> On Dec 2, 2018, at 8:05 PM, ATMunn wrote:
>
> CFJ 3690, that is.
>
>> On 12/2/2018 8:04 PM, ATMunn wrote:
>> What message thread was CFJ 2690 called under?
Here is the CFJ Email thread:
Cfj
> -- Forwarded message -
> From: Timon Walshe-Grey
> Date: Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 7:
Does that actually work though?
I don’t see any provision that resets the resale value to 2 after the master
switch is set back to the player. So I think nichdel’s resale value is still 1,
because eir master switch was previously transferred to me.
Next time nichdel is resold, eir resale value
I don’t think it ever got a second supporter. I would support an intent to
put it into moot.
On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 5:58 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Did we ever actually do this?
>
> -Aris
>
> On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 6:29 PM D. Marga
I confess I am hopelessly confused. The contract doesn’t seem to affect anyone
besides twg and Gaelan. Is it a flaw in the proposal? But then what does that
have to do with the timing of adoption?
> On Nov 5, 2018, at 3:49 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> Actually, why am I even bothering with
I’ve been wondering why we call them “gratuitous” arguments. I would have
thought that a “gratuitous” argument is one that is unwarranted, excessive, or
improper, or at least one that wouldn’t change the outcome of the question
under consideration. “Gratuitous” has a secondary meaning of “free o
Why don’t i just take the next two unused numbers, and use them to renumber two
of the duplicates. Shouldn’t affect the judgement. Sorry all.
> On Nov 3, 2018, at 5:46 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> D. Margaux wrote:
>> Fair enough. This is CFJ 3678. I assign it to Murphy.
Re CFJ 3680—
I don’t disagree with the conclusion. I think you’re right that the plain
language meanings could go either way, and I have no problem with the plain
language being interpreted in the parliamentary sense so that only one
objection counts as an objection.
The rest of the reasoning
> On Nov 2, 2018, at 8:41 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
>
>
>> On Nov 2, 2018, at 1:58 AM, Aris Merchant
>> wrote:
>>
>> I CFJ "Performing an action with N support is a dependent action".
>
> This is CFJ 3681.
>
>> I CFJ "Perform
t CFJ and one without)?
>
> On 11/1/2018 6:01 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
>>> On Oct 31, 2018, at 12:32 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>>>
>>> I CFJ: "Gaelan transferred a coin to me today."
>> This is CFJ 3678. I assign it to Murphy.
>>> On Nov
(Needs to go to the public forum)
> On Oct 31, 2018, at 11:32 AM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>
> I do.
>
> Gaelan
>
>> On Oct 31, 2018, at 7:41 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
>>
>> Gaelan:
>>
>> To fix a mistake I made in drafting, I propose to modify
aker and could do this
> > unilaterally by resigning, so this is clearly part of some sort of scam,
> > even though I don't know what it is.
> >
> > -twg
> >
> > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> > On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 12:09 PM, D. Margau
.
But I think I’ll probably just leave things the way they are, because that
would at best just trade my RR wins for a Paradox win.
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 9:56 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> So the result of this is:
>
> - Several Champion awards are owed (500 for D. Margaux).
>
ady planning on publishing?
>
>> On 10/29/2018 11:16 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> I think the critical question here is to Trigon. If Trigon's
>> judgement is TRUE and reasonable enough not to trigger appeal,
>> then all is fine - D. Margaux happened to deliver it first,
> On Oct 29, 2018, at 1:47 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> This isn't a paradox though. The situation is resolved
> by calling a new CFJ.
I suppose that’s a fair point.
In that case, if Trigon judges FALSE, the CFJ i called earlier today would
determine which judgement prevails, I suppose ba
> On Oct 29, 2018, at 1:16 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> If Trigon would find that D. Margaux is not laureled, then it's
> fine too: all of D. Margaux attempts failed (e didn't become
> Speaker, and e didn't assign the case to emself).
>
> I'm no
> On Oct 29, 2018, at 12:59 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> So, why Moots are the wrong approach here.
