> On Jan 19, 2020, at 9:27 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-business
> wrote:
>
> It's a new thing from some universities to offer gender neutral degree
> titles, and it seems in keeping with the Agoran spirit of gender neutrality
> to follow. I'm using the specific titles from my alma mater, in
My 2 cents: I believe the answer to this is TRUE.
I think game custom provides that the Ruleset is the set-of-all-rules. I am not
sure what the alternative definition could be. There’s no reason for the
Ruleset to be a subset-of-all-rules, and we wouldn’t have any principled way to
discern
> On Aug 25, 2019, at 3:33 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> I think the below is common sense if not directly obvious - do people
> agree or is a case needed?
>
> I CFJ: When a CFJ judgement finds that conditions for awarding a
> contested patent title are valid, that constitutes the
> On Aug 15, 2019, at 6:41 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> * R869 doesn't prohibit rules or proposals from making a non-player a
> player.
That may be true. But it does prevent a proposal from using the method of
"registration" to make a person become a player if that person recently
> On Aug 2, 2019, at 11:27 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> The caller also provides this as an example:
>
>> "Repeal Rule 1698 (Ossification).
>> Enact a power 100 rule that procides, 'It is IMPOSSIBLE to change the Rules,
>> rules to the contrary notwithstanding.'"
>
> Again, this is not a rule
I think the Ossification judgement should address what it means to make a
single rule "change," as opposed to multiple rule changes. That would help us
know what it would mean for an arbitrary rule change to be IMPOSSIBLE.
In particular, i would like to know: if I can draft a single new rule
> On Aug 1, 2019, at 10:52 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> D. Margaux (semi-timely, noted e was being busy, but still on list - weekend)
I've only had one CFJ in recent weeks and I believe I judged it in a timely
fashion, didn't i? Or were there CFJs that I missed?
Admittedly it's
I remain interested in judging cases
> On Aug 1, 2019, at 1:37 PM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 7:56 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
>>
>> Please reply to this thread to indicate interest in judging.
>>
>> We've had people favor cases lately that are technically
On Jul 31, 2019, at 5:35 PM, "ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk"
wrote:
>> Here's a rule change that is trivially IMPOSSIBLE to enact: "Enact a
>> power 100 Rule that states: 'It is, and always has been, IMPOSSIBLE
>> to enact this rule.'"
> It's not IMPOSSIBLE to enact that in the future. (Agora
> On Jul 31, 2019, at 4:54 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> Gratuitous:
>
> The 4 week period gives plenty of time for all of these rule changes to be
> effected in ~2 weeks.
>
> Start of Week 0: write proposal that repeals any protections (including
> AIAN). Distribute this proposal.
>
> Week
> On Jul 31, 2019, at 4:53 PM, "ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk"
> wrote:
>
> Gratuitous: four weeks is enough time to change the rules such that
> those amendments are possible, and still get in the example proposals
> afterwards. There's no rule that the change has to be accomplished with
> a
On Jul 18, 2019, at 8:46 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> 8195A Aris, omd, Jason Cobb 3.0 Timeline Control Ordnance v2
> AGAINST. Very much not keen on timeline control given the
> sensitivity of our game to time (one of the ways to kill the
> game entirely with a lower-powered rule,
A protocontract to protect coins from being pilfered upon zombification. Wonder
if it could have other uses too.
{
1. The name of this contract is the Vault. Any player CAN become a party to the
contract by announcement. A party CAN leave the contract by announcement if the
contract would
> On Jul 14, 2019, at 12:02 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> After pondering on it I'm likely going to vote against it - the stakes are
> too high. I don't think it's reasonable to be able to steal all of
> someone's assets via minor inattention.
Well, under the current rules, players can protect
Thought it could add a fun mechanic to zombies, where we'd be trying to
catch each other off guard. Especially because people tend to have periods
of higher and lower attention to Agora.
