Here's a vague proposal: There are N named tokens, which grant both +2
voting limit and additional ruble income (to add a bit of permanence);
every so often, tokens are returned to the LFD and auctioned off for
rubles.
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 10:54 AM, FKA441344 441...@gmail.com wrote:
7193 3 omd I think these turned out to be too much work
I spend a ruble to double my voting limit on this and vote AGAINST it.
7196 3 scshunt Truisms
I spend a ruble to double my voting limit on this and vote
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 12:04 AM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
Thought: Do not allow on arbitrary slave golems. Create a new class of
vote-eligible golems with more restricted creation rules.
Meh. I don't want to force people to create Golems with game
mechanics that require
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
omd wrote:
7196 3 scshunt Truisms
AGAINST
7198 1 scshunt Xenophobia
AGAINST
I think maybe you something out here.
I didn't, see my followup message.
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Proposal, Untitled, AI-3 please:
!#//c!#//c!#//c!#//c!#//c!#//c!#//c!#//c!#//c!#//c!#//c!#//c!#//c!#//c
Wash your mouth out this instant!
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 11:44 PM, Mister Snuggles mr.snu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 12:13 AM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:04 PM, John Smith spamba...@yahoo.com wrote:
CfJ, inquiry:
The Executor of the message quoted in the evidence cannot
Or: The basis of a Golem is the basis of its owner; if this would
result in circularity, it has an empty basis and is Emancipated. A
non-Emancipated Golem with an empty basis is in Storage.
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
omd wrote:
On Mar 22, 2012, at 3:34 PM, omdc.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
THE SHORT LOGICAL RULESET
CoE: The implicit list of Notable cases here is incorrect
because I haven't yet added annotations for the recent
batch
NttPF
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:04 PM, John Smith spamba...@yahoo.com wrote:
CfJ, inquiry:
The Executor of the message quoted in the evidence cannot be determined with
reasonable effort except by judicial declaration
Gratuitous: IRRELEVANT, as Mister Snuggles has never attempted to
support any
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
NOT GUILTY. The caller has provided no evidence that omd emself
violated Rule 2170, but rather, that the golem formerly known as Mr.
Incredible did.
(Maybe we should bring back the pre-trial period.)
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 7:49 AM, Elliott Hird
penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 14 March 2012 13:16, FSX flameshadowxeros...@gmail.com wrote:
I am not Mister Snuggles.
You and everybody else. Posting it to a-b might give it more weight in
the form of the illegality of lying, though.
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 8:30 AM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
The actual judgement on the case is not what I'm getting at here, as
it is rather trivial. The purpose of this appeal is to challenge the
process of judges discharging their duties and deliberately assigning
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 2:36 PM, FKA441344 441...@gmail.com wrote:
v Golem-1 c/o FKA441344 04 Mar 12 05 Mar 12
v Golem-2 c/o FKA441344 04 Mar 12 05 Mar 12
...
v Golem-50 c/o FKA441344 04 Mar 12 05 Mar
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Mister Snuggles mr.snu...@gmail.com wrote:
i am not a player.
i register.
cfj arguments: to agora, all nonplayers are interchangeable.
mister snuggles
Huh, and I always thought it was G..
This message appears to have been sent from Gmail (also, the DKIM
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 10:43 PM, Aaron Goldfein
aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
I intend, with two support, to appeal this case. I request a with
prejudice ruling as Judge omd inappropriately discharged eir duties in
this case.
Gratuitous: The lack of arguments aside, without any evidence
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Elliott Hird
penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
I register.
--
bayes 2012-03-21 02:22:50 +
This is a good idea.
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 9:52 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
Proposal: Truisms (AI=3)
{{{
Enact a new 3-power rule entitled The Cold Hard Truth reading Every
rule has an exception.
}}}
AGAINST, Rule 104 does not have an exception.
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 11:10 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
I judge CFJ 3169 TRUE.
By the way, I add as supporting evidence that implicitly caused it to
explicitly has been game custom since CFJ 2101. (Although, as
usually happens when I read my past judgements, the writing comes off
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 8:03 PM, FKA441344 441...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 2:33 AM, Elliott Hird
penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 28 February 2012 00:01, FKA441344 441...@gmail.com wrote:
Fri 17 Feb 03:33 Mr. Incredible changes eir name to '. I cause'.
