On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Charles Walker
charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
To subscribe to the mailing lists, go to http://agoranomic.org/ which
has links to all five lists.
I would really like to decrease the burden of this, incidentally.
V. The Rules
But first, a brief interlude
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Charles Walker
charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 August 2013 20:49, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Geoffrey Spear woo...@nomictools.com wrote:
An alternate viewpoint:
CoE since ratification will probably be fixed in the next
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 4:32 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
Can someone please give me a counterargument to When created,
switches have their default values == new switches have their
default values?
Rule 1586.
By the way, the rules didn't actually say when created, switches have
Proto: I Am Wearing A Unicorn Horn (AI=3, PF=100)
aka Unnecessary Nebulous Intricacies Complexities Oblige Repeal Now
Amend Rule 101 (The Rights of Agorans) by removing item i., and
renumbering the following items accordingly. [Meaningless.]
Repeal Rule 2125 (Regulation Regulations).
Amend
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 8:25 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
One more CoE: As we see, people appeal judgements out of spite, and I expect
they pass judgements out of spite as well. In fact, in a discussion some
time ago it was already mentioned that this was expected in dictatorship
cases. I
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 8:09 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/08/2013 7:15 PM, omd wrote:
[...]
Rule 107 says that for a notice of distribution to be valid it must include
any additional information defined by the rules as essential parameters
(unless this error goes unnoticed
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
Same problem -- doesn't list parties of authors. (And omd is not Promotor.)
Was it really necessary to post this out a week - 3 hours after
initiation, requiring a revote?
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 8:04 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
Fool's party is the Serious party, and that party has set a 3-line
Whip on 7572. No other Whips are set.
By the way, this is the first accidental rule violation on your part
I've noticed, but it only applies if your interpretation
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 1:02 AM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote:
Arguments:
I'm not sure whether I agree with you or not. I agree that
00:53 tswett If a rule were to say if it is POSSIBLE to do X, then
it is POSSIBLE to do Y, I think we would treat
this as meaning
On Sunday, August 4, 2013, Fool wrote:
On 03/08/2013 9:47 PM, com...@gmail.com wrote:
The main problem is that you have actively worked to prevent the
controversy from being settled, e.g. by attempting to judge the case
yourself.
I've done nothing to prevent the controversy from being
On Sunday, August 4, 2013, Fool wrote:
c) Sean, omd, et al. should've known that I'd know it. Come on guys, you
can do better than that! :)
Don't look at me. I don't consider the dictatorship interpretation viable
enough to try to counter-scam (which would've been easy by getting someone
On Saturday, August 3, 2013, Fool wrote:
(or your attempted invasion of Blognomic would have been, had you
succeeded, as you mention).
Sorry, one last thing. As I said, some players might have misunderstood,
but the text of the invasion CfJ was clear: all it would have done is made
Agora
On Sunday, August 4, 2013, Kerim Aydin wrote:
If you go back and do this, you will come across some edge cases, where
the rules are silent or inconsistent, where you must make some decision.
The decision you might make, however logical, might not be the decision
I might make, nor omd, Steve
On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Dice server dicemas...@nomic.net wrote:
[...]
Note: Perhaps I should have sent this to a-b, but in any case dice
server mail should now be accepted on all three fora rather than just
a-b, in case it's useful for anyone.
On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 10:06 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
No, the original action itself already included two clauses, I can
dergeister everyone and no other person can register. So if the original
action succeeded at all, then the counter-scam you describe here wouldn't
have worked.
On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 10:25 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
Okay, that's a bit more plausible. But then it means Sean's messages trying
to get me to pass it was still an intentional trap, unless he wasn't in on
this discussion. I think he's on IRC a fair bit though.
(Just because I'm
On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 10:30 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
normally we just CFJ on
whether they worked and then let the Registrar's report ratify, but if
ratification is broken, that doesn't necessarily work, both due to the
possibility of the CFJ having been judged incorrectly
about the rules.
