On Tue, 2019-01-29 at 07:49 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Several I think, but the results are mixed. ("[X] is/is not a
> player" is the most common phrase in CFJ statements after all).
How does it compare to "This is a CFJ"?
(Admittedly, the numbers on that one are somewhat deflated by the fact
Are you sure? The Spaceship I possessed as a zombie was deemed to have
been destroyed the moment it entered the L office upon my
deregistration two weeks ago.
On 2019-01-30 03:29, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
No, it's in Sector 16. The one in Sector 5 was created the _first_ time you
registered
> On Jan 29, 2019, at 12:28 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
>
> Interesting that I judged 3592 more recently than 83 or 84 but it's not
> recorded anywhere.
Oops. The decision in 3692 was recorded in the Court Gazette of 20 January, but
I forgot to add it to the list of recently judged CFJs. Will
On 1/29/2019 7:09 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
One of my favourite AWJ entries:
THE AGORAN WEEKLY JOURNAL
VOLUME 51, BACK ISSUE 3
Sunday, December 31, 2006
December 15: Goethe publishes a Cantus Cygneus. This triggers a
CFJ on whether e can be deregistered for it (the
Speaking of overdue stuff, there was a Space Battle between twg and myself
that D. Margaux was supposed to resolve?
[I know I've got a couple CFJs overdue on the subject, but I was kinda
hoping to see how that one played out in case it affected arguments on the
whole "private communications"
3 votes FOR and 12 votes...
This satisfies the first condition for an AI majority decision (0.25 is
greater than 0.1) but not the second (0.25 is not greater than 1).
--
Trigon
On Tue, Jan 29, 2019, 09:34 Timon Walshe-Grey I resolve the Agoran Decisions to adopt each of Proposals 8146-8151 as
On 1/29/2019 8:48 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> Oh, you're right. I didn't realise that second condition was a thing, I
> don't think there's been a proposal with AI < 1 since I registered.
I wondered if you missed that, it's pretty hidden and non-intuitive. There's
really no benefit to having
Oic lol. I thought you were trying to sneakily make it seem to a casual
observer as though you _were_ the one with unjustly self-ratified blots, by
removing the contextualising quote.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 5:34 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Oh fuck
And I would have reconsidered if the motion had gone through.
--
Trigon
On Tue, Jan 29, 2019, 10:47 D. Margaux
>
> > On Jan 29, 2019, at 12:28 PM, Reuben Staley
> wrote:
> >
> > Interesting that I judged 3592 more recently than 83 or 84 but it's not
> > recorded anywhere.
>
> Oops. The
The _coin balances_ have self-ratified. Historical transactions themselves
generally don't.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 6:12 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Support. Has the transfer itself self-ratified?
>
> On 1/29/2019 10:02 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
One of my favourite AWJ entries:
> THE AGORAN WEEKLY JOURNAL
> VOLUME 51, BACK ISSUE 3
> Sunday, December 31, 2006
> December 15: Goethe publishes a Cantus Cygneus. This triggers a
> CFJ on whether e can be deregistered for it (the Writ of FAGE
> procedure involves the
I register as a player.
The following is my Cantus Cygneus, to be published by the Registrar in
a timely fashion:
Alright, so let's get one thing straight here. I haven't actually been
playing this game in MONTHS. Yeah, sure, the whole zombie system has
been keeping me alive for a little
Oh, you're right. I didn't realise that second condition was a thing, I don't
think there's been a proposal with AI < 1 since I registered.
Revision to be published shortly - apologies for the confusion.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 4:45 PM, Reuben Staley
Proto-contract: Unlasting Damage
(does this work? thoughts, edits?)
When a combatant is a member of this contract, when they initiate a space
battle with another member, they can specify that the combat uses Anti-
Entropy. Members of this contract agree that, for any space battle in
which
You are a player and therefore not a fugitive.
However, Kenyon indeed ought to have lost some blots - you're correct that I
didn't see that clause in the rules. Eir blots have self-ratified into
existence now but I will remember for next quarter. Thank you.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message
Interesting that I judged 3592 more recently than 83 or 84 but it's not
recorded anywhere.
--
Trigon
On Tue, Jan 29, 2019, 10:16 D. Margaux COURT GAZETTE (Arbitor's weekly report)
>
> Date of last report: 20 Jan 2019
> Date of this report: 29 Jan 2019
>
> Disclaimer: Informational only. No
Why do you object lol
On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 6:29 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 5:27 PM, Cuddle Beam
> wrote:
>
> > Ah, no worries. Ratification can be solved with ratification.
> >
> > I intend to ratify without objection the following document:
> >
> > The
I object to that question. E doesn’t need to explain emself. Object object
object!
> On Jan 29, 2019, at 12:30 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>
> Why do you object lol
>
>
>> On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 6:29 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>>
>> On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 5:27 PM, Cuddle Beam
>> wrote:
As I said, it's Kenyon who's the fugitive and ought to have had some of eir
blots destroyed, not you.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 5:30 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Why do you object lol
>
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 6:29 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> > On
Oh fuck lmao, I was wrong, I was thinking that I had been inactive but
apparently I haven't actually deregistered (and thus been a fugitive) at
any point.
