Yally wrote:
Actually, this whole ordeal gave me a really good thesis idea about
alternate realities in nomic (i.e., following the wrong set of rules for
an extended period of time). Has anything been written on this topic yet?
See: the entire history of B Nomic /ever/. (I'm only
On 9 June 2012 14:35, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
See: the entire history of B Nomic /ever/. (I'm only half-joking.)
Half? Where's the half-joke?
Since B Nomic spent almost its entire history stuck in the first or
second era (I forget which), and they only realised it after about
On 9 June 2012 06:06, 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.
Wait, why doesn't ratification take care of
On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 10:34 AM, Elliott Hird
penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 9 June 2012 06:06, 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
On 06/09/2012 06:04 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 10:34 AM, Elliott Hird
penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 9 June 2012 06:06, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
So, I just realized the rules never took notice of proposal 6671, adopted on
March 22, 2010 and
On 10 June 2012 00:04, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
Because the ruleset does not self-ratify; nor can it be ratified
without objection. It is periodically ratified by proposal.
Good thing we have that safeguard against errant Rulekeepors, or we
might be in trouble!
Maybe I should just submit yearly ruleset ratification proposals. Also,
tomorrow I'll go search for proposals that showed up in voting results but not
current_flr.txt,v and make sure that they're all AI fails or other issues.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 9, 2012, at 7:50 PM, Elliott Hird
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.
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 Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 1:11 AM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
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
10 matches
Mail list logo