On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 11:28 AM James Cook wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 at 11:23, D. Margaux wrote:
&g
Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On 7/13/2019 3:02 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
> > "A player can flip to emself another player's master switch by
> announcement without objection from that other player, provided the intent
> to flip that switch is announced at least 7 days before the switch
> On Jul 13, 2019, at 6:10 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> Is there a reason to not use "with 7 days Notice" instead of "provided the
> intent to flip that switch is announced at least 7 days before the switch is
> flipped"? That would also include by reference the conspicuousness/clarity
>
; Jason Cobb
>
> On 7/10/19 5:30 PM, Rebecca wrote:
> > I create and pend (again) the following proposal
> >
> > Title: Spaceships
> > AI: 1
> > Text: Create a spaceship in the possession of each player
>
--
D. Margaux
> On Jul 1, 2019, at 1:47 AM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>
> I’m strongly tempted to move to reconsider this, and apologize for failing
> to provide arguments earlier (honestly, I totally forgot about this case).
> I really don’t think this opinion adequately considers the other sensible
>
Happy birthday Agora. I award myself a magenta ribbon
> On Jun 29, 2019, at 12:41 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Happy Birthday, Agora!!
>
>
>> On 6/29/2019 9:32 AM, James Cook wrote:
>> It's Agora's birthday. Happy Birthday, Agora!
>> I award myself a Magenta ribbon.
I offer this proto for comment.
***
Judge Trigon recused emself believing that no valid judgement could be entered
in this CFJ.[1] As the newly assigned judge, I am required by Rule 591 to
assign to this CFJ a "valid" judgement. The law does not require me to assign
an "appropriate"
Instead of this:
> The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, impose
>Summary Judgment on a person who plays the game by announcement.
I would recommend moving "by announcement" like so:
> The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, by announcement
> impose
> On Jun 18, 2019, at 11:59 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> In eir first judgement,
> Judge Trigon opined that, in R2125, in this list:
>
>> An action is regulated if: (1) the Rules limit, allow, enable, or
>> permit its performance;
>
> include synonyms for CAN, CANNOT, and MAY, but no
imposing the Cold Hand of Justice is
impossible after all.
I note in passing that there might be odd results if a similar
situation occurred (rule claiming to make something POSSIBLE without
specifying a method) with a rule that takes precedence over Rule 2125.
I re-judge CFJ 3736 FALSE, and earn another 5 coins for doing so.
--
D. Margaux
As stated, this CFJ is trivially FALSE because no fine CAN be imposed for
anything. Maybe there is a different way to pose the CFJ that would be
PARADOXICAL though?
> On Jun 16, 2019, at 1:25 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> Oooh look, I broke my Oath. How unexpected!
>
> I point my finger at Jason
> On Jun 14, 2019, at 2:29 AM, David Seeber wrote:
>
> If this is accepted, {
>
> { I cfj the following:
>
> "Trigon is the winner of the auction"
>
> Argument in favour :
>
> Trigon bid two coins, which is more than CuddleBeam bid.
> The highest bidder wins the auction.
> Therefore
The reasoning by R. Lee as described by G. below seems sound to me. I plan to
adopt it as the reasons for judgement on 3737, unless someone gives me
persuasive arguments to the contrary.
> On Jun 17, 2019, at 3:45 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> I think V.J. Rada had it right - the Rules
e: AGAINST if a Notice of Veto has
>> been published specifying this proposal, otherwise"
>>
>>> IDAuthor(s) AITitle
>>>
>> -------
>>> 8180 Trigon, D Margaux
It's still unclear what method a player can use to "deny" a claim (or even what
a denial is).
What about this:. "publicly and clearly announce that the claim is denied" or
"publicly and clearly deny the claim by announcement"
> On Jun 12, 2019, at 6:01 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> I submit
;
> Jason Cobb
>
>> On 6/12/19 4:35 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
>> I resolve this by reference to CFJ 3734
>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 4:24 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
>>>
>>> Under Rule 2201, I issue a challenge to the above report: pending
>&
M, Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> Why do people not like OUGHT? I get the issue with contractions, not really
> OUGHT, though.
>
> Jason Cobb
>
>> On 6/12/19 2:03 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
>> I vote and cause L to vote as follows:
>>
>>
>> 8180 Trigon, D Ma
On Jun 12, 2019, at 12:28 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:40 AM D. Margaux wrote:
>> Under R2154, “In a timely fashion after the nomination period ends, the ADoP
>> CAN and SHALL” initiate an Agoran decision to resolve that PM “election.”
>
rse of a particular election, I wouldn't
> think I'd be consenting to every future election! (and if it's construed
> that I did consent for all future elections, it sure wasn't with my
> informed wilful consent!)
