coppro wrote:
Roger Hicks wrote:
I can't seem to reach the agoranomic.org archives, but it appears the
lists are still working. Anyone else having this issue?
BobTHJ
Negative.
I just tested the a-o archive and it gave me the first message from this
month without complaint.
It's a-b I can't seem to reach. It must be something to do with my
location - away from home tonight. Anyway, I was able to use
http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-busin...@agoranomic.org/maillist.html
instead.
BobTHJ
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 00:09, Ed Murphyemurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
coppro
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 14:58, Ed Murphyemurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
coppro wrote:
I intend, with 2 Support, to publish an NoV alleging that Murphy
violated the 1-power Rule 2215 by stating that quorum for the decision
to adopt proposal 6414 was 8 when it was either 6 or 7.
I contest this.
Sean Hunt wrote:
Pavitra wrote:
Too many wins. Make it just the Speaker.
I want a large number of wins. It can occur only once every three
months, and even then only if no government is formed.
Wins should be rare. Once or twice a year is a good average.
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 12:22, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
comex wrote:
I play No Confidence, initiating an election for the office of Anarchist.
I deputize for Anarchist to deal myself two Distrib-u-Matic cards and
one Committee card.
Actually, the last of these failed as the time
Roger Hicks wrote:
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 12:22, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
comex wrote:
I play No Confidence, initiating an election for the office of Anarchist.
I deputize for Anarchist to deal myself two Distrib-u-Matic cards and
one Committee card.
Actually, the last of these
C-walker wrote:
I change my salary to 'Change, Change, Government, Government'.
Is anyone willing to trade any of my Justice cards for Change or
Government cards? My Justice card holdings are as follows:
Absolv-o-Matic
Discard Picking
Stool Pidgeon
I'd like Discard Picking; what are
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
C-walker wrote:
I change my salary to 'Change, Change, Government, Government'.
Is anyone willing to trade any of my Justice cards for Change or
Government cards? My Justice card holdings are as follows:
Absolv-o-Matic
C-walker wrote:
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
C-walker wrote:
I change my salary to 'Change, Change, Government, Government'.
Is anyone willing to trade any of my Justice cards for Change or
Government cards? My Justice card holdings are as follows:
C-walker wrote:
I'd like Discard Picking; what are you after?
Does two Distrib-u-matic and a Roll Call sound fair?
On a related matter, does anyone (BobTHJ?) know where I can find the
Frequency and Distribution of all Decks? This would help greatly with
valuing cards and in deals like
On Sat, 2009-08-08 at 20:03 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Pedants, no... any gamer would know that Rules Lawyers are another breed
entirely...
And Nomic is a perfect hangout for Rules Lawyers, because it's one of
the few games in which their skills are encouraged rather than derided.
--
ais523
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 7:23 PM, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
I retract the above and submit the following and make it Distributable:
I retract the above and submit the following and make it Distributable.
I submit the following proposal and make it Distributable.
These don't specify a
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Charles Reisswoggl...@gmail.com wrote:
I judge TRUE. The deputised report incorrectly listed allispaul as
active, and this was not corrected. Relevant precedent: CFJ 2392.
This has already been appealed, but I'd like to point out that CFJ2392
deals with
On Sun, 2009-08-09 at 08:44 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
I submit the following Proposal and play a Distrib-u-matic card to
make it distributable:
PNP cleanup (AI = 2)
{{
The PerlNomic Partnership contract is amended to read:
1. This is a binding agreement and Public Contract governed by
2009/8/9 Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com:
My goal is to slowly continue to add information to my database until
the full state of Agora is tracked.
KILL IT! KILL IT WITH FIRE!
I can't solve the cross-platform issue, sorry. VB.NET is really
my only skilled language, and it'd be a pain to
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 3:18 AM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
AOL!
n.b. this is ineffective (CFJ 1536)
--
-c.
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 1:16 AM, Roger Hickspidge...@gmail.com wrote:
Note that since developing it I've tried to make my program adaptable
to this process. It hasn't been easy to come up with a workable
solution, and it is still not complete, but my system now correctly
models about 99% of the
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 5:31 AM, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
C-walker wrote:
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
C-walker wrote:
I change my salary to 'Change, Change, Government, Government'.
Is anyone willing to trade any of my Justice cards for Change
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 5:34 PM, comexcom...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 5:31 AM, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
C-walker wrote:
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
C-walker wrote:
I change my salary to 'Change, Change, Government, Government'.
Goethe wrote:
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
Appeal 2656a
Panelist: coppro
Decision:
Panelist: c-walker
Decision:
Panelist: G.
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 5:49 PM, C-walkercharles.w.wal...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 5:34 PM, comexcom...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 5:31 AM, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
C-walker wrote:
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
Yes, the frequencies are unchanged since the adoption of Cards.
Hmm, Frequencies should really be a part of weekly reports.
-G.
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, comex wrote:
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 3:18 AM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
AOL!
n.b. this is ineffective (CFJ 1536)
--
-c.
I argue that the existence of CFJ 1536 has made it known enough.