>
> So on a first look, there's nothing in the Rules to forbid an open CFJ
> from having two judges simultaneously. R991 only allows the Arbitor
> to assign judges to cases with no judge
> On Oct 29, 2018, at 11:20 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2018, D Margaux wrote:
>> From the Arbitor’s Weekly:
>>
>>> 3672 called 15 October 2018 by D. Margaux, assigned to Trigon 20
>>> October 2018: "Trigon, twg, D. Margaux, G
>> On Oct 28, 2018, at 6:46 PM, "ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk"
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 2018-10-28 at 15:40 -0700, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>> While With Notice is a dependent action, demanding resignation is NOT
>> with notice: (2472/2)
>>
>> If a player is Overpowered, any player CAN Demand Re
intent if the Speaker has objected to it in the last 48 hours.”
On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 6:24 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> On Sunday, October 28, 2018 10:18 PM, D. Margaux
> wrote:
>
> > So here’s the scam—I think that nothing prevents me from objecting to
> this
> &g
-Grey wrote:
> I intend to Demand Resignation from D. Margaux.
>
> -twg
>
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> On Sunday, October 28, 2018 8:32 PM, D. Margaux
> wrote:
>
> > I was going to wait at least the full 48 hours before doing this, but I
> think I’v
I would be up for playing this. Just one comment below.
> On Oct 27, 2018, at 8:15 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> Any player can become a Competitor and any Competitor can cease to be a
> party to this contract.
I think this should say these things can be done by announcement (as we
rec
This one was me+twg I think
> On Oct 28, 2018, at 3:11 AM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>
> 8120 G. 2.0 Fix for Uncertain Laurelings
Thank you for the helpful comments. I clarify below.
On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 8:34 PM Gaelan Steele wrote:
> Feedback inline
>
> Gaelan
>
>
> > 103. Joining the Party. Any active player CAN become a Member:
> >
> > (a) by announcement consenting to be bound by this Charter, if the
> Party h
I am tempted to assign this to G., so that e is required to give a verdict
that compiles with No Faking. Any reason why I shouldn’t do that?
On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 8:22 PM Gaelan Steele wrote:
> I CFJ “By sending a message at 3:35 PM Pacific on October 27, G. performed
> one or more regulated a
ie to rank, any non-Member higher than any candidate who
is a Member. Except for the prior sentence, notwithstanding any other provision
of this Charter, the Party has no Opinion on any Agoran election.
--
D. Margaux
UNDEAD seems super interesting. I just looked at a bunch of emails from the
archive, but how did that end up? Was the contract ever revealed?
> On Oct 27, 2018, at 6:54 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Sat, 27 Oct 2018, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2018-10-27 at 15:30 -0700,
or an
> explanation for exactly what I’m missing (I’m not infallible).
>
> -Aris
>
>> On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 6:31 AM D. Margaux wrote:
>>
>> I think both ATMunn’s and Aris’s opinions are plausible, and I will try to
>> offer a more spirited defense of ATMu
Thank you. This makes sense to me. Always appreciate the Agoran history lessons
by the way—they’re fascinating.
> On Oct 27, 2018, at 1:31 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Sat, 27 Oct 2018, D. Margaux wrote:
>> Basically, the lack of the phrase “by announceme
> On Oct 27, 2018, at 9:41 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> Actually, the coin-into-fountain rule (R2572) is missing a
> By Announcement. So that rule doesn't enable it.
>
> The only thing that enables asset destruction is in R2577, which
> specifies "by its owner".
Not sure I understand this ar
> On Oct 27, 2018, at 9:31 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> You might
> decide to change it, but it's a well-argued judgement and an
> interpretation that's reasonable, despite not containing any fancy Latin.
Incidentally, this touches on one reason why I personally wouldn’t want to
privilege inte
> On Oct 25, 2018, at 8:57 PM, ATMunn wrote:
>
> However, no matter what I seem to do, I can't get the hashes to line up. I
> tried it with and without the header and footer, with and without line
> wrapping. Did I miss a hash? Am I missing how it is supposed to be put into a
> hash checker?
another way of explaining it for the rule text, but
>> that's what it generally means.
>>
>> -Aris
>>> On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 2:10 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>>>
>>> The first time I read it I assumed the exact opposite, so it's defini
rd, but I don't know
> what "prospectively" means in a practical sense in this rule (is there a legal
> term-of-art use of the word that I'm missing?)
