On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
I'm still sorting it out, but I must say I wholly disagree with this bit.
The Fora rule allows any player to make an announcement by sending a message
via a public forum. It is a simple inference from slave golem
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 6:36 AM, FKA441344 441...@gmail.com wrote:
- In this message, I caused (possibly indirectly) the repeal of rule 2380
and, at the time, it included the word 'omd'.
Looking at the uses of 2380 in the public forums, I don't think they
managed to clearly assign it to a rule
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 12:34 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Judge: G.
g
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Benjamin Schultz
ben.dov.schu...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm curious this Morning (capitalization deliberate) how Mafia would adapt
to a Nomic environment. I'd like to help with the game set-up, but not so
much that I'm spoiled for the game.
We tried it a while ago
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
The AAA also interacted with Agora.
Well, even just contracts were a very Agoran form of gameplay...
libertarian style?
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
R106 provides a precises description of how a proposal takes effect,
and is sufficiently powered to do so. Thus R106 is the rule defining
the substantive aspects of the proposal: namely what it does when it
takes
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
For the record, this reflects the rule changes scshunt attempted two
days ago, but not mine from yesterday.
No it doesn't?
Yes it does? - look at the bottom. Did I miss anything?
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 6:45 PM, FKA441344 441...@gmail.com wrote:
Oops, accepted.
Don't forget to issue a humiliating public reminder.
On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 5:53 PM, Arkady English
arkadyenglish+ag...@gmail.com wrote:
Huh.
I appear to have sent it to Agora Official... does that count? *Puppy dog
grin.*
It would, but I did not receive it on that list either.
I was hoping that the giant Marker Felt was just a composing artifact...
On Saturday, September 29, 2012, omd wrote:
This is a big mess (and not properly cleaned up) because I'm on a borrowed
phone to avoid being beaten by the repeal of relevant rules.
Explanation/more later.
I intend
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Ah, yes. I create a slave golem named scshunt CAN deregister. G. can cause
this rule to amend itself by announcement. No one
Since slave golems are supposed to be repealed in the same set of
actions as the creation
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Is Abraham Lincoln the name of a person? Yes it is.
I'd say it's arguable - well, maybe a clearer example, since dead
persons can be considered persons (but aren't in Agora), is whether
Bill Clinton is the name of a
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Playing with the nesting a bit:
scshunt purports [Murphy purports [result]]
But such a message would probably include enough context to make it
clear that it's purporting to do something that indirectly causes the
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 7:28 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
If a promise when cashed is officially a message from Murphy;
Then a failed promise is no message (empty text).
If the condition fails, then the promise can't be cashed; but the
message says the promise *is* cashed, so
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 11:03 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Also: fun's fun, but I will also deregister if scshunt persists in these
changes. Consider that an objection, as well.
Oh, come on. Although I feel obliged to counter-scam (not that it's
particularly likely to work,
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 8:19 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Oops, missed omd's vote in the next message. Informally, looks like it
passes 9/1 by scshunt's interpretation of voting limits, or 6/1 by mine.
I award scshunt the Patent Title Mandate of the Apathetic.
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 4:08 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Oh crap. There's a quorum bigger bug here
What bug? If the number of voters is less than 5, then a single
eligible voter with a positive voting limit who didn't vote is enough
to force FAILED QUORUM. Which I'd like to
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 5:36 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 5:36 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
I retract my objection to democratization.
And support it.
By the way, I meant democratization of the proposal, not the decision.
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Henri Bouchard henrib...@gmail.com wrote:
I might have asked this already, but how can I reply to a bullet so that I
create another sub list in the discussion archives?
Thanks
You should set your mailing list preferences to send individual emails
(Gmail makes
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Arkady English
arkadyenglish+ag...@gmail.com wrote:
I spend a ruble
To do what?
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
I spend a ruble to increase my voting limit on the decision to adopt
Proposal 7302 by 1.
I spend a ruble to increase G.'s voting limit on the decision to adopt
Proposal 7302 by 1.
Nice.
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
I have published an ATC report.
scshunt, any arguments on this one?