>
>> On 6/12/2019 7:23 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
>> Gratuitous ar
Gratuitous arguement: Seems to be TRUE to me. Corona subsequently
became a zombie, but I see no rules that would retract a player's
consent to holding office upon becoming a zombie, nor are there any
prohibitions against zombies being elected to offices. Not sure what
I'm missing, but seems
I could see this coming out either way. It's the sort of hyper literalist
interpretation that Agorans seem to adopt sometimes.
It's really interesting to me, because within my discipline (law), those sorts
of hyperliteralist interpretations simply wouldn't work. Lawyers would just
intuitively
This is creative! But performing the ritual is a regulated action, and
therefore it can be performed only using methods expressly specified in the
rules (per Rule 2125).
> On Jun 9, 2019, at 9:22 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> There's no such thing as a Call for *Justice*. :)
>
> Jason Cobb
>
I may have miscounted; it does not appear to affect the result though. Apologies
> On Jun 5, 2019, at 10:08 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Jun 3, 2019, at 5:38 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
>>
>> Proposal 8179
>> ===
>> AGAINST: Ar
enerally intend to respect the favoring of cases, but I'm not
> sure that it's appropriate in this instance.
>
> -Aris
>
>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 7:45 AM D. Margaux wrote:
>>
>> I favour this CFJ
>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 1:49 AM Rebecca wro
should extent their prohibition
> > farther than they explicitly do so. It is also a principle of American
> > criminal law that if the statue is ambiguous it may be void for
> vagueness,
> > so this law, which doesn’t make it clear who is responsible, should be
> too
> > vag
> On Jun 3, 2019, at 11:47 PM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>
> Under the present conditions,
> however, each player can quite reasonably claim that someone else should
> have performed The Ritual, and that it wasn’t *their* fault that it wasn’t
> performed. Unless the rule explicitly states that
early
>>> unreasonable, since their individual responsibility to perform The Ritual
>>> was never explicitly stated.
>>>
>>> -Aris
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 12:59 PM D Margaux wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Below is a proto-d
'd be interested to hear about precedent or arguments about
> > > self-ratification of reports making them retroactively legal to
> publish,
> > or
> > > whether CFJs judgements should change after ratification events.
> > >
> > > On Mon., Jun. 3, 201
Hmm. If the intent didn’t work, the report self-ratification did. So I
think we are in the same place anyway.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 8:03 PM James Cook wrote:
> I think I might have found a problem with my proto-judgements: D.
> Margaux may not have properly announced intent to rati
n entity. Same with the Ritual.
>> On Mon, 2019-06-03 at 02:38 +, James Cook wrote:
>> I Point my Finger at every player, in the following order:
>>
>>omd, Aris, Gaelan, G., Cuddle Beam, Trigon, Murphy, ATMunn, twg,
>> D. Margaux, Jacob Arduino, Falsifian,
Original Message ‐‐‐
> On Friday, July 6, 2018 10:58 AM, Corona
> wrote:
>
> > I become a candidate for Prime Minister.
> >
> > Platform: Not being the other guy, who currently supports unpopular and
> > somewhat misguided reforms.
> >
> > ~Corona
>
--
D. Margaux
I think this could be ambiguous — it could provide a reward for the first
decision resolved in a week, or for the first time that any particular decision
is resolved in a week (so only one reward for a decision resolved FAILED QUORUM
and then REJECTED within a single week).
What about:
Interesting catch! Is there any argument that, in this circumstance, MUST
implies CAN? I think probably that argument doesn’t work, but here’s what it
might say:
There is no method for the Referee to discharge eir mandatory duties except by
imposing the Cold Hand of Justice when warranted.
A proto-proposal offered to shake things up a little. I’ve been curious about
how Agora would operate under different rules of interpretation.
Title: Let’s Get Serious
AI: 3
Author: D. Margaux
Co-Author(s):
A. Amend Rule 217 as follows:
1. Delete the following text from Rule 217
>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 1:26 PM omd wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 7:05 AM D Margaux wrote:
>>> Additionally, I do not think the conditional vote “required the report
>>> ratification to go through before the voting period ended”; did it? If the
>
> On May 26, 2019, at 8:51 PM, omd wrote:
>
> I searched the archives a bit, and the situation seems to be more
> complex than I remembered.
>
> In CFJ 3337, G. ruled that statements about the past *could* be
> ratified, but that it wasn't in that particular case because the scope
> of what
t week.