>
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2018, D. Margaux wrote:
>>> The Adjudicator CAN assign any verdict, SHALL assign an ap
> On Oct 24, 2018, at 11:32 PM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>
> Okay. Revised plan:
>
> The Adjudicator CAN assign any verdict, SHALL assign an appropriate
> verdict, and SHOULD assign the correct veridicr and list all other
> appropriate verdicts. If a verdict is believed to be incorrect, any pl
> On Oct 24, 2018, at 7:29 PM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>
> Because I think it’s important to know why a verdict is assigned. I
> disagree with your assertion that the major concern is the disposition of
> the instant case. The precedent set for future cases is also crucially
> important. It's
> On Oct 24, 2018, at 6:27 PM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>>> However, a
>>> player SHALL NOT make a accusation of which e believes the Defendant
>>> not to be guilty without explaining emself in the same message; to do so
>>> is the Class-5 Crime of Witch-Hunting.
>>
>> This is ambiguous—it cou
I’m considering proposing a rule that would enable proposals to be ADOPTED
through dependent actions. The idea is that a player could announce intent to
ADOPT a proposal with X support, where X is the number of players who by voting
FOR could cause the proposal to be ADOPTED if all active non-su
I think this is a great revision. Some comments for your consideration
For appeals, we could use the same reconsideration and moot process as for
CFJs, and
potentially use the same rule.
> Amend Rule 2152, "Mother, May I?", by appending at the end of the first
> paragraph the text
> "Every ac
8090 D. Margaux Shenanigans For INEFFECTIVE... (v2) ADOPTED
8091 Murphy, Ørjan Slow your quorum v1.1REJECTED
8092 twgYet Another Economics Patch ADOPTED
8093 Aris Proposal Re-insertionADOPTED
TALLY OF
> pulled
> off.
>
> Right now there's this in the auction rules, explicitly, as a result:
>A person SHALL NOT bid on an Auction if it would be impossible for
>em to pay that amount at the conclusion of the Auction.
>
> On Tue, 23 Oct 2018, D. Ma
On Oct 23, 2018, at 1:41 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I have no idea if such things are INEFFECTIVE acts, or simply statements of
> opinion.
After some more thought—maybe an INEFFECTIVE action could also be a “lie” if it
is intended to deceive.
For example, what if a player with a zombie announ
> On Oct 23, 2018, at 12:59 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> I Point my Finger at G. for violating Rule 2471/1, "No Faking", by publishing
> the patently false statement in the quoted message. There are clearly many
> things that e does not object to - for example, eir status as a player of
Gaelan—winning the game would break your pledge! It would allow the PM to
appoint you to an office (speaker).
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 9:18 AM Gaelan Steele wrote:
> I do the action incorporated in my modification of the title.
>
> Gaelan
>
> > On Oct 22, 2018, at 8:06 PM, Rebecca wrote:
> >
> >
Welcome back and nice to meet you!
> On Oct 22, 2018, at 11:06 PM, Rebecca wrote:
>
> Because everyone else is doing it i do the action incorporated in the title
> for memes
> --
> From V.J. Rada
e. For the reasons described
in CFJ 3668, it is therefore per se prohibited by law.
--
D. Margaux
> On Oct 20, 2018, at 9:05 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
>
> I think I got all of the unassigned CFJs here. Hope I am doing this right;
> please let me know if I made a mistake.
Argh. I think I forgot to give a number to the Left/Right CFJ. Is the standard
practice to renumber all of
jan Johansen wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 20 Oct 2018, D. Margaux wrote:
>>
>> Oh crud. That wasn’t supposed to be in quotes. Looks like I only unquoted
>> the second line of the intent, not both lines. That’s very annoying.
>
> I've often seen messages w
ctually buried in quotes.
>
> I CFJ, barring D. Margaux:
> D. Margaux won by apathy in the message referred to in evidence.
>
>
> Evidence:
>
> Message in question:
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2018-October/039320.html
>
>
, won on that day.
Next before that was my October 3 attempt to win by apathy. That’s the subject
of the CFJ that G. is currently reconsidering.
And then next before that was Left||Right, where the following players won:
CuddleBeam, G., Aris, omd, twg, and D. Margaux.
> On Oct 20, 2018, at 8
learly specified. So to avoid surplusage,
doesn’t that mean that the announcement of intent can be ambiguous and unclear,
provided that the action specified is clear? :-)
> On Oct 20, 2018, at 7:07 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Sat, 20 Oct 2018, D. Margaux wrote:
>>&g
upheld, my victory on
Oct 9 was valid too.
