On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
I intend, with 4 supporters, to initiate an election to decide the
holder of the PSM office. comex's last weekly report as PSM was in
May.
Considering we just had a PSM election that everyone ignored, this
seems
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 4:53 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn
jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote:
I vote FOR on all decisions currently in their voting period (where it
is a valid option). however, I don't think Space Alert was made
distributable? I submitted one, paid for it, retracted, submitted a
new one,
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Sun 6 Jun 21:17:55 coppro : ais523 coppro (stupidity)
I believe the effect of this has self-ratified, but isn't it
impossible to transfer a prop to yourself?
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 11:09 AM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
Note: There are no Proposals to distribute this week.
I pay a fee to make each Undistributable proposal Distributable.
Note: this affected, as far as I can tell,
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Sam Benner benner...@gmail.com wrote:
I object to my own inactivation.
Too late; the dependent action was already resolved.
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 3:02 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn
jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote:
Okay, I come off hold. Maybe just until I'm out of office, but maybe longer.
You weren't on hold. If you had been, you wouldn't have been eligible
to be Speaker at all.
However, it's fairly unlikely you're
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 3:58 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 May 2010 14:34, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 3:02 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn
jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote:
Okay, I come off hold. Maybe just until I'm out of office
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 4:04 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/28/2010 01:42 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
LIST OF SUCCESSION
1. Andon (since 05 Apr 2010) (Speaker)
2. coppro (since 03 Feb 2010)
3. Tiger (since
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 6:46 AM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
So proposals can take effect before people start voting on them, if a
low-power rule says they can? You should require the presence of an
ADOPTED decision, not just veto the presence of a non-ADOPTED decision.
But how
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
You can stand up if you judge a disinterested case in the same message.
Which means that the CotC can pretty much judge every case.
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
Since I started a coup last week.
Care to provide a message-ID?
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
For each of the below statements, I perform the indicated action if
and only if I am a player.
I intend, without objection, to make Yally inactive.
--Annabel.
I object. And why? At the very least, Andon has been
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
This NoV is invalid; by rule 2230(c) an NoV must specify one action or
inaction which is illegal, and that was not clearly present in this NoV
(there were two alleged actions).
The action was the publication of the report.
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 3:49 PM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
However, scams SHOULD NOT
be carried out which are detrimental to the game as a whole.
This last sentence is broken, because it applies even on days other than
April 1. (A similar scam was used to win BlogNomic
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 2:07 AM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
I really have no clue what this means; odds are good that I'd just (as vote
collector) decide that if there was any complexity at all, I'd just resolve
the darn thing as PRESENT due to ambiguity.
Wouldn't replacing the vote
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 1:14 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Cute, but I publish a Claim of Error: The immediately above correction is
incorrect. (Your turn)
This is true, but since it was a claim about the identity of the
publisher of a different message, it's not self-ratifying
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Pavitra celestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote:
Conversely, a precedent that sending requires the sender to relinquish all
control would suggest that the Distributor cannot send any messages at all
via the fora.
Once the Distributor's messages are sent out to the
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 1:32 AM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd say they were violated, but then reinstated in a reasonable time.
However, since the rights were not violated by anything R101 claims
jurisdiction over, you would be out of luck. Of course, you would be excused
of not
On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 4:26 PM, Sgeo sgeos...@gmail.com wrote:
None of the rest of this email should be construed as agreeing to any
agreements, the rest of this email notwithstanding.
I agree to the following contract:
{
This is a public pledge. Only Sgeo and $VICTIM, hereafter referred to
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 7:05 AM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Proto-Proposal: Easier ratification of assets
(AI = 3, II = 1, please)
Amend Rule 1551 (Ratification) by appending this text to the
last paragraph:
If the document is limited to stating asset holdings, then the
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 3:20 PM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote:
Question for anyone who knows: did BobTHJ violate any obligation while
doing this?
e was required to award points as soon as possible after the events
triggering the awards; whether e is relieved of this obligation by
leaving the
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Self-ratification goes back at least as far as Rule 352:
http://agora.qoid.us/rule/352
Not less than once a week, the Speaker shall post the current
scores of all Players to the mailing lists, making his best
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Sgeo sgeos...@gmail.com wrote:
How possibly would it be for even a smallish invasion force to invade?
Are most players still at least reading the emails, despite not
contributing? If not, then a much smaller invasion force is a much
greater threat than usual.
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Elliott Hird
penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
Do you realise that Agora had never been invaded?
False. I invaded from B years ago. Unfortunately, the rest of B's
players didn't join in the planned invasion.
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 6:01 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Title: Minister without Portfolio.
Position: The Minister without Portfolio CAN become holder of a
specified vacant elected office by announcement, unless e is
prevented from holding that office on
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 7:08 PM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote:
For each proposal listed as being in the Pool, if it was removed from
the Pool, I submit a new proposal with its listed text, AI, II, and
title.