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 8:27 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Well, that's quite the bug, seeing that someone could do the same thing
right now with a nasty proposal... and no real AI limit there, either.
Such proposals could be democratized, since people didn't like my
proposal to
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
7306 3.0 omd Support Democracy Considered No Fun
AGAINST
7307 1.0 omd unrevive lame pun 1
AGAINST. I veto this Agoran Decision.
The latter veto is, by the way, my reasoning for the former proposal
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 11:33 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 11:21 PM, Elliott Hird
penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
☃
I create a promise with text ☃ and transfer it to ehird.
...and, in a separate message to avoid any question of whether this
affects
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 6:58 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Out of curiosity, what would your opinion have been given the current
ruleset if I'd have asked it correctly. Eg. I CFJ on the following:
the CotC is currently required to assign this case to a judge.
I think the
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:42 PM, FKA441344 441...@gmail.com wrote:
I transfer a prop to ais523 (for establishing friendly relations with
deepNomic) from scshunt (for not publishing a report or distributing
proposals last week).
For the record, this was scshunt's only prop.
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 3:34 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
THE SHORT LOGICAL RULESET
CoE: last week has been really crazy for me and i haven't updated
this. will do it later.
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 11:20 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
If the rules of the nomic do not provide such a forum in a manner
reasonably accessible without undue effort, it is IMPOSSIBLE for the
ambassador to inform the nomic - or at least not reasonably possible.
I argue that it
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
The rest of this rule notwithstanding, a promise CANNOT be cashed,
directly or indirectly, as a part of the outcome of cashing that same
promise.
What would this solve? The promise's text could include
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
CFJ: { I can cash a promise named A Million Bucks. }
For completeness, since this is phrased like a turtle, any reason you
think this should be UNDECIDABLE as opposed to UNDETERMINED?
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 3:10 PM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Why?
Because it's silly.
H. Ambassador-At-Large ais523, it has come to my attention (because I
planned it) that someone has falsely claimed to a nomic (that I
started ten minutes ago) to be an ambassador of Agora. (Although the
nomic's rules[1] do not attempt to define how to contact it, since
such a definition might not
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 5:04 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
H. Ambassador-At-Large ais523, it has come to my attention (because I
planned it) that someone has falsely claimed to a nomic (that I
started ten minutes ago) to be an ambassador of Agora. (Although the
nomic's rules[1] do
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 9:12 PM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Actually, thinking about this, I think it's impossible under the current
rules for anyone to inform a nomic (including Agora) of anything,
because the rules don't define a mechanism for doing so, and nomics are
legal
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 3:03 PM, FKA441344 441...@gmail.com wrote:
scat ag...@lesidhetree.com *3 18 May 12 e
ITYM *2
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
because of Rule 2166: If an asset would otherwise lack an owner, it
is owned by the Lost and Found Department.
I transfer a prop to scshunt for noticing this.
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
All Recognition switches are at their default values.
You're not actually required to publish this:
c) Optionally, exactly one office whose holder tracks instances
of that switch. That officer's report includes
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
x7267 1.0 G. Still Crazy after all these Years
x7268 3.0 G. allow secret votes
http://wiki.teamfortress.com/w/images/6/65/Engineer_jeers01.wav
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 3:18 PM, FKA441344 441...@gmail.com wrote:
CoE: The fourth paragraph of this rule consists of the text
Yeah, I already self-CoEd, but sent it from my iPhone and neglected to
trim the quote, so the post was moderated for containing the entire
ruleset. Oops. Anyway, I
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
up until the time the recordkeepor announces
its Declassification.
I would just do up until the time it becomes Declassified.
The Rules may specify a date or event after which a particular
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
then the encoding is interpreted as if its plaintext had been
published at the time the original encoding was published.
i think this is too vague - what if the plaintext is I deregister?
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
The rule specifying the secret should additionally specify the
encryption (I hate this word in this context, fwiw) method and the
rule allowing secrets should define explicitly what sort of actions or
information can
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 11:43 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Proposal, Not clever anymore, AI-2 please:
---
Amend Rule 869 (How to Join and Leave Agora) by appending:
Initiating a frivolous judicial case on the
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 7:10 PM, Elliott Hird
penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 11 July 2012 01:19, Noé Rubinstein noe.rubinst...@gmail.com wrote:
How the hell would this not be trivially TRUE by rule 754/1?
