On 1/13/13 12:34 PM, omd wrote:
THE SHORT LOGICAL RULESET
Last updated: 16 October 2012
Last proposal with recorded effect on this ruleset: 7317
Last change to this ruleset: by Rule 2380
Last ratification: Short Logical Ruleset of 24 June 2012
Last ratification date: 7 July 2012
On 1/14/13 6:54 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
For each of the following players, I intent, without objection, to
make em inactive:
Arkady
FKA441344
moonroof
Phlogistique
Yally
(None have sent a message to the lists in at least 2 months as far as
I can tell, some of them as much as 5
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 08:18, Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 July 2011 23:54, Charles Reiss woggl...@gmail.com wrote:
Set the power of rule 2166 (Assets) to 3.
[Rationale: promises are assets at Power 3, so the defining rule needs
to be, too.]
Why?
Many of the asset
Background: Currently, one can pay two FINE and a Spending Action with
the same Points.
Proposal: Payment (AI = 2)
{{
Create a new rule titled Payment with Power 2 and the following text:
To pay a unit of an asset is to destroy that unit while
designating exactly one purpose (such as
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 05:08, Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 June 2011 17:34, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm now seeing this on the first message in any thread to the lists if
it was
Proto-judgement follows:
On 6/17/11 8:34 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=3035
== CFJ 3035 ==
At least one vote of FOR, FOR on the decision to adopt
Proposal 7077 is valid.
On 4/14/10 12:45 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
Proposal: The Gameplay-o-Matic (AI=1.9, II=2)
{{{
Enact a new Rule with power 1.9, entitled Fragments, with the
following text:
{{
If
- e has not already done so, or
- if at least two other players done so so e last did so, or
On 3/23/10 8:22 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
Proposal: In before Kelly
(AI = 1, II = 0, please)
Amend Rule 2287 (Props) by replacing this text:
Once per week, each player CAN transfer a prop from one player
to another,
with this text:
Once per week, each player CAN
On 10/13/09 10:06 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
I call for judgement on the statement It is possible to submit a Call
for Judgement by sending a message to a Discussion Forum., submitting
it to the Justiciar.
Arguments: The Justiciar probably reads the discussion fora, at least
occasionally, so is
On 9/23/09 11:50 PM, Pavitra wrote:
Roger Hicks wrote:
This judge's opinion is that such a Hard Deregistration is exercised
by the player ceasing to be involved in the Agoran forums and
essentially ignoring the game. When such occurs, R101 vii is fulfilled
as Agora makes no attempt to impose
On 9/16/09 12:08 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2688
= Criminal Case 2688 =
ais523 violated the Power-1 rule 1742 by failing to act in
accordance with the PerlNomic Partnership
On 9/10/09 4:32 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
coppro wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
comex wrote:
Appeal 2670a
Panelist: BobTHJ
Decision:
Panelist: Wooble
Decision:
Panelist:
On 8/23/09 2:48 PM, Charles Reiss wrote:
[snip]
I harvest 2663, 2664 (recent CFJ numbers) for 4 WRV.
These harvests failed because I harvested those CFJ numbers earlier in
the week (and apparently didn't remember that I did this).
- woggle
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital
On 7/10/09 10:39 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
Charles Reiss wrote:
On 7/9/09 10:58 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2628
== CFJ 2628 ==
My judicial rank is 4
On 7/6/09 10:06 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
[snip]
That aside, it's a more general issue. Let's say I have a detailed
private contract with all sorts of economic and political manipulations.
One small part of that is an act on behalf of. When it happens,
all the public needs to know is that the
On 7/5/09 10:01 AM, C-walker wrote:
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Charles Reiss woggl...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/5/09 6:54 AM, C-walker wrote:
[snip]
I submit the following proposal:
{{
Contract Cleanup (AI = 2, II = 0)
Terminate each non-pledge Public contract which does
On 7/5/09 1:16 PM, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
Charles Reiss wrote:
On 7/5/09 12:42 PM, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
Having received the necessary consent, I cause the LPRS to intend with
Agoran Consent to register.
I support.
You CANNOT.
Yes I can. The LPRS is the initiator of the intent
On 6/16/09 6:55 PM, Paul VanKoughnett wrote:
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 4:49 PM, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
Paul VanKoughnett wrote:
I agree to the following:
{
This is a Public Legalistic contract and a pledge, called Three Coins.
