CuddleBeam wrote:
> So, twg was cool to not weasel out when they had the chance to, so I will
> as well. I don’t know how to best do this aside from a Pledge, and I dont
> want to make the N too high in case he wants to use the blot availability I
> have during rental for something and this Pledge
G. wrote:
> On 3/2/2020 12:54 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote:
> >> On Mar 2, 2020, at 12:46 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Please, put some effort in though. After a request/discussion a couple
> >> months ago people stopped doing it and threads became
G. wrote:
> Well, we purposefully error-trapped switches, which suggests that we allow
> that sort of thing if the rules are explicit about it happening:
>
> > If a type of switch is not explicitly designated as
> > possibly-indeterminate by the rule that defines it, and if an action
> >
CuddleBeam wrote:
> If I tell you "you can take a cupcake", that doesn't mean you can take
> ALL the cookies. It means you can take one.
>
> And if I say "a cupcake is a pastry", that doesn't mean that only ONE
> cupcake is a pastry. It means that all cupcakes are pastries.
Sure, I'm with you
CuddleBeam wrote:
> But "a player" is just one player, no? At least that's my understanding of it.
Compare, for example:
> A player whose master is not emself is a zombie (syn. inactive);
> all other players are active.
I don't think any reasonable interpretation of the rules would
On Sunday, March 1, 2020 10:46 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On Sun., Mar. 1, 2020, 17:05 Tanner Swett via agora-business, <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > I submit a proposal with AI = 1, titled "Somebody gets a coin":
> > {
> > Enact a power-1 rule titled "A
I wrote:
> Ah ok, gotcha. (I wasn't particularly invested in this to be clear, just
> saw an opportunity and took it. Mostly in this for Cuddles' voting
> strength)
And also the opportunity to send a message with the subject line "OFF:
[Prime Minister] humble agoran farmer distributes proposal
G. wrote:
> It means that someone tried it (I wasn't the first I don't think) and
> there was some discussion and everyone involved agreed it worked and
> no-one offered any counterarguments worthy of a CFJ. And it was tried a
> time or two after that before CFJ 3688 with same results. I'll see
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> I thought about that possibility, because R2160 includes this
> provision, which seems to prevent any deputisation where other rules
> of any power prohibit the same action from the officeholder:
> 2. it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> twg deputised for the Prime Minister and it was not noted as a
> temporary deputisation, therefore e became Prime Minister. However, e
> also made emself Speaker. One of these was not possible, according to
> R2472, which states, "Rules to the contrary
Jason wrote:
> Perhaps relevant: CFJ 3762 [0], which concluded both that a person CAN
> perform a certain action and that that action is IMPOSSIBLE.
Warrigal wrote:
> My interpretation of the Honorable twg's ruling is that since the
> rules say that the action CAN be taken, but the criteria for
sukil wrote:
> Let's see if I get this straight now. Proposals and elections (except
> for first condition in election initiation) are not dependent actions,
> because they are not governed (by definition) by these restrictions
> (consent, support, etc.). Things such as impeaching a player are
>
Falsifian wrote:
> I pay Agora a fee of 11 Coins to satisfy my auction debt.
>
> (If the auction didn't happen, I vaguely remember some discussion
> concluding this announcement doesn't do anything. I guess it depends
> whether I triggered the "Upon such an announcement" in R2579. Maybe
> not,
G. wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 12:01 PM Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 14:40, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 11:26 AM Jason Cobb wrote:
> > > > Rule 478/37 states that 'To "publish" or "announce" something is to send
> > > > a public message whose body
G. wrote:
> keep the nonstandard characters limited
"Nonstandard"? Unicode has been around since before I was born - seems
to me your software has had plenty of time to update...
-twg
Jason wrote:
> Hmm... Seeing as I have never previously owned a White Ribbon, I award
> myself White Glitter.
To be eligible for Glitter of any colour you need to have owned that
Ribbon within the past 7 days (that's what the "Otherwise" near the end
of R2438 does). Which doesn't work with White,
Alexis wrote:
> I think I missed something. Why does broken zombie auctions mean that
> you own the zombies?
Jason already replied about eirs, but as for me, my zombie's master
switch self-ratified a while back.
-twg
I wrote:
> > 8325e Falsifian2.0 Inflation Vote
> Conditional: AGAINST if Falsifian votes AGAINST; otherwise PRESENT.
