On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote:
Card recordkeeping was harder than I thought. As you might have
noticed, I have not yet produced a single correct report
It looks to me like you're both making mistakes: some of his CoEs
against your Government
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 6:47 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Admitted. 6476 is hereby adopted:
You already announced this.
--
-c.
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 7:28 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
I was gunning for MALFORMED.
-coppro
I don't think MALFORMED is ever an appropriate judgement. If the
statement is malformed, the case can't be initiated.
--
-c.
Am I party to the Points Party? The Notary wiki says no, but I
believe I joined it in this message:
http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-busin...@agoranomic.org/msg13437.html
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote:
I hereby formally apologize to the Agoran community for not issuing
reports for my offices during last week. I ended up being in the
hospital for over a day (my wife was in labor) which sucked most of my
free time out of
at 21:26 -0400, 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 points
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 20, 2009, at 5:37 PM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk
wrote:
As for your two-possibilities argument; giving notice that there's a
possibility that something might happen is still notice. There are two
possibilities; but if either leads to something happening,
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 19, 2009, at 5:17 AM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk
wrote:
First, here's the scam that was basically guaranteed to work at least
partially, and it did. (The others can wait.)
Points Party requires 4 days notice for me to be able to amend it
(not
With
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 19, 2009, at 12:54 PM, Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@googlemail.com
wrote:
I change my nickname to Walker.
So, you subtracted me?
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
And yes I meant to use the G. is a player precedent for this; a kibitzer
can still be an anti-scammer, c. :) :)
Nice. Did you predict he would do something like that?
--
-c.
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 4:46 PM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
(/me watches as people turn around their arguments and start claiming it
isn't a dependent action after all.)
sure it is.
16:47 comex without member objection = without 1 objections, with
the eligibility restriction
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009, ais523 wrote:
On Sat, 2009-09-19 at 13:13 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
If I say I intend to take the train to Buffalo I have not made any
implication, announcement of intent, nor given any notice
in which crops and WRV are deposited
matters significantly when determining your resulting zm. I recommend
that comex reject this deposit for not being specific enough. For AAA
and recordkeeping purposes I am considering it to have failed unless
comex expresses otherwise.
Based on the above deposit
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 9:50 PM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote:
There are two possible scenarios:
1. Wooble was unable to gather the required consent to amend the PNP
to point to the new instance. Since the nomic.info instance was down
there were no registered PerlNomic players, and
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Proposal 6476 (Ordinary, AI=1.0, Interest=1) by Yally
No More Paradox
Amend point d of Rule 2143 to read:
For every non-IADoP report, the date on which it was last
submitted.
Amendment fails because there is
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 9:48 AM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
[[Re-adds a weekly time period to the rule; it was accidentally removed
by proposal 6369.]]
Murphy already submitted such a proposal.
--
-c.
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Taral tar...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 7:39 AM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote:
Since nobody responded to this inquiry I'll treat this message as if
it was processed on Sept 15, 00:59 UTC (this seems to be when it
finally cleared the list).
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 5:35 PM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
(An even more
surprising example: suppose we abolished the proposal system and instead
had a change the rules via Agoran Consent rule. Oops, rule 1698 stops
this; intent isn't an action, so there's no combination of
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 8:34 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
If I am a player, I deregister. (was not planning on playing until after
my vacation next week at the earliest, and ais523's mousetrap is making
me nervous).
Come back soon! I'm no good as an anti-scamster.
--
-c.
Wait, what? Why not REMAND?
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 16, 2009, at 5:26 AM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk
wrote:
On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 11:20 +0200, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
2009/9/16 Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com:
coppro wrote:
I assign myself as judge to CFJ 2679, and I judge
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
Having received no objections, I make all the quoted players inactive.
/me is a lonely cow :(
--
-c.
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
when
Rule 2156 takes precedence over Rule 2260 so both Roll Call and
Arm-Twist are broken at the moment.