Parties to Three Coins are called Marvy. For
On 6/2/09 3:38 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
On Tue, 2009-06-02 at 00:12 -0500, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
3. Immediately after an Agoran Decision is initiated, the Conservative
Party acts on behalf of each of its parties to cause that party to vote
on that decision with the option selected being
On 5/25/09 5:28 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
woggle wrote:
!05/19:001 17:16 comex Wooble 22038forgery
CoE: This notice was invalid. The crime it named, Forgery, is not
specified by the rules.
The NoV named Endorsing Forgery, which is specified by the rules;
On 5/25/09 5:52 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
[snip]
ps. court cases raised about a document should block ratification,
not just self-ratificatation; generalization of R2201 in order here?
I don't think that's a good idea unless CFJs raised about a document can
be more clearly/objectively identified.
On 5/10/09 2:54 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
Proposal: Fix contract problems
(AI = 2, please)
Change the power of Rule 2136 (Contests) to 2.
[This fixes two bugs: R2198 allows contestmaster to be flipped, and
secures the flipping of contract switches so that R2136 cannot allow
contestmaster to
On 5/2/09 5:23 PM, comex wrote:
On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 6:54 PM, Charles Reiss woggl...@gmail.com wrote:
Also, I rather dislike
the bias here towards currencies denominated in large units. How about a
little less such bias, like:
I thought about having it depending on zm
On 5/2/09 3:09 PM, comex wrote:
On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 10:31 PM, Elliott Hird
penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
Add auto rates and I'm sold.
I'm explicitly not including auto rates in this. I actually think the
PBA did pretty well, but my highest priority is preventing scams--
On 4/28/09 4:01 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
I retract the previous version of this proposal.
Proposal: Decriminalize restricted actions
(AI = 3, please)
Amend Rule 2125 (Regulation Regulations) by replacing this text:
d) The rules explicitly state that it MAY be performed while
On 4/10/09 10:08 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
##nomic doesn't work for me either. Besides, Rule 478 says the
publicity of a forum can be changed by the Registrar without objection
by announcing intent to change it to that forum. But that forum is
inaccessible so this is hardly possible.
I assure
On 4/8/09 10:04 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
On Tue, 2009-04-07 at 20:37 -0500, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
FALSE; Rule 2110 states that:
A tortoise is an inquiry case on the possibility or legality of
a rule-defined action.
However, CFJ 2423 has determined what has happened, not whether
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:41, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Charles Reiss wrote:
And even if the above were not the better interpretation, surely the
ambiguity on this matter would be sufficient to fail to satisfy
R1504's condition (d) the Accused could have
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 13:01, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Charles Reiss wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:41, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
(d) deliberately does not care about what the defendent actually
thinks, only what e could have thought
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 16:26, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Charles Reiss wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 13:01, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Charles Reiss wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:41, Kerim Aydin ke
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 18:08, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Charles Reiss wrote:
I think plainly this is not what R1504(d) says since it considers
whether some hypothetical situation exists where the defendent could
have believed it did not violate the rule
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 21:01, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
[snip]
And what's wrong with addressing this in a sentencing appeal, anyway
(e.g. yes e technically could have known, but it's because e took the
advice of others, so DISCHARGE is just fine). I'm leery of setting
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 11:49, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
[snip]
Proposal: Patch 2321a
(AI = 2, II = 0, please)
Ratify the alleged history listed in these documents:
http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2321a
http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2321
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 17:18, Benjamin Schultz ke...@verizon.net wrote:
On Feb 4, 2009, at 8:15 PM, Charles Reiss wrote:
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 17:02, Benjamin Schultz ke...@verizon.net wrote:
On Feb 4, 2009, at 9:22 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
Crop/WRV Holdings
Player 0 1 2 3
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 14:15, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Proto-proto: Zombies Incorporated.
[The following would take enacting several mechanisms; e.g. shares,
auctions, maybe debts. Therefore soliciting expressions of interest
before continuing].
1. Cleanup: All
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 17:12, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Tue, 3 Feb 2009, Charles Reiss wrote:
d. Key Power: *Any* shareholder (member or non member) may act
on behalf of the corporation with the support of [shareholders
adding up to a majority
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 18:00, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Tue, 3 Feb 2009, Charles Reiss wrote:
Which reminds me, one needs to consider how to deal with a corporation
owning its own shares.