> (Remaining officially neutral as Treasuror.)
> NB: Your definition of "Median" does not match the usual mathematical
> definition for cases where there are an
Jason wrote:
> Since we're probably about to remove this method of winning, I pay a fee
> of 1000 coins to win the game.
Goddammit, all I wanted was a platinum ribbon
-twg
omd wrote:
> Yep, but speaking as the Distributor, I think it would be nice to have
> better documentation. (Not necessarily volunteering to write it
> though. ;))
Yes, we seem to periodically come up with lists of non-obvious Agoran
nuances that it would be good to put in a FAQ on the website,
om o:
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2020-February/042174.html
>
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 11:16 AM Jason Cobb via agora-business
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org wrote:
>
> > On 2/14/20 1:31 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-official
Jason wrote:
> On 2/12/20 9:17 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote:
> > PROPOSAL 8317 (Zombie trade)
> > FOR (5): Alexis%, Bernie, Gaelan, omd, twg&
> > AGAINST (6): Aris, Falsifian$, G., Jason, Rance, o
> > PRESENT (0):
> > BALLOTS: 11
> > AI (F/A): 21/19 (AI=1.0)
> > OUTCOME: ADOPTED
>
> Out
Jason wrote:
> On 2/13/20 12:00 AM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote:
> > Fucking hell. I didn't even fix the numbers. I'm so stressed out about
> > my mistake that I only fixed half the problem. I am so sorry everyone.
> > This is truly mortifying.
>
>
> It's alright! I have no complaints
sukil wrote:
> Me too!
Hi sukil, welcome to Agora! You sent this to the main Discussion Forum
(agora-discussion@agoranomic.org), whereas you probably meant to send it
to the main Public Forum (agora-busin...@agoranomic.org). Messages sent
to a discussion forum have no in-game effect, because it's
I wrote:
> Jason:
>5Reward (assessing proposals, w/c 27 Jan)
> 20Indigo Glitter (Baccalaureate of Nomic) [disputed by CFJ]
>5Reward (CFJ 3788)
> 14Blue Glitter (CFJ 3788)
>5Reward (Rulekeepor weekly, w/c 10 Feb)
>-
> 49
CoE:
Alexis wrote:
> Proposal: The Paradox of Self-Appointment (AI=1, chamber=Participation)
> {{{
> Amend Rule 103 (The Speaker) by inserting
> {
> If the Prime Minister is emself Laureled, eir power to appoint a
> Speaker continues for the entirety of a message in which e resigns as
> Prime Minister,
G. wrote:
> On 2/10/2020 3:09 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> > Murphy wrote:
> >> Alexis wrote:
> >>
> >>> I intend, with 2 Support, to initiate an election for each of the
> >>> following offices:
> >>>
> >>> * Assessor,
Alexis wrote:
> I will be treating this as invalid, per R2510:
>
> > A player CAN publish a Notice of Honour. ... When a Notice of Honour is
> > published...
>
> and R2466:
>
> > ... A person CANNOT act
> > on behalf of another person to do anything except perform a game
> > action; in
Alexis wrote:
> Gaelan is Notary.
Notary doesn't have a ministry yet, though. Although I suppose it will
come to have one partway though the resolution... We seem to be intent
on making proposals that are difficult to resolve, don't we?
-twg
G. wrote:
> On 2/8/2020 5:38 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> >
> > * I act on behalf of Bernie to award myself a White Ribbon.
> >
>
> This is one of the few things that can permanently and adversely affect a
> player's future participation while e's a zombie, as mos
Murphy wrote:
> Proposal 8295 moved office salary reporting to the ADoP.
>
> Wed Jan 29 2020 03:26:29 UTC - initial alleged resolution
> Sat Feb 1 2020 02:24:44 UTC - CoE accepted, corrected resolution
>
> I grant 5 coins to each of these players for publishing these reports
Jason wrote:
> Oh,
G. wrote:
> The below CFJ is 3806. I assign it to Gaelan.
>
> status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3806
>
> === CFJ 3806 ===
>
> In the attached message, I submitted a public petition to the
> ADoP, as
Jason wrote:
> Because there hasn't been an ADoP report in over a month (I hope
> Murphy's okay), I'd just like to confirm office holdings because the
> assessments depend on it:
>
> The latest report is at [0]. As far as I know, the changes from then are:
>
> * Herald is held by Alexis.