On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 8:12 PM D. Margaux wrote:
>
> From my message of 2 Oct 2018:
>
> > [New public msg dated 2 Oct 2018:
> > I intend to declare ap-
> > athy without objection specifying d
> > margaux]
>
> Havi
Report],
> G. had 42 coins and D. Margaux had 62 coins.
> }
>
> On Sat, 20 Oct 2018, D. Margaux wrote:
> > In light of this confusion about the nature of ratification, what if
> > the proposal were instead to say something like this:
> >
> >
> >
&
ime of the Treasuror’s report of 18 October 2018
their coin holdings had been as follows:
||Coins ||
+--++--+
|D. Margaux|| 62 ||
|G.|| 42 ||
+--++------+
2. D. Margaux and G. are each awarded the Patent Title "Bank Robber."
/
On Sat, Oct 20, 20
Setting up a new bank sounds like a fun idea!
I just wouldn’t want to have the coin imbalance to prevent us from actually
turning coins/points/whatever into something useful going forward.
On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 6:18 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2018, D Margaux wrote
|Corona||1 ||
> |CuddleBeam|| 9 ||
> |D. Margaux|| 62 ||
> |G.|| 42 ||
> |L.||0 ||
> |Murphy|| 14 ||
> |omd ||6 ||
> |PSS ||8 ||
> |Trigon|| 10 ||
> |twg || 44 ||
> +--++--+
> |Ga
I sent this to the business mailing list, but it’s not showing up on the
website archive... sending it again in case it didn’t go through.
Begin forwarded message:
From: "D. Margaux"
Date: October 16, 2018 at 3:37:19 PM EDT
To: agora-busin...@agoranomic.org
Subject: Reinstated CFJ D
If anyone wants me to wait for their input, please let me know, otherwise I
plan to reinstate this decision soonish.
-- Forwarded message -
From: D. Margaux
Date: Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 6:06 PM
Subject: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ Decision re Left||Right
To: Agora Business
I self-move
Oh I see. If anything it’s the opposite—there’s a theory under which you
three might win, and not me and G.
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 3:36 AM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> I meant the way there are separate CFJs ruling on "Trigon, twg, D.
> Margaux, G., and L" and "Trigon, twg,
A) How did you even find that?
I was searching through the archive several weeks ago for something else,
and came across it. The concept of content neutrality stuck in my mind for
some reason so I remembered it.
On the other hand, there is this reasoning by Aris from a prior email chain
that may be persuasive for why this kind of objection may be valid:
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg29565.html
On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 8:18 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> CFJ, barring G.:
:
> Hmm. For some reason this feels like a build-up to a scam. Oh well, let's
> see what happens.
>
> -twg
>
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> On Monday, October 15, 2018 7:24 PM, D Margaux
> wrote:
>
> > I CFJ the following three statements, and suggest t
someone
thinks I should. But thought I should clarify that for completeness.
> On Oct 12, 2018, at 5:00 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
>
> CFJ judged TRUE: “At least one person won the game as a result proposal 8097
> taking effect.”
>
> Judge's Arguments:
>
> The text of
, Oct 12, 2018 at 5:05 PM Alex Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-10-12 at 17:00 -0400, D. Margaux wrote:
> > CFJ judged TRUE: “At least one person won the game as a result
> > proposal 8097 taking effect.”
>
> Is it even possible to win the game by proposal? I don't see that
How about:
1. “All pure active players could have won by announcement on the Effective
Date under rule 2580”
and
2. “Trigon, twg, D. Margaux, G., and L could win the game by announcement
under rule 2580 on the Effective Date after the expungement of Trigon’s
blot”
and
3. “Trigon, twg, and L
e 2580"
and
> “D. Margaux and G. won on the Effective Date by announcement under rule 2580"
(second one omits V.J. Rada and PSS because they are impure and so trivially
could not win)
> On Oct 11, 2018, at 11:06 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
>
> Perhaps we could call a CFJ
Rule 1472 says “A contract may also terminate by agreement between all
parties.” That’s what happened here. Per Merriam-Webster, the relevant
intransitive definition of “terminate” is to “come to an end in time.” I’m not
sure why a contract that has “come to an end in time” would still be thoug
out with Blots, therefore CANNOT win.
