On Sun, 28 May 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> Online documents:
> https://agoranomic.github.io/ruleset/slr.txt (SLR)
> https://agoranomic.github.io/ruleset/flr.txt (FLR)
You might want to check your flr link Gaelan - it looks like it goes
to an older (9-May) copy.
@Aris: Thank you for putting into words what I had been thinking while
reading over those of CuddleBeam's messages.
天火狐
On 28 May 2017 at 21:51, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 6:39 PM, CuddleBeam
> wrote:
> > Arguably, you can paint your objection blue too. Or dress it as Super
I am willing to support reconsidering this CFJ on behalf of G. if there is
interest among the players for reconsideration.
天火狐
On 28 May 2017 at 21:18, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> I'm just catching up to this CFJ now, and I have to say I'd consider
> this an example of judicial overreach and motio
On Mon, 29 May 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-05-29 at 02:34 +, Quazie wrote:
> > On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 18:17 CuddleBeam
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I withdraw grok's objection.
> > > >
> > Um... You usually have to prove you can do a thing that seems
> > obvious wrong or people wi
On Mon, 2017-05-29 at 02:34 +, Quazie wrote:
> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 18:17 CuddleBeam
> wrote:
> >
> > > I withdraw grok's objection.
> > >
> Um... You usually have to prove you can do a thing that seems
> obvious wrong or people will ignore it.
As far as I can tell, nothing prevents peo
Um... You usually have to prove you can do a thing that seems obvious
wrong or people will ignore it.
On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 18:17 CuddleBeam wrote:
> I withdraw grok's objection.
>
On Sun, 2017-05-28 at 07:54 -0400, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
wrote:
> Am I still assigned to CFJ 3515, given that it is now open again? If
> so, when does my week expire?
Yes, and a week after the case was reopened.
--
ais523
On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 6:39 PM, CuddleBeam wrote:
> Arguably, you can paint your objection blue too. Or dress it as Superman.
>
> Unregulated actions are weird.
No one seems to understand what unregulated means. All it means is
that the rules can't say that an action is impossible or prohibited.
On Mon, 29 May 2017, CuddleBeam wrote:
> >Interesting question: If am still an objector, but my objection has been
> >withdrawn, can I withdraw my my objection?
> Arguably, you can paint your objection blue too. Or dress it as Superman.
>
> Unregulated actions are weird.
It does concern me th
On Sun, 28 May 2017, grok (caleb vines) wrote:
> Interesting question: If am still an objector, but my objection
> has been withdrawn, can I withdraw my my objection?
FOO!
On Sun, 28 May 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Mon, 29 May 2017, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
Note that only withdrawals by the Objector emself count.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
snap!
I feel so redundant. Also, still waiting for you to snap and use the term
ISIDTID.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
On Mon, 29 May 2017, CuddleBeam wrote:
> Cool. I think I'll just tell anyway. I'm not too overly interested in the
> subterfuge of it all. I just care mostly about confirming that it *would*
> work,
> that's good enough trophy for me.
> "Withdrawing" isn't a regulated action apparently (note t
On May 28, 2017 8:30 PM, "Kerim Aydin" wrote:
On Mon, 29 May 2017, CuddleBeam wrote:
> Cool. I think I'll just tell anyway. I'm not too overly interested in the
subterfuge of it all. I just care mostly about confirming that it *would*
work,
> that's good enough trophy for me.
> "Withdrawing" i
>From rule 2124:
> An Objector to
> a dependent action is an eligible entity who has publicly posted
> (and not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of intent
> to perform the action.
Ah, dangit, that verb conjugation. So subtle.
I guess it would've worked if it was "
On Mon, 29 May 2017, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> Note that only withdrawals by the Objector emself count.
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.
snap!
On Mon, 29 May 2017, CuddleBeam wrote:
So I can just do the unregulated action of "I withdraw your objection"
(would my proof of "all actions are regulation actions or not actions" not
work)
From rule 2124:
An Objector to
a depende
I'm just catching up to this CFJ now, and I have to say I'd consider
this an example of judicial overreach and motion to reconsider were I a
player. Rather than extrapolating slightly to generalize the question,
or slightly changing the wording of the CFJ to answer what the caller
*meant* to ask
Cool. I think I'll just tell anyway. I'm not too overly interested in the
subterfuge of it all. I just care mostly about confirming that it *would*
work, that's good enough trophy for me.
"Withdrawing" isn't a regulated action apparently (note that I, as the
initiator, am not required to track any
Agoran Consent requires a minimum of 4 days.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On May 28, 2017, at 9:00 PM, CuddleBeam wrote:
>
> How fast do proposals get passed, by average?
How fast do proposals get passed, by average?
Could you explain what makes this a scam?
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On May 28, 2017, at 8:54 PM, CuddleBeam wrote:
>
> Another badge scam attempt, but way less silly and more likely to work
> (hopefully). Anyway, here we go:
>
> By virtue of R
I don’t believe this works because the action is SECURED and REGULATED and
requires a support-period.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On May 28, 2017, at 8:38 PM, CuddleBeam wrote:
>
> Again, no flipping idea if it will work but its free! So I'm
The following is a draft report. Note that it's not quite the same as
a regular report, as it has some of the URLs that get cut from the
finalized version. I welcome any applicable corrections. If you want
your proposals distributed, you should talk to ais523 about pending
them.
