comex wrote:
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 11:40 AM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Thus forcing me to attempt to use a scam before it's been j
remind me to vote on such proposals in the future to avoid these
quorum games. though I probably would have voted AGAINST, as it's not
nice
coppro wrote:
ais523 wrote:
On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 16:30 +0200, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
I vote FOR on the decision on whether to adopt proposal 6514.
Thus forcing me to attempt to use a scam before it's been judged whether
it worked or not (Murphy could resolve the proposal as ADOPTED right
Walker wrote:
NomicWiki has been updated as per my Ambassador duties. Any comments
or requests for addition to the page are welcome.
PerlNomic no longer participates. LiveNomic used to (I assume the
recent claim to terminate/deregister the LNP were effective).
The FRCommittee awards points
Walker wrote:
NomicWiki has been updated as per my Ambassador duties. Any comments
or requests for addition to the page are welcome.
Oh, and AgoraTheses should include
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2007-November/008338.html
for a Bachelor of Nomic
Walker wrote:
Chamber is a proposal switch, possessed only by proposals which
are in the proposal pool or have an ongoing Agoran Decision to
adopt them, tracked by the Promotor, with values Green
(default), Red and Purple. In the same message in which a player
Sgeo wrote:
[[A player CAN publish a Notice of Violation (with N support,
where N is the number of valid un-Closed Notices of Violation e
previously published during the same week, or by announcement if
N is zero) alleging that a single entity (the Accused) has
broken
Pavitra wrote:
Roger Hicks wrote:
I humbly request the CotC refuse the excess cases initiated above.
That would effectively dismiss some of the charges; should the CotC have
the power to arbitrarily impose an upper limit on the severity of
criminal punishment? That sounds like a job for
Pavitra wrote:
Note that both of the above CFJs are Disinterested. I believe that this
is appropriate, since they appear to be trivially UNDECIDABLE and FALSE
respectively.
Crap, how did I miss this change? Will review archives and patch the
DB; the possibly-affected CFJs are
I wrote:
Pavitra wrote:
Note that both of the above CFJs are Disinterested. I believe that this
is appropriate, since they appear to be trivially UNDECIDABLE and FALSE
respectively.
Crap, how did I miss this change? Will review archives and patch the
DB; the possibly-affected CFJs are
coppro wrote:
6520 O 1 1.0 ais523 Open-ended duties are bad
FOR x 12
6521 O 0 1.0 BobTHJ Flag Anarchy
FOR x 12
According to my records, your caste is Savage, and Wooble is
Chief Whip. If you play cards to change your voting limit,
please remind me to add some/all
Tiger wrote:
Savage: (Voting Limit: 0)
-
ə
coppro
The LNP
The Normish Partnership II
*The People's Bank of Agora
IBA
CoE: The LNP was allegedly deregistered on Sat 10 Oct 12:35:05 UTC.
coppro wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Also, oi, another revision to the Assessor scripts (albeit a
minor one).
I do not believe that the effect on a programmer's ability to program
the game state should be a valid reason why Agora should choose to
support/oppose a given rules change. I haven't
Mostly in case it affects c.'s mirror:
* matters.interest is now null for CFJs pre-dating IIs
* viewcase.php and format.php both display II whenever it's non-null
(Previously, these were 1 and not equal to 1 respectively.)
c. wrote:
Heh, here's mine:
Is this for 2696 or 2698 or both? I'm throwing it in as gratuitous
arguments (already have done for Pavitra and 2706).
There are still 10 inquiry cases and 3 criminal cases requiring
judges, and we have all of 5 active non-supine players. Anyone
else want to jump in before the next rotation?
