On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 12:12, Kerim Aydin via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 1/12/2020 1:27 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > === CFJ 3792
> ===
> >
> > The above-quoted message contained a valid Promotor's we
There's been some comments lately on the degree of difficulty of some
offices, notably Treasuror, and it's definitely of note that twg proposed
to maintain the Glitter rewards in eir report.
But it strikes me as odd that the rewards are largely the province of
individual players, since it puts a l
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 at 17:10, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> Alexis wrote:
> > The only difference is the expectation that the officer, before
> publishing
> > the report, verify that no messages have been sent that would alter the
> > contents o
Here's some outline I was thinking to move us towards a more pragmatic
model of law:
Any question that arises as part of a dispute can be categorized into one
of the following:
- Question of fact, divided into:
- Questions of natural fact, being facts which are true without reference
to the rul
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 at 10:35, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 1/13/20 5:58 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion wrote:
> > I agree that it would be good to have some way of giving officers extra
> > votes on relevant proposals - this was also th
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 at 00:38, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> This doesn’t really do all that much—default voting strength is 3 and max
> is 5, so it’s a little under a double vote. Maybe we need to increase the
> range of allowed voting strengths?
>
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 at 19:05, Aris Merchant via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 1:28 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-official
> wrote:
> >
> > The below CFJ is 3792. I assign it to G.
> >
> > status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3792
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 at 18:12, Jason Cobb via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> > Notice of Honour:
> > -1 Karma to Jason Cobb for calling a CFJ on eir own scam and presenting
> no
> > arguments about the most critical aspects of eir case.
> > +1 Karma to omd for the detailed
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 at 11:12, Kerim Aydin via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> Like with [Proposal], please put/edit [CFJ] into subject lines
> when you call a CFJ, if you think about it :).
>
I can appreciate the use of this, but changing subject lines always leaves
me
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 at 01:25, James Cook wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 at 06:13, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 at 01:07, James Cook wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 at 06:05, James Cook wrote:
> >> > However, the use of the word
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 at 01:07, James Cook wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 at 06:05, James Cook wrote:
> > However, the use of the word "it" in the text "but already owned it"
> > in R2602 indicates to me that the text of the rule is written with the
> > point of view that there's only one of each ri
On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 14:38, Kerim Aydin via agora-official <
agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> I recuse omd from CFJ 3783 (I know you put forward some preliminary
> thoughts on the case omd, which is why I waited a bit, but it's been a
> long time on this case now).
>
> I assign CFJ 3783
On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 21:30, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 11:26 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 1/11/2020 10:53 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > > On Sat,
On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 14:26, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> On 1/11/2020 10:53 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 13:25, Jason Cobb wrote:
> >
> >> I suppose. I was considering keeping them to try
On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 13:25, Jason Cobb via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I suppose. I was considering keeping them to try to bribe people, but
> since they're pretty useless, that would be pointless. I perform the
> following action 18 times: { If I have more than 1000
en as entities that can gain and lose members at will,
> but there’s no clear way to bootstrap a contract.
> >
> > Gaelan
> >
> > > On Jan 8, 2020, at 12:34 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> > >
> >
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 at 16:07, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> Neither your votes, nor the promotor report, were to the public forum.
>
> Additionally, I ask that you reconsider your vote on 8281. I don’t have a
> force-through scam up my sleeve, and I
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 at 14:51, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 9:59 AM Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> >
> > I’m intrigued by the idea. I’m a little concerned that it’s TOO
> vague—are these rulings CFJ-like (a mean
On Tue., Jan. 7, 2020, 23:34 Aris Merchant via agora-discussion, <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> 8280 Murphy, Jason Cobb 3.0 Resolve the troubles v1.1
>
AGAINST
> 8281 Gaelan 1.0 Nothing to see here, Rule 1030 v2
>
AGAINST
> 8282 Falsifian
On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 18:12, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 3:00 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> > This gets me thinking of a potential big and maybe-interesting-maybe-not
> > big chang
On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 16:13, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 10:56 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> >
> > Would anyone complain/object if I ratified a "false" Herald's Report
> > that claims the Notices of Honor r
On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 at 12:31, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> *sigh*
>
> CFJ: "Alexis is a player."
>
Gratuitous: I agree with twg's arguments.
Ah, missed the definition. That's scary.
I'd prefer we just play with the ruleset as is and pick up the pieces.