> *
CuddleBeam wrote:
> I pop into Agora and I find this lmao
>
> What is going on lol
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3805
-twg
I wrote:
> I object to the capitalisation one for the same reason as Alexis.
>
> I object to the lists one because the example given is very confusing.
> It's not an inline list because it's separated from the surrounding
> prose, and it's not a block list because the elements aren't separated
>
Falsifian wrote:
> Welcome Tcbapo!
>
> A lot happened last week. twg won the game the hard way. Many parts of
> the rules are changed after the adoption of twelve proposals, and
> voting began on several more, including ways to make the decision
> process smoother. The Herald invents the Patent
Falsifian wrote:
> Sigh. I repeal Blink test v1.1 and submit:
>
> Title: Blink test v1.2
> AI: 1
> Chamber: Legislation
> Co-authors: Jason
> Text: {
>
> Amend Rule 2601 to read in full:
>
> If this is the only paragraph in this rule, and it has been at
> least one week since this rule was last
Jason wrote:
> CoE: this leaves out he Payday coins.
Sorry. I even remembered it, just confused it with the broken things.
Roll on Friday morning.
-twg
Warrigal wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 1, 2020, 23:54 Tanner Swett via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > I intend, with 2 Agoran Consent, to award twg the Patent Title of
> > > Baccalaureate of Nomic, subject to the conditions that the person
> > > performing the award pursuant
Alexis wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 at 19:22, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> >
> > On 2/1/20 7:20 PM, James Cook wrote:
> > > I submit a proposal as follows:
> > >
> > > Title: Unrepetition
> > > AI: 3
> > > Chamber: Efficiency
> >
> >
> > Perhaps the H. Promotor should order this
G. wrote:
> Pasted that one in the 3805 record, still getting bad line breaks it looks
> like unless I made a copy/paste error? I could alter line breaks by hand but
> I'm purposefully not gonna help you there (this is a script insertion
> challenge not a social engineering challenge...)
Mm,
Jason wrote:
> I know this is probably unnecessarily pedantic
You are talking to a group of people who spend an appreciable fraction
of their free time arguing about the proper interpretation of a
twenty-seven-year-old set of rules governing the allowable use of a
mailing list.
-twg
G. wrote:
> awww - i'd seen that and my birthday is Feb 4th
Same, though it sounds like it wouldn't have gone unnoticed until May
anyway...
You can still use it, though! No chance of the proposal passing before
then, barring shenanigans.
-twg
Aleixs wrote:
> I think that Warrigal's concerns are valid. The only reason that the asset
> rules work so well is because they've been well-tested and worked out.
> Changing the base away from them to something else is entirely viable; it
> would require care and likely plenty of time while
Jason Cobb wrote:
> RESOLUTION OF PROPOSALS 8287-8307
> =
>
> I hereby resolve the Agoran decisions to adopt the below proposals.
NB: The F/A ratios on several of Proposals 8292-8307, and on the second
attempt at 8290, are incorrect because they do not take into
Aris wrote:
> For the record, I strongly disagree. I think Spivak is part of Agoran
> culture at this point, like the “or” suffixes at the end of offices. It’s
> part of what makes Agora different and unique. In short, it’s a dialectal
> variation, and I think Agora having its own dialect, not
Falsifian wrote:
> I was hesitent to raise this morbid concern, but now that the subject
> has been broached, are dead former players persons? R869 would seem to
> say no. This may affect the accuracy of Tailor reports.
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg45140.html
I wrote:
> Alexis wrote:
> > Is it intentional that the Reply-To headers for messages include the
> > original author? I always take them out.
>
> To my knowledge, this isn't a general list problem - it only happens to
> messages from me. Still unclear exactly why, although I blame my email
>
Alexis wrote:
> Is it intentional that the Reply-To headers for messages include the
> original author? I always take them out.
To my knowledge, this isn't a general list problem - it only happens to
messages from me. Still unclear exactly why, although I blame my email
provider, which has
omd wrote:
> However, I vaguely remember having proposed this in the past, and
> someone objecting to it. But I can't find the thread; searching for
> "scrapers", only this thread comes up. I could be misremembering.
Is this it?
G. wrote:
> CoE on coin balances: missing blackjack payments?