R2215: s/that is effective/that it is thereby effective/
c. wrote:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 5:17 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
[If e.g. a report saying X has either Y or Z widgets is ratified, then
if X had Y widgets, then e still does; if X had Z widgets, then e still
does; if X had neither Y nor Z widgets, then that needs
Original Message
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 10:54:11 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [frc] Re: amicus curae
From: Ouroboros wurm.ourobo...@gmail.com
To: Fantasy Rules Committee frc-p...@googlegroups.com
This morning I received a package from the Library and Consolidated
Archives of the
coppro wrote:
Roger Hicks wrote:
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 11:22, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
I deregister the LNP.
Fails. The LNP is still a person for 7 days following c.'s departure.
BobTHJ
It is no longer a partnership regardless of whether c. is a party or not.
Why isn't it a
BobTHJ wrote:
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 06:46, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
I submit the following AI-2 proposal, No Rest Multiplication:
{{
In Rule 2262, replace:
* Stool Pigeon - Indicate a player who has not been
indicated for this card
ais523 wrote:
On Sat, 2009-10-03 at 13:05 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
6515 O 0 1.7 ehird No
FOR (this should surprise no one)
You really think it's good for Agora to exile one of its more active
players for a minimum of several months?
Even if 6515 passes (doubtful), if you cut
ehird wrote:
2009/10/2 Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com:
I CFJ on: The Short Logical Ruleset is neither short nor logical.
Arguments: Short is a relative term. It is certainly short compared
to its companion, the Full Logical Ruleset. It is also logical, i.e.
it has meaning when applied
woggle wrote:
On 10/3/09 11:30 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
In 2674a and 2674b, Walker and ais523 opined REMAND, the other three
panelists didn't opine on time. Overtime period is in progress;
Justiciar woggle can publish a Justiciar's Opinion of REMAND, otherwise
I'll make the panel REMAND after
Tiger wrote:
2009/9/25 Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com:
Roger Hicks wrote:
I act on behalf of Tiger to publish the following:
I publish an NoV alleging that BobTHJ violated Rule 2215, a power-1 rule, by
having made a public statement on a matter relevant to the rules (that e
acts on behalf of
BobTHJ wrote:
How does this not satisfy R2263(a)? Note the clauses of R2263 are ORed.
Also note R2263(c) doesn't require specifying which public contract
is enabling the action (though it's certainly a good idea to minimize
disputes).
ehird wrote:
CFJ: {A player that hard deregisters (totally dissociating
themselves from the game with eir R101(vii) right, as opposed to the
action of deregistering) is a person.}
Arguments: The rule paints it as a dichotomy: either you can
R101(vii)-deregister, or you can continue to
BobTHJ wrote:
6498 O 0 1.0 c. I want to be Justiciar again!
This was democratized, you can vote on it if you want.
comex wrote:
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
CFJ, disqualifying ais523: ais523 has amended the Fantasy Rules Contest
contract within the past 24 hours.
I make this II-1.
It already was, or am I missing something?
I intend, without 3 objections
Walker wrote:
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 6:09 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
Charles Walker wrote:
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 9:03 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
== CFJ 2689 ==
The most recent Scorekeepor's report
BobTHJ wrote:
I recuse myself from this case. I thought I was Hanging? Was this a
valid assignment?
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2009-August/023058.html
Wooble wrote:
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 8:23 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Wooble wrote:
6497 O 0 1.0 BobTHJ Advertising Anarchy
AGAINST * 2
Your VLOP is 1 due to coppro's recent Win by Clout.
I'm pretty sure I still have an extra vote as Chief Whip.
*checks
I wrote:
woggle wrote:
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
2674a/b - currently, only valid panelists are ais523, c., Murphy, Wooble
2679a - currently, only valid panelists are c., coppro, Murphy, Wooble
ehird wrote:
2009/9/18 ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk:
Arguments: So far there hasn't actually been a situation that needs
resolving. I recommend a null judgement. (As comex says, this CFJ was
submitted for anti-scam reasons (if a situation arises in the future a
judgement to reverse it
ais523 wrote:
On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 17:34 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
You seem to be missing the point here. This is not a matter of what is
true and what is false. In this case, because of the way the rule is
worded, there are two possible ways to interpret the rule. Both are
equally viable
BobTHJ wrote:
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 13:34, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Voting results for Proposals 6476 - 6494:
6481 depends on the state of the PNP:
If the PNP has the non-c. text, then Pavitra and coppro vote AGAINST,
and 6481 fails (3 FOR, 2 AGAINST).
