On Sunday 13 July 2008 10:45:42 pm ihope wrote:
Either the sky is always red or, if I do not hereby initiate an
inquiry case on this sentence, then the sky is always green.
(R v (~I = G))
Since ~G, it follows that I (ihope127 does in fact call said CFJ).
Although ~R, (false v true) evaluates
On Saturday 12 July 2008 07:09:51 pm Elliott Hird wrote:
Ping.
Pong.
On Saturday 12 July 2008 09:01:10 pm Ed Murphy wrote:
a) Props are a currency. The recordkeepor of props is the
ATC. Ownership of props is limited to first-class
players. Props CANNOT be created, transferred, or destroyed
except as required by this contract or
On Thursday 10 July 2008 08:18:54 pm Sgeo wrote:
this amount of the currency, specifies a
maximum FINE amount, and the amount is no greater than the
Should be:
this amount of the currency, and the backing document specifies
a maximum FINE amount, and the amount is
On Thursday 10 July 2008 06:41:15 pm Ian Kelly wrote:
I never understood the attraction of that meme in the first place.
There's a pretty good analysis of it here:
http://gameshelf.jmac.org/2008/02/i-lose.html
On Friday 11 July 2008 02:49:19 pm Roger Hicks wrote:
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 9:42 AM, Ben Caplan wrote:
On Thursday 10 July 2008 08:18:54 pm Sgeo wrote:
this amount of the currency, specifies a
maximum FINE amount, and the amount is no greater than the
Should
On Friday 11 July 2008 03:08:13 pm Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 3:49 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why have a maximum fine amount?
Because without it I can't create a shell corporation to hold all of
my assets, giving me some arbitrary currency in exchange and
On Tuesday 8 July 2008 2:12:57 Zefram wrote:
I think there should not be any extra capability here. If a contract
doesn't allow voluntary destruction then this should not be a valid
subject for a fine. Don't break zero-sum currencies, and in general
don't break how particular currencies are
On Tuesday 8 July 2008 3:03:52 Quazie wrote:
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When a player has become eligible for a ribbon within the last 7
days and does not already have that ribbon, e CAN award emself
that ribbon by announcement.
If it
On Wednesday 9 July 2008 1:49:59 comex wrote:
It would be interesting if we forced the ninny to transfer the goods
to a first-class player not obligated to give them back-- of eir
choice.
SCAM
On Wednesday 9 July 2008 3:15:52 Roger Hicks wrote:
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 12:19 PM, Ben Caplan
LFD transfer usually breaks the same things as outright destruction.
If the Lost Found Department gets 3 VP, for example, they're as good
as gone.
Why not allow the Assessor to auction off
On Monday 7 July 2008 5:32:23 Quazie wrote:
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:23 PM, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
An upgraded Ranch should require 2 WRVs / month (possibly distributed as 1
WRV every half month). I think the upgraded Mill is too powerful, though.
The thought was that a
On Sunday 6 July 2008 10:22:13 Elliott Hird wrote:
2008/7/6 Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Not that I think putting bits of Agora under the laws of a
jurisdiction other than Agora itself is a great idea. We'd probably
see some case appealed out of the equity courts and into a real world
Please don't kill me.
Whether you lynch me or not, any one false lynching from this point
would immediately cede the game to the werewolves. If we have a
lynching this evening, then it's our last chance to catch a wolf; if
we don't, then tomorrow evening is. Seen this way, the rational thing
to
On Sunday 6 July 2008 5:07:30 Geoffrey Spear wrote:
I hereby initiate an equity case regarding the PerlNomic Partnership
contract. The parties to the contract are Pavitra, Wooble, abliss,
ais523, chuck, comex, ehird, erez, ihope, jay, norgg, and woggle.
It was not envisioned that the server
On Saturday 5 July 2008 10:00:24 Roger Hicks wrote:
On Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 8:52 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or just give it some money. Is anybody willing to donate their estate to
Agora?
I've been toying with the idea of running a Jackpot Nomic for a
while, where to become a
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 6:30 PM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You seem pretty resigned to your death, eh?
And all you can do upon it is suggest to lynch me...
