On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Luis Ressel ara...@aixah.de wrote:
I've got the essential parameters -- author, AI, text -- right, so the
initiation of the Agoran Decision of whether to adopt proposal 7723
succeeded -- after all, I'm permitted to initiate such decisions.
However, I did fail to
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 6:47 PM, Luis Ressel ara...@aixah.de wrote:
That's not exactly what I've said. IMO, I didn't create any new
proposals -- but I did initiate a decision about whether to adopt a
mysterious, unspecified proposal 7723.
You are only permitted to distribute (defined as
On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 10:33 PM, Henri Bouchard henrib...@gmail.com wrote:
--
Proposal: Office Salary Fix
Author: Henri
Adoption Index: 1
Replace is impelled to in Rule 2439 (Office Salary) with SHALL.
On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 11:04 PM, Eritivus eriti...@gmail.com wrote:
I must not understand this comment. Surely the problem wasn't that
there was no specified order for the individual replacements? It
would seem very odd to require such an order.
Agora is nothing if not odd.
Rule 105 states:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 2:39 AM, Eritivus eriti...@gmail.com wrote:
Counterarguments:
The information required is 'a list of all proposals in the Proposal
Pool, along with their text and attributes', not each individual
fact that list represents, such as 'that Wordplay was in the
Proposal
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote:
I retract the proposal Restricted distribution. I submit the
following proposal (an edited version):
Still contains the swich typo. Regarding the attributes thing,
since this proposal is already AI 3,
can't you
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 2:48 AM, Eritivus eriti...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 2014-10-27 at 06:22 +, Eritivus wrote:
7706 3 omd Fast Track
ENDORSE scshunt
If this was a valid ballot [*], I retract it.
I vote FOR 7706.
[*] It seems scshunt isn't registered?
After a bit
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 6:27 PM, Luis Ressel ara...@aixah.de wrote:
The proposal pool currently contains the following proposals (with
preliminary IDs):
Though it's of course the Promotor's prerogative to choose when to
distribute, I'm curious why you didn't distribute all of them.
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 6:27 PM, Luis Ressel ara...@aixah.de wrote:
7711 omd1.0 Wordplay
By the way, it was pointed out that this violates the recently
arguably reestablished custom of installing an officer, so I probably
should have changed it. But in any case, I volunteer
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote:
Would anything important be lost by changing Once a proposal is
created, none of its attributes can be changed to Once a proposal is
created, none of these attributes can be changed? (The previous
paragraph is
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Tanner Swett tannersw...@gmail.com wrote:
A rule which purports to allow a person (a special deputy) to
perform an action via special deputisation for an office thereby
allows them to perform the action by announcement, as long as
You're
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Sprocklem sprock...@gmail.com wrote:
7706 3 omd Fast Track
AGAINST. This is IMO a terrible way to go about this and the Expedition
proposal seems, at least at a cursory glance, better implemented. Also,
I don't trust omd.
I think that my proposal
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 12:14 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
The idea of paying to distribute a proposal is simple. Proposals make
work for everyone (voters and officers). Writing a proposal is an aspect
of gameplay that's the creative part, paying for all of Agora to
review
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote:
The Promotor CAN distribute a proposal which is in the Proposal
Pool at any time. The Promotor SHALL not distribute proposals
which are not pending.
SHALL NOT
Imminence is a swich,
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 10:51 PM, Benjamin Schultz
ben.dov.schu...@gmail.com wrote:
The Marker Dates are SEMI annual -- every half year. BI annual means every
two years. I hate hate HAET it when people use bi- to mean semi-. Please
amend your Proposal before I run you over with a bitruck.
I
On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 3:06 AM, Edward Murphy emurph...@zoho.com wrote:
Proposal: Full disclosure
The text you're amending was modified four days ago. Sorry, I haven't
updated the ruleset yet.
On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
7706 3 omd Fast Track
AGAINST. For some reason I don't trust omd with rapidly-adopted
proposals right now.
Oh, come on, don't punish me for scamming. The proposal's pretty
straightforward.
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 5:25 PM, woggle woggl...@gmail.com wrote:
=
THE SCROLL OF AGORA
=
Belated CoE: You were de-Heralded by
On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 4:31 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 5:25 PM, woggle woggl...@gmail.com wrote:
=
THE SCROLL OF AGORA
On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 5:43 PM, Luis Ressel ara...@aixah.de wrote:
I deputise for the Promotor to publish the following report:
The Proposal Pool is currently empty.