Fri 17 Feb
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 11:31 AM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
The first multiple-statement CFJ that I
remember is CFJ 1266, which was dismissed due to a different but
similar rule.
Obligatory digging: CFJ 6 most likely counts
(http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/stare_detail/06.txt).
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 6:24 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
I cash the promise titled {Anyone Can Mislead The Leader}.
Note to H. Promotor omd: if this was effective (I don't remember
anyone causing the President to taunt the police), then it caused
FKA441344 to submit two
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
CFJ: The Registrar's Report includes within its list of all players a list
of all Golems.
Why wouldn't it?
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
I CFJ (linked) on:
(1) The Prisoner is a player.
Arguments: E never explicitly consented (R101iii).
(2) The Prisoner's R101(vii) rights have been violated.
Arguments: If e is a player, eir ability
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
[It's often bothered me that R101 could be gotten around by redefining
person (for example via R2150).
This is only a problem now that Rule 2150 is Power 3...
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:04 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Gratuitous: The first method being limited to the announcer is an
inherent part of it, and similarly without-objection is an inherent
part of the second. Past exceptions to this common-sense approach
have depended on
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:09 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
I create a Slave Golem named Number Two.
I announce that I will never cause Number Two to deregister.
I cause Number Two to announce that e wants to deregister.
I announce that I want to deregister.
...But my R101
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 2:59 AM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Proposal 7144 (AI=1.7) by Murphy
Extraterritorial jurisdiction
Amend Rule 1504 (Criminal Cases) by inserting this text immediately
before the bullet point for EXILE:
Amendment fails due to insufficient power.
Ruleset
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 12:12 PM, FSX flameshadowxeros...@gmail.com wrote:
CFJ: I committed the Class-1 Crime of Naughtiness. ehirs committed the
Class-14 Crime of Naughtiness.
If you want a criminal case, you need to specify the rule number.
(maybe this initiated one or two inquiry cases?)
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 6:07 PM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
TTttPF
And I went to all the trouble of writing
To:
deliberately nttpf
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org
and someone /still/ calls me on it…?
TTttPF != NttPF.
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 6:26 PM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
On Mon, 2012-01-30 at 18:23 -0500, omd wrote:
TTttPF != NttPF.
Wait, is it even possible to TTttPF someone else's message?
I vaguely recall that this has been tried before, but I'm too lazy to
look it up.
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 10:12 PM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote:
With Agoran Consent, I intend to register the OmNom Constitution.
(I intend to, later on, have the ONC state, I support and do so,
then call a CFJ on its playerhood.)
—Machiavelli
Okay, honestly, that action is
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote:
—Machiavelli
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 8:53 PM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote:
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 8:35 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote:
—Machiavelli
...Did I spell it wrong?
—Machiavelli
No, but it has been
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 5:28 PM, 441344 441...@gmail.com wrote:
I initiate a criminal case naming omd as the Accused, failing to
publish the Promotor's report during the week Mon. 16 - Sun. 22 and
distribute the proposals currently in the proposal pool that were in
there at the beginning
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 5:02 PM, 441344 441...@gmail.com wrote:
I retract case 3147. I retract case 3149.
You can't retract 3147 as it has already had a judge assigned to it.
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 9:37 PM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
a is true IFF b is true, as a hypothetical, can be invalidated by
anything that's a hypothetical b but not an a, no matter how unlikely,
surely?
There's no rule that says judgements should ignore the possibility of
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
At first I thought putting on the revision number means it breaks if
another proposal changes the revision number in the meantime but then
I thought is it even possible to amend a specific revision number of
a rule? so
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 8:31 PM, 441344 441...@gmail.com wrote:
I submit a proposal with title {fix to 1023/28} and text {Amend Rule
1023/28 by replacing the text {Agoran weeks begin at midnight UTC on
Monday.} with {Agoran weeks begin when Mondays begin.} and replacing
the text {Agoran months
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 11:19 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
7145 2 omd A controversial proposal
AGAINST (I think you meant unambiguous there at the end?)
