On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
Arguments: Even if it does, the award is pragmatic, and since the
Herald did not award Renascent to me before I awarded myself a
Transparent Ribbon, the award still succeeds.
It's not the Herald that would be
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 8:39 PM, woggle woggl...@gmail.com wrote:
I intend, with two Independent Support, to form the Inflationary Party with
the following Constitution:
Heh... I had the same idea, but I was going to wait until the wins for
Yaks proposal passed.
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Charles Walker
charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
Amend Rule 2410 (Parties) by replacing Party members SHALL obey their
party's constitution. with Party members SHALL obey their party's
constitution, except where this would cause them to violate a Rule in
the
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 9:45 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
I act.
FYI, as Registrar, I am not treating this as making you active.
Roujo,
Would you mind putting programs.tar.gz and dump.txt.gz back on your
copy of the CotC database?
Thanks.
On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Question for omd: did you have a clever way to win had 363 put us into
Zeno's Endgame? I came up with a couple thoughts but not particularly
compelling ones. -G.
Not really, since a quorum would still be required
On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
I thought at one point the complete silence at how one becomes a player
was quite weak (I guess it came up with the forfeiture-forcing). Walker,
consider taking note! -G.
Incidentally, I disliked the judgement that a
On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 6:50 PM, Charles Walker
charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 July 2013 01:09, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
7492 2 50 O Walker Good Judgement
AGAINST; this is hardly a proposal worth 50 Yaks.
I spent Y40 on making this extra Distributable, so I
Note to self: This was never distributed. As I said, by next week, I
will have a script to avoid these way-too-frequent missed proposals.
Or you can replace me.
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Charles Walker
charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
{ Yak niggles (AI 2, proposal fee Y40)
Amend
On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 7:16 PM, Ørjan Johansen oer...@nvg.ntnu.no wrote:
[1] legal fiction; actually 4 Jun 13
That seems to be a dangling [1].
Indeed; it should refer to Machiavelli.
On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 5:07 PM, Charles Walker
charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
Ah. In that case I vote conditionally for the candidate who makes the
relevant proposal and ensures that its Distributability is at least
one, endorsing G. (since e has fewer offices) if both of the
candidates or
On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
I didn't see your explicit Agora XX suggestions, but as mentioned in
my last email I was thinking them appropriate anyway. I'm not sure
why scshunt suggests these need proposal, can't see anything wrong
with
I spend 50 points to vote AGAINST 364.
I spend 50 points to vote AGAINST 364.
I spend 50 points to vote AGAINST 364.
I spend 50 points to vote AGAINST 364.
I transfer the rest of my points to Walker.
I invoke judgement on the statement: Proposal 364 was submitted legally.
Arguments: It seems to
Oh, and if anyone is here in the next hour or so (if I remember correctly)
and hasn't voted due to apathy, remember that 364 awards the win to a group
of players that does not include you, and has had many extra votes cast FOR
it.
(I hope Walker is here... it's time for my flight :)
On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
The previous version of poor rule 112, much vandalised and abused over its
sorry existence, extends the game to allow the final proposals to resolve,
and in any case, it didn't actually end the game
Ah, my mistake.
Was your vote
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 11:32 PM, Sgeo sgeos...@gmail.com wrote:
3. All communications to Ambassador Abuse are in Ambabusese, but the rules
themselves are in English,
Now that I have a keyboard, I'll note that this is something like
ISIDTID - just because Ambassador Abuse deems certain messages
On Friday, June 28, 2013, Sgeo wrote:
I register.
Welcome back!
However, you can't register, because nobody actually deregistered you. You
remain an inactive player.
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Charles Walker
charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
I happened to stumble across the message quoted below:
Ah! That reminds me, since we have some additional players here who I
didn't attempt to contact before: if anyone happens to have any
archives of list mail
I cast an extra vote for 343.
On Friday, June 28, 2013, Matt Berlin wrote:
If I am not registered, I register as arkestra.
You were not registered. Welcome back!
