(bwa ha ha - I am hijacking the court system for my nefarious ends - if
it leads to some deep philosophy-based CFJ it gets bonus points in the
contest IMO).
On 2/7/2019 5:39 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I think that the judgement should address the issue specifically given that
it has come up and
(I wrote this before seeing Ørjan's reply)
Gaelan
> On Feb 7, 2019, at 4:58 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>
> I, unsurprisingly, disagree. You assume that there is a 1:1 mapping between
> intents and announcements of intents. I'd argue otherwise—I announced the
> same intent in both messages.
I, unsurprisingly, disagree. You assume that there is a 1:1 mapping between
intents and announcements of intents. I'd argue otherwise—I announced the same
intent in both messages. The rules don't define what an intent is or specify
how one is created, so we fall back to the conventional English
On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 4:47 PM Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Feb 2019, Aris Merchant wrote:
>
> > Gaelan tried to win by Apathy, using one buried intent to satisfy
> R1728(2)
> > and then another open intent to satisfy R1728(1). This relies on the
> assumption
> > that the R1728(1) and
On Thu, 7 Feb 2019, Aris Merchant wrote:
Gaelan tried to win by Apathy, using one buried intent to satisfy R1728(2)
and then another open intent to satisfy R1728(1). This relies on the assumption
that the R1728(1) and R1728(2) intents can be separate from each other.
However, this is not the
When my spaceship was destroyed, I purposely avoided repairing it
because I knew it would fail (I thought that was known and by design
so I didn't mention it). I would have done space stuff otherwise. I
would object to fixing it for people who didn't read the rule, except
through a proposal
On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 2:59 PM Aris Merchant
wrote:
> Please note the "for the purpose of which attempt". Under that
> circumstance, I'd expect the ruling to be that the person couldn't
> possibly have been plotting the specific attempt at that time.
Ah, thanks, this works fine, I hadn't thought
Now, I don't want to have to go back over every BUS message from the past two
weeks looking for what's changed, and presumably y'all would rather do without
the uncertainty of which actions were EFFECTIVE and which weren't, so how does
this sound as an equitable resolution? Would anybody object
Oops, the bottom got cut off.
>
> Right now you already destroy Ribbons to win. You've left the Coins
> and Balloons as "pay to win" so those are self-cleaning. Why not keep
> this one as "destroy to win" to match? (I also rather like the Raise
> the Banner color in this one).
The basic
Hmm... Yeah, that is a problem. Maybe go to a first to declare model,
and then wait until all the decelerations are final? Alternatively, we
could just make Laureled last till the next month/quarter, and then
have the PM pick a laureled player at the beginning of every new
month/quarter. I think
On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 2:28 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> Comments inline.
>
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 1:47 PM Aris Merchant
> wrote:
> > > If a rule states that a person "achieves victory by X", it is to be
> > > construed as meaning that mean that the specified person satisfies
> > > the
Just thought of something else: If win conditions are achieved
simultaneously, this gives (via CFJs, etc.) the ability for players to
mess with the Laureled status by delaying some determinations over
others, which is really messy for the P.M. and everyone (or even if
the wins aren't
Ha! You even kinda (privately) told me that was in there, and I didn't see it.
On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 2:08 PM Gaelan Steele wrote:
>
> As I previously stated in the quoted method, I intend, without objection, to
> Declare Apathy, specifying myself.
> [...]
Could act on behalf of the assessor to resolve, or even force them to resign
then deputize.
Gaelan
> On Feb 7, 2019, at 2:22 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, February 7, 2019 10:07 PM, Gaelan Steele
>> wrote:
>> Note to G: had I had the foresight, this could have been a
Comments inline.
On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 1:47 PM Aris Merchant
wrote:
> > If a rule states that a person "achieves victory by X", it is to be
> > construed as meaning that mean that the specified person satisfies
> > the Winning Condition of X for a period of one month, beginning
> > at
On Thursday, February 7, 2019 10:07 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> Note to G: had I had the foresight, this could have been a dictatorship
> (instead of doing apathy, ratify that there exists a contract, to which all
> players are parties, with the text “Gaelan can perform any action on behalf
>
Aww, shucks.