Wouldn't bothering to have voted on the proposal that allowed this
have been easier?
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 4:57 AM, Charles Walker
charles.w.wal...@googlemail.com wrote:
How is this any different to you getting your ribbons back when you
re-registered?
I didn't. I objected to that, too.
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, comex wrote:
The 6 days saved (21 - 15) aren't enough to make a difference imo. I also
don't think fast tracked proposals should require cards if they're going to
be
an emergency thing-- there
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Ultimately, what we're dealing with is, if a person does take an
absolute dictatorship, and e makes too many changes, then players who
are strongly pro-democratic may leave, and having a dictatorship
with no players is
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu
wrote:
Ultimately, what we're dealing with is, if a person does take an
absolute dictatorship, and e makes too many changes
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 4:30 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
The Registrar's report doesn't show Taral having deregistered
(though I thought e had at some point). I deregistered to test
non-player participation via the AFO, but if you're eligible via
your recent CFJ (I doubt it,
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:30 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
? If Taral's eligible, wouldn't you and I be too Murphy ? -G.
Taral's not eligible (was previously a player from 3 Apr 00 to 13 Dec
06). Not that I'm likely to have a No Confidence card fast enough to
fulfill my pledge
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 1:30 AM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
The one thing, however, that is truly common to every nomic, and that is
pedanticism.
Clearly you haven't played Blognomic, where they'll gladly handwave
away any obvious bugs.
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Pavitra celestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote:
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
I CFJ on: {{It is POSSIBLE to assign a judgment of UNDETERMINED to this
CFJ.}}
Trivially TRUE. It may or may not be an *appropriate* judgment.
No interpretation of Agoran Law may allow a judge
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 9:29 PM, James Beirne james.m.bei...@gmail.com
wrote:
Aaron Goldfein wrote:
Sat 14 Nov 20:38 yuri_dragon_17 changes eir nickname to lenpw III
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 7:37 AM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
(White ribbons appear to be intended as a reward for
continuous registration...)
Mine was a reward for bribing you, but I'm happy to bribe someone
else. I'm not sure why Murphy hasn't yet.
On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
Again, the proposal doesn't eliminate the history, it only moves it
from monthly to weekly. It's not pertinent and it really isn't
changing that much.
Personally I'd rather not see offices have both a weekly and
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 1:49 PM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote:
Wooble 13 Fugitive Can't Register
I believe these were all destroyed by proposal.
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
It's good to know that Agora is on the cutting-edge of IP jurisprudence:
(today from
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/11/glenn-beck-loses-domain-dispute-still-ends-up-with-domain.ars):
While agreeing
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
6569 1 1.0 coppro Green Quorum Busted
6560 1 1.0 coppro Green Anjusty
6561 1 1.0 coppro Green Contests Should Reward Themselves
6562 1 1.0 coppro Green
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
(If this
happened a lot, then things would eventually tilt toward by now you
should be automating or paying more attention.)
Considering how often it happened the last time we had a non-automated
promotor, I'd expect
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
If you don't propose and distribute those citrine repeals, I'll do it... let's
get this ruleset shrunk (or at least propose it)!
proto: adopt B's ruleset, then re-agorify it.
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 5:01 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
I intend, without objection, to deregister Taral.
please to not deregister the distributor, lest the mailing list
unexpectedly go poof.
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 6:16 PM, Pavitra celestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote:
6551 1 2.0 coppro Red Dead Contracts
PRESENT, ambiguous. with no party such that the party's basis contains
a player or with no parties, and whose basis contains a player?
Didn't you say you were in
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 1:39 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
The other option is not to bump anywhere, but create a new and very
specific 3.9 rule for proposals: while some other instruments of
power 3 (ratification etc.) can set powerrule, proposals cannot.
Third option proto:
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 8:52 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
This is botching again when saved as an external file. This is
presumably a Thunderbird bug, but in any case, can you switch to
text-only for reports?
Don't even get me started about the quoted-printable abomination of a
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Alex Smith
callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Strongly disagree with this one, it makes Wins by Renaissance much much
easier. (Potentially Championship too, if a Medal somehow ends up in the
LFD, say if a Champion's Contest terminates while it still has one.)
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 2:35 PM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
On Fri, 2009-10-30 at 09:43 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Alex Smith
callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Strongly disagree with this one, it makes Wins by Renaissance much
much easier
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 3:37 PM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
I object. The FRC is still in a phase of having several bad
overcomplicated rounds in a row; I'd like it to go back to saner things
before making it worth a win in Agora as opposed to just points.
You need to win 3
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 5:50 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn
jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote:
Barring anyone removing a proposal already made distributable, this
should make a complete list, right?
No, it doesn't include Distributable proposals that were removed from the pool.