Those are full-width characters; they are certainly not the usual
means we
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 4:32 PM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Regardless of whether the message has the right form to initiate a CFJ
or not (I think it might do, the effort required to decode it is not too
extreme), it doesn't contain a statement (the characters that appear
after
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 5:41 PM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 17:13 -0700, omd wrote:
an attempt to perform any Agoran action is much more general than
posting a message with the new ruleset. In any 'normal' nomic, you
would not interpret a rule that says
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 7:51 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Counterarguments:
Those actions are intended to be disallowed for non-players.
Arguments:
I intend these actions to be disallowed for ais523.
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 5:31 PM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 17:13 -0700, omd wrote:
If that's true, then deregistering someone violates their right to
participate in the fora, since it disallows the vast majority of game
actions.
Nonplayers don't have
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Second, in general, attempting to perform an Agoran action by
announcement is not explicitly prohibited or regulated, thus by R101(i)
persons have the right to so attempt. Specific forms are ILLEGAL (e.g.
Endorsing
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
I don't see how the power-1 Rule 2365 rules to the contrary
notwithstanding...creating a proposal has a cost of 1 ruble
takes precedence over the power-3 A player CAN create a proposal
by announcement by virtue of the
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Jul 6, 2012, at 7:00 AM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
3240: UNDECIDABLE
I accept the caller's arguments. Ozymandias has not won the game, so
neither TRUE nor FALSE is appropriate.
CFJ: It
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 6:39 PM, John Smith spamba...@yahoo.com wrote:
Admitted. Trying again.
I, Bucky, satisfy the Victory Condition of Paradox (on CfJ 3212) while also
not satisfying any Losing Conditions. (This is a Victory Announcement)
(You satisfied it one week after it was judged
Proto: It's really a matter of communication
[Even if Rule 2367 were fixed, any rule written in terms of logical
statements probably can't act quite right: it should be legal to
publish 'This statement is incorrect' is a messy statement or The
judgement of CFJ was appropriate, but under a
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 11:59 PM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
[When the rule was changed from being written in negatives to being
written in positives, the change in part (d) seems not to have taken De
Morgan's Law into account.]
Actually, it's not a typo. Part (d) was changed
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 1:03 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
Indeed; as it was, all the accused needed to be able to do was present
an argument that what they were doing was legal, and (d) would
exonerate them by virtue of them having an argument.
I don't think that was a bad
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 8:17 PM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote:
I'm treating this as ineffective, on the grounds that for many users,
an unreasonable amount of effort is required to determine the meaning
of .
You and what report?
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 11:00 PM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
On Thu, 2012-06-28 at 19:52 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012, ais523 wrote:
I couldn't actually find any useful scams to use it on (although they
may well come up in future, and it'll be useful then); I
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 4:51 PM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
There used to be a rule limiting it to five
per player per week, but the limit isn't really needed in practice. Two
or three is perfectly fine, though.
Actually, that limit still exists:
An excess case is a new
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
These days, AGAINT is treated the same as any other Rule 754 (1) typo
(see Judge Zefram's arguments in CFJ 1885). I thought we'd decided
otherwise, but apparently I remembered wrong (or at least it's only
ambiguous if
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 3:26 PM, FKA441344 441...@gmail.com wrote:
I intend to, With Notice, initiate a criminal case: omd violated Rule
2143 by failing to distribute by the end of Sun. 24 June proposals in
the proposal pool that were in there at the beginning of Mon. 18 June.
Oh, come on! I
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Pavitra celestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote:
I morally object to this objection, as a player can straightforwardly
determine whether e is included via the algorithm {return true;}.
In practice, it only applies to players who have been inactive for at
least 3
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:10 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Even if that wasn't so, my preface if I haven't already probably would
have rendered the assignments to FKA441344 ineffective.
Proto: Refactor non-self-judgement
(AI = 2, co-author = ais523)
Amend Rule 1868 (Judge
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote:
My opinion is FALSE. Since my nickname change was not posted to a
public forum, nor even a forum that most Agorans subscribe to, it was
not known to Agora at large, making the name Nuas Te ambiguous.
