On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
Promotor's Proposal Pool Report
CoE: R2140 might also be a proposal in the pool.
No, it's definitely not.
On Sat, 2010-10-09 at 01:09 -0400, omd wrote:
Oops. I pay fees to make the following distributable:
title: The Robot
title: Distributed Proposal 6830
This one was Distributable anyway, despite the former Promotor's claims
to the contrary.
title: A Perpetuum mobile is possible
--
ais523
omd wrote:
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
title: Erratification
ai: 1.0
interest: 1
proposer: omd
submit_date: 2010-09-19
submit_mid: aanlkti=uoeruenrio7hcd8fvtxpjrajfvstz1kphn...@mail.gmail.com
distributability: undistributable
Ratify the
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Warrigal ihope12...@gmail.com wrote:
malice. Besides, the proposal is undistributable (to my knowledge) and
stupid, and thus my failure to mention it is essentially
inconsequential.
I initiate an election for Promotor.
I note that I've had a particularly
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 7:23 AM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
I have no problem with missing a proposal. Announcing that it's
inconsequential because you think the proposal is stupid isn't
something I think we expect from our Promotor, though.
Noted. I will be more civil in the
Keba wrote:
URGENT PROPOSAL
title: Demarcation
chamber: Purple
ai: 2.0
interest: 1
proposer: omd
submit_date: 2010-09-04
submit_mid: aanlktik-txo=8e4qo1mszmhng77_dqtnta91fjan3...@mail.gmail.com
distributability: undistributable
distributability flipped: 2010-09-04 00:00:00
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 12:35, Geoffrey Speargeoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 1:29 PM, Roger Hickspidge...@gmail.com wrote:
CoE: The above proposal is distributable (it was submitted as part of
my Anarchist duties).
Admitted; for some reason I thought you had to explicitly
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 8:22 PM,
C-walkercharles.w.wal...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Geoffrey Speargeoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
chamber: ordinary
ai: 1.0
interest: 1
proposer: C-walker
coauthors: Wooble
title: Livenomic Recognition
submit_date: 2009-07-28
On Fri, 10 Jul 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 2:56 PM, ais523callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
e CAN certainly publish a report; but I don't see how R101 makes it a
self-ratifying report.
Precedent says that if you SHALL perform an action by some mechanism,
you CAN do
c-walker wrote:
I CFJ {{ The Conductor CAN publish a self-ratifying report. }}
Evidence:
R2126 states:
The Conductor is an office. As soon as possible after this text
becomes a part of this rule, the Conductor SHALL publish a
self-ratifying report containing the
2009/6/29 C-walker charles.w.wal...@googlemail.com:
A player CAN flip a specified Interested proposal to
Distributable without a number of objections equal to -II + 4
(where II is the Interest Index of the specified proposal). A
player CAN flip a specified Disinterested
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 3:04 AM, comexcom...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 12:43 PM,
C-walkercharles.w.wal...@googlemail.com wrote:
This has been reported as undistributable in the past two proposal
pool reports, when I remember spending D to make it Distributable on
Fri, Jun 12,
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 12:43 PM,
C-walkercharles.w.wal...@googlemail.com wrote:
This has been reported as undistributable in the past two proposal
pool reports, when I remember spending D to make it Distributable on
Fri, Jun 12, at 5:31 PM, to be exact. I CoE that this proposal should
be
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 10:07 AM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Aaron Goldfeinaarongoldf...@gmail.com
wrote:
chamber: democratic
ai: 2.0
interest: 1
proposer: Yally
coauthors: Murphy
title: IADoP CAN and SHALL
submit_date: 2009-05-27
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Aaron Goldfeinaarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 11:07 AM, Geoffrey Speargeoffsp...@gmail.com
wrote:
Denied. You made the proposal with the same title submitted
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 7:08 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
Gratuitous: Publishing an erroneous report (power-1 Rule) is less
serious than ratifying one (Class-8 Crime).
Yes, but if the report is incorrect I'm obligated to publish an
incorrect report weekly, making the cumulative
On Thu, 28 May 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 7:08 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
Gratuitous: Publishing an erroneous report (power-1 Rule) is less
serious than ratifying one (Class-8 Crime).
