece. Players whose proposals are adopted shall receive a random number of
points in the range
I am tired, and I object to my being made inactive, and I vote PRESENT
on everything I can, and I register for Agora XX, and the first two
actions I do only in Agora, whilst the latter I do only in Agora XX,
my observation of tiredness not being counted as an action, have a
nice day.
I vote in favor.
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 7:23 AM, Charles Walker
charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 Jun 2013, at 13:08, Chuck Carroll games...@chuckcarroll.org wrote:
I propose that Rule 211 be amended to read:
“Voters who voted against proposals which are adopted receive 2 points
I propose that Rule 110 be transmuted to mutable.
Chuck
I vote in favor of my own proposal.
Chuck
I propose that Rule 211 be amended to read:
Voters who voted against proposals which are adopted receive 2 points
apiece. Players whose proposals are adopted shall receive a random number
of
points in the range 1-10 inclusive.
Chuck
I vote in favor.
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 12:19 PM, games...@chuckcarroll.org wrote:
I propose that Rule 110 be transmuted to mutable.
Chuck
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 10:17 AM, games...@chuckcarroll.org wrote:
I vote in favor of my own proposal.
I propose that a rule be enacted to read:
Upon the enactment of this rule, each player who voted for it shall
receive 30 points, and each player who voted against shall lose the 10
points
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 3:38 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote:
On Jun 16, 2013, at 5:01 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
This Court intends, with two Support, to make this case Notable,
suggesting Rule 1504.
I support.
I
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Flameshadowxeroshin
flameshadowxeros...@gmail.com wrote:
CFJ: Only sentient artificial intelligence systems are second-class persons.
Note that person is currently explicitly defined by the Power-3 Rule
2150. CFJ 1700 does not mention root's keyboard; CFJ 1685,
On 18/06/2013 7:58 AM, Chuck Carroll wrote:
I join Agora XX.
Chuck
Well, hog tie me to a TTY and set my wizard bit, look who's here!
-Dan
And I got the numbers wrong yet again. Oh well.
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 5:24 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Flameshadowxeroshin
flameshadowxeros...@gmail.com wrote:
CFJ: Only sentient artificial intelligence systems are second-class persons.
Note that
Hello all,
A report in about 11h. Here I'll only number and repeat the proposals
made so far, so that you can vote by just replying to this message. You
can vote privately, as omd reminds you.
Voting on these four closes in 24h.
-Dan
301 (Chuck):
I propose that Rule 211 be amended to
Retrying with a reply-to header so that you'll reply to me by default.
Original Message
Subject: Agora XX proposals 301-304
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 20:28:19 -0400
From: Fool fool1...@gmail.com
To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org
Hello all,
A report in about 11h. Here I'll only
Proposal 7476 (AI=2, PF=Y0, Ordinary, Disinterested) by scshunt
Staledated
Amend Rule 879 to read Quorum on an Agoran Decision is the greater
of one-third the number of active players and 5.
The rule used to be eligible voters with a positive voting limit on
that decision rather than active
omd wrote:
On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 10:24 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
Voting results for Proposals 7453-70:
CoE: This should be correct but I forgot to explicitly describe
conditional votes, which may or may not be necessary. Admitted, they
were:
7458 woggle endorse IADoP (scshunt) -
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Gratuitous: I generally left it implicit and got no complaints.
Do you have your own database set up or would you like me to continue
updating the existing one?
While a database of proposal text + results would be handy
omd wrote:
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Gratuitous: I generally left it implicit and got no complaints.
Do you have your own database set up or would you like me to continue
updating the existing one?
While a database of proposal text + results
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 10:47 PM, Jonathan Rouillard
jonathan.rouill...@gmail.com wrote:
Detail: http://cotc.psychose.ca/viewcase.php?cfj=3344
== CFJ 3344 ==
Michael Norrish CAN form a government by announcement.
Proposal, titled Dave Forever:
{{
Append the following to the list of valid judgements in rule 591:
{
* DAVE LEVAC, never appropriate, yet always welcome.
}
}}
~ Roujo
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 10:49 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 10:47 PM, Jonathan
On Jun 18, 2013, at 10:49 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
Does anyone have an argument as to why this is not in fact
UNDECIDEABLE? I'm thinking that there must be exactly one Speaker, but
there is nothing to indicate who that Speaker is, so it may as well be
Michael Norrish just as it might be, say, Dave
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Jonathan Rouillard
jonathan.rouill...@gmail.com wrote:
I assume CotC. Let's hope it works. =P
Please stand by while I work through the backlog of cases.
~ Roujo
Have I missed something? I thought CotC was postulated.
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 10:36 PM, Aaron Goldfein
aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
Have I missed something? I thought CotC was postulated.
CotC and Assessor were made Assumed when Murphy recently received a
TIME OUT sentence.
30 matches
Mail list logo