-- my fix proposals have a habit of failing omd
┌─┐
│ ⚔ᴬ✐ │
│ │
│ K E E P │
│ │
│ C A L M │
│ ᴬᴺᴰ │
│ V O T E │
└─┘
[best viewed in monospace]
On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 11:40 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
┌─┐
│ ⚔ᴬ✐ │
│ │
│ K E E P │
│ │
│ C A L M │
│ ᴬᴺᴰ │
│ V O T E │
└─┘
[best viewed in monospace]
Just kidding, two sets of votes came in as I was writing this and they
are now at quorum
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 12:13 AM, Max Schutz maxschutz...@gmail.com wrote:
I submit the following proposal
title: Speak your mind Power: 2
text: in addition to the full and short logical ruleset there SHALL be a
spoken logical ruleset to balance the game for those who may come into it
with a
On Saturday, August 3, 2013, Kerim Aydin wrote:
sorry
I was referring to the BlogNomic invasion actually :)
On Saturday, August 3, 2013, Jonathan Rouillard wrote:
= Criminal Case 3365 =
Out of curiosity, why this case and not the others?
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 9:25 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
(a) provide an alternate consistent explanation that blocks the
Action and show that (b) it also fits the other logical questions that arise
in Agora and (c) it actually does follow from the rules (including R217 of
course)
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 6:34 AM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
As I said right off the bat, I didn't CFJ a free-floating version of Curry's
paradox. And that is basically why. Because then you only have to argue some
alternate logic for free-floating statements. Typically, for example, just
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
Agora pulls a B (AI=3.1, PF=0, disi.)
In rule 1551 (Ratification, Power=3.1), replace the sentence:
Ratifying a public document is secured.
with:
Ratifying a public document is secured with Power threshold 3.
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Geoffrey Spear woo...@nomictools.com wrote:
Wooble, your alternate-reality Registrar.
This is for the Switchy interpretation, not simply ratification failing, right?
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
In the name of Davy I, Queen of Agora Nomic, CAT 24, and her other realms, I
cause the new rule created by proposal 7537 to amend itself to read:
Hmm... it is interesting how Rule 101 (iv) might be interpreted in
view of there only
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
How rule 101 might HAVE been interpreted, past tense. Your proposal passed.
Hey, wasn't my idea...
Good point.
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
I am, as it happens, a mathematical constructivist. The reasoning is fully
constructive (goes through in intuitionistic logic).
Please elaborate.
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
How do you define iff (in the rules) in the absence of the law of
excluded middle? It may not be the same way that the rules themselves
do.
Ah, yes. That makes sense.
((a - b) - a) - b holds intuitionistically, but
(((a - b)
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
How's that. Why is it (~(a-b) - ~a) and not (a - (a-b)) ?
IMPOSSIBLE except as allowed
~(allowed) - ~a
It's allowed if a - b, therefore ~(a - b) - ~a.
So, you admit it's NOT IMPOSSIBLE for me to do this stuff? :-)
Possibly.
To expand on my previous argument, for what it's worth, I really don't
see an interpretation that causes a problem whose solution would be
making a rule (about evaluating the rules generally) saying something
that (a) is assumed in just about any other context and (b) has always
been left to
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 19:15 -0400, Fool wrote:
And the time limit?
Typically as long as it takes people to determine whether the scam
worked or not.
Note that this has not always been followed; scshunt kept an
unambiguous
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
However, Rule 1688 says
except as allowed by an Instrument. I don't think you can point to a
single instrument that's doing the allowing here (given that you've
constructed your logic based on the interaction of multiple rules),
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
:-)
Let's ask if you are a player (c). If I de-registered you, you are NOT a
player (b - ~c).
But (b - ~c) - (~~b - ~c). So if it was NOT IMPOSSIBLE for me to
de-register you, you are not a player.
Let's ask if you are a
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 8:14 PM, Ørjan Johansen oer...@nvg.ntnu.no wrote:
I don't see anything in the Rules where activity changes affect votes on
proposals after the voting period has already begun. If that was judged to
the opposite effect I would suggest a reconsideration.