On Sat, Feb 24, 2018, 22:13 Aris Merchant, <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 7:09 PM Alexis Hunt wrote:
>
> > On Sa
On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 at 22:02 Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Set the gamestate to whatever it would now be if, in the infinitesimal
> period between the resolution of Proposal 8014 and the resolution of
> Proposal 8015, the gamestate had been set to whatever it would h
On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 at 21:12 Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > just sweep it under the rug
>
> I disagree with that a lot, but we can just play as if it wasn't a deal and
> then propose to have our pretending to become what shapes the gamestate +
> corrections.
>
Personally I'll object to this.
On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 at 19:52 Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Feb 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
Here are my preliminary interpretations as Rulekeepor:
> Create a new rule "Paydays" (Power=2) and amend it so that its text
> > reads, in full:
>
> This is written as if it were two rule changes, but
On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 at 00:42 Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
> Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
> pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the
> quorum
I've changed most of the indentation, word wrapping, and the like to meet a
consistent standard, but any non-whitespace changes require a rule change,
which is a large part of the purpose of these intents.
On Fri, 16 Feb 2018 at 13:26, Reuben Staley wrote:
> This discussion reminds me about a thi
gt; objecting
> >> yet in case everyone disagrees with me, but I feel that it merits
> further
> >> discussion.
> >>
> >> Gaelan
> >>
> >>> On Feb 15, 2018, at 5:00 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> >>>
> >>> For each of the ca
en I say typo, I'm assuming that we can't use
the cleaning rule on it because it involves some semantic change)
On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 at 18:12, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2018, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > That still has the problem of delaying proposals by an additiona
t; On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 9:54 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
>
> > Sounds fine to me.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 at 22:48, Kerim Aydin
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Last time we did this, 3 players created a contract so that a
Nice catch. Fixed.
On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 at 16:48, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> H. Rulekeepor,
>
> This annotation for R591:
>
> Amended(45) by Proposal 7975 "Auctions v6" (ATMunn; with o, Aris,
>nichdel, G.), Nov 26, 2017
>
> should be:
>
> Amended(45) by Proposal 7976 "A Mostest Ingenious Para
;
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>
> > I think that's a lot better for what its trying to do actually.
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 4:07 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> >
> > > Proposal: Supportive Proposals (AI=1)
> > > {{{
>
;>>>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> Cuddlebeam's Cool Contract.
> >>>>
> >>>> "This sentence is false."
> >>>> The way this contract is destroyed is by announcement, with such
> >>>> ann
On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 at 21:54, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> I object to that intent :P
>
I pend the proposal "Paradoxical Contract Obligation Fix" with shinies.
> Another try:
>
> I create a contract (Cuddlebeam's Cool Contract) by paying 1 shiny to
> Agora, with the following text:
>
> ---
> C
Historically, I think we've tended to have a mix. Some of the economic wins
have resulted in complete economy resets.
On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 at 16:40, Madeline wrote:
> One thing I've thought could be a good idea in that regard is that each
> official method of winning can only be done by one pers
Thanks!
On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 at 14:23, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > Are the case statements available somewhere so that I can easily look
> over
> > them for annotations?
>
> Links pasted in below (from Murphy's
Are the case statements available somewhere so that I can easily look over
them for annotations?
On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 at 13:40, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> > > > 3614* Assigned to o (due Fri, 15 Dec 2017 ~23:51:00)
> > > If I am assigned to this case (unclear to me):
> > > I judge TRUE. B
Does it even have a title? It looks to me like it has no title and a first
line of text that is grammatically incorrect.
On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 at 22:45, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> In intend, without objection, to rename this guild to “The Fact-Checkers’
> Guild”.
>
> This is embarrassing.
>
> Gaelan
Burma shave
On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 at 22:23, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Browsing the Archives
> Is much easier for me
> If binned into months
>
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> > Mailman is mean
> > And requires a password
> > Use Mail-Archive
> >
> > (Please)
> >
> > Gaelan
> >
> > > O
Or, alternate argument: such a document would fail to be "the value of each
instance of that switch whose value is not its default value;" and
therefore fail to even satisfy the reporting requirement.
On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 at 21:22, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> I don't think self-ratif
ort in man also has 2017.
>
> I'm sure that ratification works that way if you explicitly write
> "The following holding were true on 'date'" because we've done
> that before. The question in my mind is whether a less directed
> "Date of this re
have reports from the fall that
> >> ratified in late 2017, that state at a later date you didn't have the
> >> ribbons. So I think your attempt failed...perhaps? That now the
> >> legal historical record is that those were the ribbon holdings
> >> from ea
were the ribbon holdings
> from early 2017 until the next actual report ratified last year.