My regular computer can't connect to the internet right now, so
I'm stuck using the gmail web interface from a painfully slow
On Tuesday 1 July 2008 3:35:51 Taral wrote:
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 1:30 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, I understand the reasoning behind the limitit just seems the
limit is set too low. Were it expanded to even 200KB it would be rare
that you would ever have to manually
On Friday 4 July 2008 10:04:22 Ian Kelly wrote:
It may be that Pavitra did indeed compose the message last Sunday, but
it didn't get sent until today for some reason.
I just got my laptop hooked back up to the internet this evening. There
were about four messages sitting in my outbox that just
Sounds good for the sell side, but I'd still like to see I buy up to
X VP worth of votes in the obvious optimal fashion refactored as well.
Not quite sure how to make that one work. Care to take a stab at it?
I'm not sure about auto-optimization, but the current contract text
supports a
On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 9:14 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 9:24 PM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ehird was the one to nominate
Wobble
Wooble was not a werewolf
HMMM...
After much ponderance, I submit the following for your consideration:
ZOMG EHIRD = TEH LINCH
On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 10:07 PM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/6/29 Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Happy birthday, Agora!
45 seconds late, I believe.
Wait, what?
Does GMT +1200 mean + 1,200 hours? I assumed it meant + 12:00, i.e.,
+ 12 hours.
GMT +12 as of the writing of this
ehird, I'll give you all my chits if you make a public statement of innocence.
This strikes me as not within the spirit of the game of Werewolf. Wolves need
to be able to lie with impunity. Perhaps we should put a term in the contract
to the effect of a party shall not publicly assert eir role?
Wolves need
to be able to lie with impunity. Perhaps we should put a term in the
contract to the effect of a party shall not publicly assert eir role?
Sometimes a well timed role claim can win the game.
And a well timed false role claim can really mess up the Town.
By public, I meant to a
Happy birthday, Agora!
45 seconds late, I believe.
the entire day of June 30, GMT +1200 = June 29 12:00:00 to June 30
12:00:00 (UTC). My message was posted at June 30 00:00:45 (UTC).
http://www.timezoneconverter.com/cgi-bin/tzc.tzc
thinks that the time as I write this is 04:10 Jun 30 (UTC)
or
On Thursday 26 June 2008 6:20:51 Quazie wrote:
Historian should be an office that Murphy has... or something of the
sort, where E can gain more than just kudos for his weekly journals.
Especially now that Kudos aren't an Agoran currency.
It could be that it can devolve obligations without the person it
devolves to being able to
uphold these obligations. Then it's trivially TRUE, and ehrid is still a
player.
This seems to me to be obviously the case. The concept of SHALL and
CANNOT is wholeheartedly compatible with the Spirit
On Thursday 26 June 2008 8:30:54 Kerim Aydin wrote:
Oh hey, comex! Want to do a back-and-forth for trade for free to get us
both above the limit for an instant? We could do that monthly as long
as our combo sums to 50. -Goethe
How much do you two trust each other?
Amend R208 by replacing paragraph (a) to read:
(a) Either:
(i) it is published after the voting period has ended, or
(ii) each eligible voter has submitted at least one vaild
ballot on it.
Pavitra
-- Forwarded message --
From: Dice server [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Am I the only one who's getting a bad signature error?
Pavitra
On Wednesday 25 June 2008 11:36:02 Roger Hicks wrote:
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 12:48 PM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I change the Manroster to ehird.
I rename Teh Cltohed Mna to ehrid.
Since it is no longer a person and has never been a first-class
person, I cause the contract
On Tuesday 24 June 2008 10:21:11 Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, Ben Caplan wrote:
On Monday 23 June 2008 11:40:43 Ben Caplan wrote:
comex, would you change your behavior at all if we awarded you the
Scamster? You certainly fulfill the requirements.
Oh woops, you already have
On Tuesday 24 June 2008 1:24:01 Alexander Smith wrote:
There seems to have been quite a bit of paradox theft recently,
so I've come up with this to try to clamp down on it.
Proto: Boring Paradoxes (AI=3, II=1)
Amend rule 2110 to the following:
{{{
A tortoise is an inquiry case
A game action is liberal iff the rules explicitly indicate that it is.
A game action that is not liberal is parsimonious.
Define game action. Does this include contract-defined actions? If I
vote FORx4 on each of two proposals, is that one, two, or four actions?