That scam was
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 9:16 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
x7531 30 O omd Painfully explicit timing
x7532 30 O omd Alternative: just ban last-minute actions
x7533 30 O omd Referendum on date rewriting
I almost prefer the scam version. Don't blame me
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 11:30 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
The sentences in question are not directly self-referential or even
mutually-referential. This is more of a Curry-flavoured confused deputy,
with rule
Hi,
I'm the mailing list manager for the Agora Nomic lists. The three
recipients of this email have been automatically unsubscribed due to
Hotmail rejecting messages for some reason; none of you are players,
but if you still wish to receive list mail, let me know. I've filled
out a Microsoft
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 3:38 AM, James Beirne james.m.bei...@gmail.com wrote:
Furthermore, it seems
to me that failure to publish a report should not be considered a
minor infraction as (for me, at least), it serves as an important
tool to keep up with the game.
Well, again, even if there are
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Charles Walker
charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
Moreover, most officers are late occasionally and it is definitely not in
the interests of the game to drive them away every time they miss a report.
In fact I think it's almost always a bad idea to stop someone
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 12:21 AM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote:
I object to this judgement of OVERRULE.
Gratuitous: For the record, I think that scshunt's offense is not even
close to the levels of negligence various officers have shown over the
years; although this has largely been
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 4:23 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
[18 proposals]
So what are we really trying to achieve in limiting proposals to MI?
Is it largely just a cash sink, or are we really trying to delay a
potentially large number of proposals for a week in large
distributions to smooth
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 4:40 PM, James Beirne james.m.bei...@gmail.com wrote:
Is there any particular reason that Standardized election days (sort
of, not really) is not included in the pool?
Nope, other than apparently even switching to a much better way of
sorting through the list archive
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 7:54 PM, James Beirne james.m.bei...@gmail.com wrote:
As an aside, are non-integer denominations of Yaks permitted?
No, since units of currency are merely fungible instances of assets.
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 9:03 PM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote:
I'd definitely prefer just saying within 3 months before and letting the
IADoP handle any disputes.
Just say 12 weeks; we already use N days before/after to mean a
span of time lasting N full days after, not the Nth
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Jonathan Rouillard
jonathan.rouill...@gmail.com wrote:
I vote PRESENT on every proposal I haven't voted on yet, but CAN vote on.
I believe that's all proposals ever submitted that you haven't voted on. HTH!
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Charles Walker
charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
I believe the precedent is that the CAN lasts until the action is
performed, as the obligation persists as well.
omd recently argued that an obligation does not persist after the
deadline (with regard
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 12:58 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Charles Walker
charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
I hereby resolve the Agoran decision to elect the Speaker.
This is also probably insufficiently clear, as it sounds like a
standard election
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
How about a timer to expiration?
Could use a timer, but not much point, since there is no reason for an
expiration timer to pause.
And I'm a fan of platonic destruction
here.
You mean pragmatic? I could change it
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
More flexibility this way. What if we want to make the tokens created
before the auction with paused timers, so that you know what you're
bidding on beforehand?
You do know what you're bidding on with this proposal.
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
Create a Power-2 Rule titled Auctions:
Don't we already have an auction rule? Can we fix it or get rid of it?
It was repealed.
When in effect, unless
a fine for that case has already been satisfied, the ninny
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote:
A proposal CANNOT amend Rule 104 First Speaker or Rule 2029 Town Fountain
unless that proposal explicitly states, using the rule's title, that it is
amending that rule.
Probably ineffective due to precedence.
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote:
Rule 106 states, Except as prohibited by other rules, a proposal that takes
effect CAN and does, as part of its effect, apply the changes that it
specifies. So I don't see a precedence issue here.
Good point, I forgot
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 2:51 PM, John Smith spamba...@yahoo.com wrote:
ii. Prior to the introduction of Rule 2277, 101ii part 2 was the only reason
that persons not currently playing Agora could appeal criminal cases against
them; this hit me at least once and was the original motivation for
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jul 2013, omd wrote:
Hopefully this creates a single obvious meaning for the time
date-stamped on that message in R478, so we can finally stop arguing
about the timing of messages. ;p
In this case, it's
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
/me vaguely glares at omd for choosing defaults that make sense only
with Gmail. Many Agorans use /proper/ email clients...
