DIS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5547-5555
Proposal 5554 (Democratic, AI=3, Interest=1) by Ivan Hope Isn't that just silly? In rule 101, remove ii. Every player has the right to perform an action which is not regulated. and subtract 1 from the number of each following element of the list. Replace the text of rule 2125 with It is impossible to take any action unless a rule states that it CAN or MAY be taken, or the rules do not have the power to prevent it. Hmm, why is everybody (except one voting PRESENT, apparently) against this? Does it break something? --Ivan Hope CXXVII
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5547-5555
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 8:18 AM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hmm, why is everybody (except one voting PRESENT, apparently) against this? Does it break something? Some people prefer to have the right to do the thousands if not millions of non-game-related actions they perform on a daily basis.
Re: DIS: Re: BAK: Proto-Judgement on 1989, ponderances of 1990
On Sun, 15 Jun 2008, comex wrote: How about Rule 101 (vi), the right of participation in the fora? It is physically impossible for the rules to prevent me from posting to the fora- possible for the Distributor, perhaps, but not for the rules themselves. So, by this tack, the Rules are just reaffirming my natural right to post to the fora. Except that they don't. It has been judged that the rule only applies in the circumstance that I'm telling the truth. The right does not apply to lying, a distinction which does not exist in any sort of natural law. This all rather depends on the definition of participation. As you found in your spam scam there's a difference between sending something to a forum and via a forum. One sensible definition of participation might be a players ability to send messages via a forum and to receive messages from a forum, a definition that has nothing to do with protecting message content. There's no reason we could pass a Rule that regulates the Distributor's mailing list (it's a recordkeepor's record after all, just one with technical consequences). I have a feeling that this sort of Rule (e.g. preventing blacklisting) was what the pre-rights participation affirmation was intending to protect against. I agree it's not clear and we won't know without some judge weighing in further! Similarly with the right of refusing to agree to things. We do and can prosecute people for violating the Rules even if they have not agreed to them (see CFJ 2003), but not contracts. This distinction exists only because Rule 101 says it does. This was broken when the Rules = contracts was removed. And even broken, there's no precedent there yet. All we know at the moment is that someone can allege an infringement. Still, if I cannot amend rules by announcement, my privilege of doing what I wilt is severely curtailed compared to if I could. Does the last sentence of Rule 101's preamble-- about taking precedence over any rule which would allow restrictions of my rights or privileges-- along with the close, close proximity of privileges to rights imply that my privilege is to be interpreted as broadly as is reasonable? Certainly that is Agoran custom with rights. It's kind of too bad we don't have other privileges as precedent. Your argument is certainly reasonable, a pity it hasn't appeared in a well-written judgement yet! Here's the counterargument for consideration: I agree we don't have a privilege precedent yet, and that the thing was made extremely unclear when Rules = contracts was removed (trivial fix needed: add or Rule after binding agreement). But as it stands, while the precedence in the final clause is important, I think the operative piece to consider is the assumed to exist clause, which is not strong. If we assume that something exists, we give it the a priori benefit of the doubt UNTIL OTHER EVIDENCE SHOWS WE ARE INCORRECT. We don't will it into being (create or grant it) the way we would if we affirmed outright that something exists (as we do for Rights). Like I said before, if I assume you can swim, that assumption works until a physical reality proved me otherwise. Likewise, if I assume a privilege of changing the rules by announcement exists, that holds until some CANNOT somewhere in the rules proves otherwise (this is not a conflict between rules in which R101 takes precedence, but the rather weak R101 assumption being shown to be an incorrect assumption by another Rule). -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5547-5555
Wooble wrote: On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 8:18 AM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hmm, why is everybody (except one voting PRESENT, apparently) against this? Does it break something? Some people prefer to have the right to do the thousands if not millions of non-game-related actions they perform on a daily basis. Those would fall under the rules do not have the power to prevent it in the new rule, the Soviet-style everything not explicitly allowed is prohibited approach is distasteful nonetheless. Upon reflection, I think it would also break contract-defined actions.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: banking and farming
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 5:12 AM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 11:28 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 7:51 PM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I harvest 2206, a new rule number, to gain a random land. Failed. You have no 6 crops. I should have an X crop, which can be used in place of another crop when harvesting a rule number. If it's not too late, I harvest 2206, a rule number, by spending 2 2 crops, a 0 crop, and an X crop. Oops...you are correct. My apologies.