* Any action that is required
On Tuesday 24 June 2008 4:21:50 Ben Caplan wrote:
A game action is liberal iff the rules explicitly indicate that it is.
A game action that is not liberal is parsimonious.
Define game action. Does this include contract-defined actions? If I
vote FORx4 on each of two proposals, is that one
On Tuesday 24 June 2008 7:40:01 Ian Kelly wrote:
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Ben Caplan
Define game action. Does this include contract-defined actions?
That's the intent. Perhaps s/game action/regulated action/
This still isn't clear to me. It determines unambiguously whether a
given
On Monday 23 June 2008 10:27:36 Kerim Aydin wrote:
I am glad that this was delivered in its pre-trial phase, for the real
judgement, reading your response, will be harsher. OTHER MEMBERS OF THE
AFO, you may want to work on protecting the contract and your personal
involvement with comex's
On Monday 23 June 2008 11:40:43 Ben Caplan wrote:
comex, would you change your behavior at all if we awarded you the
Scamster? You certainly fulfill the requirements.
Oh woops, you already have it. It was a nice theory.
On Wednesday 18 June 2008 7:30:57 ihope wrote:
It's an unregulated action, so I have the right to take it. I believe
precedent is that generally, if I have the right to do something, but
the rules provide no mechanism for it (and it's of the fictional
type), I can do it by announcement.
On Sunday 22 June 2008 8:33:21 Geoffrey Spear wrote:
2. Any first class person join or leave this contract with the consent
person can join
On Monday 16 June 2008 10:13:14 ihope wrote:
Hmm, yes, you're probably right about the contract-defined actions
thing. I would rather have a sentence or two stating that the
gamestate can only be changed as the rules allow than a list of what's
regulated and what's not that uses ambiguous
On Saturday 14 June 2008 8:38:19 ihope wrote:
So what is it that you need to do that the rules have the power to
prevent you from doing, and do not allow you to do? I'm taking out
scammable paragraphs and replacing them with a sentence or two that
have the same effect, if not a better one.
On Monday 16 June 2008 2:22:56 Quazie wrote:
I submit the following proposal entitled A win of monstrous
proportions with the following text:
---
Upon the adoption of this proposal The barlog, Large Luigi the
Beholder, the Jabberwocky, Pikachu, Dracula, The Hydra, Godzilla, and
the Dover
On Monday 16 June 2008 6:39:52 Nick Vanderweit wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Ben Caplan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You'd have to have a good definition of gamestate.
If it's not explicitly prohibited, then why bother disallowing it?
We'll prohibit what we see as counter to our game
On Monday 16 June 2008 6:50:33 ihope wrote:
The rules can't stop you from posting to the DF. They can prohibit it,
but my proposal doesn't (well, shouldn't) claim to do so.
R2141: Rules are unlimited in scope.
On Monday 16 June 2008 7:16:50 Ian Kelly wrote:
On Monday 16 June 2008 2:22:56 Quazie wrote:
I submit the following proposal entitled A win of monstrous
proportions with the following text:
---
Upon the adoption of this proposal The barlog, Large Luigi the
Beholder, the
On Saturday 14 June 2008 12:51:52 Ben Caplan wrote:
On Saturday 14 June 2008 12:18:39 Geoffrey Spear wrote:
I SUPPORT. The judge did not touch on the issue of whether a
privilege to do something implies that the thing in question CAN be
done or merely MAY be done, as instructed
On Friday 13 June 2008 8:51:40 Ed Murphy wrote:
Pavitra wrote:
On Friday 13 June 2008 9:46:55 Ed Murphy wrote:
why I chose this proposal title.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9D04E1DD153DE334BC4B52DFB566838F649FDE
No.
Hm. It was a really strong match too.
Snoopy's
On Friday 13 June 2008 1:22:35 Ed Murphy wrote:
Ivan Hope, Pavitra, Zefram: Why did you vote against Proposal 5520?
Amend Rule 1504 (Criminal Cases) by replacing this text:
* OVERLOOKED, appropriate if the alleged act allegedly occurred
at least 200 days before the case was
On Friday 13 June 2008 3:40:37 Ian Kelly wrote:
Note that the message in question eventually did get through, so this
^^
now appears to be trivially true.
Rule 591 is fairly clear about at the time the inquiry case was
initiated.