Well, 18/26 players use Gmail... and the on behavior is very
annoying in Gmail.
maybe I should make
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 4:27 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
maybe I should make it default only if you're using Gmail? that
sounds like a lot of magic.
This isn't about the carbon copy, which anyone can
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
I destroy this promise.
I believe you need notice.
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 5:39 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
While I know this NOW, I might be able to compensate in future play.
However, for interpreting actions made PRIOR to this investigation, any
interpretation favoring receipt time (rather than send time) would put me at
a
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
:)
Hmm, I need to fix this for messages sent manually to all players too.
I'll wait for other comments before resubmitting.
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jul 2013, omd wrote:
(1) If the message contains a single reasonable date-stamp added
by the forum as part of its canonical means of marking the
date of messages, then it is used
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Benjamin Schultz
ben.dov.schu...@gmail.com wrote:
I play stones on (-4, 4), (-4, 3), and (-4, 2).
NttPF.
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
How many of those players are using Gmail's web interface? If it's that
many, I'd be surprised, because web interfaces aren't very good for
email (especially if they go crazy when the subject line of an email
sent to a
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 11:47 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
Anyway, from a quick awk, the following players seem to have sent
messages via Gmail's web interface recently:
(obvious correction: I meant people, not players.)
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
(Note that vps.qoid.us's
clock is wrong, with me receiving both emails before the mailing lists
sent them; however, the difference between the times it states is
presumably constant, unless its clock was adjusted in between.)
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 5:56 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 5:51 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 5:49 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
Testing list upgrade.
And again.
Now it should work.
Maybe now?
2013/7/16 omd c.ome...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 5:56 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 5:51 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 5:49 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
Testing list upgrade.
And again.
Now it should work.
Maybe now
2013/7/16 omd c.ome...@gmail.com:
Derp.
Apologies for the spam/brief outage; I was switching Mailman to a
local bzr checkout in order to properly implement Date-restamping
later.
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 6:03 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
Also, if you're upgrading the lists, then at least for a bit you're
preventing me from participating in the fora :(
According to scshunt's recent arguments, Rule 101 platonically
prevented me from doing so! So I guess the
Right. Mailman is really vintage code... The list should now:
- rewrite date headers to be the actual time of receipt, as briefly
attempted before;
- include a new X-Timestamp header to provide additional precision if required;
- by default, only send back copies of list mail if the subject was
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Charles Walker
charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
Very interesting, but AGAINST so long as it repeals Sir Humphrey.
Hmm... I suppose I can give em another job.
I'd like to see an example of what you would have done with this on a past
proposal.
- As someone
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
There is an additional wrinkle in the Agoran context. Rule 101 says
that that no interpretation of Agoran law or binding agreement may
substantially limit or remove a person's rights as defined by this
Rule. This
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
Additionally, I would think that A person's defined privileges are
assumed to exist in the absence of an explicit, binding agreement to
the contrary. would be construed as allowing explicit (but not
implicit)
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 5:41 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Starting 6 individual simultaneous VT auctions (where for example you
have to say I bid in auction #3) seems very broken. I think the
auction rule has to take into account multiple lots (final price
being the Nth
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 9:31 PM, John Smith spamba...@yahoo.com wrote:
I suppose I should have added a Rule 217 quote to my Evidence:
Differences in... capitalization... are generally inconsequential in
interpreting rules or communications.
If I were a player, I'd call for reconsideration.
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Benjamin Schultz
ben.dov.schu...@gmail.com wrote:
I cast as many votes as I can AGAINST Props 7516-7525. (This is mainly a
test of whether I am eligible to vote on these proposals, or if I have to
wait until next Week.)
OscarMeyr
As you registered before
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 5:35 PM, Charles Walker
charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
7517 10 O Lindar (untitled)
ENDORSE AGORA
Since Agora is no longer a person, I am interpreting this per Proposal 5637.
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
If a public agreement exists (Rule 2328), is there currently any Agoran
mechanism for penalizing breaches in the agreement? [*] I can't find anything
explicit, but the fact that it can be created as an agreement
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
I submit the following document with the intent that it become a person,
pending agreement of omd (I agree to it): G. and omd agree to disagree.