Wordplay is in there; it was submitted shortly before the last
distribution but not distributed because I wanted to get
On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 7:43 PM, Ørjan Johansen oer...@nvg.ntnu.no wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2014, Alex Smith wrote:
My current opinion on that proposal is: a) omd does not currently know
of a way to scam it; b) omd thinks the proposal is genuinely good for
the game; and c) omd will nonetheless
On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Tanner Swett tannersw...@gmail.com wrote:
Amend Rule 2160 Deputisation by appending the paragraph
A rule which purports to allow a person to specially deputise
under particular circumstances thereby makes it POSSIBLE for the
person to do so
nttpf.
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Henri Bouchard henrib...@gmail.com wrote:
omd, are you still Speaker, or did you resign? Shouldn't you have two
votes in this?
I'm Speaker, lost Prime Minister after the proposal to conflict the
two passed. (I don't even have a choice in the matter.) Speaker
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Eritivus eriti...@gmail.com wrote:
The self-ratifying clause seems worrisome, because it is not obvious
to me that it requires the conditions in the first paragraph (AI=1, 7
days notice, etc) to be satisfied.
That ratification can occur regardless of any
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 4:30 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
But it DOESN'T say that a non-person can publish anything. So we may
have a case were an automated message is a public message that was
never published.
Thoughts, anyone else? My reading would be that public =
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 4:46 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
So the dice server sent a message via the public forum. Isn't that
the definition of a public message? What am I missing?
I think the idea is that since the dice server's message contains a
full copy of your message,
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
There are a few possible interpretations of what that action just did.
With my view on matters, what it does is to cause the CFJ to have to be
decided TRUE, while its statement is actually FALSE; in other words, it
simply
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 5:20 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
In any case, I hope that the resulting actual /verdict/ of the judgement
ends up completely irrelevant and doesn't guide gameplay, especially
because we're still debating what actually /happened/.
I think the verdict of this
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 6:00 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Linked, you think? -G.
The last three, maybe. The first one is independent and shouldn't be.
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 11:32 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
H. omd,
Are the unterminated 's a copy-pasted error, or is weird string
termination part of your fiendish scheme here?
Just a (rather ugly) copy+paste mistake.
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 5:41 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
While scamming, my interpretation was something along
the lines of: an entity pertains to the Province of Agora if the Rules
directly, statically associate the two, or if some *inherent*
Rules-defined property of the entity makes
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 5:59 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
I dislike this always taking effect terminology. I'd word it as rules
are capable of having ongoing effects. Taking effect sounds like
they're actively doing something at every moment.
It's from Rule 2141:
A rule is a
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Well, Dungeon Master rules are definitely broken and don't see
a proposed fix out there. I had this idea below combining the
RPG idea, some FRC spirit thrown in, and perhaps a dose of
ais523's old great Puzzle game.
By
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 2:12 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
ais523: FALSE (tactical, but assumes process works after 4 days).
Sprocklem : FALSE (tactical, but assumes process works after 4 days).
Also, I don't think either of these briefs implies anything about
things working
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
They said it was tactical. The only vote that makes tactical sense is
for them to vote against yours working, and for theirs working, that
implicitly recognizes the 4-days argument (that's the only outcome on
the table
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 9:32 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
I think we need more gameplay. Although the points won through a
Proposal Competition are rather useless at the moment, still -
I intend, with Agoran Consent, to initiate a Proposal Competition.
The objective shall be to create
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 9:37 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
I CFJ: {{omd withdrew an intent in the quoted message.}}
Arguments: The rules do not specify a mechanism for withdrawing intents.
It was TtDF.
Incidentally, I don't think the rule actually works. It refers
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 9:43 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
It was TtDF.
There is nothing saying you can't withdraw an intent to a DF.
There is very little reason to believe you can. Or in any other
forum, as your arguments mention, but especially discussion fora...
Are you
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 5:42 PM, Eritivus eriti...@gmail.com wrote:
That is, I think the fact that two meanings have been reasonably
understood by players does not make the text ambiguous. It would only be
ambiguous if two meanings could _now_ be reasonably understood.
Well, to the extent that
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 7:54 AM, Ørjan Johansen oer...@nvg.ntnu.no wrote:
I'm pretty sure that isn't a legal deputization, as it fulfils neither
requirement (b) or (c) of Rule 2160.
Referee was vacant.