On Friday 13 June 2008 3:58:28 Ian Kelly wrote:
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 2:53 PM, Ben Caplan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 13 June 2008 3:40:37 Ian Kelly wrote:
Note that the message in question eventually did get through, so this
^^
now
On Friday 13 June 2008 9:46:55 Ed Murphy wrote:
[I pledge to ASAP spend a major chord to increase the VVLOD of the
first player who correctly explains why I chose this proposal title.]
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9D04E1DD153DE334BC4B52DFB566838F649FDE
On Wednesday 11 June 2008 8:11:33 Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008, Nick Vanderweit wrote:
But then people would know how many FOR and AGAINST votes there had
been, and would simply use that to judge how they would vote.
That's ok. Games to play:
-So who votes first?
-What
On Thursday 12 June 2008 3:14:10 Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Ben Caplan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
B: I vote on it with md5 hash bar.
(The string hashed as bar would have to include cryptographic salt:
rather than FOR, it would be FOR /*8947521705932789
On Thursday 12 June 2008 3:52:35 Ian Kelly wrote:
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Ben Caplan wrote:
bar
FOR /*8947521705932789*/
(AGAINST /*8947521705932789*/ hashes to baz.)
That doesn't prove anything.
Of course, all this indicates to me is that we should use
On Saturday 7 June 2008 12:13:46 Ed Murphy wrote:
Suggested fix for the first problem with 5542: If the prior judgement
ceases to be effective, then the contract is amended to read as it would
have if it had not been amended as specified by the prior judgement.
Alternatively:
When an
== CFJ 1985 ==
The first paragraph of Rule 1586 has no effect.
Caller's Arguments:
How can attempts to *be* something be unsuccessful?
On Wednesday 4 June 2008 4:19:46 comex wrote:
I initiate an inquiry case on the statement:
{
At least one of the following statements is true:
- War is Peace.
- Freedom is Slavery.
- Ignorance is Strength.
}
I suggest you submit some arguments to the effect that this case should
not just
On Sunday 1 June 2008 2:21:40 ihope wrote:
5537 D1 2Murphy Foreign trade
FOR
That is all.
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
You should vote PRESENT on 5532-5536, that's what it's there for.
On Sunday 1 June 2008 3:41:29 comex wrote:
Except that pledges can't do things automatically. So really, he's out of
luck.
Why not?
On Sunday 1 June 2008 4:28:29 Ian Kelly wrote:
On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 3:07 PM, Ben Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Change the title of rule 2168 to Please don't fail quorum, and
I'm not fond of the title change.
What would you call it? The current title doesn't logically cover the
new
On Sunday 1 June 2008 5:47:42 Ian Kelly wrote:
On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 4:23 PM, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pavitra asked me to post my wild shot in public:
First
?
Nevermore
Ovid
?
?
Warren
Havah or Eve or Lilit(h)... depends on which text you're using.
Gary
On Saturday 31 May 2008 1:32:35 Alexander Smith wrote:
Pavitra wrote:
I therefore judge CFJ 1934 IRRELEVANT.
I call for judgement on the following statement: There is a CFJ with ID
number 1934.
Arguments: Hello! is not a statement, thus the attempt to file the CFJ in
the first
place
On Tuesday 27 May 2008 4:09:46 ihope wrote:
--Ivan Hope NTTPF
Uh
On Thursday 29 May 2008 12:41:27 Geoffrey Spear wrote:
Your ability to create a paradoxical contract without the
support of a majority of players which makes information required to
judge a case logically impossible for the judge to ascertain isn't the
same as an ability to trick
On Tuesday 27 May 2008 4:09:46 ihope wrote:
I submit a proposal with adoption index 1.7: Before the last paragraph
of rule 591, add the paragraph '* ANY, appropriate if the statement
uses the word any in an ambiguous manner'.
Oh, and UNDETERMINED is already appropriate if the statement is ...
On Monday 26 May 2008 8:50:16 Ed Murphy wrote:
Submitted by Pavitra:
I am my ordinal number.
I measure the diagonal.
I am the cry of the raven.
I record the metamorphoses.
I am the breath of the muse.
I weave the eternal golden braid.
I am the inner council of rabbits.
I am the woman
On Wednesday 21 May 2008 10:31:28 Ed Murphy wrote:
Pavitra wrote:
Simply put: persons make binding agreements; Agora makes those
agreements into contracts, and eventually perhaps contests. The
judgement for a question on equation is not even a contract.
