Ok i will give em this next whole week then
On Sun., 12 Jul. 2020, 10:26 pm Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via
agora-discussion, wrote:
> On 7/12/20 7:55 AM, N. S. via agora-business wrote:
> > Murphy missed eir report last week, I'll give him 2 days from now. I
> intend
> > to deputise for
On 7/12/20 7:55 AM, N. S. via agora-business wrote:
> Murphy missed eir report last week, I'll give him 2 days from now. I intend
> to deputise for ADoP to publish eir weekly report.
>
I think that could be violating the spirit of Rule 1769
In that case, you have a few options—
1) judge them FALSE/FALSE (which is their current truth values)
2) wait to see if the intent fixing proposal passes (if you think any intent
will be fixed retroactively and want the judgement to reflect that)
> On Feb 19, 2019, at 2:49 AM, Aris Merchant
>
Thanks for the timeline, but all of this is still giving me a headache. I
believe that the intent wasn’t specific enough and that all of the interns
are broken. How should I judge these?
-Aris
On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 12:28 PM D. Margaux wrote:
> I CFJ: D. Margaux is the Prime Minister.
>
> I
yeah but this isn't a scam just a self-own lol.
On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 9:22 AM Reuben Staley
wrote:
> You and Cuddles both have an unbelievable track record of ridiculous
> CFJs called because of your actions.
>
> On 11/01/2018 03:37 PM, Rebecca wrote:
> > I pledge that I am indeed a
You and Cuddles both have an unbelievable track record of ridiculous
CFJs called because of your actions.
On 11/01/2018 03:37 PM, Rebecca wrote:
I pledge that I am indeed a 26-year-old woman named Jenny Johnson.
The pledge I made above is true.
I point a finger at myself for oathbreaking and
Gratuitous:
There may be a meta-faking here.
Pledges are to perform or not perform actions, pledging that you are someone
or something isn't pledging an action (yes, "to be" is a verb, but I still
argue that a state of being isn't an action in this sense).
So this fails to make a pledge, so
I'm not going to do it, but now I kind of want to intentionally break a
minor rule just to see what apology words I have to use.
On 11/1/2018 11:43 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
Nobody else having expressed interest, I deputise for the Referee to Impose the Cold Hand
of Justice by levying a
Speaking of which, the Treasuror workload has got much smaller with Delenda
Est, so I'm happy to take on Referee if nobody else expresses interest in the
next day or two.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 10:23 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
> I point my finger at
If this goes to CFJ, I favor it.
On Sun, 28 Oct 2018, D Margaux wrote:
> >> On Oct 28, 2018, at 6:46 PM, "ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk"
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, 2018-10-28 at 15:40 -0700, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> >> While With Notice is a dependent action, demanding resignation is NOT
> >>
>> On Oct 28, 2018, at 6:46 PM, "ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk"
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 2018-10-28 at 15:40 -0700, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>> While With Notice is a dependent action, demanding resignation is NOT
>> with notice: (2472/2)
>>
>> If a player is Overpowered, any player CAN Demand
On Sun, 2018-10-28 at 15:40 -0700, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> While With Notice is a dependent action, demanding resignation is NOT
> with notice: (2472/2)
>
> If a player is Overpowered, any player CAN Demand Resignation from
> em by announcement, provided e has announced intent do to so
While With Notice is a dependent action, demanding resignation is NOT with
notice: (2472/2)
If a player is Overpowered, any player CAN Demand Resignation from
em by announcement, provided e has announced intent do to so
between four and fourteen days earlier. The Overpowered
On Sunday, October 28, 2018 10:31 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
> To the contrary, it is a dependent action—dependent on notice.
Nope. R2472/2 says:
If a player is Overpowered, any player CAN Demand Resignation from
em by announcement, provided e has announced intent do to so
between
To the contrary, it is a dependent action—dependent on notice. The Agoran
Satisfaction rule does not limit objections to any particular types of
dependent actions. Instead, under the Agoran Satisfaction rule:
“An Objector to a dependent action is an eligible entity who has
publicly posted (and
CFJ 3664 held that informal grants of permission like this _are_ contracts,
once another player implicitly accepts the contract by performing the action it
permits.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Sunday, October 28, 2018 10:25 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> How does this work? Rules
On Sun, 2018-10-28 at 18:18 -0400, D. Margaux wrote:
> To be sure, a player who has *withdrawn* an objection cannot object again
> (“A person CANNOT support or object to an announcement of intent .. after
> e has withdrawn the same type of response.”). I suppose that is to prevent
> someone from
How does this work? Rules seem to only allow for contacts to allow acting on
behalf.
Gaelan
> On Oct 28, 2018, at 3:00 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> I grant permission for any person except D. Margaux to act on my behalf to
> Demand Resignation from D. Margaux within the next 7 days or
On Sunday, October 28, 2018 10:18 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
> So here’s the scam—I think that nothing prevents me from objecting to this
> intent multiple times, every 48 hours, and thereby preventing Agora from
> ever becoming satisfied with it.