--
-c.
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 06:03, comex com...@gmail.com wrote:
Rule 2156 takes precedence over Rule 2260 so both Roll Call and
Arm-Twist are broken at the moment.
There's no conflict. R2156 establishes voting limit
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree completely, and that is exactly what I am trying to prevent in
this case. I believe that dependent actions ARE NOT broken. I have
interpreted the rule differently than comex. By preventing this
judgment from moving
On Sep 8, 2009, at 7:28 AM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Because the banks are kind-of weird to understand right now, let's
settle for some old-fashioned haggling.
I'm willing to consider trading the following cards for something of
roughly equal value:
Distrib-u-matics
Kill
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 9, 2009, at 11:44 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
- If you take a Bayesian standpoint (with the process probabilities
as your priors) you come to the conclusion that 1/Nth of each
possible types of N cards were destroyed. Since this is
IMPOSSIBLE
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 9, 2009, at 12:55 PM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote:
I appeal this case. By custom Agora has permitted new officers a full
ASAP period to fulfill outstanding obligations.
You keep making that claim. I personally think that this custom
doesn't apply
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 9, 2009, at 3:31 PM, Elliott Hird penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com
wrote:
2009/9/9 comex com...@gmail.com:
I'd
appreciate suggestions on reducing the weird/confusing aspect..
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 4:50 PM, ais523callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Obviously this would be a socially unacceptable scam, but would it work?
The only flaw I can see is that a judge might be persuaded to allow
separate criminal penalties for each illegal draw, but historically that
hasn't
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Ed Murphyemurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2676
== CFJ 2676 ==
It is POSSIBLE to CoE on the identity of a message posted by the
PerlNomic
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 4, 2009, at 2:31 PM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote:
BJS self-deals (in the past and again in the future once I fix them to
function correctly) are each made with a disclaimer indicating that
the deal is only valid if you are in fact owed the card.
Such
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 3, 2009, at 4:39 PM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote:
Bah, just because you can doesn't mean you should. I saw this scam a
while ago but didn't want to exploit it because it doesn't do much
other than make people annoyed.
I don't think it's meant as a scam--
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Roger Hickspidge...@gmail.com wrote:
CoE: I missed calling this on your last report. The Lost Found has 6
Roll Calls, not 3. (3 from Randy Olshaw, 1 from Ben Daniel, 2 from
Modulus)
Eir last report has ratified, hasn't it?
--
-c.
http://iba.qoid.us/
It's for planning out IBA deposits and withdrawals. Click the arrows
to transfer assets between the IBA and yourself; you can see how many
zm you would gain or lose, and if you're lazy like me you can copy and
paste actions for an email. By default, it only knows how many
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Roger Hickspidge...@gmail.com wrote:
Below is a summary of actions taken in that message. If for some
reason that message never reached the list I perform the actions
indicated by the following logs:
Thu, 03 Sep 2009 22:41 - SoA creates 8 random crops in
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 7:13 PM, Pavitracelestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote:
I deposit my other three Absolv-o-Matics, as well as Debate-o-Matic and
Arm-Twist, with the IBA.
(I think this gets me 45*3 + 20 + 45 = 200 zm for a total of 903, but if
not then I do so anyway. All actions maximally
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 9:37 PM, Geoffrey Speargeoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
You can only become a party by becoming an active player on
nomic.info, as specified in the contract. Since nomic.info resolves
to a Slicehost IP running a competely different site, that could be
tricky.
Well, the
http://nomic.bob-space.com/agoralog.aspx
--
-c.