>
> I CFJ on the statement: "It would be LEGAL for me to create a proposal
> with text 'omd violated Rule 2450 by creating this proposal' and no
> optional attributes."
>
--
D. Margaux
> On May 26, 2019, at 5:37 PM, omd wrote:
>
> Ratification changes the gamestate to what it would be if the report
> had been accurate... but it doesn't *literally* make it retroactively
> accurate, so it doesn't change whether there was a rule violation.
Why not?
Part of the gamestate is
n something else like
> ratification without objection?
>
> -Aris
>
> On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 2:09 PM D. Margaux wrote:
>
> > It may be worthwhile to wait a couple days. If the reports self-ratify
> > without any claim of error, then the information therein will be
> > ret
rules, and I don't have
> the time at the moment. That said, this case is pretty simple, so I'll
> probably have a verdict in the next day or two.
>
> -The Arbitor
>
>> On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 3:54 PM D. Margaux wrote:
>>
>> If the H. Arbitor agrees, then I aut
hen this
> version of Rewards was written, but I don't think we ever solved that
> unless there's some rule text I'm missing?
>
>> On 5/21/2019 6:56 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> CFJ, barring D. Margaux: The publication cited in evidence is
>> a duty-fulfilling report for th
> On May 19, 2019, at 11:06 PM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>
> I point my finger at Murphy, the Honorable ADoP, for committing a
> violation of the provision of Rule 2143, "Official Reports and
> Duties", stating that "A person SHALL NOT publish information that is
> inaccurate or misleading
> On May 20, 2019, at 4:31 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
>
> I intend without objection to ratify the following document as true at the
> time 00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019:
>
> { For purposes of this document, “Politics Rules” and “Spaaace Rules” have
> the meaning ascribed to th
nditional votes).
> >
> > IDAuthor(s) AITitle
> >
> ---
> > 8177 Aris, [1] 3.0 Side-Game Suspension Act (v3)
> >
> > The proposal pool is currently empt
Space went over well, but twg has been busy so there hasn’t been an astronomor
for a while.
The Ritual proposal also passed, but it hasn’t really been the source of much
activity yet.
Overall, not much new has happened recently because a lot of people have
stopped actively playing.
But
a
>>> message could not be considered published unless enough of those signed up
>>> for the forum received it), although I don’t have time to find it at the
>>> moment.
>>>
>>> -Aris
>>>
>>>> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 8:07 PM Jam
> On May 9, 2019, at 11:14 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> But overall, I'm not sure that this is an improvement over a straight up
> repeal, followed by a simple "re-enact Rules XXX, YYY" if someone wants to
> bring it back?
I agree it’s probably not an improvement. I mostly wrote it up this way
Well that is a very, very annoying oversight on my part. Nice catch.
> On Mar 7, 2019, at 9:50 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> I was just writing a note to say I'd spotted the Feb 24th ADoP report's
> ratification of D. Margaux as Prime Minister as well!
>
> You don'
> On Mar 7, 2019, at 7:28 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> Well, it's trivial unless the judge holds onto it until the retroactive
> effects go into effect :).
ಠ_ಠ
On Mar 7, 2019, at 7:18 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
>> On Mar 7, 2019, at 7:15 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>>
>> You've missed an important point which will be elaborated on in my judgement
>> of CFJ 3723. ATMunn did SPOOKILY distribute Proposal 8164, but it was
>>
> On Mar 7, 2019, at 7:15 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> You've missed an important point which will be elaborated on in my judgement
> of CFJ 3723. ATMunn did SPOOKILY distribute Proposal 8164, but it was
> nevertheless in the proposal pool when Aris redistributed it just now. I know
>
> On Mar 7, 2019, at 11:36 AM, "ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk"
> wrote:
>
> Ratification doesn't create paradoxes, though. The "compute what a
> retroactive change would do, then apply it" method of handling the
> change means that even if the cause of the ratification ends up being
> ratified
> On Mar 7, 2019, at 12:28 PM, "ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk"
> wrote:
>
> The proposal /was/ distributed, though. It's just that its adoption
> changed the gamestate as though it wasn't.
>
> Denying the CoE constitutes a claim that the proposal was distributed.