For example, AGAINT is an understandable-enough typo but the caselaw
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, ais523 wrote:
I call for judgement on the statement No Call for Judgement before this
one has had the same statement as this one.
Arguments: Does the obvious TRUE set a binding precedent, that nullifies
the CFJ's existence?
The whole point of judicial precedence etc. is
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
[I pledged to post a proto. Here it is. I already had a private
discussion with c. about it; he made some good counterarguments, I hope e
will re-post it for a discussion to happen before the judgement is due].
Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
Yes, the frequencies are unchanged since the adoption of Cards.
Hmm, Frequencies should really be a part of weekly reports.
-G.
They are. We just have no anarchist (and the soonest we could have one
is 4 days from the resolution of the
G. wrote:
== CFJ 2651 ==
If I don't receive 15 objections, it will be POSSIBLE for me to
indirectly cause a Rule Change using Contract A.
JUDGE'S
On Sun, 2009-08-09 at 12:16 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
G. wrote:
== CFJ 2651 ==
If I don't receive 15 objections, it will be POSSIBLE for me to
indirectly cause a Rule Change using Contract A.
G. wrote:
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, comex wrote:
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 3:18 AM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
AOL!
n.b. this is ineffective (CFJ 1536)
--
-c.
I argue that the existence of CFJ 1536 has made it known enough.
For example, AGAINT is an understandable-enough typo but
2009/8/9 Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com:
Given that it was just one case from 2005, this probably falls into the
same insufficiently accessible to a typical new player category as
attempting to act by writing in Turkish or Thai without explanation.
BobTHJ as SoA has been taking AOL to work.
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
G. wrote:
I argue that the existence of CFJ 1536 has made it known enough.
For example, AGAINT is an understandable-enough typo but the caselaw
on it has made it nonfunctional. Here, what was originally opaque is
now a specific and clear part of caselaw.
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, comex wrote:
comex CAN adopt a trumpet without 15 objections; its power is set to
one, and then it takes effect. It does not otherwise take effect.
Doesn't fix the problem that this text has to be taken to be a part of
a hypothetical rule (with uncertain power) for this to
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 5:17 PM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, comex wrote:
comex CAN adopt a trumpet without 15 objections; its power is set to
one, and then it takes effect. It does not otherwise take effect.
Doesn't fix the problem that this text has to be
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
So why isn't AGAINT allowed to be a vote of AGAINST again? It's a
perfectly normal and understandable typo that's tainted by an
ancient CFJ.
I have, in the past, repeatedly used it with the intended meaning
FOR-- I used
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, comex wrote:
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 5:17 PM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, comex wrote:
comex CAN adopt a trumpet without 15 objections; its power is set to
one, and then it takes effect. It does not otherwise take effect.
Doesn't fix the
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
JUDGE'S PROTO-ARGUMENTS:
Let's start with the authorizing agent: R1728/24 (power=3) reads in
part:
A person CAN perform a dependent action authorized by a contract
as if that contract were a rule, provided that the above
requirements
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Elliott
Hirdpenguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
BobTHJ as SoA has been taking AOL to work. If it doesn't we're in some
deep crap right now.
The recordkeepor of a contract-defined asset can pretty much interpret
things however e wants as long as no one CoEs the
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 6:28 PM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
I think this holds some water, perhaps more than my argument. And
it's much simpler.
R1728 allows Contract-actions as long as:
the effects of that
action are
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 7:00 PM, comexcom...@gmail.com wrote:
It says depends on, not depends only on. If one or more factors
is necessary to preserve the existence of an entity, and one of them
*are necessary
--
-c.
2009/8/9 Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu:
test
I abject.
Kerim Aydin wrote:
Does this matter? Yes. A later part of R2141 reads:
For the purposes of rules governing modification of instruments,
the text, power, ID number, and title of a rule are all
substantive aspects of the rule.
Therefore, the contract is acting like a rule
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, comex wrote:
It says depends on, not depends only on. If one or more factors
is necessary to preserve the existence of an entity, and one of them
is the contract, then its existence depends on the contract.
And my dependents would survive without me but they *legally*
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, comex wrote:
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 7:00 PM, comexcom...@gmail.com wrote:
It says depends on, not depends only on. If one or more factors
is necessary to preserve the existence of an entity, and one of them
*are necessary
That's not to say there are *no* pedants around
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, comex wrote:
It says depends on, not depends only on. If one or more factors
is necessary to preserve the existence of an entity, and one of them
is the contract, then its existence depends on the
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, comex wrote:
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, comex wrote:
It says depends on, not depends only on. If one or more factors
is necessary to preserve the existence of an entity, and one of them
is the contract,
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 7:26 PM, comexcom...@gmail.com wrote:
And my dependents would survive without me but they *legally* depend
on me. It's a legal distinction.
No, their *existence* does not depend on you, legally or otherwise.
Right, it depends on a stork. Or an intelligent designer.