If the PNP has
Pavitra wrote:
I too recommend OVERRULE/FALSE, in part because the original judge says
so, and in part because if we don't use OVERRULE for cases like this,
where the correct answer is as trivial and obvious as it could
conceivably be, then why do we even have OVERRULE and AFFIRM as valid
Pavitra wrote:
I vaguely remember a CFJ semi-recently about publishing NoVs, and
whether someone was naturally capable of publishing an NoV since it was
just a block of text and people can publish things, or if an otherwise
unremarkable block of text was infused with the NoV-nature by the
Wooble wrote:
6497 O 0 1.0 BobTHJ Advertising Anarchy
AGAINST * 2
Your VLOP is 1 due to coppro's recent Win by Clout.
c-walker wrote:
6495 D 1 3.0 coppro FIXME
AGAINST
These are all ineffective, you were still inactive at the start of
the voting period.
woggle wrote:
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
I wrote:
I intend, with 2 support, to appeal. The arguments indicate that
the transfer failed, but the statement is ais523 owns a Dunce Cap
card which should have been judged TRUE. I recommend REASSIGN,
as coppro presumably just mis-remembered the statement as ais523
transferred a Dunce
Pavitra wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
NoV: Justiciar woggle violated Rule 2158 (Power=2) by failing to
assign a panel to 2670a.
Was that the one that was recently ruled not to have been assigned even
though the panel attempted to judge it? If so, UNAWARE would seem
appropriate.
I pointed
woggle wrote:
On 9/16/09 5:12 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
NoV: Justiciar woggle violated Rule 2158 (Power=2) by failing to
assign a panel to 2670a.
I contest this. Arguments: I reasonably believed (and still believe)
that CFJ 2670a does not exist and therefore I am not required or
permitted
coppro wrote:
comex wrote:
I amend Contract B to read:
{
This is a public contract and a pledge. comex CAN make arbitrary
Contract Changes to this contract by announcement.
If this contract is a contest, comex CAN and MAY award points at eir
discretion, so long as the total number of
I also forgot to take CFJ 2680's favoring into account. This one was
clearly not illegal, though (I couldn't assign a favoring judge because
both were sitting, and Rule 1868 doesn't enforce favoring so strongly
as to restrict the order in which cases are assigned).
As one of the favoring parties
G. wrote:
You know, I haven't followed all the ins and outs of the arguments, but
I really don't thing dependent actions have to be judged broken.
Consider:
Originally, the rule relied on a single list-based linguistic convention
to decide whether the A, B, and C were logically 'A and B
coppro wrote:
(note to the Assessor: I am fully aware my voting limit is not 12)
According to my records, your voting limit on ordinary proposals is 5.
Pavitra wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Proto-Proposal: Demolish the House
(AI = 2, please)
[Replaces cards, effectively a few dozen single-use currencies, with a
few multiple-use currencies.]
I'm not ready to get rid of Cards yet. I want to explore some more of
the places the concept could go
BobTHJ wrote:
6476 O 1 1.0 Yally No More Paradox
PRESENT
Your voting limit on ordinary proposals is 0 due to rests.
ais523 wrote:
On Thu, 2009-09-10 at 13:03 -0400, comex wrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote:
Note that I intentionally withheld an opinion, because my opinion
would be to AFFIRM with an error rating. I'm still of the opinion that
the conditions can
BobTHJ wrote:
6476 O 1 1.0 Yally No More Paradox
PRESENT
Your voting limit on ordinary proposals is 0 due to rests.
c. wrote:
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 12:37 AM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
2) Cards affecting voting limits on individual proposals (because
the Assessor DB has no inherent provisions for dealing with that;
I should revise it to take a snapshot of quorum and voting limits
Proto-Proposal: Demolish the House
(AI = 2, please)
[Replaces cards, effectively a few dozen single-use currencies, with a
few multiple-use currencies.]