[Note which I request the Speaker to include:
At this point the best strategy to win is obviously to avoid
controversial proposals, and I suspect this might make me lose, but I
like this idea enough that I'm proposing it anyway. Basically, after
a winner is determined on the anniversary, allow
On Thursday, June 27, 2013, Fool wrote:
CFJ: a player who forfeits the game can still vote and/or transfer points.
In most games, after a player loses or forfeits, e is no longer considered
a player and can no longer make any type of move, and Rule 113 concurs with
this in contrasting
On Wednesday, June 26, 2013, Malcolm Ryan wrote:
Let's make this interesting.
I propose that a rule be enacted reading:
If a player proposes a rule change which is not adopted at the end of its
voting period, that player must immediately forfeit the game.
For.
On Wednesday, June 26, 2013, Fool wrote:
Goethe's arguments:
Was thinking about this, it's interesting that this win attempt goes
along with our earlier discussion on legal versus mathematical. In a
mathematical sense, one could say that it was equally likely or
unlikely that omd sent
On Wednesday, June 26, 2013, wrote:
I invoke judgement on the following statement: The selection of a Judge
for this statement is a move whose legality cannot be determined with
finality.
I think you need to wait until a purported selection actually occurs.
In any case, this might be enough
On Wednesday, June 26, 2013, wrote:
As for any ordering of actions occuring in the same message, that's
tradition (possibly law?) in Agora itself, but I don't know whether Agoran
tradition carries over to Agora XX.
By the way, I'm not saying that my principle would necessarily hold
in Agora
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 12:37 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
scshunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.edu 3 Jun 13
CoE: Per recent judgement about ratification, scshunt is an elder by
legal fiction. This does not self-ratify, so no further mess has
occurred.
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
Just have any invalid code = PRESENT. The assessor knows directly whether
quorum is met, without decoding, or even having to cross-reference with
anything.
Yeah, this would work - it would just be a bit weird for invalid vote
=
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 8:27 PM, The UNDEAD theagoranund...@gmail.com wrote:
I do not register. I propose repealing rule 327.
Well... even though there are supposed to be a few days left, I don't
want to delay this further lest someone else beat me to it :)
I invoke judgement on the statement
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 1:09 AM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
326 (Chuck):
I propose that rule 311 be amended by deleting the text “There is no
other way to win.”
327 (Walker):
I propose to amend Rule 310 by replacing inpermissible with
impermissible.
328 (Walker):
I propose to
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
I announce {{{I call a CFJ on the statement This is a CFJ.}}}
I attempt to announce {{{I call a CFJ on the statement This is another
CFJ.}}}
Arguments: Clearly, just calling a CFJ by itself works. How many levels
of
I propose that Rule 214 be amended to read:
The Speaker shall choose Judges randomly from the set of qualified
players. The players qualified to judge a statement are the Speaker
and those Voters who voted on the rule change whose voting period most
recently ended, except for the player who
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 2:03 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
Amend Rule 2409 (Star Chamber) inserting - publish the list of codes
(but not the corresponding options) as the second item in the
bulleted list.
[Allows the Assessor to know whether or not each vote cast is valid
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
(especially
if the initiator is also the vote collector [whatever happened to the
rule against that?]).
FWIW, as the first person to be both Promotor and Assessor as long as
I can remember (mainly because Murphy's
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
Time to do a total copout, I guess, given that I'm not paying enough
attention to sort this out by myself:
For each colour of ribbon, I attempt
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 1:49 AM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
For each player in the quoted list other than Murphy and FSX, I
intend, without objection, to make em inactive.
I remind H. scshunt that these intents are now mature.
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Now, R2395 reads:
There exists an office of Governmental Waste. This office shall
have no duties, shall make no reports, and shall exist as the
sole result of governmental waste.
Arguments: The facts that
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Arguments: The facts that (a) the entity that shall make no reports
is the office rather than the officer and (b) the other two shalls are
both prescriptive rather than obligatory strongly suggest to me that,
contrary
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
omd's Agora-related stuff also disappeared at some point.
This too is due to an unexpected need to move to a new server. Just
tried to fix this, but it's crufty and complicated and my internet
connection has enough latency
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 6:54 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
What did it for me was the fact that R2143 is very clear that duties
belong to 'persons', so you can say that the sum of a person's duties
includes the combined sum of the duties of all eir offices.