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, barring the removal of proposals already made distributable.
Sorry for bothering you, but is there a way to access this database
that would count as reasonable effort?
Well, probably not without effort on
Trying to contract-define Rules is probably going to fail rather
spectacularly.
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 8:04 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote:
== Promotor's Proposal Pool Report ==
Date of this report: Tue 27 Oct 2009
Date of last report: Sun 27 Sep 2009
Pool last ratified: 21 Oct, ratified on 26 Oct
Number of Proposals: 45
Distributable proposals:
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 8:58 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
That was your call. To be guilty, the Accused could have reasonably avoided
committing the breach without committing a different breach of equal or
greater severity. It would be unreasonable for the Promotor to have to find
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 12:51 AM, Pavitra celestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote:
Speaking of the stare decisis, we really should either get rid of that
or appoint a recordkeepor to track it.
Make the SHOULD into a SHALL in the Rulekeepor rule, since we have a
Rulekeepor who obviously hasn't
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 9:36 PM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote:
LATIN SMALL LETTER SCHWA
+ Parties
* Warrigal
* coppro
* teucer
* allispaul
* comex
* Wooble
I left schwa.
The Agoran Agricultural Association
+ Parties
* Bayes
* Murphy
* Wooble (contestmaster)
BobTHJ is the
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
A Credit 573 0
A# Credit 575 0
B Credit 544 0
C Credit 575 0
C# Credit 555
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 12:25 PM, Charles Walker
charles.w.wal...@googlemail.com wrote:
I can understand some of these objections, but why are you against
repealing a Rule which has only an unused definition in it?
Objecting serves to protect my right to call myself an Agoran resident
alien.
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
2247 is The Janitor. Did you mean 1750 (Read the Ruleset Week)?
Don't you think it's cruel to punish someone for winning the Janitor
election by making them read the ruleset to find things to clean?
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 11:27 AM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote:
It is, in fact, POSSIBLE to transfer Rests to the Lost and Found
Department, by ceasing to be a person. (The question is, does such an
unreasonable method of action satisfy a CAN-sans-mechanism clause?)
One second after sending
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
FYI: B's war judgement declared ineffective on a technicality. (I was
trying to appeal it on the grounds that the persons behind it didn't
discuss it in Agora first, nor use their Agoran roles in executing it.)
I'd
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
I completely agree that you did not attempt to declare war.
However, the citizenry (or one of them, anyways) decided otherwise,
and would have judged a state a war to have existed if e could have.
As a result, I ask that B
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
I believe this works; Wooble still cannot register for 3 months after comex
deregistered em.
If I have no Rests, it should be 30 days, no? Is there a rule other
than 869 that applies here?
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 6:45 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
7) If this contract is a Champion's Contest, the contestmaster CAN and
SHALL transfer a medal from the contract to any contestant who has
won 3 rounds of the Committee since the contract came to possess that
On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 11:50 PM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhapsmy program can be easily changed, though this really has
nothing to do with automation, it has to do with how I (a human
person) interpreted the
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 11:02 AM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 6:18 AM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
It matters when the person we elect as recordkeepor uses someone
else's broken program and an annoying act-on-behalf system to avoid
doing the job at all
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote:
When any other entity is audited the auditing entity (or the Accountor
if the auditing entity is a non-person) CAN and SHALL as soon as
possible (by announcement)
I don't think the current rule is ambiguous at all. And
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote:
Address: what if the auditing entity is a non-person?
A non-person shouldn't be able to hold one of the Dealor offices or
take an action such as playing a Penalty Box card. If it can, that's
a bug.
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote:
Irrelevant. The audit rule specifically attempts to address what would
occur if there is no auditing entity (and by this we can only infer
that the author's intent was non-person entity). Since it would be
impossible for
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 12:17 PM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote:
When a judicial question is applicable and open, and its case
has a judge assigned to it, the judge CAN assign a valid
judgement to it by announcement, and SHALL do so as soon as
possible, unless e is recused
On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 23:18, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
Were any entities actually audited in the first 7 days of this month?
If not, why not?
I don't believe so. BobTHJ attempted
On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 7:10 PM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote:
Read the audit rule again. Each audit of the LFD started a new ASAP
time limit for me to destroy cards (I have it in my queue for the next
automated batch I send).
You read it again:
When any other entity is audited, the
Were any entities actually audited in the first 7 days of this month?
If not, why not?
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
Becuase Wooble amended it to a contract imposing no obligations.
No I didn't; I amended it by adding on a mousetrap and an escape clause.
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 6:21 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
No it did not. You gave notice August 9 (hence my intended amendment).
Neat, I forgot both that I needed to give notice and that I already
had. This should probably worry me.