Amend Rule 2255 (Major Arcana) by replacing this text:
The Major Arcana is a deck of Position cards whose dealer is the
Herald.
coppro wrote:
Need to change the forming of the government then.
Amend Rule 402 (Identity of the Speaker) by removing the paragraph
containing the Speaker CAN Form a Government.
Amend Rule 2255 (Major Arcana) as previously specified, and by
appending this text:
Once per quarter, and
The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
This message serves to make votes on behalf of the PerlNomic
Partnership (a public contract).
I haven't seen anyone attempt to cause the PNP to re-register, so
these are ineffective. Please let me know if I missed something.
c-walker wrote:
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Charles
Walkercharles.w.wal...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Ed Murphyemurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
2675: FALSE
Accepting this judgement, I do the following:
I act on behalf of the LNP to cause it to intend, with
BobTHJ wrote:
Now that we have favoring, disfavoring, II, HemHawing, and posture to
section judicial eligibility perhaps its time to assign judges
randomly from among those eligible. This would help prevent judicial
scams and also limit the CFJ to justicar, assign to self, judge as
desired
BobTHJ wrote:
I wasn't doing more than proto-ing this at the moment. However, out of
curiosity, why? In the past there was made an argument that permitting
the CotC to choose among the eligible judges allows assigning more
experienced judges to more difficult cases, etc. However, Judicial
comex wrote:
Appeal 2670a
Panelist: BobTHJ
Decision:
Panelist: Wooble
Decision:
Panelist: ehird
Decision:
I missed recording this in
coppro wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
comex wrote:
Appeal 2670a
Panelist: BobTHJ
Decision:
Panelist: Wooble
Decision:
Panelist: ehird
Wooble wrote:
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 5:58 PM, Roger Hickspidge...@gmail.com wrote:
With as easy as it is to democratize and/or veto a proposal using
cards why not just make all proposal-decisions ordinary by default?
Because then when someone breaks dependent actions you can just submit
BobTHJ wrote:
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 12:25, Ed Murphyemurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Amend Rule 2259 (Hand Limits) by appending this text:
As soon as possible after the beginning of each month, each dealer
of a basic deck SHALL by announcement audit each entity who owns
at
Wooble wrote:
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Ed Murphyemurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
I play Arm-Twist, naming coppro and the decision on Proposal 6466.
I play Arm-Twist, naming coppro and the decision on Proposal 6466.
I play Arm-Twist, naming ehird and the decision on Proposal 6466.
I play
ais523 wrote:
Also, why 6466 anyway? I don't get what's so important about that
proposal.
Consider what happens when a smart-ass Justiciar assigns ID number
99. Just because we haven't had any chaotic ID numbers
yet doesn't mean the concept isn't useful.
BobTHJ wrote:
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 07:37, Ed Murphyemurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Proposal: Kill it with fire
(AI = 2, please)
Terminate the contract known as Points Party at the time this
proposal was submitted.
Wouldn't this fail due to the retroactive effect? Why not just
terminate
coppro wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
I wrote:
I play Kill Bill, naming the decision on Proposal 6466.
TTttPF
You realize this undoes all your voting limit playing?
Yes, the point is that much of that voting limit playing was
botched due to Arm-Twist being worded wrong.
Wooble wrote:
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 1:39 PM, Jonatan
Kilhamnjonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote:
XTiger (+2)
X Chief Whip - number of votes gained after name
CoE: you're not the Chief Whip anymore.
Also, a standing request to whoever is the Chief Whip: please
point it out when making use
Pavitra wrote:
I just noticed that R208 uses the term position, which has since
acquired a formal meaning in the Rules. Does this break anything?