Manumission?
When real corporations do this, it's to decrease the number of shares
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 10:04, comex com...@gmail.com wrote:
I move to Beer Hall.
I become Rebellious.
[snip]
I publish the following.
Each of BobTHJ, woggle, OscarMeyr violated Rule 2157 by failing to act
collectively to ensure the panel assigned a judgement to CFJ 2027a
ASAP [15 days,
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 14:05, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Proposal: Committees
(AI = 3, II = 2, please)
[snip]
first-class players whose judicial rank is Supreme and
whose posture is standing or standing)
Oops?
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 00:32, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Proto-Proposal: Committees
(AI = 3, II = 2, please)
Create a rule titled Committees with Power 3 and this text:
Each rule is assigned to zero or more committees. Changing
whether a rule is assigned to a
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 19:45, Warrigal ihope12...@gmail.com wrote:
The following proposal passed, with Warrigal voting FOR it and nobody
voting AGAINST it:
{Append the following paragraph to Plate 1, Agora:
Any Player can send a public message to Agora with support and without
2 objections
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 20:44, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Proto-Proposal: Increase privatization
(AI = 2, II = 3, please)
[snip]
Create a rule titled Laundromats with Power 2 and this text:
Cleanliness is a public contract switch with values Unclean
(default) and
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 23:25, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
woggle wrote:
Cleanliness is a public contract switch with values Unclean
(default) and Clean. Changes to Cleanliness are secured.
tracked by whom?
The Janitor.
* Murphy and the AFO agree to the following
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 13:40, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I withdraw the previous version of this proposal titled Fix asset
redefinition, and submit the following revised version.
Proposal: Contract precedence
(AI = 2, please)
woggle is a co-author of this proposal.
Create a new
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 10:57, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Proposal: Fix asset redefinition
(AI = 2, please)
Amend Rule 2166 (Assets) by replacing this text:
An asset is an entity defined as such by a rule or contract
(hereafter its backing document), and existing solely
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 11:08, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 10:57, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Proposal: Fix asset redefinition
(AI = 2, please)
Amend Rule 2166 (Assets) by replacing this text:
An asset is an entity defined as such by a rule
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 09:15, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 26 Nov 2008, at 17:05, Roger Hicks wrote:
I believe that Mono is the .NET library ported to unix based systems.
I could be wrong however.
Yes, but you can't use a Windows binary. And revealing source would damage
the
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 08:52, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I CFJ on the statement The Ambassador CAN flip Wooble's Recognition to
Friendly without objection..
Arguments: This is really about whether Wooble is a nomic or not,
phrased such that I have a miniscule chance of a random Win
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 22:19, Jamie Dallaire [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 3:26 AM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 23:53, Pavitra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I would have more interest if it was in a toy language like Befunge.
I don't
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 22:44, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 23:32, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's what I'd expect in this form given that expecting people to
know how to program usually isn't considered unreasonable. But, of
course
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 23:53, Pavitra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 22 November 2008 08:58:16 am Joshua Boehme wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 00:24:52 -0500
Jamie Dallaire [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cross posting because I figure there could be interest on both
sides. If need be this can
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 17:32, Warrigal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rule 101 (power 1):
[snip]
Every actor has the right to not be considered bound by an agreement,
or an amendment to an agreement, which e has not had the reasonable
opportunity to review.
Maybe you want to legisilate whether the
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 18:31, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sgeo wrote:
Wouldn't it be best then to always buy Linen Smocks and Cotton Smocks,
and sell them at the end of the month, and repeat?
Blah, you're right. Maybe smock - shekel conversion should only be
allowed during the
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 20:35, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
woggle wrote:
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 18:31, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sgeo wrote:
Wouldn't it be best then to always buy Linen Smocks and Cotton Smocks,
and sell them at the end of the month, and repeat?
Blah,
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 07:36, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 06:56 -0500, Joshua Boehme wrote:
Contestmaster ais523, what is the current membership of Enigma?
the Left Hand, Murphy, root, Iammars, Wooble, Goethe, avpx, Zefram,
Pavitra, ais523, comex, Elysion,
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 16:25, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 4 Nov 2008, comex wrote:
I cease to agree with this.
How?