I think it would be crude of me to support, but you're very welcome. :)
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Thursday, February 7, 2019 12:18 AM, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> twg, you have been of great assistance in finding problems with my
> recent Promotor reports [1] [2]. I
Yak, another correction: the note about the power of acting on behalf should be
about ratification.
Gaelan
> On Feb 7, 2019, at 2:11 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>
> s/method/message
>
>> On Feb 7, 2019, at 2:07 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>>
>> As I previously stated in the quoted method, I
DAISAN NO BAKUDAN: BITE ZA DASTO
If anyone else is a Jojo’s Bizzare Adventure nerd, I salute you lmao.
On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 at 22:55, Telnaior wrote:
> CoE: My spaceship was never able to be repaired above 0 Armour.
>
> On 2019-01-30 04:16, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> > I publish the below
Hmm, the parallels between Space Battle resolution and proposal resolution are
remarkable. Would it be a good idea to add something like Rule 2034 for Space
Battles?
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 7:38 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On this subject,
On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 2:02 PM D. Margaux wrote:
>
>
> > On Feb 7, 2019, at 4:47 PM, Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Y’all, come on. Surely you have an opinion?
> >
> > -Aris
>
> I like it in general.
>
> Under Rule 2201, the publisher of an optional
s/method/message
> On Feb 7, 2019, at 2:07 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>
> As I previously stated in the quoted method, I intend, without objection, to
> Declare Apathy, specifying myself.
>
> I Declare Apathy, specifying myself.
> I Declare Apathy, specifying myself.
>
> I CFJ “Gaelan won the
That's fair enough. In that case (since Trigon doesn't seem to mind much) I'll
resolve it just as soon as I've figured out what these sudden revelations about
Destroyed Spaceships mean. Or possibly not, if they mean that this space battle
was never actually initiated in the first place.
-twg
> On Feb 7, 2019, at 4:47 PM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>
> Y’all, come on. Surely you have an opinion?
>
> -Aris
I like it in general.
Under Rule 2201, the publisher of an optional self-ratifying claim (like this
one) SHOULD resolve any claims of error, and that doesn’t seem like a good
Pretty buxom but in a nice way. I’d FOR.
On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 at 22:47, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Y’all, come on. Surely you have an opinion?
>
> -Aris
>
> On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 4:56 PM Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > So I was
Wait wait wait that literally undoes everything I did with my spaceship
since I STARTED with 0 Armour, plus the spaceship from my FAGE'd
registration.
On 2019-02-08 01:55, Cuddle Beam wrote:
You can’t repair your ship. In both realities, it has 0 Armor.
A Spaceship with an Armour of 0 is
It's not, don't worry - it tries to take Agora's karma further away from 0.
On 2019-02-08 02:34, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Goddammit, If this is upheld to be a Notice of Honor, I'm done with
officering for a while - beyond my "reasonable effort" level (This isn't
directed at CuddleBeam, who is merely
Mornington Crescent!
On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 3:47 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Y’all, come on. Surely you have an opinion?
>
> -Aris
>
> On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 4:56 PM Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > So I was looking at the
Y’all, come on. Surely you have an opinion?
-Aris
On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 4:56 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So I was looking at the best ways to handle the illegal win problem,
> and I decided to bring back an older set of somewhat more complicated
> victory
Okay, a few comments:
1. What does it mean to modify a “document”? Is that even a valid
operation? I’d go with “permanent regulation”, which gives it a clearly
defined status.
2. 2 Agoran Consent sounds a bit too high to me. Maybe 1.5? This is
entirely subjective, so I’ll understand if you
So, basically, Spivak is just like “quang”.
I feel the same way.
On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 at 22:11, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No, it really doesn’t. Or, rather, it does, but only in the same sense that
> Brainfuck has the power to express everything in Python (it is
It took be a couple years to get used to Spivak, but now I get
actively and genuinely annoyed with just about all my non-Agoran
writing when I need a pronoun and can't use Spivak. It really does
feel elegant to me, compared to 'they', once you get in the habit.