I don't think so. The formal definition doesn't attempt to exceed
its intended domain (certain cards and their owners), so outside
that domain, the
coppro wrote:
6466 O 0 1.0 coppro Chaos Cleanup
FOR x 8
Your voting limit is 5.
Pavitra wrote:
Sean Hunt wrote:
6473 O 0 1.0 coppro That Was Easy
FOR x 8
I play On the Nod to rubberstamp this decision.
AGAINST x my voting limit (I think 1).
I have it at 2.
Pavitra wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Pavitra wrote:
Sean Hunt wrote:
6473 O 0 1.0 coppro That Was Easy
FOR x 8
I play On the Nod to rubberstamp this decision.
AGAINST x my voting limit (I think 1).
I have it at 2.
I was recently demoted to Epsilon.
Voting limits are fixed
comex wrote:
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Ed Murphyemurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2664
=== CFJ 2664 (Interest Index = 2)
The Ambassador has a weekly report
BobTHJ wrote:
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 16:43, Ed Murphyemurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
BobTHJ wrote:
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 16:15, Ed Murphyemurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
BobTHJ wrote:
The with N support mechanism for NOVs is very messy. This proposes
to replace that with a simple with
coppro wrote:
6443 O 1 1.5 Murphy Fix judicial demotion
FOR x 12
I have your voting limit at 5. If it's higher, then please
CoE the upcoming voting results and let me know why.
Schrodinger's Cat wrote:
6450 D 1 3.0 C-walkerWithout Objection Pool Removal
AGAINST
You're not an eligible voter on these because you weren't active
at the start of the voting period.
comex wrote:
2009/8/27 Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com:
I intend, without objection, to modify section 8 of the PNP agreement
by replacing http://nomic.info/perlnomic; with
http://www.normish.org/perlnomic;.
Note that you can't resolve this intent due to P6448.
Why not?
BobTHJ wrote:
The with N support mechanism for NOVs is very messy. This proposes
to replace that with a simple with support. It also removes the
This would allow the CotC or Justiciar to launch a successful
five-lights scam with just one other conspirator.
c. wrote:
Proposal 6448 (Democratic, AI=3.0, Interest=1) by BobTHJ
Hand Limit Remodel v3
Append to the numbered list in R2124 (Agoran Satisfaction):
{{
(4) The action to be performed is With Notice.
}}
All dependent actions other than those taken with notice are now
IMPOSSIBLE. (The
c. wrote:
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Roger Hickspidge...@gmail.com wrote:
True, but the problem with the 5-lights scam was not the NOV
publication. It was the ability to publish, contest, CFJ, and sentence
all in the same message. The with N support 'fix' for NOV publication
attacked
coppro wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
coppro wrote:
You should also feel HUMILIATED if you didn't vote in this
QUORUM-FAILING election! Especially if you missed the second, correct
announcement and so got your vote dropped! HUMILIATION!
What was quorum for this election, and for the Tailor
I wrote:
coppro wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
coppro wrote:
You should also feel HUMILIATED if you didn't vote in this
QUORUM-FAILING election! Especially if you missed the second, correct
announcement and so got your vote dropped! HUMILIATION!
What was quorum for this election
coppro wrote:
6. NEED NOT: Failing to perform the described action does not
violate the rule in question.
Note that this has a similar quirk to MAY. Consider:
Rule 5001, Power=1: X MAY NOT Y.
Rule 5002, Power=2: X MAY Y.
Rule 5003, Power=1: X SHALL Z.
Rule 5004,
coppro wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
coppro wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
coppro wrote:
You should also feel HUMILIATED if you didn't vote in this
QUORUM-FAILING election! Especially if you missed the second, correct
announcement and so got your vote dropped! HUMILIATION!
What was quorum
coppro wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
coppro wrote:
6. NEED NOT: Failing to perform the described action does not
violate the rule in question.
Note that this has a similar quirk to MAY. Consider:
Rule 5001, Power=1: X MAY NOT Y.
Rule 5002, Power=2: X MAY Y.