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Henri Bouchard henrib...@gmail.com wrote:
Last change to this ruleset: ???
??? would generally be interpreted as unknown. In this case, it is
unknown because the identity of the last change depends on, at least,
the outcome of a CFJ currently under moot.
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 8:48 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
I plan to end the Moot:
(a) at One Week if no more briefs are received; (b) if
briefs are received before then, 48 hours after the
last brief received, but (c) not to exceed 14 days.
Approximately.
I will probably
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 4:50 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014, omd wrote:
Arbitor 2 Oct 14 7 Apr 14
CoE: This is me. -G.
Er... I think I ratified you out of office in my last report. :/ I am
really not good at being IADoP.
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 6:41 PM, Luis Ressel ara...@aixah.de wrote:
I'd still like to get this in. I think only two changes are
neccessary:
First, the cause this rule to boilerplate only exists to work around
a restriction on rule changes in Power Controls Mutability; there's no
need for it
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 6:27 PM, Luis Ressel ara...@aixah.de wrote:
So, *how* could I have achieved the desired effect of refering to those
rules?
You could refer to them by title, but the idiomatic method is to avoid
structuring rules in such a way that they have to explicitly refer to
other
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:22 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
3. The Rules are truly silent, so it's a matter of Agoran
preference in terms of play style. This makes it a really good
subject for a Moot (voting between two play styles).
I like the general idea of trying out voting
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 11:32 AM, James Beirne james.m.bei...@gmail.com wrote:
InmytypicalfashionIdeclaremyintenttoregisterinamannerthatisslightlyannoyingtoprocessbutthatisstilllegalprovidedthatIaminterpretingtherulesetcorrectly.
Welcome back, Ienpw!
, not that the
change was only allowed by the originally enabling rule *because* it
had been so subject. That would be a property of the rules rather
than of the change.
I mean, if omd states I hereby start the process of Review
when the rules don't govern such a thing, isn't that just a
classic ISIDTID fallacy
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 8:07 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
In every other case, when the Rules say A player must do X to then do
Y, and there's no explicit defined way to do X, we say too bad, no Y.
That's the clear custom underlying ISID, and the legalistic style of
Agora in
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
On Mon, 2014-10-06 at 09:32 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
7. omd was clearly counting on us making that assumption, then
pointing out that the assumption wrong. Now, if omd had shown
the assumption was wrong due
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
For example, in your case, you surprised us with an unexpected
interpretation of a brand new rule (and a nice one, I might add),
scammed the moment the new rule was adopted. This surprise means we
should have plenty of
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Hi omd, a genuine question for you:
Let's say that I was a player that hadn't posted for a couple weeks
before your scam.
Let's further say that, on Day 2, I post the following: I noticed
that omd just tried a long
On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 10:29 PM, Nich Del Evans nich...@gmail.com wrote:
I note the text of CFJ 1263 is as follows:
Any message expressing a clear desire or intent to register as a
Player counts as a request for registration, whether or not it is
explicitly phrased in the manner stipulated by
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 9:22 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
On Sat, 2014-10-04 at 15:00 -0400, omd wrote:
I intend to deputise for the Dungeon Master to publish eir report.
That was probably a strategic mistake, given that your main hope of this
working would be for me to forget. (I
On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 12:31 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
I thought it was uncontroversial that I'm the DM. Your scam didn't in
any way prevent me becoming the DM; it's just that if it worked, I have
no benefit from being the DM other than office pay.
If any of the R2437 amendments
On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 12:36 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
Aha, I see the controversy, but your question marks are in the wrong
place. If the office exists, I uncontroversially hold it. But some
resolutions from your scam cause the office itself to be nonexistent.
Yeah, I'm tired.
I've had enough to say, I guess, but let me add one last post.
2. Omd specified the Process informally. Fine. But a informal
specifications relies on common assumptions.
This is no different from the original in making the assumption that
the process must be a Process, rather than
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
I announce intent to assign the following case, called by omd, to a judge:
CFJ: Rule 2437 contains the text omd CAN cause this rule to amend
itself by announcement.
I think you need to explicitly mention deputisation
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 3:36 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
You're a few hours too early.
I know.
CFJ: Rule 2437 contains the text omd CAN cause this rule to amend
itself by announcement.
As evidence, I submit the only
the case in the quotes in omd's evidence. (Further evidence is that
omd knew exactly what I was talking about when I said a few hours
early.)