>> Announcements made (including Slates of announcers):
>> Trigon (B, C): I cause the Slate B players to win, if possible.
>> - Dunno if a person can announce on behalf of others.
>> - Some of Slate B have Blots, dunno if this makes the
together a proposal to
revoke the excess titles or some such.
On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 8:01 PM Alex Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-10-09 at 19:59 -0400, D Margaux wrote:
> > And one more at the deadline to try to get the last word on the RR
> > victories.. :-)
> >
> >
The proposals were constructed such that each player was on exactly two
slates. So, ATM would have won if only A or C won; if both A and C won; or
if C and B won, but not A. Other permutations would obtain for other
players. The hope was that it would lead to some fun strategic voting
behavior.
At
CB: if you want to win by apathy, then you’d better decide CFJ 3652 before I
get around to blotting you for the late decision. :-P
> On Oct 9, 2018, at 6:47 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>
> I win the game too.
> I intend to declare victory by apathy, with its set of players being just
>
> myself
>
One random added idea—what if there was a temporal component to the space
travel, so that you wouldn’t move from place to place instantaneously but
instead might take a few days to traverse the galaxy or whatever? And what
if some Agoran actions could only be taken while you are in certain places?
proposal should address that, but I think this apathy declaration might
have worked in the meantime...
Anyone else have a view?
On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 9:19 AM D Margaux wrote:
> :-D
>
> I think there are a bunch of reasonable outcomes to this CFJ.
>
> 1. Maybe the intent is clear
Seems reasonable. What about:
//
Title: Buried Intent Prevention Act v2
AI: 3
Author: D Margaux
Coauthors: Aris, G
Amend Rule 1728 to replace,
“1. A person (the initiator) announced intent to perform the action,
unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and method(s) (including
the
not be obfuscated.
-Aris
On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 1:07 PM D Margaux wrote:
> I submit (but I do not yet pend) this proposal:
>
> Title: Buried Intent Prevention Act
> AI: 3
> Author: D Margaux
>
> [Comment: Several months ago, Corona tried to smuggle an intent to
&
It might have passed. There are four votes that are contingent on whether
it is possible to transfer coins to a contract, and those votes could push
the proposal over to passage. Won’t know until the relevant CFJs are
decided.
On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 3:10 PM ATMunn wrote:
> On 10/6/2018 2:30 PM, R
I think if this pledge were made, an appropriate response could be for a
player to point 40 fingers at Cuddle Beam for taking 40 unauthorized
breaths, and then for em to be forcibly deregistered :-)
On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 5:41 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk <
ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Th
>Is it possible that the pledge requires
>Cuddlebeam to be the
>recordkeepor of everything, without
>actually /making/ Cuddlebeam the
>recordkeepor of everything?
Perhaps it does, but I think the pledge would still ossify Agora.
I think the question is whether CuddleBeam’s pledge (if effective) c
we've launched at
> least two invasions in my memory (both failed - I don't think they ever
> end well).
>
> On Wed, 3 Oct 2018, D Margaux wrote:
> > Ahh, I see. I was just perusing the ruleset and was wondering what would
> > happen if I proposed one. That makes sens
Ahh, I see. I was just perusing the ruleset and was wondering what would
happen if I proposed one. That makes sense as a reason why it shouldn’t
come to pass.
On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 12:45 PM Alex Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-10-03 at 12:42 -0400, D Margaux wrote:
> > I intend with 4 s
Oct 3, 2018, at 8:48 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> Notice of Honour
>
> +1 D. Margaux (managing to sneak this one past me)
> -1 Kenyon (arbitrarily selected zombie)
>
> -twg
>
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
>> On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 12:43 PM,
Haha, amazing. What a ridiculous game. :-)
On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 8:01 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Oh no. Maybe the 30th or something. We usually have have a few each year.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 4:58 PM D Margaux wrote:
&
LOL. The Bank of Agora has caused quite a mess. The first Agoran financial
crisis, perhaps?
On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 7:52 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 2 Oct 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> > OK, please nobody do anything major with coins until these CFJs
> > are judged, otherwise we may en
|| Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> > Cuddle Beam|| VJ Rada
> > Trigon || Murphy
> > G. || omd
> > Aris || twg
> > ATMunn || D. Margaux
> >
> > //
>
>
>
But just to clarify—if the CFJs find that G and i couldn’t transfer to the
contract, then I think both of our votes (and our zombies’ votes) flip, causing
the Point Installation Act to pass. Or is there some reason that wouldn’t occur
in that situation?