Oh yes. Somehow it didn't register with me that those were actual game
actions. :P
Revision forthcoming.
-twg
Matthew Berlin wrote:
> A custom Agora blockchain for the ruleset and BUS actions?
It seems to me that an equally efficient, and somewhat lower-tech,
solution would be for several different people to keep copies of the
archives using the link omd provided upthread.
Of course this doesn't protect
Alexis wrote:
> I'm not sold on this, or on the precedent.
>
> R2125 is clear that actions can only be performed by the methods
> *explicitly* specified. It seems to me that it closes the door to methods
> of performing actions being specified by implication, even by necessary
> implication. I
Alexis wrote:
> Blatant attempt to sneak something Gaelan missed: I CFJ on "Gaelan
> CAN, by announcement, award emself the patent title of 'The
> Powerless'.", requesting linked assignment with the CFJ upthread.
your thought being that the award can be made repeatedly?
-twg
Alexis wrote:
> Two questions:
>
> First, twg, are you satisfied with the draft as it is? There do not seem to
> have been any substantive comments from peer review so I believe we could
> proceed with the award soon.
Yes, a few days ago I mentioned I was thinking of making some minor
additions,
Aris wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 3:25 PM Rebecca via agora-business
> wrote:
>
> > I, R. Lee, do register
> >
>
> Welcome back! I cause R. Lee to receive a Welcome Package.
Err. I find no evidence that R. Lee deregistered since e was last here,
so I think this fails. E isn't even a zombie
G. wrote:
> I'm *slightly* concerned on this because I think that deputizing for
> someone who isn't yet late is slightly rude, as the officer should be
> given discretion on when to do stuff without being pushed that hard
> (except for special circumstances).
I don't disagree, but in this case
G. wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 9:44 AM Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion
> wrote:
>
> > G. wrote:
> > > No deputisation needed if there's only 1 candidate, R2154:
> > >
> > > > If at any point an uncontested election has a singl
G. wrote:
> No deputisation needed if there's only 1 candidate, R2154:
>
> > If at any point an uncontested election has a single candidate,
> > then any player CAN by announcement declare em the winner of the
> > election, thereby causing em to win the election.
You're correct,
G. wrote:
> > 8293 Bernie, twg 1.0 CFJ Bait
> AGAINST. Only natural persons can register so this fails off the
> bat unless I miss something - not particularly interesting.
The first sentence yes, but none of the others are expressly
conditional on that working :)
Several of the
Aris wrote:
> Here's a draft. The actual report will be about a day late; I
> sincerely apologize for my tardiness, and I hope the extra day won't
> cause significant trouble. Given how big this distribution has turned
> out to be, I don't feel comfortable sending this out without a draft
> to
Gosh! This is all a much more positive reaction than I was expecting.
Aris wrote:
> However, you have convinced me to vote on your proposals on their
> merits until the loopholes within them are actually located.
Thank you. I hope you won't regret your decision.
> I assure you that I will be
Alexis wrote:
> > Amend Rule 217, "Interpreting the Rules", by inserting "authorial
> > intent," after "past judgements,".
>
> Quite opposed; this would require judges to read mailing lists to determine
> intent.
Fair enough! Like I said, mostly there to provoke discussion. Would you
feel
Alexis wrote:
> Repeal rule 2603 or provide a manner for determining the office's holder,
> as there's currently no way for that office to be held.
R1006, last para. It's meant to be a penalty for proposal authors who
define switches without specifying who, if anybody, should track them.
> Amend
elan
>
> >> On Jan 17, 2020, at 6:27 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> > Gaelan wrote:
> >> Any reason we don’t just define this within the rules? Isn’t something
> >> that should need to change except when offices change, so we can just do
> >> this by p
Gaelan wrote:
> Yeah, not trying to insinuate that the current officers would do
> anything. But we do occasionally have unsavory officers (as well as the
> possibility of a cultural shift towards taking advantage of office
> powers), and we’re skills be prepared for that.
>
> I’m not sure
Gaelan wrote:
> Any reason we don’t just define this within the rules? Isn’t something
> that should need to change except when offices change, so we can just do
> this by proposal.
Not particularly, but Aris preferred it the other way and I can't please
everyone :P
> The proposal pool is only
ais523 wrote:
> This strikes me as an almost identical situation to a rule stating that
> a player CAN perform a given action, but not specifying a mechanism to
> do so. I'm not up to date with our existing precedents on that,
> though.