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 1:35 PM, ais523callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Gratuitous: Although I did in fact review this intent (as can easily be
determined from PerlNomic's logs), I didn't have a reasonable
opportunity to review it (a few hours is not a reasonable opportunity);
and what R101
; it's generally impossible to platonically conclude
whether someone had the opportunity or not, but it's certainly possible
to conclude whether it's reasonable to believe that they did; and it's
unreasonable to conclude that any PNP party (apart from comex, who
proposed the change) definitely
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 2:11 PM, ais523callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
but if the second one was, then the first one wasn't, as
it denies that the first one was sent by it (i.e. accepting the CoE);
the Executor of the first message is definitely comex, and it's
plausible to reason
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 7:37 AM, Geoffrey Speargeoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
I make the above change, assuming ais523 and I were actually the last
2 people to be active on PerlNomic when the file making us active was
deleted. (This is probably impossible to determine, but seems very
likely
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 5:11 PM, Ed Murphyemurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
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
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 3:44 AM, Ed Murphyemurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
6475 D 0 2.0 c. Simple satisfaction fix
FOR (no-op anyway if 6470 passes first)
I strongly hope it doesn't.
--
-c.
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 1, 2009, at 12:58 PM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote:
For the week of Aug 10-16 game custom dictates I should not be
penalized due to recently assuming the office.
I disagree, half a week should be more than enough time.
I completed the Anarchist's weekly
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Geoffrey Speargeoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
I intend, with the Support of the People, to cause the PBA to audit the IBA.
It doesn't have any Penalty Box cards, and needs to intend first in any case.
--
-c.
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 7:17 PM, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
Sean Hunt wrote:
If a member, I leave the LPRS.
-coppro
I deposit 4 WRVs. I buy a Digit Ranch.
-coppro
I'm treating this as failing to deposit anything in the IBA (because
coppro is a party to the PBA, not to mention the
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Roger Hickspidge...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree in this case. The PBA has seen recent activity.
I do interpret this as an AAA-defined attempt to purchase a ranch.
Oh! I completely forgot about that.
--
-c.
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 9:22 PM, Roger Hickspidge...@gmail.com wrote:
As quoted from every message sent from my site:
NOTE: Actions taken in this message are on behalf of Pavitra as =
permitted by contract, and may in turn be on behalf of other =
recordkeepors and/or officeholders.
may in
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 8:12 PM, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
I am not a member of the PBA, and the LPRS no longer exists.
The wiki says you are:
http://agora-notary.wikidot.com/the-people-s-bank-of-agora
--
-c.
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 11:17 PM, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
comex wrote:
6473 O 0 1.0 coppro That Was Easy
ISELL(30zm - AGAINST)
I fill this offer/purchase it/make comex vote FOR on that proposal.
(This caused me to retract my AGAINST vote and vote FOR.)
--
-c.
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
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Pavitracelestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote:
It occurs to me that R754(3) fails to establish a precedence relation
between legal and mathematical definitions.
I've never seen if A, then B used as iff as an _expression_-- to
answer is it true that if A, then B?.
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Geoffrey Speargeoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 3:09 AM, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
If BobTHJ is owed the title Three Months Long Service, I award it to em.
If BobTHJ is owed the title Six Months Long Service, I award it to em.
If
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 28, 2009, at 8:08 AM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, to be honest the whole thing doesn't make sense. comex's
arguments only further convinced me that the rule has been broken all
along. I retract the above proposal (which wasn't distributable anyway
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 11:55 PM, Elliott
Hirdpenguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
2009/8/27 comex com...@gmail.com:
A few days ago, I mistakenly untarred a large bunch of files into my
home directory. I tried to delete the files by piping the output of a
listing to xargs rm -r... I had
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.
--
-c.
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Roger Hickspidge...@gmail.com wrote:
The 'and' in bullet point 3 really doesn't make since. If it is to be
treated as anding the bullets together than all dependant actions
failed since it was added (since those actions would have to depend on
support,
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 the wrong
A few days ago, I mistakenly untarred a large bunch of files into my
home directory. I tried to delete the files by piping the output of a
listing to xargs rm -r... I had a bit too much success. The first
entry in the list was '.', and a significant chunk of my home
directory was deleted...