>
> Remember, we apply very strict scrutiny to scams and tiny
> errors are enough to stop it.
>
>
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > The date is still off, though---it happened o
"These definitions do not apply to relative durations (e.g. "within
days after ")."
On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 at 20:39, Madeline wrote:
> I put in a CFJ earlier, I think right now self-ratification requires a
> full Agoran week (which is why I waited this long).
>
>
The date is still off, though---it happened one week after the previous
report.
On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 at 19:19, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Oh shit, true. Well, OK.
>
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:17 AM, Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It was in eir previous report.
> >
One can play a nomic by doing nothing but voting.
On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 at 21:46, ATMunn wrote:
> Thanks. I was considering deregistering anyways, and this just pushed it
> over the edge. I just felt that I hadn't really cared much for or been
> involved much in Agora recently, and so there wasn't
Admitted.
On Wed, 7 Feb 2018 at 00:26 Telnaior wrote:
> CoE on both the FLR and the SLR: Rule 2507 ("Black Cards") was never
> validly enacted.
>
>
> On 2018-02-07 14:22, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> >
ated the Silly Person. The Silly Person
> SHALL in that week (...) submit a Silly Proposal."
>
> You designated me Silly Person THIS week. So in THAT week (so, this one),
> I've got to submit a Silly Proposal.
>
> On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 7:30 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
>
>
Except e isn't yet.
On Wed, 7 Feb 2018 at 13:28 ATMunn wrote:
> So this is what happens when CB becomes the silly person...
>
> On 2/7/2018 12:29 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > Yes it is I, ladies and damsels, the master of muse, the tsar of taste.
> >
> > Ahem.
> >
> > *clears throat with some yode
2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > It's got a SHALL, not CAN
> > > > >
> > > > > R1650 doesn't give you any powers to actually do what this SHALL is
> > > > > commanding you to.
> > > > >
> &g
ALL is
> commanding you to.
>
> On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 5:14 PM, Kerim Aydin
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > How was it broken? I thought we used it successfully for a
> > while and then just forgot.
> >
> > On Wed, 7 Feb 2018, ATMunn wrote:
> > >
>
No, omd is still Distributor. E flipped the HTML-stripping settings in
response to the proposal to do so last year.
On Tue, 6 Feb 2018 at 18:54 ATMunn wrote:
> Same thing happens here.
>
> On 2/6/2018 5:02 PM, Telnaior wrote:
> > Somehow this managed to come through in variable-width font on my
Isn't Murphy Arbitor?
On Tue, Feb 6, 2018, 04:36 Cuddle Beam, wrote:
> (Arbitor is currently vacant.)
> I deputize as Arbitor to perform the following:
>
> --*---
>
> The CFJ summoned below by Nichdel is CFJ 3620 and the one summoned by
> Cuddlebeam is CFJ 3621.
>
> I assign these both t
I favour this case.
On Mon, 5 Feb 2018 at 21:27 Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Well it seems viable to me so I'll give it a shot I guess lol.
> (Wielding paradoxes is a weird thing, I hope I'm doing it right). Here are
> the proto-actions:
>
> I create a contract by paying 1 shiny to Agora, with the f
My personal life has been a mess this week. I'll try to make it back with
updated rulesets soon.
++
On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 at 17:26 Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If no one has objections, I'm going to try to get this into this
> week's distribution.
>
> -Aris
> --
>
> Title: Power Creep Reduction Act
> Author: Aris
> Adoption index: 3.0
>
> Amend Rule 217, "Interp
A reminder to everyone that deadlines resume next week.
On Sat, 6 Jan 2018 at 11:27 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> It's very well written, but I tried to sing it and kept running out of
> breath.
>
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.sc
We had the President, which was a sort of singleton semi-autonomous player.
The idea of using Agora in place of an arbitrary singleton entity is
relatively new, and not one that I really like to be honest.
On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 at 16:00 Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> I have a vague feeling that we did
On Sun, 24 Dec 2017 at 01:05 Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I win the a game by spending balloons (under Rule 2537). Whether or not
> this works is dependent upon the Clork's report, but there's a time limit
> so I'm doing this now.
>
> -Aris
>
I believe this does wo
I'd probably not bother playing.
On Sat, 23 Dec 2017 at 09:16 Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Seeing how activity and Office-holders are waning, I'd like to know how
> people would feel about transitioning Agora off a Mailing List and onto a
> different kind of substrate.