And sure, that puts us in the same
No, it really doesn’t. Or, rather, it does, but only in the same sense that
Brainfuck has the power to express everything in Python (it is Turing
complete). English can express just about anything, but whether it can
express it *well* is a separate matter.
-Aris
On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 1:05 PM
I think conventional English still has the linguistic power to represent
that anyways.
On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 at 21:49, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk <
ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-02-07 at 15:40 -0500, D. Margaux wrote:
> > I have no objection if people want to use the singular
Huh. I think I've been mostly using "its" for entities that are
distinctively non-person, never occurred to me otherwise. A quick web
search on Spivak defines it as gender-neutral only (and all examples I
see are to show replacements for genders). Not that Agora can't
support it's own peculiar
On Thu, 2019-02-07 at 15:40 -0500, D. Margaux wrote:
> I have no objection if people want to use the singular “they,” but I
> have come to enjoy the peculiar (and IMO elegant) Agoran style of
> e/em/eir.
>
> Perhaps the Rules could provide that Agorans SHOULD use gender
> neutral pronouns,
There's such a thing as advocating for change, and there's such a
thing of being respectful of a community's established practices
because you're a relative newcomer. That said, I wouldn't want to
explicitly proscribe either option using a Rule - if the Lexicon is
used, I think it's worth putting
I have no objection if people want to use the singular “they,” but I have come
to enjoy the peculiar (and IMO elegant) Agoran style of e/em/eir.
Perhaps the Rules could provide that Agorans SHOULD use gender neutral
pronouns, without legislating specifically which ones?
> On Feb 7, 2019, at
I’m up for they/them. It’s what I’ve been using in my proposals, anyways.
I know Oerjan has requested me to use “proper Agoran pronouns”, and with
all due respect to them, I choose not to.
That aside and as for my sentiment about this in general: tradition be
damned, advocating for change should
On Thu, 2019-02-07 at 11:05 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> So I walked away from the keyboard but kept mulling it, so here's a
> proto:
>
> Create the following Power-2 Rule, the Lexicon:
[snip]
> [*Which Officer? we don't really need a new one just for this]
Registrar. They're in charge of
Speaking of Agoran terminology, it would probably be a good idea to define the
Spivak pronouns in the rules. (Personally, I’d advocate for adopting they/them,
but I know that’s unpopular.)
Gaelan
> On Feb 7, 2019, at 11:05 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> So I walked away from the keyboard but
So I walked away from the keyboard but kept mulling it, so here's a proto:
Create the following Power-2 Rule, the Lexicon:
The Lexicon is a document maintained by the [officer*] as part of
eir monthly report. The Lexicon SHOULD consist of a list of term
definitions and jargon used in Agora,
Sorry to see you go, ATMunn. (I’ll plan to take you off the weekend court until
you say otherwise.)
> On Jan 30, 2019, at 1:25 PM, ATMunn wrote:
>
> So remember like 2 weeks ago when I said I would catch up on Agora over the
> weekend or something? And then I didn't?
>
> So yeah... I feel
On Thu, 7 Feb 2019, Cuddle Beam wrote:
- "kuukie" as shorthand for "I intend to"
- "dvba" as shorthand for "declare victory by apathy"
kuukie dvba for myself.
This part probably won't work, because intents are required to be
unobfuscated.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
Goddammit, If this is upheld to be a Notice of Honor, I'm done with
officering for a while - beyond my "reasonable effort" level (This isn't
directed at CuddleBeam, who is merely taking a line of CFJ logic to its
inevitable conclusion).
I do rather wish we'd been willing to draw a line in the
Ahhh, that makes sense. So doesn’t really matter if it has any energy
anyway I suppose.
On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 9:55 AM Cuddle Beam wrote:
> You can’t repair your ship. In both realities, it has 0 Armor.
>
> A Spaceship with an Armour of 0 is "Defeated". A Spaceship is
> "Pilotable" if it
You can’t repair your ship. In both realities, it has 0 Armor.
A Spaceship with an Armour of 0 is "Defeated". A Spaceship is
"Pilotable" if it is neither Defeated nor engaging in a Space
Battle.
Any player CAN, by announcement, spend a coin to increase the
Armour of a
47 matches
Mail list logo