Rule 5003
coppro wrote:
You should also feel HUMILIATED if you didn't vote in this
QUORUM-FAILING election! Especially if you missed the second, correct
announcement and so got your vote dropped! HUMILIATION!
What was quorum for this election, and for the Tailor election, and
why? Based on recent
c-walker wrote:
* FINE with an amount of one class of asset, appropriate for
rule breaches of small consequence. An amount is only valid
if the currency's backing document binds the ninny or the
You may want to clarify Rule 2141's implication that the rules bind
all
Pavitra wrote:
Testing PGP/MIME for readability.
Looks fine here (Thunderbird 2.0.0.23)
I wrote:
Pavitra wrote:
Testing PGP/MIME for readability.
Looks fine here (Thunderbird 2.0.0.23)
Clarification: the PGP stuff is not shown unless I select View Source;
I have not attempted to do anything else with it.
comex wrote:
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Roger Hickspidge...@gmail.com wrote:
A Bank is a public contract whose purpose includes facilitating a
means of asset exchange between players. Any party to a contract CAN cause
that
contract to become a Bank without three objections.
Which
coppro wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
6438 D 0 2.0 coppro Dealer Cleanup
PRESENT (s/POSSIBLE/POSSIBLE and LEGAL)
6439 D 0 2.0 coppro Deal Cleanup
PRESENT (s/entity/player/g)
6440 D 0 3.0 coppro Want not NEED NOT
AGAINST (exceeds intended scope of Janitor
c-walker wrote:
CFJ, II 3: When a Rule is repealed, its Power is set to 0.
Gratuitous: No, the rule simply ceases to exist.
BobTHJ wrote:
A Bank
may own any rule or contract defined asset regardless of any
s/may/CAN/
Any player CAN transfer a non-fixed asset to a Bank (as
permitted by that Bank's contract) regardless of rules prohibiting the
transfer of assets, however if the transfer of an asset is permitted
ehird wrote:
2009/8/11 Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com:
When you try to scam an office, you should expect reprisals
Pot, kettle.
What I meant to add (but may have mistakenly left out when I went on to
discuss hypotheticals) is that, yes, I have tried to scam offices myself
(sometimes
G. wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009, Elliott Hird wrote:
2009/8/11 Sgeo sgeos...@gmail.com:
I haven't been paying much attention. What offices have you scammed?
CotC, majorly.
Do you mean overriding random assignments to get favorable judges or
something more insidious? Because the former is
comex wrote:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Ed Murphyemurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009, Elliott Hird wrote:
2009/8/11 Sgeo sgeos...@gmail.com:
I haven't been paying much attention. What offices have you scammed?
CotC, majorly.
Do you mean overriding random assignments to
comex wrote:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Ed Murphyemurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009, Elliott Hird wrote:
2009/8/11 Sgeo sgeos...@gmail.com:
I haven't been paying much attention. What offices have you scammed?
CotC, majorly.
Do you mean overriding random assignments to
Pavitra wrote:
For an idea of how badly platonism isn't fail-safe, look up the Annabel
Crisis, due to which ratification was invented.
The concept of ratification dates back to at least Rule 352:
http://agora.qoid.us/rule/352#521323
and a general mechanism was protoed as early as 1998:
BobTHJ wrote:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 17:23, comexcom...@gmail.com wrote:
I deposit 2xDistrib-u-Matic, 1xDebate-o-Matic, 1xLocal Election in the
IBA for a total of 170zm.
Fails. The IBA is neither a player nor a contest and therefore can't own
cards.
Perhaps we should create a new class
Pavitra wrote:
Aaron Goldfein wrote:
I CFJ on the following sentence. When a judge with judicial rank 0 has
eir judgement overruled on appeal, then it is decreased by 1 and e
CANNOT increase it for 30 days afterward.
Evidence:
Rule 2226
When a judgement is overruled on appeal, if
801 - 900 of 3133 matches
Mail list logo