The intent expressed in such a message is necessarily ambiguous, but
required to be unambiguous.
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 3:16 PM, FSX flameshadowxeros...@gmail.com wrote:
Though I don't see any evidence of that, it stands that I don't have the
power to make a 3.9... power rule. I'd need at least 3.
The relevant clauses:
(2) A term explicitly defined by the Rules, along with its
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 10:44 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
That sure wasn't clear to me. While I'm assuming mathematical symbols
count as terms in R754, the ellipsis could be confused with two dots
and a period, or a typo, so I'm guessing it's not clear enough for R105.
-G.
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 4:39 PM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Yes. I don't want to give too much more information, though.
Maybe this is one of those cases where first there's a CFJ on a simple
statement - the judge selects whichever interpretation looks most
reasonable at first
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 6:43 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 4:39 PM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Yes. I don't want to give too much more information, though.
Maybe
(On second thought, I guess e's going to submit a Victory Announcement
after
, because this standard only applies in a relatively narrow
range of cases. There are a great many situations where the text of the
rules clearly allows some form of deliciously horrible scammy brokenness
But when all else fails, choose the non-perverse reading.
I cash the Promise (2011-04-24 omd
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Such as The President. Also, there was a scam a while back to
assign positive power to a first-class player (I think G.); did
that go through, and if so, did we reverse it?
Yes, I had the
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 11:26 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
CFJ: If and when the Victory Announcement in the same message that
created this CFJ self-ratifies, if the rules regarding victory have not
changed since, then ais523 will Win the Game.
Gratuitous: won via the same events is
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Pavitra celestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote:
I disfavor this case.
NttPF.
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 9:28 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
* EXCLUSION, appropriate for rule breaches by a non-player. When
a judgement of EXCLUSION has been in effect continuously for
one week, the ninny CANNOT register for one month after that
time.
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 11:14 AM, John Smith spamba...@yahoo.com wrote:
I would also point out that, in the unlikely event that I am found GUILTY,
great care would need to be taken to select an appropriate sentence, because
a sentence of APOLOGY (usually for crimes of class 4), FINE (I have
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 7:39 AM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote:
perform a sequence of events is ungrammatical,
I don't see how. Are you saying that it's not the sequence that is
performed, but the events within it?
You can't perform an event, only an action.
and the rule arguably
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 4:42 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
Amend Rule 2338 (Cashing Promises) by replacing MUST with must.
Why not just make the action INEFFECTIVE if there is insufficient context?
I think lowercase must is fine (in fact, it's used elsewhere in the
same
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 10:45 AM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
7137 3.0 omd. okay, this has gotten silly
7138 1.0 omd. Whereto Paradox?
7139 1.7 omd. This is still an issue
CoE: My nickname is omd.
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 10:39 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
As the above announcement has just self-ratified, omd has just
Won the Game.
I award omd Champion (High Score).
Thanks!
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 8:44 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Considered it's only to be used when there's something buggy which
would probably be fixed when caught, a good compromise is to add a
sentence to another officer (Registrar?)
Perhaps just remove the requirement that
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 8:28 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
I announce my intent to deputize for the cotc to recuse yally from
cfjs 3105 and 3106, and to assign those cfjs to myself (G.) thus
limiting ambiguity to date-of-assignment. Or Murphy can do this
first of course; won't
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 8:03 AM, Mister Snuggles mr.snu...@gmail.com wrote:
i intend to deputise for the cotc to take each of the following actions:
* rotate the bench.
* recuse yally from cfj 3105.
* assign cfj 3105 to g.
* assign cfj 3105 to omd.
* assign cfj 3105 to pavitra.
* recuse
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 6:22 PM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote:
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 7:29 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 1:53 AM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
wrote:
NUM AI AUTHOR TITLE
7135 1.7 G. Fixing Victory v2.02
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 10:46 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Arguments:
1. Once the promise is in someone else's hands, G. generally can't
prevent the breach from occurring (see R1504(e)).
2. This promise contained an illegal action when the promise was
created. The judge is
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Pavitra celestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/24/2011 07:27 PM, omd wrote:
Proposal: No shame in trying (AI=1.7)
Amend Rule 2343 (Victory Cases) by replacing SHAME with NO GLORY.