It was never a contract (would need two parties), so e can as an
unregulated action.
-woggle
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 22:00, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Revisiting my B.N. thesis (11/29/07) on partnerships, I've identified
the following general models of partnership control. Can anyone think
of any others?
* Consentual (e.g. Pineapple, Human Point Two)
* Capitalist (e.g.
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 22:44, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I change all sitting players to standing.
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2216
== CFJ 2216 ==
If only Murphy had been given the password
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 13:21, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 17 Oct 2008, at 21:18, Charles Reiss wrote:
I object.
-woggle
Why?
I don't believe the proposed scheme would make exchange rates more
closely reflect real values. (Though there is some relationship
between the values
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 17:08, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 17:56, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I join Nomic Wars I.
I add the following section to Nomic Wars I:
{
Sections with lower Ratings take precedence over sections with higher
Ratings; Sections of
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 10:49, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 11:28, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I object.
I suggest Pavitra try the uncontroversial part of this change alone if
you won't.
Just curious:
Why the objections? As RBOA chit holders
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 20:41, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I submit the following proposal, Partner Responsibility, AI-2:
--
Amend Rule 2145 by appending the following text:
If a judge finds a partnership
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 12:17, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 15:45, Ben Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well... flaming bobba smurf.
All right.
Let's see what I've got here.
FARMER 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 X WRV
Pavitra 8 5 6
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 14:53, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 5:45 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I submit the following proposal, titled A Great Relief, with
adoption index 3: Repeal all rules except Rules 101, 104, 217, and
2029.
I retract that proposal. I submit
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 16:31, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 7:30 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
{The name of this contract is The Llama Party. This is a public
contract. Parties to this contract are known as Llamas. Any person CAN
join this contract with the consent
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 16:54, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 7:43 PM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 16:31, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 7:30 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
{The name of this contract
I vote as follows:
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 11:23, The PerlNomic Partnership
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
NUM C I AI SUBMITTER TITLE
5708 O 1 1.0 comex none
AGAINST x 2
5709 D 1 2.0 Murphy Form 2126-EZ
AGAINST
5710 D 3 3.0 Murphy Pragmatic rights
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 09:26, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wooble wrote:
How much clearer could it be than specifying the exact ID number of
the proposal it intended to democritize?
The intent is to democratise a decision, not a proposal. The decision in
question didn't exist,
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 11:19, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wooble wrote:
I CFJ on the following statements, barring ais523:
I CFJ on the following statement, barring root:
A vote that relies on terminology defined in a public contract
satisfies R683(c)'s requirement to clearly
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 12:41, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
CoE: The publisher of the above CoE is not the Assessor. (The assessor
didn't publish the original document, so e can't usefully deny CoEs on
it anyways.)
I don't think that's a genuine CoE (it's not obvious what it's
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 10:47, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 11:02 PM, Ben Caplan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the following series of actions would otherwise fail as a whole,
then I take none of them.
I dunno. Verification of these by the recordkeepors would require
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 16:17, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sep 24, 2008, at 7:14 PM, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
I think I have this right:
Almost. PF.
I mill 8 * 5 = 7.
I mill 8 - 8 = 0.
The RBoA would've happily exchanged an 8 crop for a 0 crop and some chits...
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 22:37, Ben Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 24 September 2008 08:20:35 am Geoffrey Spear wrote:
I recommend a sentence of
EXILE with a tariff of 180 days.
R1504 prescribes the middle of the tariff range... for severe rule
breaches amounting to a breach of
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 12:17, Jeff Weston (Sir Toby)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I CFJ on the following statement: The message sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
on Tue, 16 Sep 2008 20:16:23 + (see evidence 1) was successful in
initiating a CFJ.
I argue for a FALSE judgement in this case. The
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 01:27, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Again, I'm using HRC as a database placeholder. If the initiator
remains anonymous, I will eventually create a separate entry labeled
'(anonymous person)' and update the DB to use it for this case.
Detail:
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 12:55, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 3:25 PM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Claim of Error: Sir Toby may be the initiator of this CFJ and so this
assignment of Sir Toby as judge may have been INEFFECTIVE.
Would Sir Toby
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 12:04, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 12:01 -0700, Charles Reiss wrote:
I also support the appeal of CFJ 2086-7. As root has stated,
long-standing game custom allows the actions of a message to have some
ordering in legal time even though
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 10:12, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Proto-Proposal: a Card Party (new cards v0.2), AI-2:
(root would you accept coauthorship?)