>
> I personally find our mailing
On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 at 02:47 Edward Murphy wrote:
> Proto-Proposal: Favour Fixes
>
> Amend Rule 2542 (Favour Awards) by replacing this text:
>
>- For each voter who has not voted on an Agoran decision resolved
> earlier in the same Agoran week, e SHALL award that player 2
>
On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 at 23:54 Edward Murphy wrote:
> with this text:
>
> the
>Herald CAN and SHALL, by announcement, initiate an Agoran Decision
>on who is to be awarded a Medal of Honour.
>
> [Possibly also amend
This particular proposal isn't a deliberate attempt to create a paradox, no.
On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 at 12:24 Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 16 Dec 2017, Telnaior wrote:
> > >
> ---
> > > 7993* Alexis 1.0 Conditiona
On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 at 18:56 Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> The below CFJ is CFJ 3617. I assign it to Alexis.
>
>
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> > (If I can take actions)
> >
> > I destroy 10 bills, get 1 shinies, and use it to create a contract
> > with the following text {This sentence is fa
On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 at 13:23 Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Oh I personally don't want to change the current situation except use
> CFJs to reign in the more unreasonable conditionals. But I *really*
> don't want a broken implementation at power-1 to argue over, so if
> there's a vote to be had it should
This is how excess cases work, presumably for this exact reason.
On Sun, Dec 10, 2017, 20:13 Alex Smith, wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-12-11 at 01:07 +0000, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > Another argument in favour of making CFJ calls less fundamentally
> > conditional.
>
> Perhaps we s
On Sun, Dec 10, 2017, 19:50 Alex Smith, wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-12-11 at 00:17 +, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > If this proposal is not already pending, I pend it for 1 AP.
> This works as intended even without the conditional, under our current
> rulings; you can't pay to pend a proposal if it's al
Can't at the moment.
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 at 21:38 ATMunn wrote:
> I missed that, then. Would you mind giving me the archive link for that
> then? (if not, that's fine)
>
> On 12/4/2017 9:36 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > Since I resigned last week.
> >
> > O
Since I resigned last week.
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 at 21:35 ATMunn wrote:
> Since when?
>
> (also I just realized I forgot to change the formatting of the event log
> on the report... I'm sorry everyone for being so messy here)
>
> On 12/4/2017 9:26 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
&g
I was never nominated.
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 at 21:34 ATMunn wrote:
> Tue Nov 28 01:44:20 UTC 2017 - Alexis became a candidate for the Tailor
> election
> Did you ever withdraw your nomination, or am I missing something here?
>
> On 12/4/2017 9:25 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> >
CoE: I'm not a Tailor candidate.
On Mon, Dec 4, 2017, 21:20 ATMunn, wrote:
> Sorry this report came later than usual this week. I haven't been feeling
> too well this past week, and so I procrastinated the entire report until
> today, and have spent the past hour working on it.
> Note: I did not
On Sun, 3 Dec 2017 at 18:39 Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
> Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
> pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the
> quorum
On Sun, 3 Dec 2017 at 16:18 VJ Rada wrote:
> coe i'm not a player
>
Ah true, that's not part of the report though so I'm not treating this as a
formal CoE.
hahaha oops.
On Sun, 3 Dec 2017 at 13:57 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> You may want to fix the date.
>
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> > On Dec 3, 201
>
>
>
> > On Dec 3, 2017, at 11:13 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> >
> > I buy a Stamp for 4 shinies.
> >
> > I claim 5 shinies for the SLR, then for the FLR.
>
>
How?
On Sat, Dec 2, 2017, 09:35 ATMunn, wrote:
> Corona withdrew eir nomination.
>
> On 12/2/2017 5:41 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> > I vote {o, Corona}
> >
> > On 12/01/2017 05:21 PM, Telnaior wrote:
> >> I vote {o, PSS}.
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2017-12-02 01:45, ATMunn wrote:
> >>> A
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> > On Nov 30, 2017, at 11:40 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> >
> > Only the election resolution?
> >
> > On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 at 06:06 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> w
Only the election resolution?
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 at 06:06 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I accept and I republish the below:
>
> I resolve the election for Herald as electing Corona. In the first round,
> we eliminate PSS with 2 votes, then Corona
-
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> > On Nov 29, 2017, at 9:18 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> >
> > Because the revision is probably self-ratifying of its own right, and so
> it
> > requires a second CoE to prevent that self-rati
id you CoE the revision?