AGAINST. I like victory having flavorful language.
Maybe SHAME should
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
As soon as possible after a Victory Announcement ratifies, or
a judgement confirming the veracity of a victory announcement
has been in effect and unappealed for one week, and provided
the person(s)
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 4:04 PM, John Smith spamba...@yahoo.com wrote:
I suggest that a Player file a Motion to Reconsider CfJ 3109. Among other
objections, the judgment is inconsistent with the judge's arguments. All
information necessary to render a judgment of TRUE or FALSE is public,
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Pavitra celestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote:
Mr. Smith, the statement is nonsensical because referring to the
Victory Condition of Being Bucky, without quotes, implies that there
is such an entity that is a Victory Condition.
A question that presupposes a
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Pavitra celestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote:
1. There is no Victory Condition of Being Bucky.
2. For all X, X is not the Victory Condition of Being Bucky.
3. For all X, it is not the case that both X is the Victory Condition of
Being Bucky and Mr. Smith has
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 7:49 PM, Pavitra celestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote:
The point of a CfJ is to _resolve controversy_. You could give that
argument for any question about which people disagree.
This is not an interesting controversy, because the ambiguity lies
entirely in the statement.
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 8:15 PM, Amar Chendra
amarchandra.ga...@gmail.com wrote:
when we have to compare two entities we have to define one thing first.
.AmarChandra
okay
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 3:38 AM, Arkady English
arkadyenglish+ag...@gmail.com wrote:
I submit the following proposal to the ruleskeepor:
In order to demonstrate their committment to justice, all standing judges are
required to wear a sword at all times. Any player required to wear a sword
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 8:16 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
If there were a rule that stated Woggle CANNOT legally post messages
on eir own behalf; only the passage a proposal containing eir message
CAN do so wouldn't you feel that your right to participate was being
infringed
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 13:05, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
omd 2A
Quorum 7 7 7 7 7 7
Voters 6 7 6 6 6 6
hahahaha
is it time for me
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Pavitra celestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/26/2011 07:03 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
I vote PRESENT on every proposal I can, unless someone persuades me that
that's a bad idea.
I read this as a conditional vote dependent on a condition that cannot
easily be
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Benjamin Schultz
ben.dov.schu...@gmail.com wrote:
omd, how did I get on your lists? I'm not even a current player.
The lists are based on Murphy's CotC database, and include all the old
CFJs in that database. :)
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 8:05 AM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
I CFJ on: {{Proposal 7117 amended Rule 2349.}}
Arguments: In the purported distribution of proposal 7117, as well as
in the message purporting to resolve the Agoran Decision to adopt it,
it was listed as having an
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Purported distributions don't self-ratify. Purported resolutions do
(R2034), including (for decisions on proposals) the implicit claim that
the proposal exists.
The rule which would invalidate it for missing essential
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
The rule which would invalidate it for missing essential parameters is
R107, which includes the lack is correctly identified within one
week clause.
Hm, not exactly. For a Decision to be initiated by R107, both:
(1)
for me not paying the fine
However, I did pay:
1906: 1 Note
Therefore, I have paid 1 out of 6 fines during my time as a player,
although 5 out of 6 were all imposed in the last two months.
Other statistics:
I have by far the record for criminal cases initiated against me:
omd 50
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
*7111 1.0 Tanner L. Points for the Big Guy
*7115 1.0 Tanner L. Relax / Stroke Hell
CoE: not that either of these would have any effect
Promotor omd.
IIRC the precedent that proposals can be implicitly created this way
was invalidated by a subsequent rule change.
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 9:25 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 6:42 PM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote:
Also, if I'm not mistaken, Proposals 7111 and 7115 do exist and were
distributed; the Deputy Promotor implicitly submitted them by
distributing them. So. CoE
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 10:32 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Honestly a lot of this/almost all of this is up to the other Nomic.
Not necessarily. In Tiger's BlogNomic post:
I now wish to leave the game, but use this account to re-enter
the game with my current screen name,
On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=3086
== CFJ 3086 ==
Agora's right to participate in the fora is substantially
limited.