I
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 25, 2009, at 12:59 PM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote:
NOTE: Redo with R107 required information and adjusted rate for
points.
FYI, you didn't give a list of valid options (but I'm not sending this
ttpf; not trying to be a jerk)
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 5:49 PM, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
Doesn't matter; the lack just needs to be pointed out.
It needs to be identified.
On the one hand, if I personally identify a lack of information in the
message (realize that there is a lack of information), but don't
mention it
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 7:02 PM, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
I intend, without objection from any party to ə in the next 24 hours, to
act on behalf of ə to amend it by appending A player may not join ə
without giving at least 4 days and at most 2 weeks notice of their intent.
Arguably
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 12:07 AM, Roger Hickspidge...@gmail.com wrote:
I IBA-Withdraw a WRV.
Fails. The IBA has no WRV.
--
-c.
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 5:21 PM, ais523callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
As far as I can tell, this correctly scams round loopholes in the
proposal's tricks; if the proposal would pass even with an AGAINST from
me, I have no votes AGAINST; and I have ten thousand unconditional votes
FOR, so
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 6:35 PM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
I think there's precedent that randomly high votes work fine (I suppose
unless some critical threshold in the upper reaches makes a scam work).
But it may be just that assessors haven't questioned it. In theory it
may
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 11:03 AM,
C-walkercharles.w.wal...@googlemail.com wrote:
I submit the following proposal and play Distrib-u-matic to make it
Distributable.
{{
An Apologetic Proposal (AI = 2, II = 2)
[[ This proposal turns Senatorship into a switch, clarifies dependent
actions with
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 11:03 AM,
C-walkercharles.w.wal...@googlemail.com wrote:
An Apologetic Proposal (AI = 2, II = 2)
Amend Rule 1950 by replacing its entire text with:
Oh, and this needs AI 3.
--
-c.
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 3:38 AM, Ed Murphyemurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
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
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Roger Hickspidge...@gmail.com wrote:
Problem: Former players retain their senatorship and thus become
voters in an emergency session.
Nope, because Senator is redefined as a subset of first-class
players... but I think this would actually be a good thing,
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Roger Hickspidge...@gmail.com wrote:
I intend (with 2 support) to appeal this case. The relevant section of
R2258 said nothing about weekly reports (at the time this CFJ was
called):
Oh. Duh. My mistake.
--
-c.
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 5:25 PM, Roger Hickspidge...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 13:54, Ed Murphyemurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2654
== Equity Case 2654 ==
The PBA has
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 contract?
Any
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Roger Hickspidge...@gmail.com wrote:
Append to the list of cards in R2261 (The Deck of Change):
{{
Supersize Me - Specify an entity. That entity's Hand Limit is increased by 1.
Shrink Potion - Specify an entity. That entity's Hand Limit is decreased by 1.
}}
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Roger Hickspidge...@gmail.com wrote:
A Bank is a public contract whose purpose includes facilitating a
means of asset exchange between players. Any player CAN cause a public
contract to become a Bank without three objections. Any player CAN
cause a Bank to
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Roger Hickspidge...@gmail.com wrote:
{{
Penalty Box - Specify an entity. Playing this card announces intent to
audit that entity With Notice, so long as that entity is not audited
between the time this card is played and the time intent is resolved.
}}
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:43 PM, Aaron Goldfeinaarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
I initiate an election for Rulekeepor. I nominate myself as Rulekeepor.
You need 4 support.
--
-c.
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 7:42 PM, Elliott
Hirdpenguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
2009/8/12 Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com:
nomic.bob-space.com is down (well, on error since I'm too lazy to
display a proper site down message - some features may still work)
while I make some significant
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 10:01 PM, Aaron Goldfeinaarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
The IADoP's report says that an election hasn't been initiated since
May. I guess that's incorrect.
The recently-ended election was initiated at the end of July.
--
-c.