I contest the idea that a term such as a reasonably public process
could be interpreted as equivalent to an exact number of hours, as
opposed to looking
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
If we assume that a reasonably public process is an objective
standard that does not depend on the context (such as when the notice
is given, or the nature of the content of the proposed change),
perhaps
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
From my hazy memory, 4 days was found in an 2002-2003 era judgement to
be the shortest time you would reasonably expect someone to respond to
something, on the grounds of you should be able to leave Agora for a
weekend
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 6:42 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
Counterargument: Sprocklem is probably not actively reading the lists.
I'd explictly attempted to draw eir attention to my intent, but e seemed
to be offline. Thus, it's entirely possible that a) Sprocklem was
unaware of the
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
I thought it had been determined as part of game custom by now that 4
days is exactly the length of time required to establish
notice-to-all-players
Oh, there's one big piece of evidence that slipped my mind. For over
a year
On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Luis Ressel ara...@aixah.de wrote:
Sorry, nothing personal. I just felt the offices should be either
completely compatible or completely incompatible. The previous rule text
seemed to me like an half-hearted attempt to make them incompatible.
Indeed, it's silly
On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Sprocklem sprock...@gmail.com wrote:
I change my votes on proposals 7691 and 7592 to AGAINST
Assessor's note: the latter is invalid.
On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 6:24 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
On Thu, 2014-08-28 at 17:40 -0400, Tanner Swett wrote:
+ The Assessor currently seems to have no report; this is the date
that e most recently resolved a proposal.
The Scorekeepor also has no report, because we undefined
On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 7:20 PM, Luis Ressel ara...@aixah.de wrote:
Quite some time ago, it seems. I read the FLR at
http://agora.qoid.us/current_flr.txt, but there hasn't been an official
publication this year if I read the archives right.
I published one two or three days ago.
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 7:04 PM, Luis Ressel ara...@aixah.de wrote:
At first, all players request Basic Discount, A Personalised Shopping
Experience, and Half-Hearted Attempt At A Win. These have redeem costs
of -1, 0 and 2, respectively. That means only total redeem costs of -1,
0, 1 or 2 are
(I'm not up to date on the discussion threads, but H. ais523, please
note that the RCS log linked in the header provides a
comprehensive/continuous log of past rulesets and should be preferred
to grabbing SLRs from email archives. Honestly, I think the lack of
published rulesets has mostly been
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 12:22 AM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
I will commit to holding exactly one office, of Agora's choice, and to
completing its duties on time, provided that all other offices are
held and the duties completed on time.
So, for about a week? ;p
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 12:15 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
omd, you have to publish the Rulekeepor report today (is it on a cron
job, btw?)
It ought to be. Sadly, it's not.
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 9:45 PM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote:
I don't know of any reason that the Rule 1728 meaning of without objection
nullifies the ordinary-language meaning of Rule 2202.
Rule 1728 states that a rule allowing something without objection
thereby allows it by
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 4:46 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
The intent to ratify the statement in question is enabled by
R2202:
Any player CAN, without objection, ratify a public document,
specifying its scope.
...
R2152 reads in part:
5. CAN: Attempts
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 11:14 PM, Henri Bouchard henrib...@gmail.com wrote:
During the nomination period of an election, each candidate CAN
What is a candidate?
Candidate - a person who applies for a job or is nominated for election.
This would be rather vague for something which is
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
If anyone has a clue of what CFJ numbers this previously came
up under, this judge would be grateful for the information! -G.
This one's vaguely related:
http://cfj.qoid.us/1444
I can't find anything else.
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Henri Bouchard henrib...@gmail.com wrote:
During the nomination period of an election, each candidate CAN
set their proposed salary, a possible value of the office's
salary switch, by announcement. If they fail to do so before the
end of
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
In re-reading relevant rules, I'm reasonably sure your interpretation
in this CFJ was correct. Since I was the only disputant (and the only
other commenter on the case agreed with you) would you like to withdraw
the
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 10:28 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
TOTAL OF SOURCES (current holdings)
omd 345
scshunt 287
Henri 186
G. 172
Tiger 55
Sprocklem 44
Roujo 44
woggle 11
ais523 8
Murphy 5
Thus I believe I'm in the lead, not G. The question is what the Goal
is. My CFJ about
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 10:37 PM, Henri Bouchard henrib...@gmail.com wrote:
Arbitor - G.