(and that as I
On Saturday, June 22, 2013, Jonathan Rouillard wrote:
I recuse Wes from CFJ 3329, and assign that CFJ to Walker.
I make Wes supine, since e doesn't seem be active enough to take care
of eir assignements.
I recuse Wes from CFJ 3318, rotate the bench and assign that CFJ to G.
I recuse Wes from
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 1:32 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
On Fri, 2013-06-21 at 15:24 +1000, Michael Norrish wrote:
Very cool. I'm glad that's being used. I don't know how long it took me,
but I
certainly shifted well away from being a Platonist as the game progressed.
Clearly I
I submit three proposals:
- that 112 be made mutable (again - note that this requires unanimous consent);
- that it be amended by replacing GMT with UTC (for clarity) and
by removing There is no other way to win. (because 219 is intended
to provide another way to win); and
- that it be amended by
On Saturday, June 22, 2013, Fool wrote:
IMHO, only a moron in a hurry would interpret the wording as having
either bug.
I am, in fact, kind of in a hurry. So I will not deliver a legal judgement
on either now. By rule 215, I have 24 hours.
(For reference for any players who may not be
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
Does anyone have an argument as to why this is not in fact
UNDECIDEABLE? I'm thinking that there must be exactly one Speaker, but
there is nothing to indicate who that Speaker is, so it may as well be
Michael Norrish
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 12:13 AM, Charles Walker
charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 Jun 2013 06:30, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
As an aside, I find it funny that I still think of Roujo as a new
player, despite the fact that e has been playing for two and a half years
now
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
I sometimes think of everyone who registered after me (6 years ago) as
a newbie. Of course we have at least one player who played Agora's
spiritual predecessor and made vaguely precedential posts 15 years
before that,
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Charles Walker
charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd love to hear players' views on what causes these eras (if you don't think
they are just arbitrary labels), or rather what makes a particular system
stable enough to make it last that long. Does Agora simply
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jun 2013, omd wrote:
http://agoranomic.org/propgraph/pg.html
Well, yes. Yes you have.
Incidentally, just fixed that graph to deal with H. Former Promotor
Machiavelli's crazy Unicode subject lines.
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
Meanwhile, VCs all reset whenever anyone's voting limit becomes high
enough. It /is/ possible to get a win via VCs (although we should
reintroduce a Clout rule so that it can be done via a method less
disruptive than knocking
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 6:03 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
305 (Chuck):
I propose that the following rule be created:
No rule may award or penalize players based on their votes on proposals
whose voting period ended before or at the same time as the time at which
the current form of
I propose that a rule be enacted as follows:
A player may transfer points to another player by posting to that
effect on the mailing list.
I further propose that Rule 112 be made mutable.
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
Time to do a total copout, I guess, given that I'm not paying enough
attention to sort this out by myself:
For each colour of ribbon, I attempt to
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 10:17 AM, games...@chuckcarroll.org wrote:
I vote in favor of my own proposal.
I propose that a rule be enacted to read:
Upon the enactment of this rule, each player who voted for it shall
receive 30 points, and each player who voted against shall lose the 10
points
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Flameshadowxeroshin
flameshadowxeros...@gmail.com wrote:
CFJ: Only sentient artificial intelligence systems are second-class persons.
Note that person is currently explicitly defined by the Power-3 Rule
2150. CFJ 1700 does not mention root's keyboard; CFJ 1685,
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Gratuitous: I generally left it implicit and got no complaints.
Do you have your own database set up or would you like me to continue
updating the existing one?
While a database of proposal text + results would be handy
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 10:36 PM, Aaron Goldfein
aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
Have I missed something? I thought CotC was postulated.
CotC and Assessor were made Assumed when Murphy recently received a
TIME OUT sentence.
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
Some may, in certain circumstances, have a value that is not
immediately discernible solely by taking the rules and some other
subset of game state, and performing a calculation. This indicates to
me that they are
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 2:11 AM, Charles Walker
charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't know what you mean by 'out of time': it's past the ASAP deadline but
the awards CAN still be made.