I'm not altogether sure that it is, actually. R2545 says:
Alexis wrote:
> I do not think these sorts of hypothetical conditionals work, fwiw.
If this is based on the precedent in CFJ 1215, I would argue that those
judgements were only specifically applicable to situations in which the
relevant recordkeepors have _no reasonable way_ of knowing the value
Trigon's "Interesting Chambers" idea got a great deal of popular support
and doesn't deserve to be dropped solely because e left us, so I've
updated it to incorporate all the changes suggested since eir last
draft. Any further comments?
-twg
-
Title: Interesting Chambers v3
AI: 3.0
Author:
Falsifian wrote:
> Treasuror's notes (if I'm still Treasuror; I'm not fully caught up):
>
> * As a result of this judgement, I believe Jason Cobb earned 18 Coins
> rather than 18000 with eir December 7 scam message.
>
> * Per my recent reply to the deputy Tailor's report, I believe Alexis
> earned
Falsifian wrote:
> I think these are off by one. For example, 11 players do not have blue
> ribbons, so earning one should be worth 11+1=12 Coins.
Oops, well spotted! I missed the "+1" in "N+1".
-twg
Alexis wrote:
> The critical distinction, then, is that the obligation
> to publish a report is not an obligation to publish a document (much less a
> public document) purporting to be a report, but purporting is required to
> invoke self-ratification.
I'm not sure I follow
Alexis wrote:
> omd's fix proposal would make it so that the amount of the award is
> platonic, given when the player invokes the triggering phrase
> (presumably in response to our 21 different attempts to use the rule
> with different numbers). It would then be easy for the Tailor to give
> the
Alexis wrote:
> How would people feel about changing to a model where rewards are primarily
> awarded by officers in response to certain events? E.g. the Assessor would
> give proposal rewards, the Tailor Glitter rewards, the CotC judging rewards.
That would certainly make things easier to keep
Alexis wrote:
> The only difference is the expectation that the officer, before publishing
> the report, verify that no messages have been sent that would alter the
> contents of the report. I do not believe that this is an unreasonable
> expectation on an officer. Agora does not have the volume
Alexis wrote:
> It's still significant on a high-AI proposal, but I'd suggest that perhaps
> an alternative would be to decrease the default to 2? The Prime Minister is
> also affected by the default being 3.
The original justification for increasing the default to 3 was to prevent
a single
Gaelan wrote:
> I create the following proposal: {
> Title: Bureaucratic Power
> AI: 2
> Author: Gaelan
>
> Create a power-2 rule titled “Bureaucrats” with the following text: {
> Each rule is said to have an “affinity” for each office, an integer equal to
> the sum of any points awarded by the
G. wrote:
> Penalty box: Murphy, D. Margaux, twg.
Oops, is this because of the CFJ I missed before the new year that you
reassigned to omd? Sorry about that. I was having a busy spell and probably
ought to have recused myself immediately, but managed to convince myself that I
would get around
G. wrote:
> I submit the following Proposal, AI=3, "no fake CFJs needed":
>
>
> Amend Rule 2201 (Self-Ratification) by replacing this text:
>
> 3. Initiate an inquiry case regarding the truth of the claim
>
G. wrote:
> When Jason Cobb pulled the 18K scam there was some bit of discussion that we
> might be over coins or ready for something new there - what do people think.
> My opinion is that the zombie system is working reasonably, and we need some
> manner to allocate zombies (preferably weighted
Aris wrote:
> A minimalist proto along the lines of #1 follows. This could be a
> complex interconnected set of 15 rules, but I think it would be more
> fun to leave it as minimal as possible at let the judiciary sort out
> the details.
>
> -Aris
> --
> Title: Administrative Adjudication
>
On Monday, November 11, 2019 1:54 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> On Thursday, November 7, 2019 12:52 AM, James Cook
> wrote:
>
> > I initiate a zombie auction, with the following single lot:
> >
> > 1. Jacob Arduino
>
> I bid 1 coin.
...dammit, I'm a few hours past the deadline.
-twg
On Monday, November 11, 2019 1:36 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> Did we increase the base? The most recent SLR still says the default is
> 3, and I found no proposals since then that increased it, but I could be
> missing something.