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 5:33 PM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Well, we already notified Hillary Clinton of a criminal CFJ against her
(and she's been used as the standard example of a nonplayer ever since).
There was even a response, although I think it was autogenerated.
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 9:40 PM, John Smith spamba...@yahoo.com wrote:
Evidence:
(from Rule 2351) The game of Agora, but not any player of it, can make
arbitrary changes to the gamestate.
Agora is a player according to the most recent Census.
Arguments:
The rule quote in the Evidence is
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 10:51 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Am I right when I say no one has actually won the game recently,
not even Walker? Or did I miss a successful victory case or two?
Or is the dumb system completely broken.
I satisfied Accumulation on July 12, but I
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 11:53 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
- assign static rather than dynamic ip addresses
The router acts like it allows this, then ignores it.
Just be rude and have the server use a static IP rather than DHCP.
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Charles Reiss woggl...@gmail.com wrote:
If any modification to the Asset rules would be effective
at changing the properties of Promises, then clearly that gives a
escalation scam at Power 2.
The way it's supposed to work now is a compromise: a power-2 scam
On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Charles Reiss woggl...@gmail.com wrote:
Background: Currently, one can pay two FINE and a Spending Action with
the same Points.
This is pretty similar to my proposal General Costs, which failed
due to a bug. This reminds me to submit a fixed version, hope you
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 9:55 PM, Pavitra celestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote:
y It seems like the obvious place to avert that would be while drafting
the bank charter.
What cap would you suggest? I feel that anything lower than 6 would
block legitimate applications, but that anything higher
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Charles Walker
charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
You can get the SLR and the FLR at agora.qoid.us
The ones at http://www.nomictools.com/agora/rules/ are actually up to
date, but
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 7:39 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 10:28 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
wrote:
Then I do so without resolving the intent.
n.b. without resolving the intent is meaningless
No it isn't, it clearly means I do so by
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 5:07 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
wrote:
I initiate a criminal case accusing omd of violating Rule 1504
(Criminal Cases) by failing to destroy the 13 Points e was FINED in
CFJ 3054 within
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 10:28 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
Then I do so without resolving the intent.
n.b. without resolving the intent is meaningless
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Eric Stucky turiski.no...@gmail.com wrote:
Someone who is sleeping may not be a person, but they have certainly been
both a person and a first-class person at some point, so there's nothing
wrong with loosening the requirements to:
A player who is not a
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 4:13 PM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
On Sat, 2011-07-23 at 13:06 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
CoE, accepted: CFJs 3038 (if it exists) and 3039 were judged by
Yally, not Walker. (The body was correct, the subject was wrong.)
CoE: That isn't a CoE because
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 4:26 AM, Arkady English
arkadyenglish+ag...@gmail.com wrote:
Is there a game-mechanical difference between support and weakly
support? Or does this simply indicate that omd may be willing to change eir
mind?
It was meant as the latter (actually, I intended to support
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jul 2011, Pavitra wrote:
On 07/08/2011 10:18 PM, omd wrote:
*arguably Agora would cease to be a person in the interval between the
adoption of a proposal and the publication of an updated ruleset
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Charles Walker
charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
Amend Rule 1607 (Distribution) by replacing the paragraph beginning
The Promotor CAN distribute a proposal which... with:
Priority is an undistributed proposal switch with values of the
integers
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Charles Walker
charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 July 2011 19:56, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
Pool report: The Proposal Pool is empty.
CoE: Not true. There's 18th Birthday Bash by scshunt, Like Me,
Missing Its Birthday By A Few Days and Multinationality
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
R106 says that Proposals can and do
make changes in general and provide a mechanism (just as the president can
take actions in general by way of a different mechanism)
Gratuitous: CFJ 2213 is highly relevant. I
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Not a god, no. An Instrument of the gods.
but, as above, I think the implication is actions that the President CAN
take.
...as an Instrument.
Well, you said that CAN take actions counts as R105 permission to
take
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Spelunking the Rules picks for Delve 2
82 selects Rule 2157/6 (Power=1.7).
57 selects Rule 2138/13 (Power=1).
35 selects Rule 2338/1 (Power=3).
For reference (can you include titles next time?) these are:
901 - 1000 of 1373 matches
Mail list logo