I think the intent to become a person has to be part of the text :)
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 10:34 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
Wait... so if I cash something like the Assurance promise scshunt recently
made*, then wouldn't I be guilty of Taunting the Police by Proxy?
*http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg25261.html
Yep.
.
From ta...@taral.net Sun Nov 3 21:03:24 2002
.
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 4:22 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
I vote for omd.
I vote for myself.
Campaign Speech:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxBW4mPzv6E
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Lindar Greenwood
lindartheb...@gmail.com wrote:
I announce a CFJ on the following text:
{ Announcing in Agora-Business the creation of a promise that, upon
being cashed, causes the player cashing said promise to break a rule,
does not cause the creator of said
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 9:50 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
This judgement takes effect immediately. Long live the Queen.
You have six more days. ;p
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, Steven Gardner wrote:
Class-3 Hazing, Roujo?
A trend/tradition of the second half of Agora's life actually.
The phrase '[x] is a player' has 80+ hits in the CFJ statement
database.
And the Class-3
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Jonathan Rouillard
jonathan.rouill...@gmail.com wrote:
Let the order of votes be known as a rank, such as the first person to
have voted on a proposal be the Rank 1 voter, and so forth.
For every vote I've made that I can change, I change it to ENDORSE X,
where
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
Apparently, you were registered contiguously from 2 Mar 06 to 31 May 07,
easily long enough to satisfy the buggy requirement.
Gratuitous: I have been interpreting it as non-buggy. If I say I've
been here for two hours, it
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Matt Berlin arkes...@gmail.com wrote:
An Elder is a first-class player who has been registered continuously for
at least 32 days
Future Perfect Progressive Tense ( ie, happened in the past, is still going
on, and may continue in the future) requires the present
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 10:01 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Sure, a party can do this. And then splinter off and be a nomic.
BUT IN DOING SO, IT IS NO LONGER THE PARTY that the officer
Is tracking.
fwiw, I agree that splintering off doesn't count, but I think that a
system of
On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 8:51 PM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote:
Pretty sure the Gerontocracy is irrelevant. The only things that matter
(pretending Lindar's message was effective) are that Fool announced intent
within the correct time period, Fool is authorized to perform the action,
On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 9:50 PM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote:
I intend, without 35 objections, to destroy one yak, under the condition that
I CANNOT resolve this intent successfully.
Gratuitous: By the precedent of CFJ 2879-80, this is not scammable.
By more recent precedent, it is.
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 12:21 AM, Ørjan Johansen oer...@nvg.ntnu.no wrote:
Did 4 days pass since the declaration of intent already, and if it did so,
given the strong precedence claims, does that mean the action can now be
performed? (Since no Elders have objected yet.)
Yes. In fact, it could
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 12:27 AM, John Smith spamba...@yahoo.com wrote:
CfJ: Did Machiavelli successfully attempt to to take an action in the quoted
message?
It would be better to CFJ on whether such an intent could be followed
through on, although I don't think a CFJ is necessary, see below.
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 12:35 AM, Ørjan Johansen oer...@nvg.ntnu.no wrote:
Um no, if Elders object _before_ the attempt to act, Rule 2357 says that
Agora is not Satisfied with the intent, and so point (c) of Rule 1728 would
not be complied with.
What I'm unsure of is whether, and how long, it
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 1:29 AM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
However, if not, there is a
conflict between both of them and 3334, 3249, 3212, 2878, all the
recent paradox wins
One more gratuitous argument: Actually, this goes back to CFJ 1787.
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 5:42 AM, Charles Walker
charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
[ This includes the fix to CAN but SHALL NOT, see paragraph 3 of the
first Rule. ]
I don't see the fix.
award for the next thirty next after the end of the time limit.
*days?
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Charles Walker
charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see the fix.
CAN but SHALL NOT, except where *explicitly* required?
Contract requirements aren't implicit, they're just indirect. How
about SHALL NOT, except where otherwise explicitly permitted? And
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 7:29 PM, Charles Walker
charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
I CFJ on: A party is a nomic.
UNDETERMINED. Party constitutions may provide means for amendment,
but need not.
501 - 600 of 1373 matches
Mail list logo