Counterargument: R1742 says
On Thursday 22 May 2008 2:01:31 Elliott Hird wrote:
Dear (fellow) Agorans,
How do you view a vote of PRESENT regarding a proposal you
made? Do view it as a kind of wimpy FOR, or do you take it as
a sort of well, I oppose this, but not enough for AGAINST?
Other opinions are welcome, but I
On Thursday 22 May 2008 4:31:18 Kerim Aydin wrote:
Boy, what a bunch of lying going on. I hope y'all others can teach
these folks that a purposeful lie is a purposeful lie, whether or
not it also happens to be a game action (and DISCLAIMERS to the
contrary notwithstanding).
Actually, I
On Thursday 22 May 2008 4:55:15 Alexander Smith wrote:
Just because I didn't claim my claim of identity to be true, and
explicitly refrained from saying that it was true or false, doesn't
mean that it isn't a public document.
You fundamentally cannot publish a statement without claiming it to
On Thursday 22 May 2008 6:08:54 ihope wrote:
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 11:01 PM, Ben Caplan wrote:
{{
Amend rule 911 by inserting the text of REMAND or REASSIGN after
a judgement in the second paragraph.
}}
That text appears twice, I believe.
But only once in the second paragraph
For reference:
== CFJ 1936 ==
The judge in an equity case CAN make the equation a contest by
stating it is one.
Judge Murphy's Arguments:
I
, s ay alweve lot
eosodblf l 'a lixi
snirasiat,srhbafic.P
reht urro ae eeeuada
u t ora.nom ,er,qlev
oc oidr fedgn lti
cayftutMf hin nntyat
nr cmioitcsiuios cr
f rru bs hscss tuaoa
Ocaedart,e used jdv
ehteoG-
too many
On Wednesday 14 May 2008 3:35:10 ihope wrote:
Hmm. I should have pointed out that ASAP and as soon as possible
may not be the same thing.
R754(1), James T. Kirk edition: ... the use of [an] ... acronym ...
in place of a ... phrase, is inconsequential in all forms of
communication
Pavitra
On Wednesday 14 May 2008 4:37:26 comex wrote:
i ,dnah rehto eht nO
f either of you wrot
tiw segassem esoht e
hout a script, you'r
.enasni e
m'I ss
H .ne
iasieu
ni!rhg
sl Et
ane, I
Well,
On Tuesday 13 May 2008 5:04:16 Benjamin Schultz wrote:
I consent.
NttPF.
Pavitra
is that they're inconsistent with our larger textual experience.
inconsistent; the reason that wholly bottom-to-top messages don't work
reason that top-posting doesn't work is that the message in internally
Zefram's core point is right, though: it's bad to be inconsistent. The
certain
On Saturday 10 May 2008 12:24:14 Kerim Aydin wrote:
R2125 states that actions are regulated
if (conditions a..d), but does not define regulated, nor does any other
Rule.
I always thought that R2125 defined regulated. In what sense does it
not do so, and
On Friday 9 May 2008 5:31:33 Elliott Hird wrote:
2008/5/9 Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Then you shouldn't have joined that one either. You realize the chain
can't recur infinitely, because the base state is not to be a member
of any contract, so you must have joined these contracts at some
On Friday 9 May 2008 5:10:29 Alexander Smith wrote:
Is it even possible to agree to a private contract you don't know
all the details of? More importantly, if it is, what happens?
Seems to me that it's possible, but basically ineffective due to
R101(v). You can decide at any time not to
On Friday 9 May 2008 6:03:17 Elliott Hird wrote:
2008/5/9 Ben Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
You still must have joined the infinite chain (or at least one
contract thereof) in said finite past.
One of the meta-religions along the chain specifies that I have
been in existence for an infinite
On Friday 9 May 2008 6:27:08 Elliott Hird wrote:
2008/5/10 Ben Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The issue is not whether you have been in existence forever, but
whether you have been a member of the chain forever. Let's assume you
have always been bound by the conditions, even before the
meta
On Friday 9 May 2008 8:29:54 Ed Murphy wrote:
There may still be some gray area, but this recent sequence of events is
not it.