>
> On 11/29/2017 09:16 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > No, there was the first one, then the revision.
> >
> > On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 at 21:12 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Not
No, there was the first one, then the revision.
On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 at 21:12 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not after the second one. Did I accidentally send multiple revisions
> after VJ Rada's CoE?
>
> On 11/29/2017 09:1
On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 at 21:08 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why?
>
Because you published a new document purporting to be a decision
resolution.
There were two copies. I'm not sure they don't self-ratify separately.
On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 at 21:07 ATMunn wrote:
> You CoE'd this twice.
>
> On 11/29/2017 9:04 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > Obligatory CoE: Proposal 7981 did not take effect.
> >
> > On We
.
> >
> > On Wed, 29 Nov 2017, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> >> On Wed, 29 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 at 20:24 Ørjan Johansen
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >>
On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 at 18:25 Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Recently-Delivered Verdicts and Implications
>
> [** = consider for rules annotation]
>
> 3595-3596 by G.: Poetry Duel Challenge Writ is too confusing to work.
>
> **3597 by Aris: Multiple payments ca
On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 at 23:51 VJ Rada wrote:
> Cards issued for reasons that don't break the rules or cards that are
> obviously inappropriate are INNEFFECTIVE. The Dive rule which Alexis
> used says "Notwithstanding rule 2426, the reason for the card
> MAY be any grievance held by the Pri
See paragraph 3 of Rule 2522.
On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 at 21:57 Owen Jacobson wrote:
>
> > On Nov 28, 2017, at 4:53 PM, VJ Rada wrote:
> >
> > (If I can take actions)
> >
> > I destroy 10 bills, get 1 shinies, and use it to create a contract
> > with the following text {This sentence is false. If th
On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 at 20:24 Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> >> I AP-CFJ, on behalf of VJ Rada, "Rule 2507 does not exist." This is
> >> because its enactment was INEFFECTIVE, per paragraph 3 claus
On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 at 20:16 Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
>
> > This is intentional, as far as I'm aware.
>
> If by "this" you mean that supporters are allowed to be performers, I know
> that, but my claim is that this is ac
This is intentional, as far as I'm aware.
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017, 01:45 Ørjan Johansen, wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 at 01:03 Gaelan Steele wrote:
> >
> >> I support and do so.
> >>
> >
> > Th
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 at 21:24 Owen Jacobson wrote:
>
> > On Nov 23, 2017, at 12:07 AM, VJ Rada wrote:
> >
> > I shiny-CFJ {The Door CAN generally be Slammed on a player after
> > a Black Card is awarded to em, provided that eir most recent
> deregistration
> > took place with eir consent.
>
> I’l
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 at 20:02 Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> > However I take your point, I do take it. I shouldn't have done it,
> > probably. I do take your point. I know the way I take this game is less
> > than serious, which can be at times a slap in the face t
On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 at 19:02 ATMunn wrote:
> I certainly don't want it.
>
> On 11/26/2017 6:53 PM, VJ Rada wrote:
> > it's not that hard guys. @trigon @atmunn @telnaior etc.
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> >> An
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 at 19:33 Madeline wrote:
> You're still Referee, I don't think that's possible?
>
> The proposal barring it hasn't passed.
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 at 19:08 Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 at 18:53 ATMunn wrote:
> >
> > > When? I couldn't find the message.
> > >
> >
> > E purported to deputize for Herald
You still will, because you didn't get your White Ribbon either.
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 at 19:08 ATMunn wrote:
> That's quite unfortunate, because now I no longer have the option to claim
> a White Ribbon to obtain a Transparent Ribbon in the future. :(
>
> On 11/27/2017 7:06
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 at 14:28 ATMunn wrote:
> Ok, here goes nothing.
>
> In the last 7 days, I earned a Black Ribbon, and qualified for Blue and
> Orange (I just judged a CFJ, and my Auctions proposal was unanimously
> adopted)
>
> I also have the ability to claim a White Ribbon at any time, as I
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 at 18:59 VJ Rada wrote:
> The statement in CFJ 1610 is "G. owns a Black Ribbon.". I judge that e
> does not, this CFJ is FALSE
>
3610, surely?
You can simply defer the CoE to the CFJ.
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 at 19:03 ATMunn wrote:
> Ah. Can I request that that CFJ be judged in the next 7 days so I can know
> whether to deny or accept the CoE?
>
> On 11/27/2017 6:59 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 at 1
201 - 300 of 691 matches
Mail list logo