> Well, it /was/ distributed! A
> On Mar 5, 2019, at 1:03 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> Yes, I don't see how this is any different from "stating it to yourself".
> Your publication of the hash (if it even is a hash - I see no evidence that
> it's not just a random string of hexadecimal digits) didn't meaningfully
>
In that message, you didn’t state a number of coins; you stated a hash. Stating
a hash is different from stating that-which-was-hashed, I think, at least when
the hash cannot readily be decrypted by those to whom the statement is
directed.
If you said the hash out loud to yourself, or
> On Feb 27, 2019, at 11:28 PM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>
> It definitely does, to my reading. Can you reread?
>
> -Aris
>
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 8:27 PM Reuben Staley
> wrote:
>
>> I hate to point this out after the distribution, but if I'm correct in my
>> reading, this does not
> On Feb 27, 2019, at 7:01 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> I award D. Margaux the patent title Champion for cheating in politics.
No collusion! WITCH HUNT!
> I award D. Margaux the patent title Champion for succeeding in politics.
>
> Congratulations!
That and also my cheating win.
If you don’t timely-fashion award the other championships and someone pointed a
finger at you, it would be interesting to see whether that conduct can be
retroactively made criminal.
> On Feb 27, 2019, at 11:33 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Due to the dependent
> On Feb 24, 2019, at 1:40 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> There's an entirely-independent protection worth considering, in R2140 -
> even if a higher-powered rule defers to a lower powered-one, if the lower-
> powered one then makes use of that deference to "set or modify a substantive
> aspect"
> On Feb 24, 2019, at 1:16 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> What's missing from this analysis, in my view, is that it's not purely A>B,
> it's actually "A>B about fact P". So if two rules say different things
> about P, the two rules can wholly agree, via an explicit
> precedence/deference
> On Feb 24, 2019, at 11:51 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Feb 24, 2019, at 11:15 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
>> Can you give me any example of a pair where R1030 would block deference from
>> a high power to a low power from working? The proble
> On Feb 24, 2019, at 12:47 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
>
>
> The mirror image assumption is partly wrong, in my opinion, and I don't think
> that CFJ adequately considers why.
>
> For rules A and B, let:
>
> “A > B” mean A claims precedence to B;
>
xample, both rules agree about the outcome. I just don’t see
how that can be characterized as a conflict.
> On Feb 24, 2019, at 12:17 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On 2/24/2019 8:51 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
> >> On Feb 24, 2019, at 11:15 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >>
> &
> On Feb 24, 2019, at 11:15 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> Can you give me any example of a pair where R1030 would block deference from
> a high power to a low power from working? The problem I'm having is that
> your reading prevents R1030 from working at all by defining R1030
> "deference" as
> On Feb 23, 2019, at 9:06 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>> On 2/22/2019 8:06 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
>> I think the "Except as prohibited by other rules" is a condition, and
>> _possibly_ also a deference (it depends on exactly what deference means).
>
> I don't think there should be a
> On Feb 22, 2019, at 1:45 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> Given that, unlike countries, Agora is an
> entirely voluntary organization, my personal worry about Agora is not
> a "full ossification that almost everyone agrees happened" nor "1 or 2
> people saying we were playing wrong" but a
> On Feb 22, 2019, at 12:39 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> Every so often, someone decides "we're not really playing Agora
> anymore" because (in their perception) we improperly papered over some
> platonic truth that made everything freeze.
That point of view makes me think of the “sovereign
> On Feb 21, 2019, at 1:16 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:03 AM D. Margaux wrote:
>
>> Rule A (power 2): “Except as provided by other rules, a player MUST hop on
>> one foot.”
>>
>> Rule B (power 1): “Rules to the contrary
> On Feb 21, 2019, at 12:26 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> Deference clauses only work between rules of the same power. Power is
> the first test applied (R1030).
That is so interesting. It’s counterintuitive to me that it would work that
way. To take an example, here are two hypothetical
s a bit of a stretch.
This reminds me of an email that someone sent a few months ago... :-)
> On Dec 6, 2018, at 10:13 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
>
> Things have been pretty quiet this week. Some might say apathetic.
>
> I intend without objection to declare apathy specifying all pl
ant
> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the timeline, but all of this is still giving me a headache. I
> believe that the intent wasn’t specific enough and that all of the interns
> are broken. How should I judge these?