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 6:27 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
I CFJ (II=1) { A Government was Formed on September 1.}
On September 1, Wooble assigned the Major Arcana cards to various
players. It was not at the time defined as Forming a Government,
however, the action was effectively
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 3:49 PM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 2:53 PM, Charles Reiss woggl...@gmail.com wrote:
I intend, with notice, to audit the Lost Found.
Cute.
The LFD is supposed to be audited before the end of tomorrow, sparing
an actual card hoarding player
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 3:55 PM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote:
I hereby invoke my R101 (iv) right to leave this contract, as it was
amended without my first having the reasonable opportunity to review
the amendment.
Does the right not to be bound by the amendment grant a right not to
be bound
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 8:24 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps a winning condition should be having won the game in each currently
recognized way.
Paradox, you can't satisfy that winning condition without satisfying it first.
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 3:12 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote:
Now is an all-time low on stable voting limits (well, I haven't been
here for very long, so I'm not sure)! There is currently a total of 9
votes around!
I'm intentionally holding off on this week's distribution
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 8:11 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Proposal: High-rank appeals prefer high-rank panels
Amend Rule 911
Insufficient AI...
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
I CFJ (II=0) I is a player.
TRUE; you is. Even if your variations in grammar are truly awful.
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 7:50 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
While I appreciate the extortion, could you be so kind as to make it so that
someone else No Confidencing the IADoP election doesn't kill my shot at
Insulator? Thanks.
I doubt my one vote is going to me that important. And if
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote:
What happens when you play a NC on an office for which there's an
ongoing election?
The election in canceled and a new one starts.
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 9:26 PM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote:
For each entity other than myself, I intend with notice to audit that
entity. I'll likely re-post this intent every 14 days.
That can't possibly work; I demand that you publish a list of every
entity in the universe to prove
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 3:53 PM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
PerlNomic's sufficiently automated that it's likely to keep on sending
them, oblivious to the circumstances, until someone tells it to shut up.
The notifications to Agora have to be sent by a logged-in user. Votes
on
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.
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 2:55 PM, Charles Walker
charles.w.wal...@googlemail.com wrote:
Wooble, have you admitted or denied this CoE? I can't seem to find I
reply and I thought it would be best to point it out before you
distribute this week.
The report's not self-ratifying; I flagged the
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Charles Reiss woggl...@gmail.com wrote:
Corrected NoV (forget the power of the rule in the first one): ais523
violated the Power-1 rule 1742 by failing to act in accordance with the
PerlNomic Partnership contract by attempting to modify it other than by
the
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote:
There is still dispute on that issue. Even if they are broken however
this shouldn't prevent the contract defined mimic of a dependent
action. Worst case it would still work using the common definition of
objection.
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Roger Hickspidge...@gmail.com wrote:
I opted for no judgment in hopes that the Justicar REASSIGNs to a new
judge who will give a true judgment. Yes it delays the process, but no
it doesn't permanently prevent a judgment.
This deliberately subverts the appeals
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Charles
Walkercharles.w.wal...@googlemail.com wrote:
I spend Distrib-u-matic to make the proposal No Vacancy v.2 Distributable.
Fails; was already made Distributable on 1 Sept.
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Here, there's a consensus is no dinging at less than 4 days, dinging
after 7 days, but there's probably very few/no cases raised one way or
the other in the 5-7 day range. The question is, is this because we
don't
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
N+1 high-AI proposals
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 4:19 PM, ais523callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
The PNP counts the 2 most recently active PerlNomicites as parties if
there were no active PerlNomicites at all.
Yes, if they're still registered. I submit that either 3 of us were
active or none of us were registered at
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 10:03 PM, Pavitracelestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote:
There was an attempt to amend the contract to refer to the normish
version (as allowed by contract). Did that ever go through?
No; I didn't have the consent of all of the parties (Rainer never
responded to me), and my
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 7:23 PM, Taraltar...@gmail.com wrote:
I go on hold. I'll be back Tuesday.
Taral: I treated this as not automatically taking you off hold on
Tuesday; did you come off hold manually that I missed, or are you
intentionally still on hold?
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Ed Murphyemurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Cookie Jar Report
Date of this report: Tue 1 Sep 09
Date of last report: Thu 27 Aug 09
(All times are UTC)
Deadline for guesses is the end of Friday each week.
I guess 16 proposals, 5 CFJs
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 11:01 AM, Roger Hickspidge...@gmail.com wrote:
No; I didn't have the consent of all of the parties (Rainer never
responded to me), and my attempt to do it without objection was
impossible due to dependent actions breaking.
I don't know that it was required. Only you
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 1:27 PM, Roger Hickspidge...@gmail.com wrote:
Vlad, Andre, G., BobTHJ, P1-P100 [pending CFJ 2306]
CFJ2306 was judged over 8 months ago. Are we still expecting an appeal?
201 - 300 of 1284 matches
Mail list logo