--
>> I create the power-1 proposal “No Sneakiness” by Gaelan: {
>>
>> Create a rule “No Sneakiness” with the following text: {
>>
>> If the rules specify that an action may be performed by sending a message
>> to a public forum, any attempts to perform the action in a way that is
>> clearly intended
You did and I will update it next time. Sorry.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 7:01 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Sun, 28 May 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
>
>The IRC channel does not require subscription; set your IRC client to
>>server irc.
On Sun, 28 May 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
The IRC channel does not require subscription; set your IRC client to
server irc.freenode.net, port 6667, channel ##nomic, and whatever
nickname you like.
There are, of course, various variations of this that also work. (I
u
On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> I create this AI-1.5 proposal “State of the Union” by Gaelan: <
>
> Create the power-1.5 rule “Internal State” with this text: {
>
> An Agency or Organization’s Internal State is state that is defined by the
> Agency or Organization’s text (P
Hehe, nice.
Also, I think it's like:
---*---
"Ayo, so here we got this hugeass field my friend. This is the field of All
Actions."
"Ok."
"Now there we got that fence. Its a limitation. Everything within it is
known to be "Fenced" because it's surrounded by fence, and limited by it."
"Ok. But
I mean, you can just ratify anything without objection. This doesn't really
create a new avenue for going around formal procedure.
Gaelan
> On May 28, 2017, at 2:21 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> wrote:
>
> I don’t like that it is self-ratifying because that would allow bypassing
>
I don’t like that it is self-ratifying because that would allow bypassing
formalized procedures.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On May 28, 2017, at 5:20 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>
> The responsible player for all of an Agency’s state is that agency’
When I hit the dictionary, I get:
- forbid, especially by law.
- denounce or condemn.
Now forbid *could* include IMPOSSIBLE as well as ILLEGAL, but my
reading is that it's more sensible to count it as "illegal" only,
as the law (in common definition of law used above) can't actually
make thi
On Sun, 28 May 2017, CuddleBeam wrote:
> LUCKILY I'm a bum who sometimes doesn't submit their stuff to the right forum.
> If you think its cool then sure, I can just leave it.
I agree it's an interesting debate and discussion and thus CFJ-worthy.
LUCKILY I'm a bum who sometimes doesn't submit their stuff to the right
forum.
If you think its cool then sure, I can just leave it.
I think you should have let it be decided because I don’t think it was as
simple as my arguments suggested.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On May 28, 2017, at 4:10 PM, CuddleBeam wrote:
>
> Aaah. I think we have two "proscribes" then:
>
> -Morally
Aaah. I think we have two "proscribes" then:
-Morally condemn: "Yeah you can do it, but it is punishable"
-Mechanically impossible: "You can't be a Player and a non-Player at the
same time"
I tend to think of everything in sheer mechanics, I didn't realize the
"moral" proscribe. I think it would
I derped there.
"Unregulated actions" seem to bizarre to me though, because its nearly like
ad hoc anything.
I think I've proven that they don't actually exist though, as far the
Ruleset is concerned.
On Sun, 28 May 2017, CuddleBeam wrote:
> I create one Agency per Player except myself (without notice, I
> just create it as an unregulated action right here),
How are you getting around R2468:
> The Superintendent's weekly report includes:
> - the Head and acronym of all Agencies,
w
On Sun, 28 May 2017, CuddleBeam wrote:
> - The thesis is pretty much about Agora nomic specifically, so please change
> the title.
> - "Interestingly, Suber’s ruleset leaves very basic actions such as joining
> or leaving the game unregulated allowing them to
> occur in any manner."
>
> This
- The thesis is pretty much about Agora nomic specifically, so please
change the title.
- "Interestingly, Suber’s ruleset leaves very basic actions such as joining
or leaving the game unregulated allowing them to occur in any manner."
This is a bizarre point which I wish could be expanded on. Wha
I believe I already did so.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On May 28, 2017, at 9:59 AM, Nicholas Evans wrote:
>
> You should correct the player count while you're at it.
>
> On May 28, 2017 7:30 AM, "Publius Scribonius Scholasticus"
> wrote:
> Acc
You should correct the player count while you're at it.
On May 28, 2017 7:30 AM, "Publius Scribonius Scholasticus" <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Accepted, I thought I included that.
>
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> > On
Accepted, I thought I included that.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On May 28, 2017, at 8:26 AM, Martin Rönsch wrote:
>
> Call of Error: I am also a player
>
> Veggiekeks
>
> Am 28.05.2017 um 13:16 schrieb Publius Scribonius Scholasticus:
>> I here
Am I still assigned to CFJ 3515, given that it is now open again? If so,
when does my week expire?
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 11:22 PM, Quazie wrote:
> Here is a proto proposal for more Executive Orders. I think there might be
> interesting ones for Surveyor and Secretary as well, but I couldn't think of
> them just now.
>
> Proposal: Prime Rib
>
> - De-swamp: The Prime Minister empties
44 matches
Mail list logo