If the time limit is already broken, I don't think the awards are
required by the Rules any longer, so I
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Charles Walker
charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 Jun 2013, at 20:19, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 1:24 AM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
7468 240 O scshunt Fix Bug
I submit a proposal identical
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 4:02 PM, woggle woggl...@gmail.com wrote:
== CFJ 3327 ==
It was POSSIBLE for me to cash 'ZipZop Series G-002' when I
attempted to do so.
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jun 2013, Sean Hunt wrote:
7474 20 O omdRepeal unusable auctions
DENOUNCE the vote cast by G. on Proposal 7481.
Kudos for a nice quid-pro-quo setup. Though so far, it looks
like others
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 9:27 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
but I have missed the context on why this was happening; i.e. what
different reports were ratifying em in and out of the game? Sorry
if I missed an obvious explanation on the list somewhere.
Gratuitous: The reports I
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jun 2013, omd wrote:
Incidentally, if G. rules that Proposal 7441 did not fail quorum,
Incidentally, omd, did you note my earlier request to you on the
case (if speed is of the essence...)
Just responded :)
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
I object to any intents to make me inactive.
Would you mind voting on distributions, then?
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 7:36 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
PROTO (omd, scshunt, pls comment!).
I'n not convinced by the above explanation. I think it is more reasonable
to say that ratifying a non-player into office would add inconsistencies
and by R1551 would simply fail
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 8:09 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
I just emailed Peter Suber, inviting him to our events and asking for any
commentary he might have. I will forward any response I receive.
Any others? Michael Norrish, some of the other initial players
(perhaps
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
If so, can this be used for a
scam - e.g. if I break two entirely unrelated rules with entirely
unrelated actions, can I do a single case accusing myself of doing both
'X and Y' and thus avoid individual punishments?
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Flameshadowxeroshin
flameshadowxeros...@gmail.com wrote:
I become active.
Welcome back!
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
For that matter, is the card paradox still compelling? I had a look at the
current ruleset and I'd guess that nowadays the card paradox would be
resolved by R1030 (In a conflict between rules...) or R2240 (In a
conflict between
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 9:58 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
1. As you say, one Rule says you played a card and have it, and
another rule says you cancelled the play. The rules conflict, so
the play of the lower-powered is conflicting and void.
But the odd thing is, the latter
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:20 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
(this has actually been tried, though I
don't remember the outcome)
On further review, this was actually only in a rule I purported to
prepare to scam in using a very lame mechanism on April Fool's Day a
few years ago. Anyway
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 1:08 AM, Charles Walker
charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
I play stones at (lat, lon): (3, -3), (2, -3), (1, -3).
Where are you all getting stones from? Igora was adopted after the
start of the week.
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 7:37 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
From 2002 (when I started) to 2005 no one thought about paradoxes at all in
this sense. Paradoxical CFJ statements were simply DISMISSED as meaningless.
I think the aforementioned lawyer had a hand in creating this
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote:
it regulates the game
by instructing the players to interpret the rules as if the statement
it is LEGAL to shout 'CREAMPUFF' if and only if it is ILLEGAL to
shout 'CREAMPUFF' were true. If the statement were true, then
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jun 2013, Tanner Swett wrote:
'CREAMPUFF'
I disfavor everything contained in the above-cited message.
Because of the word CREAMPUFF? It's an interesting and fundamental
CFJ, in my opinion, despite its
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
by human decisions which face the need to escape absurd
literalism
I'm not quite sure this entirely applies to Agora. :)
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
Is this (and a bunch of other CFJs on the topic of paradoxes) all about rule
2358? Why not just change that?
Although Rule 2358 mostly depends on the traditional interpretation of
paradoxes as causing fundamental logical
of the PVN and Virtue.)
Inconstant indeed. I once again intend, without objection, to ratify
the above-quoted claim.
Now that this is ratified, I note that CFJ 3211, omd violated Rule
2356 by taunting the police., was called several months after the
last modification to that rule. ;p
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 8:21 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
CoE: At the very least, Machiavelli was inactive at the time of
distribution. Quorum was 5.
Denied. Machiavelli was inactive, but Ienpw III registered at
about the same time.