Ass - omd
Herald - G. (18 Jun); scshunt
IADoP - Henri (12 Jul); omd
GNP - Henri (13 Jul)
Ahem, I am the *Minister* of GNP.
Not to be an Ass, but I'm abbreviating :)
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
My client lists the Date: timestamp as ? and the Received timestamp as
Tue, 15 Jul 2014 11:05:44 +0100. So I thought my vote was on time.
We're talking about OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposal 7682, right?
It appears to
After leaving it out of date for a few months, I semi-manually added
CFJs 3407-3422 to my CFJ database, so it should now be up to date:
http://cfj.qoid.us
Source data: https://github.com/comex/agora-cfjs
Source code: https://github.com/comex/agora-infra/tree/master/iw (and
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 1:22 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
I have a score at least equal to the goal, and at least as much
score as any other player, so I claim victory, naming myself
only. -G.
[citation needed]
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 9:03 PM, Henri Bouchard henrib...@gmail.com wrote:
[Current punishment is to lax. In the current state, all one needs to
do after recieving a Red Card is to write a 200 word apology which can
be done in a matter of minutes. Honestly, I was assigned a Red Card
and after
need to remember to check whether my changes actually work before
dropping attention. again. sorry, the one person(?) who tried to
send mail today.
- obtuse minor delinquent
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 2:40 PM, Henri Bouchard henrib...@gmail.com wrote:
S T A T E M E N T
-
Scshunt, the Promotor, for violating Rule 1607 (Distribution)
for violating Rule 2143 (Official Reports and Duties), and for
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 4:53 PM, Henri Bouchard henrib...@gmail.com wrote:
omd says:
As stated in Rule 1023, Agoran weeks begin on Mondays, not
Tuesdays.
That is entirely ambiguous. Midnight Monday is not defined in the
ruleset to be 00:00 or 24:00.
I do not believe it has ever been
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Henri Bouchard henrib...@gmail.com wrote:
Conventionally, when one refers to midnight Monday, what would
first come to mind is the midnight during the night of Monday, not
Midnight during the morning of Monday. For example, when one asks
another to meet
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Can't find it... a message still missing from my mailbox from previous
fora issues maybe? -G.
3406:
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2014-May/032923.html
(also sent to backup)
3408:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
H. former Arbitor omd:
Did the following CFJ from Yally ever get assigned? This is something
else I can't locate.
Oi... I'm a really bad officer, aren't I. No, I don't believe so.
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 5:48 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Outcome: Henri
(but I don't resolve it, because I see a potential opportunity to make
up for my failure to actually vote on a decision that's important to
me :P)
I vote Henri. :P
The voting period has already ended,
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 4:24 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
- Card ODR-300(rev. A), naming an office held by the player,
intended for persistent failures to act as the Officer SHALL
or SHOULD by virtue of holding that office.
This should probably
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 10:20 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
ID: 7644
Title: Make the Birthday Holiday line up with Agora XXI
Author: Yally
Adoption Index: 1
Amend the text in Rule 1769 (Holidays) reading:
The week that contains the beginning of Agora's Birthday,
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:37 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
I could, yes. How many times have you pointed this out?
I think the issue is that you omitted two of eir proposals.
- obvious memo duplicator
Nice catch. Relevant history entry:
Power changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 7610 (G.), 22 December 2013
Regarding the current roster, I believe the Registrar's Report of 4
June has self-ratified; it was the first to be published after my
proposal to make switch reports self-ratifying.
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Jonathan Rouillard
jonathan.rouill...@gmail.com wrote:
P.S: Oh, and AGAINST, by the way. I don't see why that would be
needed. All it does is getting rid of Yet Another Fun, Quirky Thing
From Agora, and unless I've missed some conversation somewhere, I
didn't
On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Henri Bouchard henrib...@gmail.com wrote:
CoE: Your name is omd.
Denied. No entity, including Agora, has formally blessed omd as my
name. The government of the United States has so blessed Nicholas,
but Agoran tradition does not delegate the definition of name
On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Henri Bouchard henrib...@gmail.com wrote:
Proposal: Identification
The present identification rule is annoying enough without having to
be mean about it.
- offering marked displeasure
inadvertently help the
current version pass!). In any case, IMHO, it would be nice if you
had included comments / invited discussion at the beginning rather
than letting it pass by chaos.
By the way, if you didn't spend time thinking up clever omd acronyms,
you wouldn't be quite as annoyed.
Peh
301 - 400 of 1373 matches
Mail list logo