> On Oct 2, 2018, at 2:33 PM, Timon Walsh
rules, since it seems to let technical
deadline violations be punished but not if the deadline was unmet for long
enough.
Be that as it may, I think I must resolve the pointed finger by declaring
it Shenanigans, unless someone disageees.
-- Forwarded message -
From: D Margaux
Date
> this:
> > that floor is floor - BADABOOM. And I can keep on going. Incredible, I
> > know, but it's all in a day's work for the Cuddlemeister.
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 6:18 PM D Margaux wrote:
> >
> > > G. wrote:
> > >
> > &g
G.— Twg was referring to my conditional, not yours.
On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 2:31 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 2 Oct 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> > It's not a conditional _vote_, it's a conditional _action to change
> > the vote_. You still submitted an unconditional vote; it's just
succeeded.
>
> This won't change the fact that 8081 was rejected, so there's no
> game uncertainty that will propagate from this CoE outside the coin
> holdings of myself and D. Margaux.
>
> [This is true for 8080 as well, but I don't want to CoE that one -
> it
The Treasuror is required to keep records of coins, but not every day or
minute. E breaks the rules only if e hasn’t updated the records weekly in a
report.
Cuddle Beam has no required report for the information for which e has pledged
to be recordkeepor. So maybe there is no violation for eir
.
On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 7:50 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> The crime isn't "failure to track", it's "breaking a pledge" (by failing
> to track). Once a pledge is broken, it's broken...? Can you re-break it?
>
> On Mon, 1 Oct 2018, D Marg
> I think that once a person have been punished for breaking a pledge, the
> pledge is done (as e can't be punished twice, there's no requirement
> anymore). So the result of the finger-point, if e is punished, is to end
> the pledge. (Whether this is true is a general question about pledges,
> m
> Your argument is something like saying that since we only
> defined what foo(int x) does, you are free to interpret the entity
> "foo" to mean the separate, hitherto by rules undefined function
> foo(char c).
I think this is on the right track for why it doesn’t work.
Putting it slightly diffe
INEFFECTIVE to issue a judgement of TRUE (because the method of sending the
email issuing judgement would be regulated and there is no rule addressing
that), and it would be IMPOSSIBLE to change the rules, making agora
ossified.
On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 1:55 PM D Margaux wrote:
> Oh wait. I sp
Oh wait. I spoke too soon, without understanding the upshot of your pledge.
This is a hilarious and awesome pledge/CFJ. Very cool!
On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 1:49 PM D Margaux wrote:
> Hmm. I think the CFJ is trivially false. “Perform” is not defined, so we
> give it its ordinary meaning. Sp
Hmm. I think the CFJ is trivially false. “Perform” is not defined, so we give
it its ordinary meaning. Speaking for myself, I perform (in the sense of “do”)
a great many unregulated actions on a daily basis (e.g., waking up, getting
dressed, eating meals, reading books, talking to people other t
uestion a couple months back) and most of the points that were
> brought up back then are still applicable here.
>
> Additionally, now that both G. and Corona, two people who supported the
> subgame in the first place, have become disinterested in the mechanic's
> continuatio
27;d rather have submitted to the currency revaluation.
>
> If anyone spots the booby-trap, please don't point it out. I want the
> delicious satisfaction of seeing their reactions when it activates. c:
>
> -twg
>
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> On Sunday, Sept
:-D
On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 11:02 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> I should note, I'm not sure what the record is for the shortest time
> between an initial registration and a win, but D Margaux is definitely
> a contender at 35 days max, and maybe less. Well Done!
>
>
Also, I’m going to summarily reconfirm my verdict in that other case if I
> don’t here a good argument why I shouldn’t soon.
>
> -Aris
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 7:20 PM Kerim Aydin
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > CFJ, barring D. Margaux:
>
Thanks Corona! And nice to meet you :-)
I feel bad now for blotting you earlier today. Sorry bout that.
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 5:54 PM D Margaux wrote:
> I act on Coronas behalf to transfer all of Coronas liquid assets to me
>
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 5:52 PM Corona
> wrot
201 - 300 of 336 matches
Mail list logo