-
Create the following Rule, Cards, power 2:
Cards are
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 03:43, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 8:21 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2107
= Criminal Case 2107 =
Ivan Hope violated R2149
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 12:00, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 4:24 PM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I post the following Motions for each of the Brown, Burnt Sienna,
Beige, and Burgundy Corporations:
{{
Authorize the CEO to cause the corporation to
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 16:09, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't see any commentary from H. Trial Judge woggle in the reevaluation of
CFJ 2107. Is the COTC database lagging me out again?
I don't think I made any commentary to agora-business (check
agora-discussion archives for
On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 19:41, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2082a
Appeal 2082a
Panelist: root
Decision:
Panelist:
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 10:47, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I call for judgement on the following statement: This CFJ has ID number
2146.
I act on behalf of the Monster to deputise for the CotC to assign that
CFJ an ID number of 2146.
I call for judgement on the following statement: This
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 10:47, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I call for judgement on the following statement: This CFJ has ID number
2146.
I act on behalf of the Monster to deputise for the CotC to assign that
CFJ an ID number of 2146.
I call for judgement on the following statement: This
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 16:26, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I change all sitting players to standing.
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2107
= Criminal Case 2107 =
Ivan Hope violated R2149 by making the
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 15:10, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2008-08-18 at 14:07 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
ais523 wrote:
On Fri, 2008-08-15 at 15:38 -0700, The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
NUM C I AI SUBMITTER TITLE
I vote as follows
5673 D 2 3.1 fds
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 07:17, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 10:40 PM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
X crops - 135 chits (no previous rate)
This should probably be higher
What would you suggest?
- woggle
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 13:25, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 9:00 PM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 14:26, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
AGORAN AGRICULTURAL ASSOCIATION REPORT
Time of last report: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 21:50
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 19:12, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 8:41 PM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I intend, with the consent of the rest of the panel, to REMAND this
case to Sgeo, so that e might judge the case again while thinking more
clearly, and also
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 04:39, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Proposal: Repeal Rule 101!
Adoption index: 3.
Interest index: 1.
[Before we start, let me please justify this.
Rule 101 is broken.
Firstly, we are on a game played via computers. Really, we have no
inherent rights at
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 10:07, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 11:59 AM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[*] Lower-power rules notion of agreement is largely influenced by the
properties they ascribe to contracts, but if we let these characterize
agreements
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 12:08, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In tusho's proposal, the power 3.1 Rule doesn't actually repeal 101 when
the rule is created. It enables the Repealing, but it doesn't do it.
So that step
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 12:08, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe the best way to ensure partnerships live up to obligations may
be to allow equity to work on claims:
Proto: Partnership equity, power-2
Amend Rule
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 12:43, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 2:27 PM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the original contract envisioned not devolving the obligation well onto
the parties (quite likely, in fact), then I don't see what resolution
On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 21:43, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree to the following:
{This is a public contract known as The Normish Partnership. Any
entity CAN cause TNP to act by causing Normish (a.k.a. rootnomic,
which, as of August 9, 2008, was a server located at 209.20.80.194 and
On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 22:10, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is NOT a pledge, an agreement, a promise, or anything else.
I'm thinking maybe SELL ticket 10VP, with which, for 1 week, the
filler can act on my behalf except for the actions of transfering VP
or judging a certain way on CFJs
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 08:09, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 11:51 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
The PerlNomic Partnership votes as follows. Each vote is made a
number of times equal to the PerlNomic Partnership's EVLOD on
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 11:30, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 1:25 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
In an equity case, this sort of word-twisting is not appropriate, if
the Nethack sense of ascend was understood to be the relevant term
in the spirit
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 11:16, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 1:04 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's been over a week since all the other CFJs were created.
s/created/assigned ID numbers/
The CotC is behind; calling more CFJs may or may not be likely to
On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 09:27, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 12:43 -0600, Charles Reiss wrote:
I intend to appeal the judgment of CFJ 2094 with 2 support.
I intend to appeal the judgment of CFJ 2095 with 2 support.
I recommend REASSIGN due to the corruptive self
1 - 100 of 206 matches
Mail list logo