(Subjectively
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 5:03 PM, John Smith spamba...@yahoo.com wrote:
I cash Dirty Work, the promise created above with the text I taunt the
police, specifying 1..
C'mon, at least specify 14. Otherwise we'll never get up to 50 :)
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 10:06 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
So, I just realized the rules never took notice of proposal 6671, adopted on
March 22, 2010 and affecting Rule 1367. This also means that parts of
proposal 6717 were ineffective.
Um...
I guess so. Ugh.
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 2:01 PM, FKA441344 441...@gmail.com wrote:
CoE:The last change to the ruleset was by proposal 7250, at 17:44 UTC Mon 04
Jun
Context: the judgement that proposals take effect before they're resolved.
As far as I can tell, those out of 7218-7246 that passed would have
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 4:28 AM, FKA441344 441...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 7:01 PM, FKA441344 441...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 6:44 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
7244 3 omd Possibly fix costs
PRESENT
I change my vote on this to AGAINST
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 1:31 AM, Pavitra celestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/28/2012 09:29 PM, omd wrote:
7246 3 omd Adoption reassociation
AGAINST
Why?
Because it looks like a trivial rewording to no effect, which makes me
suspect a scam.
Sorry, I should have added
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 9:22 PM, John Smith spamba...@yahoo.com wrote:
I cause BuckyBot to announce that it intends to deputize for the Herald to
award Bucky the Patent Title Champion in connection with the most recent
Win by Paradox.
I do believe you already received such a Patent Title:
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 10:23 PM, Pavitra celestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote:
7234 1 omd Notability is usually uncontroversial, but
.. support is sometimes lacking
AGAINST, the With 2 Support mechanism should be kept since controversial
cases are more likely
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 9:54 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
I recuse omd from CFJ 3194.
Sigh. I've literally been procrastinating on that judgement since you
assigned 441344 to it. Sorry.
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 2:26 AM, Noé Rubinstein
noe.rubinst...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 7:25 PM, Benjamin Schultz
ben.dov.schu...@gmail.com wrote:
I find it curious that GMail puts the insertion point at the top, but
adds the .sig file at the very end. This makes the
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 12:45 AM, Schrodinger's Cat
ag...@lesidhetree.com wrote:
Is it permissible to post to official fora with a second email account, for
instance, my phone? It's on all 5 lists.
I've done it for a while, though only because Mail.app (either
version) doesn't support multiple
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 2:06 AM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
On Mon, 2012-05-14 at 02:03 -0400, omd wrote:
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
I judge CFJ 3190 NOT GUILTY (1504(a)). Arguably, also (d), but (a) is
more clearcut.
I intend
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Thanks. CFJ in question is 1361:
It is my view that, for the purposes of R559, a nickname is a name that
a Player chooses for emself, that can be reliably used to pick em out in
the full range of Agoran contexts. On
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:10 PM, John Smith spamba...@yahoo.com wrote:
I CfJ on the statement It is illegal for a player to announce intent to use
Ratification Without Objection to ratify a document whose contents are
identical to this sentence, without also specifying a reason for ratifying
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:54 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Actually, isn't Rule 2358 contradictory in that any hypothetical
situation mentioned arises from the case itself, because the case is
what raises them?
indeed, I can't think of anything arising from the case itself
On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 1:39 PM, FKA441344 441...@gmail.com wrote:
Murphy and omd are tied. In accordance with Rule 955(c), as vote
collector for this Agoran Decision I select Murphy as its outcome.
Murphy remains the Assessor, Assessor remains Postulated, this
election ends.
FYI, your vote
On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 12:13 AM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
E has some options (e.g. attempting and promising to flip it back and
forth, if current sentiment is to leave it alone). If e makes a
reasonable effort and still doesn't get consent, then unavoidable,
NOT GUILTY is
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
However, there is some
unfortunate phrasing in rule 2143:
While performing weekly or monthly duties or publishing weekly
or monthly reports, officers SHALL NOT publish information that
is inaccurate or
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 2:04 AM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
(I believe each of these costs 1 ruble)
I don't think this clearly indicates an attempt to pay a ruble.