Quoted for great justice. At the time the contract in question was
joined (by each of its parties), there was no way for any party to
avoid violating it. Everyone
On Thursday 8 May 2008 11:43:32 Ian Kelly wrote:
I could make the agreement. I could make the agreement a contest.
Therefore the contest is a possible agreement I could make. What's so
complicated about that?
It's not possible for you to do so truly unilaterally. In a certain
sense, yes, no
On Thursday 8 May 2008 4:58:08 Ed Murphy wrote:
comex wrote:
I do hereby publish this text, which is of a potential contract:
{{
1. This contract will be public when it forms.
2. This contract is a pledge.
}}
I may at any time decide to make this into a contract (without telling
On Thursday 8 May 2008 5:39:14 Ian Kelly wrote:
CAN and could are not synonymous. If the phrase used by R2169 is
intended to mean ...the possible agreements that the parties CAN
make..., then it should say that. Currently, it does not.
Fair point. However:
Could is the subjunctive form of
On Thursday 8 May 2008 5:40:15 Elliott Hird wrote:
I join Agora. I wish to be known by the nickname ehird.
We have a suspicious sudden influx of people ending in numbers: Ivan
Hope CXXVII, ais523, and now (with a bit of wordplay) Elliot the
Third.
Conspiracy? Foreign invasion? Sock puppets?
On Thursday 8 May 2008 6:45:24 Ian Kelly wrote:
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 5:08 PM, Ben Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fair point. However:
Could is the subjunctive form of can (R754(1)), as in I can join
the AAA today; I could have joined the AAA yesterday. Can SHOULD
be taken to mean CAN
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 11:13 PM, Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Keep in mind the As in 4 part of the CFJ, which was if the phrasing
is informal...
(...)
This CFJ, on the other hand, concerns private communications along the lines
of:
{{From Bob: Hey Alice, I'll show you mine if
Oh, and in that case I revise my minimum index suggestion to 3.
Why shouldn't there be power 1 flash proposals?
I've been thinking that it might be a good idea to have a way to pass
proposals arbitrarily quickly, in case of emergency. Of course, it
would have to be fairly failsafe againt voting scams.
Flash Proposals
AI=3
{{
Create a new rule at power 3 entitled Flash Proposals with the following
text:
, calling an emergency session would
probably do more harm than good.
On Friday 2 May 2008 3:58:54 Ian Kelly wrote:
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 1:03 PM, Ben Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
An active first-class player generally CAN adopt a proposal with
N Support, provided
On Wednesday 30 April 2008 12:07:55 Roger Hicks wrote:
Tomorrow starts a new month, don't forget to water your digit ranches!
I know the AFO will experience some land destruction unless it's
fields are shown some TLC today.
Also, I have two #4 digit ranches (one of which is about to be
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 12:30 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This puzzle is called: Ntben Zrzorefuvc Jbeqfrnepu
It looks like it should be:
zolzvlnkornzn
jbokitubnbftj
bretnrocfvljk
tenpagznesrmg
tbrgurernhgbj
yrkwbqfnzvzqo
rrbgcfgvzkiup
yynvrzpcnuiro
eovqpfnnvferr
bbqkkmniebqnq
I made my comment in a-d-- does it count as acting? If I am not
allowed to truthfully describe the game in any forum, does that
violate my R101 right of participation in the fora?
It is interesting to note that, by referring to your comment as
truthfully describing the game, you assert the
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 1:31 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 11:52 AM, Ben Caplan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Aside from that, this case differs from CFJ1738 in two interesting
ways. First, it deals with the discussion forum instead of public
fora
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 5:53 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not to distract from your overall point, but picking a nit: didn't we
have a precedent that every player was notified if something was sent to the
PF, a person was notified if something was sent to their registered e-mail
On Saturday 26 April 2008 8:52:51 comex wrote:
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 5:10 AM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's possible for Agora to repeal all rules.
In fact, just about the only thing Agora can do is award a win.
Protective decrees are acts of Agora.
On Thursday 24 April 2008 3:04:54 Kerim Aydin wrote:
As it currently reads, the only way to guarantee *any* decree has *full*
effect is to have it take precedence over everything.
Currently, I believe IRCN's R112 (wins may only be by points) takes
precedence over its R305 (protective decrees).
101 - 200 of 276 matches
Mail list logo