Until just before you registered, the default voting strength was 1
On Sunday, November 10, 2019 3:16 PM, Nch via agora-business
wrote:
> (I cut the Turnips out for now because I think they need to be more carefully
> considered to be balanced and interesting.)
>
> I submit the following proposal, stylized according to the Promotor
> style-guide draft (unless
On Thursday, November 7, 2019 4:16 AM, Jason Cobb
wrote:
> Transferring D. Margaux's Coins is an action defined by the Rules that
> 'CAN be performed "by announcement"' (even if the intent is only that it
> CAN be performed by announcement by a single person), satisfying the
> first criterion
On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 11:05 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> ... I judge this CFJ FALSE.
Oops, meant to sent that to BUS. Oh well, it's still intelligible.
-twg
On Thursday, October 24, 2019 3:07 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> The below CFJ is 3776. I assign it to twg.
Sorry, I know I'm slightly behind on this - was planning to get it done
yesterday but didn't get time. Will publish a judgement on Saturday at the
latest (if I haven't been recused yet)
-twg
On Saturday, October 26, 2019 11:36 PM, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> 8654 nch 1.0 [2]
I think you typoed the ID here - the full list gives it as 8264.
> 8265 twg, Murphy, Aris3.0 [3]
Jason Cobb is a co-author to 8265 as well.
Also I find your obfuscation far
On Saturday, October 26, 2019 3:22 PM, Nch wrote:
> I'm ccing you here, so let me know if you get this one. I suspect your spam
> filter doesn't like *@protonmail and you need to add an exception. (Someone
> might want to quote this back on AD for em in case it doesn't make it
> through.)
On Saturday, October 26, 2019 3:19 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> I would be happy to take it on if I can get Trigon's code working.
which reminds me, can someone add me to the GitHub org? My username is @qenya.
-twg
On Saturday, October 26, 2019 1:39 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> [of course what we really need is a rulekeepor :) ]
I would be happy to take it on if I can get Trigon's code working. Referee has
been a bit dull recently because everyone is being boring and obeying the rules.
(also, ftr, I'm still
On Thursday, October 24, 2019 3:06 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I don't assign CFJs in strict order - I generally pick from the 2-3 of
> the "least recently assigned" on the judicial list (and make sure no one
> lingers too long in the top 2-3) but within that top 2-3 I scramble it or
> use some
On Wednesday, October 23, 2019 11:37 PM, Ørjan Johansen
wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Oct 2019, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> >* players SHALL NOT clearly identify this rule - doing so is the
> > Class 1 Crime of Uttering the Forbidden Name.
> >
> > Any
On Wednesday, October 23, 2019 9:54 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On 10/22/2019 11:37 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> Are you semi-favoring the case, or trying to avoid it? Asking for a friend.
Neither in particular! Just noting that (I believe) I'm the interested judge
who's least recentl
On 23 Oct 2019, 01:40, Ada Worcester < ag...@ada.pikhq.com> wrote:
> I initiate a Call for Judgement into the following: {
> The person known as ais523 is a player.
> }
>
> I bar ais523 from this case.
Oh great, this is probably going to get assigned to me, isn't it.
Quick straw poll: did anyone
I feel the same way. Thank you, Trigon, for your diligent efforts as Rulekeepor
and Cartographor over the past few years.
Whatever's happening, please know that you will be missed and that, I'm sure,
you'll be gladly welcomed back whenever and if ever you decide to return.
-twg
‐‐‐
On Sunday, October 20, 2019 10:07 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Votes so far from: Falsifian, Jason Cobb.
I voted [Fruits of Persistence and Patience, Hot Potato, Clairvoyant Roshambo,
The
Watch]. You even replied to it. :P
-twg
On Sunday, October 20, 2019 9:15 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
wrote:
> I object. Can't you CFJ this, like people normally do with ambiguous
> registrations, rather than simply trying to disregard the issue
> entirely?
Oh, I wasn't even thinking of your "proposal" as a potentially ambiguous
On Sunday, October 20, 2019 7:04 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
wrote:
> Right now, I submit the following proposal, "Undo This Proposal", AI 1:
>
> Create a new Power-0.5 rule, "Repeal This Rule":
> {{{
> When this rule is repealed by a proposal, the author of that proposal
> wins the game.
1 - 100 of 453 matches
Mail list logo