Why would I point out the cost of my own action without attempting
(possibly implicitly) to pay it?
Parenthetical
On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
The annotations are not quite right (though, to be fair, my judgement in
CFJ 2981 was also insufficiently clear). Rule 2140 (c) doesn't talk
about modifying an instrument, it talks about modifying an aspect of an
On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 3:32 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
The annotations are not quite right (though, to be fair, my judgement in
CFJ 2981 was also insufficiently clear). Rule 2140 (c) doesn't talk
about modifying
On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 4:12 AM, FKA441344 441...@gmail.com wrote:
AGAINST (the same wording is used in rule 2326 and 103 for the President)
Which is unfortunate; in contrast, Promises and the Acting on Behalf
rule that preceded it are defined in terms of sending messages.
On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Pavitra celestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote:
7218 2 BuckyBot, etc. Elder Things
FOR
7219 3 omd, etc. Untitled
FOR. Incidentally, I notice that 2350 needs a more thorough cleanup.
No, I just screwed up rulekeeping it. I'll fix in a bit.
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 3:26 PM, FKA441344 441...@gmail.com wrote:
FIRST-CLASS PLAYERS (23)
Nickname E-mail address Since
###
---ACTIVE (16)-
Thanks.
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
No complaints, but since proposals exist after they've failed,
(I think by precedent?) does specifying the same title run afoul
of Definition/Continuity of Entities (or any other rule?)
CFJ 1358, ... I thought there was
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Erm, speaking of which, I just noticed, non-players can own
golems, no? So a person can deregister and act through eir
golem without punishment, no?
The person can be punished despite being deregistered (through Rule
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Crimes aside, I'm trying to decide if non-player ownership (and ability
to act on behalf of the golem) is a bug or feature, especially if
we're contemplating voting golems...
I've always thought that non-player
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 6:01 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
The difference was that at the time of 1358, the rules didn't define
or specify what a proposal's title was at all, and now you have to
submit with the associated title, so arguably that's a legislative
override of 1358,
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 9:46 PM, John Smith spamba...@yahoo.com wrote:
As much fun as it would be to take over Agora with four golems and a
President, I'd rather fix the problem than wait four months to abuse it. I
cause BuckyBot to submit a proposal specified as follows:
Title: Elder Things
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote:
7207 3 Murphy Let newcomers vote on proposals
I register. I vote FOR this proposal.
Just to state the obvious, this fails.
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Ordinary is at least one counterexample that comes to mind. (In addition to
the common meaning of ordinary, as least one scam IIRC depended on the
confusion between ordinary decision (correct) and ordinary proposal
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
The eligible voters on a decision with an adoption index are
those entities that were active first-class players at the start
of its voting period. Setting or changing an entity's voting
limit
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 7:01 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
Idea for a voting mechanic:
The Ancient Golems are numbered and ordered. Possibly named? There
will be a resetting cycle, similar to the old Poobah's monthly
mechanic, which I will refer to regularly.
Ancient
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 12:16 AM, John Smith spamba...@yahoo.com wrote:
Arguments: Cashing a promise causes its text to be effectively published by
its author; it doesn't actually cause them to send a message. The person who
most directly caused the message to be sent is the person who cashed
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 1:27 AM, Elliott Hird
penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
IIRC this was originally part of anti-invasion stuff. I'd be happy to see it
go.
It does prevent a simple scam: post dictatorship proposal, have large
numbers of sockpuppets register one minute before the end
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 12:07 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
A non-player should not be under obligation to pay attention to any
forum. Adding penalties that require action (to avoid accumulating more
penalties) create this requirement for a non-player.
I think I agree with you,
On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 1:14 PM, John Smith spamba...@yahoo.com wrote:
I cause BuckyBot to initiate an Inquiry CfJ with this statement: BuckyBot's
Rule 101 rights to initiate a process to resolve matters of controversy have
been violated.
If BuckyBot has not successfully initiated a CfJ, I
801 - 900 of 1373 matches
Mail list logo