On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 6:33 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> As I said, it's Kenyon who's the fugitive and ought to have had some of
> eir
I object to that answer, just in case.
--
Trigon
On Tue, Jan 29, 2019, 10:33 Timon Walshe-Grey As I said, it's Kenyon who's the fugitive and ought to have had some of
> eir blots destroyed, not you.
>
> -twg
>
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 5:30 PM, Cuddle
:(
On 2019-01-30 02:00, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
Actually, the Registrar did deregister you a couple of weeks ago. There just
hasn't been a report since then.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 2:58 PM, Telnaior wrote:
The following is my Cantus Cygneus,
No, it's in Sector 16. The one in Sector 5 was created the _first_ time you
registered today, and is now property of the Lost and Found Department.
I've also just realised that the rule doesn't specify 10 as the default for
Armour (which it should). Annoyingly, everyone else's (except, newly,
> On Jan 29, 2019, at 11:36 AM, Madeline wrote:
>
> Are you sure? The Spaceship I possessed as a zombie was deemed to have been
> destroyed the moment it entered the L office upon my deregistration two
> weeks ago.
Under Rule 2576 (power=3), “Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the Lost
Yeah, that ought to go through and then we just need to figure out where
my Spaceship actually started.
On 2019-01-30 03:54, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 4:51 PM, Telnaior wrote:
(I'm guessing the spaceship from zombie-me was
self-ratified out
On Wed, 2019-01-30 at 01:58 +1100, Telnaior wrote:
> Honestly, this makes me mad. Doubly mad because if I were to deregister
> by announcement, I'd have to wait around a full month before I could
> come back. So let's do it this way - it gets the point across and lets
> me skip the timer (at
On 1/29/2019 7:43 AM, Telnaior wrote:
I register as a player, and cause myself to receive a Welcome Package.
(After all that I can't really be bothered coming up with a silly CFJ
condition - I assume there's precedent for not being able to register by
just starting to perform actions that
I'll publish it formally a bit later today I hope, but on the zombie one, my
reasoning hasn't changed so I'm going to find that zombies can't send
messages/communicate, so can't submit energy.
On 1/29/2019 8:03 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
Yes. I was planning some sort of scam where the
Does any player favour resolving the CFJs relating to my politics scam? I’m
required to assign them to someone. I’ll assign them to the first eligible
player who favors it, or else choose randomly among day/weekend judges
(excluding me).
Glad this isn't going completely to waste, generating outrage on demand
is hard!
Hi though, I'll probably hop back in for real once the whole FAGE thing
gets sorted out.
(I actually happened to go through the NetHack TAS turn-by-turn report
yesterday which never ceases to be hilarious, so I
Actually, the Registrar did deregister you a couple of weeks ago. There just
hasn't been a report since then.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 2:58 PM, Telnaior wrote:
> The following is my Cantus Cygneus, to be published by the Registrar in
> a timely
On 1/29/2019 7:52 AM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
On Tue, 2019-01-29 at 07:49 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Several I think, but the results are mixed. ("[X] is/is not a
player" is the most common phrase in CFJ statements after all).
How does it compare to "This is a CFJ"?
(Admittedly,
Oh, I do remember someone (Ørjan?) suggesting that, yes. But I don't think it
holds up - the rule defining the Lost and Found Department states pretty
clearly that the Lost and Found Department CAN own any asset, "rules to the
contrary notwithstanding".
You are welcome to CFJ it.
-twg
On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 4:51 PM, Telnaior wrote:
> (I'm guessing the spaceship from zombie-me was
> self-ratified out of existence by now regardless, which simplifies
> things a little)
Sorry, no such luck - the previous Astronomor report did in fact include it.
But
You can't make them battle each other, as 'opponent' is determined by
player so you can't be your own opponent.
The transfer does go through though as the "You can transfer anything in
lost and found" rule has a lower ID than the "You can't transfer fixed
assets" rule.
Would let you have two
I think this works. Punishment for violation could be to permit the aggrieved
player to act on behalf of the violator to transfer to the aggrieved player a
number of coins sufficient (but not more than necessary) to enable the
aggrieved player to put emself in the same position with respect to
I vote: yes
On 2019-01-29 23:37, Cuddle Beam wrote:
I create the following proposal:
---*---
Title: yes
Content:
yes
---*---
Ugh why am I still a player now I can't do the obligatory "am I a player
or not" CFJ
On 2019-01-30 01:32, Madeline wrote:
I vote: yes
On 2019-01-29 23:37, Cuddle Beam wrote:
I create the following proposal:
---*---
Title: yes
Content:
yes
---*---
The following is my Cantus Cygneus, to be published by the Registrar in
a timely fashion:
Alright, so let's get one thing straight here. I haven't actually been
playing this game in MONTHS. Yeah, sure, the whole zombie system has
been keeping me alive for a little while, but did you notice my
39 matches
Mail list logo