Ah. In that case, quorum was still 5
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
I intend, without objection, to award Murphy the Patent Title of
Indispensable Do-Nothing
PRESENT
In the interests of speeding up the game, I'm providing a gratuitous
early warning for Proposals 7453-7470, which are in danger of failing
quorum and having their voting periods doubled in two days. The
following active players have not yet voted on all of them despite
being eligible:
ehird
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 10:43 PM, woggle woggl...@gmail.com wrote:
CoE: I submitted a proposal in my Rulekeepor's notes on proposals
7418-7425.
Indeed. I need to write a script to double-check messages to detect
proposals hidden in the middle of messages which already spuriously
match my search
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Charles Walker
charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
- Promotor distributes in the first 4 days of each week (currently a proposal
submitted on a Monday could wait just under two weeks before distribution
without the Promotor breaking a rule)
I always considered
I offer to vote for any candidate with salary 1 for a price of 2x
salary, to be paid only if that candidate wins.
(I'd submit a promise, but I'm still unsure whether the Tree is
actually functional; Ienpw III hasn't judged the relevant case within
the time limit and the Assessor hasn't yet
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 8:55 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
For my own record, I'll note that the first error was not mine (it was
in woggle's deputy Registrar report), but the second was. My
apologies, Machiavelli.
Actually, the first error was also mine because the deputy Registrar
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 7:07 PM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote:
7453 2 0 O scshunt Criminal Accountability
7466 1.7 40 O scshunt Victim's Rights
7467 370 O scshunt New Precedents
7468 240 O scshunt Fix Bug
7469 3 0 O scshunt Proposal editing
Minor
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 7:07 PM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote:
Not-really-a-CoE: I don't recall whether or not I was an active player at the
time that I purported to nominate myself. If I was not, then I am not a
candidate.
You were not.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 7:18 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
I believe that at least one IADoP report will have ratified my playerhood
since.
Meh, you're right. In that case, your playerhood has been flipping
between dates one week after publications of Registrar's reports and
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 9:49 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
Since I just realized that AssessorDB got quorum wrong on the Agoran
Decision to adopt proposal 7435, since it's based on the players at
initiation, I submit a proposal identical to 7435 and then I initiate
an
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Charles Walker
charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
Do you intend to distribute all proposals as usual, or will you distribute
only those with positive distributability as if P2425 hadn't failed to amend
R1607?
I am required to distribute them all, at least this
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Charles Walker
charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
Note that the use of 'pending', which was defined by the Yaks
proposal, means that the Promotor is never required to distribute a
proposal in the same week in which it was submitted.
Oops, sorry! I guess the
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote:
I initiate a CFJ on the statement If the time period for judging CFJ 3318a
ends with no majority opinion among members of the panel assigned to it, then
the Ambassador-At-Large will be REQUIRED to cause the panel to
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Charles Walker
charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
In a given Agoran week, the Promotor SHALL, as part of eir
weekly duties:
a) distribute the MI pending proposals with the highest
Distributability, breaking ties in favour of proposals
Gratuitous evidence:
comex tswett: does Entreco have any players other than yourself?
tswett No.
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
If you're looking for a not guilty now to immunize yourself from a guilty
later, that
doesn't work. R101 forbids multiple penalties, but not multiple trials.
There is a
specific precedent to this (I think I argued
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 8:33 AM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
Fines can be avoided by disposing of the assets, for instance.
No, they can't. Fines are a SHALL destroy; if the ninny disposes of
eir assets, e can be found guilty of violating that and sentenced to a
different
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
No, they can't. Fines are a SHALL destroy; if the ninny disposes of
eir assets, e can be found guilty of violating that and sentenced to a
different punishment.
But if e disposes of eir assets while the judgement
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Machiavelli voted AGAINST 7431:
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2013-May/031143.html
Admitted.
omd only re-voted on 7426-34, and only after eir VVLOP was increased
to 5 (not after
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote:
I do so.
Since my original message was accidentally NTTPF, I think this is a
reasonably clear and unambiguous synonym for submitting the quoted proposal.
As Promotor, so do I.
601 - 700 of 1373 matches
Mail list logo