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Roger Hickspidge...@gmail.com wrote:
Origin IP is 64.17.129.3 or possibly 64.17.152.116. There were two
messages within the past 15 minutes, both with the subject BobTHJ's
actions (automated).
Thanks,
BobTHJ
I received one such message.
--
-c.
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 4:18 PM, ais523callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Of course. All of Agora depends on email to exist. Contracts depend
on language. I agree with you that it doesn't mean that R1728 clause is
wholly broken because nothing exists in a vacuum.
The only places email is
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 get favorable
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Ed Murphyemurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Which one was that, again?
http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-busin...@agoranomic.org/msg13200.html
--
-c.
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 5:17 PM, Ed Murphyemurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
1) We somehow forgot about the rising support requirement to publish
multiple NoVs in the same week.
Didn't forget. The extra NoVs were, IIRC, ILLEGAL but VALID (because
the Rule used MAY, which is nearly always a
The IBA's hand limit is currently zero. That means that all of its
cards will be destroyed next month, which is a pretty urgent problem,
but it's not clear to me how to fix it. There are a few options:
- Do nothing. Everyone will have to get their cards out at the end of
the month.
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 7:29 PM, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
comex wrote:
I deposit 2xDistrib-u-Matic, 1xDebate-o-Matic, 1xLocal Election in the
IBA for a total of 170zm.
INVALID; the IBA cannot own crops.
Ugh, what's the point of restricting it to players and contests?
Why contests
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 9:22 PM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
No offense taken, I'll be careful of the pattern. Though I'm not sure
may was an error in the original (when it was a pragmatic MAY publish
with no support issues - the pre-great-repeals legal system had a lot
of
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 9:45 PM, comexcom...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 9:22 PM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
No offense taken, I'll be careful of the pattern. Though I'm not sure
may was an error in the original (when it was a pragmatic MAY publish
with no support
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 11:57 AM, Pavitracelestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote:
I also think unless constitutes a claim of precedence. Do we have
rules or precedents about what happens when two contradictory clauses in
the same Rule each claim precedence over the other?
Yes!
--
-c.
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 3:18 AM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
AOL!
n.b. this is ineffective (CFJ 1536)
--
-c.
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 1:16 AM, Roger Hickspidge...@gmail.com wrote:
Note that since developing it I've tried to make my program adaptable
to this process. It hasn't been easy to come up with a workable
solution, and it is still not complete, but my system now correctly
models about 99% of the
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 5:31 AM, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
C-walker wrote:
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
C-walker wrote:
I change my salary to 'Change, Change, Government, Government'.
Is anyone willing to trade any of my Justice cards for Change
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
[I pledged to post a proto. Here it is. I already had a private
discussion with c. about it; he made some good counterarguments, I hope e
will re-post it for a discussion to happen before the judgement is due].
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 5:17 PM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, comex wrote:
comex CAN adopt a trumpet without 15 objections; its power is set to
one, and then it takes effect. It does not otherwise take effect.
Doesn't fix the problem that this text has
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
So why isn't AGAINT allowed to be a vote of AGAINST again? It's a
perfectly normal and understandable typo that's tainted by an
ancient CFJ.
I have, in the past, repeatedly used it with the intended meaning
FOR-- I used
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 6:28 PM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
I think this holds some water, perhaps more than my argument. And
it's much simpler.
R1728 allows Contract-actions as long as:
the effects of that
action are
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 7:00 PM, comexcom...@gmail.com wrote:
It says depends on, not depends only on. If one or more factors
is necessary to preserve the existence of an entity, and one of them
*are necessary
--
-c.
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, comex wrote:
It says depends on, not depends only on. If one or more factors
is necessary to preserve the existence of an entity, and one of them
is the contract, then its existence depends
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 7:39 PM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, comex wrote:
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, comex wrote:
It says depends on, not depends only on. If one or more factors
is necessary
301 - 400 of 1846 matches
Mail list logo