Yes, but if the report is incorrect I'm obligated to publish an
Not to mention that an equivalent proprosal would probably limit it to
1-2 weeks.
Sent from my iPhone
On May 28, 2009, at 12:10 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu
wrote:
On Thu, 28 May 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 7:08 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 2009-05-28 at 09:10 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
You raise a good point though: if you can avoid a forced crime by
resigning, are you required to resign rather than choose the lesser
crime? That's true in the real world (the honorable resignation)
If interpreted that here way it's a bug;
Kerim Aydin wrote:
If the error is wholly unknown, it's not a crime.
Not necessarily; if it's reasonable for them to know, then it's still a
crime. If they miss a proposal made last week, it's probably a crime. A
proposal made last year, notsomuch.
On Thu, 28 May 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
Kerim Aydin wrote:
If the error is wholly unknown, it's not a crime.
Not necessarily; if it's reasonable for them to know, then it's still a
crime. If they miss a proposal made last week, it's probably a crime. A
proposal made last year, notsomuch.
All
Y-- thr--t-n-d t- w-th th- c-b-l -nd n-t-ry.
On 2009-05-28, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
On Thu, 2009-05-28 at 09:10 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
You raise a good point though: if you can avoid a forced crime by
resigning, are you required to resign rather than choose the lesser
crime?
On Mon, 2009-05-25 at 18:57 -0400, comex wrote:
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 6:45 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Gratuitous: As judge didn't notice the ratification attempt; if I
had noticed it I would have delayed the judgement to avoid the issue.
Since the judgement found that,
On Mon, 2009-05-25 at 23:00 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
In any case, if I'm GUILTY I believe 8 rests would be an excessive
punishment.
Agreed, and I would ask people to please stop putting large punishments
on things they fear would be scammed when they're far more likely to
affect legitimate
On Tue, 26 May 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
On Mon, 2009-05-25 at 23:00 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
In any case, if I'm GUILTY I believe 8 rests would be an excessive
punishment.
Agreed, and I would ask people to please stop putting large punishments
on things they fear would be scammed when
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 1:17 PM, Taral tar...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 7:44 AM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote:
This was sent two hours after Goethe's judgement that a certain other
proposal existed in the pool. Accordingly, NoV: Wooble violated R2202
and committed the Class-8
On Mon, 2009-05-25 at 17:41 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
While ais523 was able to find one proposal that was in the pool that
was not in the published report, simply adding that proposal to the
report would not have guaranteed the accuracy of the report, any more
than my looking through the
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 4:54 PM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote:
I initiate a criminal CFJ, noting that the Accused had plenty of
warning and the opportunity to avoid violating the rule.
Arguments in my defense:
While ais523 was able to find one proposal that was in
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
Arguments in my defense:
While ais523 was able to find one proposal that was in the pool that
was not in the published report, simply adding that proposal to the
report would not have guaranteed the accuracy of the
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 6:45 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Gratuitous: As judge didn't notice the ratification attempt; if I
had noticed it I would have delayed the judgement to avoid the issue.
Since the judgement found that, to the best of available evidence,
there had been
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 6:57 PM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote:
E could avoid breaching the rules by making a proposal to remove stale
proposals from the pool.
And since I don't know what they all are, someone would claim that the
proposal didn't specify which proposals clearly enough.
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 8:38 PM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 6:57 PM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote:
E could avoid breaching the rules by making a proposal to remove stale
proposals from the pool.
And since I don't know what they all are, someone would
On Mon, 25 May 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote:
-Goethe
See, I forget too. I'll get it eventually. -G.
On 5/25/09 5:52 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
[snip]
ps. court cases raised about a document should block ratification,
not just self-ratificatation; generalization of R2201 in order here?
I don't think that's a good idea unless CFJs raised about a document can
be more clearly/objectively identified.
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 6:57 PM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote:
E could avoid breaching the rules by making a proposal to remove stale
proposals from the pool.
I did in fact do just that, assuming that I'd get an objection.
However, when I didn't, I figured trying to get an AI-3 proposal
passed
35 matches
Mail list logo