Yes there is, which is that Demanding Resignation is
So here’s the scam—I think that nothing prevents me from objecting to this
intent multiple times, every 48 hours, and thereby preventing Agora from
ever becoming satisfied with it.
Under Rule 2124, “The entities eligible to support or object to a dependent
action are, by default, all players,
On Sun, 10 Jul 2016, nichdel wrote:
> On 07/10/2016 03:40 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> I considered that originally, but then wanted to rewrite deputisation
> more completely, eventually threw out that idea, and apparently forgot
> my original plan in the process. Incidentally, your formulation
On 07/10/2016 03:40 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I considered that originally, but then wanted to rewrite deputisation
more completely, eventually threw out that idea, and apparently forgot
my original plan in the process. Incidentally, your formulation makes it
obvious that the fourteen day limit
On Sun, 10 Jul 2016, nichdel wrote:
> Here's my idea of a fix for deputisation: make special deputisation a
> 'type' of deputisation and separate 'deputisation' into 'normal' and
> 'expedient' where normal works mostly as before and expedient allows
> changes without intent announcement if the
Ah, I understand.
On Jun 27, 2015, at 12:06, Luis Ressel ara...@aixah.de wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 18:25:48 -0400
Brian Greer tekg...@theglycerintekneek.com wrote:
I intend to deputise for the office of Referee.
Tekneek
Normally, this wouldn't work. According to Rule 2160c), It's
On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 18:25:48 -0400
Brian Greer tekg...@theglycerintekneek.com wrote:
I intend to deputise for the office of Referee.
Tekneek
Normally, this wouldn't work. According to Rule 2160c), It's not
sufficient to announce your general intent to deputise for an office,
but you have
On Sun, 23 Feb 2014, omd wrote:
I intend to deputise for the Assessor to resolve 7621-7626, and for
the Promotor to distribute all proposals that were pending as of last
week.
Thank you. Likely I'll get to assessment before your notice limit,
but promotion is greatly appreciated if I don't
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 2:39 AM, woggle woggl...@gmail.com wrote:
Justiciar G. 15 Aug 12 15 Aug 12 Assumed
Promotor Italy11 Dec 12 29 Jun 12 Assumed
CoE: Mongor is an assumed office, which I assumed on 25 January, and
which has never
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 12:40, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
I intend to deputise for the dealer of each basic deck to audit the
appropriate entities.
I totally forgot about thiscoming up shortly.
BobTHJ
ais523 wrote:
Wooble thinks e's an MWoP. If the above failed:
Confirmed, e deputised to award emself MWoP at
Wed, 20 May 2009 21:50:04 -0400
On May 30, 2009, at 4:46 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
Alex Smith wrote:
On Sat, 2009-05-30 at 11:51 -0500, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
I intend to deputize for the Speaker to assign Prerogatives for the
month of June.
So do I. Who is the Speaker, anyway?
OscarMeyr.
And I'll intend to deputize for the
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
On May 30, 2009, at 4:46 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
Alex Smith wrote:
On Sat, 2009-05-30 at 11:51 -0500, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
I intend to deputize for the Speaker to assign Prerogatives for the
month of June.
So do I. Who is the Speaker, anyway?
OscarMeyr.
And I'll
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 11:25 AM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote:
I intend to deputise for the IaDoP to publish eir report.
There's no need; the report was last published 06 April and, as IADoP, I
intend to publish it 01 May.
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 11:33 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
On Tue, 2009-04-28 at 11:28 -0500, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 11:25 AM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote:
I intend to deputise for the IaDoP to publish eir report.
There's no need; the report
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 12:33 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
FWIW, maybe we should up the frequency of the IADoP by proposal.
P6230. You haven't voted yet. :P
Oops...for some reason I thought this was a low-priority office
(shouldn't it be?). I'll get a report published ASAP.
BobTHJ
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I intend to deputise for the Scorekeepor to publish eir report.
-root
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 6:26 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Goethe wrote:
By the above, Murphy's title of MwoP is administratively revoked.
The long reign of Speaker Murphy has come to an end!
All hail Speaker root!
Claim of error: If Human Point Two still bears MwoP, then it was
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 7:26 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Goethe wrote:
By the above, Murphy's title of MwoP is administratively revoked.
The long reign of Speaker Murphy has come to an end!
All hail Speaker root!
Claim of error: If Human Point Two still bears MwoP, then it was
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 7:31 PM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tricky... and so we have no certain speaker until that case is judged
without appeal.
In my judgement, that case has no appeal.
-root
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 6:31 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 7:26 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Goethe wrote:
By the above, Murphy's title of MwoP is administratively revoked.
The long reign of Speaker Murphy has come to an end!
All hail Speaker
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 7:37 PM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe, HP2 may have MwoP, but it hasn't had it consistently since it
was awarded MwoP.
It does say the player who has borne the Patent Title of Minister
Without Portfolio the longest, not the player who was awarded it
first. I
Quazie wrote:
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 6:31 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 7:26 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Goethe wrote:
By the above, Murphy's title of MwoP is administratively revoked.
The long reign of Speaker Murphy has come to an end!
All
41 matches
Mail list logo