>
> -Aris
>
>> On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 12:28 PM D. Margaux
> On Feb 18, 2019, at 8:15 PM, "ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk"
> wrote:
>
> Just to make sure you're aware: this can't change the Rules
> (penultimate paragraph of R105), just the rest of the gamestate.
>
> This probably isn't a problem, unless past cleanings were broken (in
> which case it
323df9ec9239c6dbbf79a1abe82e4
>> 398489f18ba9c37d18a233fe3427d4c5e528f94
>> 5699c069ff45c208c735dd373ebbd402346f6b5c2e4
>> 6750f3e4af341b76db7fe7b60c57e759dd74
>>
>>> On 2019-02-19 10:55, D. Margaux wrote:
>>> Just in case too:
>>>
>>>
Just in case too:
29B9A02A56E8A3E15EC1E0E5ABE816C27686A7B1A6A7E6C7D6A1F7059E48A688C96855481739012E592A8D65EAC7AD95F6D30E0EFFC6B27A2745B2A63BBF72E6
> On Feb 18, 2019, at 6:47 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> gwt-uMHZuFGagIXdvlHIu9GIl1Wa0BCajVXbg82b0BSesVmcpRnblBSZ2FGagwiclRWYlJHIyFWZkBCL19WW
>
!!!
> On Feb 18, 2019, at 6:47 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> gwt-uMHZuFGagIXdvlHIu9GIl1Wa0BCajVXbg82b0BSesVmcpRnblBSZ2FGagwiclRWYlJHIyFWZkBCL19WW
>
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
>> On Monday, February 18, 2019 8:52 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
I am tempted to suggest that we insert something that says: “notwithstanding
the foregoing, Agora is never satisfied with an intent to activate the
Protocol, which is of no force or effect whatsoever.”
> On Feb 18, 2019, at 6:05 PM, James Cook wrote:
>
> Can a proposal designate a change as a
ts to induct the unwilling:
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039950.html
> (Judged to have failed, but pointed out the need for clearer wording or
> stronger protections in the Rules).
>
>
> Honorable Mentions:
>
> D.
9's "must state the correct
> set of assets for the fee". But feel free to CFJ.
>
> -twg
>
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
>> On Monday, February 18, 2019 12:39 AM, D. Margaux
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 17, 2019,
t; (Pssst! For this to be EFFECTIVE I think you also have to say by how much
> each of our Armour was reduced by.)
>
> -twg
>
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
>> On Monday, February 18, 2019 5:34 PM, D. Margaux
>> wrote:
>>
>> Resolved battle 003
Apologies—will send now. Thanks for alerting me.
Also if anyone else is waiting for me, please feel free to let me know.
> On Feb 18, 2019, at 12:22 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> D. Margaux,
>
> Did you ever get around to resolving Space Battle 3 (Gaelan vs. me)? I ha
To address G’s concern, what if the proposal were to say something like this:
The gamestate is changed to what it would have been if the text of the
following amendment to Rule 2124 had determined whether Agora was Satisfied
with any dependent action attempted after Proposal 7815, rather than
What if we approach this from the other direction—i.e., what kind of a thing
could this “Protocol” action possibly be?
If this Protocol action isn’t somehow authorized (directly or indirectly) by
the Rules, then it cannot be used to perform regulated actions and so there’s
no reason for us to
> On Feb 18, 2019, at 4:18 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> ais523 mentioned something about the original definition being NttPF - we've
> already checked the a-d archives, but maybe there was once something in the
> IRC channel? Or does anyone know of any other discussion forums that have
> On Feb 17, 2019, at 9:00 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
>
> And y'all wonder why I've been falling behind on cases.
I was just being silly—I didn’t really plan to go forward with that motion :-)
> On Feb 17, 2019, at 5:11 PM, James Cook wrote:
>
> Is it easy to make that a separate proposal from my amendment
> proposal? Or is that complicated to do?
I think it would make the most sense to do it in one proposal if we could,
right?
I’m not sure what the right language would be.
> On Feb 17, 2019, at 7:04 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
>
> I pay 2 COS favours to gain 3 influence over Ronald Ray Gun.
Oops; that was supposed to be 2:2, not 2:3... I think?
Don’t know if that makes it INEFFECTIVE, or what. But wanted to point it out
for H. Clork’s benefit.
1 - 100 of 324 matches
Mail list logo