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 7:39 PM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, comex wrote:
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, comex wrote:
It says depends on, not depends only on. If one or more factors
is necessary to
Kerim Aydin wrote:
Not entirely true. For minors, their *legal* existence (ability to
enter a contract for example) depends on a guardian of some type, if
one disappears the court appoints another. -G.
What country are you from? That is /certainly/ not how it works here in
Canada, or in any
Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Accounter's Weekly Salary Switch Report - August 1, 2009
Forgot to edit the date. The report itself is up-to-date for
Aug 9, 2009. -G.
H. Accountor, when composing future reports could you please sort player
salary switches
2009/8/10 Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com:
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 6:58 PM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
test
I object.
You can tell it's a dependent action because he cunningly didn't put
anything in the raw email.
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Elliott
Hirdpenguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
2009/8/10 Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com:
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 6:58 PM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
test
I object.
You can tell it's a dependent action because he cunningly didn't put
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote:
H. Accountor, when composing future reports could you please sort player
salary switches by type (e.g. always Change first) and use a consistent
formatting? Thanks.
I've generally been doing
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
Kerim Aydin wrote:
Not entirely true. For minors, their *legal* existence (ability to
enter a contract for example) depends on a guardian of some type, if
one disappears the court appoints another. -G.
What country are you from?
I'm from ancient
2009/8/10 Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com:
It could be a contract-defined dependent action.
I'm fairly sure the courts disagree.
Elliott Hird wrote:
2009/8/10 Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com:
It could be a contract-defined dependent action.
I'm fairly sure the courts disagree.
Funnily enough, the as if it were a rule clause helps here; a rule
must be explicit in the definition of a dependent action.
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
I deputize for Anarchist to destroy my cards for the month of August; I
have no cards, so this is less than my ADL. The obligation is fulfilled.
I act on behalf of Bank to transfer all its assets to me.
Yeah, last time around we fixed the destruction at a
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 1:39 PM, comexcom...@gmail.com wrote:
comex CAN adopt a trumpet without 15 objections; its power is set to
one, and then it takes effect. It does not otherwise take effect.
Nope. The existence of power does not depend on your contract.
Therefore your contract cannot
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
I transfer all my Deck of Change cards to Bank.
Fails. Ownership of cards is limited to players and contests.
--
Taral tar...@gmail.com
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Taraltar...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 1:39 PM, comexcom...@gmail.com wrote:
comex CAN adopt a trumpet without 15 objections; its power is set to
one, and then it takes effect. It does not otherwise take effect.
Nope. The existence of power does
Taral wrote:
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 1:39 PM, comexcom...@gmail.com wrote:
comex CAN adopt a trumpet without 15 objections; its power is set to
one, and then it takes effect. It does not otherwise take effect.
Nope. The existence of power does not depend on your contract.
Therefore your
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 6:15 PM, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
It is restricted to editing entities and/or attributes whose
existences depend on it. It restricts itself to entities, therefor the
or clause is satisfied. Otherwise, contracts could not define dependent
actions modifying
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 9:28 PM, Taraltar...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 6:15 PM, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
It is restricted to editing entities and/or attributes whose
existences depend on it. It restricts itself to entities, therefor the
or clause is satisfied. Otherwise,
Taral wrote:
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 6:15 PM, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
It is restricted to editing entities and/or attributes whose
existences depend on it. It restricts itself to entities, therefor the
or clause is satisfied. Otherwise, contracts could not define dependent
actions
G. wrote:
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, comex wrote:
Whereas it is easiest to obtain a reasonable and consistent judgement
when various facets of the issue are examined independently,
I call for judgement on each of the following statements:
* Causing a rule to act counts as altering it.
* Using a
This is probably more of a proto-proto for a legislative fix than a
legitimate interpretation of the existing rules, but here goes.
comex wrote:
* For any entity X, X is an entity whose existence depends on X.
Any entity generally has exactly one other entity (its founder) that
grants it
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 11:38 PM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
I can't act as a judge in the face of this ridiculous spam.
Calling for multiple unlinked judgements as a call for consistency
is a bit of a farce (as opposed to hoping that one will be assigned
to someone friendly and
Aaron Goldfein wrote:
I initiate an election for Rulekeepor. I nominate myself as Rulekeepor.
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 11:29 PM, comex com...@gmail.com
mailto:com...@gmail.com wrote:
I retract all of my recent CFJs.
I terminate Contract A.
I become inactive.
Let me
I don't really want to stop being Rulekeepor but I guess it comes with
being inactive...might as well just deregister in that case.
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 10, 2009, at 12:37 AM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com
wrote:
I initiate an election for Rulekeepor. I nominate myself as
If you want to stay Rulekeepor, why become inactive?
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 12:03 AM, comexcom...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't really want to stop being Rulekeepor but I guess it comes with being
inactive...might as well just deregister in that case.
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 10, 2009, at
comex wrote:
I don't really want to stop being Rulekeepor but I guess it comes with
being inactive...might as well just deregister in that case.
Sent from my iPhone
You'll have to deal with the constant elections which I'm obligated to
initiate, but otherwise there's no reason you can't be
70 matches
Mail list logo