DIS: RE: BUS: RE: [Deputy Tailor] Ribbon Report
Wooble wrote: I only went back though the CotC reports looking for the players who didn't already have a Blue ribbon for cases judged, and stopped looking for the ones who, like you two, were Supine in the first few reports I looked at. Ah, I'm not a Senator, so I was forced to supine by the emergency session a while ago; same happened to ehird. That would explain the mistake. -- ais523 winmail.dat
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5547-5555
2008/6/16 Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED]: 5547 D1 2ais523 none FOR 5548 D1 3Murphy Chronological order FOR 5549 D1 2Wooble Earning Interest FOR 5550 O1 1Ivan Hope Tongue-tied AGAINST * 3, FOR * 1 5551 O1 1BobTHJ Empower the Notary FOR * 4 5552 O1 1.7 Murphy Clerk disinterest FOR * 4 5553 D1 2Murphy Belle FOR 5554 D1 3Ivan Hope Isn't that just silly? AGAINST D2 3ais523 none FOR -Wooble I don't see much to DISCUSS, here... ehird
DIS: Re: BUS: Vote Market actions
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:02 AM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I recommend the judge of these cases implement a significant penalty upon comex for eir continued blatant violation of this agreement. Wouldn't a criminal case be more appropriate?
DIS: Re: BUS: [IADoP] Activity; nominations to fill offices held by Inactive player
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:46 AM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not sure if I can do this... I nominate myself as Tailor. Yes, you can. There's a 4-day nomination period during which anyone can be nominated; if more than 1 nominee who hasn't refused eir nomination exists at the end of that period there will be an election.
DIS: Re: BUS: AAA action
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 8:15 AM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 10:22 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 1:52 AM, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I harvest 1992, a CFJ, for 2 WRV. Fails, you lack a 2 crop. Disregard...I made the same mistake here as with Wooble. You have an X crop to substitute for the missing 2 crop. Doesn't the contract require em to specify which crops e is using? -root
DIS: Re: BUS: Give the Equity Court Teeth!
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 9:10 AM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Append to the second to last paragraph of R2169:
{{
A person SHALL NOT violate the terms of such a binding agreement they
are party to. The judge of a criminal case regarding a breach of this
rule is encouraged to assign a strict sentence should the defendant be
found GUILTY.
}}
What's wrong with the SHALL in R1742?
-root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA action
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 12:59 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 8:15 AM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 10:22 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 1:52 AM, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I harvest 1992, a CFJ, for 2 WRV. Fails, you lack a 2 crop. Disregard...I made the same mistake here as with Wooble. You have an X crop to substitute for the missing 2 crop. Doesn't the contract require em to specify which crops e is using? It's not really specific on the issue, and I'd argue that it's been custom to specify the ID number of the CFJ/Rule/Whatever you wish to harvest and no one's been specifying which crops they were spending to do so. Of course, it wasn't actually *necessary* to specify those crops to be unambiguous about what you were doing before there were X crops, so that argument probably doesn't hold up very well.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Give the Equity Court Teeth!
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:04 AM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 9:10 AM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Append to the second to last paragraph of R2169:
{{
A person SHALL NOT violate the terms of such a binding agreement they
are party to. The judge of a criminal case regarding a breach of this
rule is encouraged to assign a strict sentence should the defendant be
found GUILTY.
}}
What's wrong with the SHALL in R1742?
-root
Nothing, other than trying to make a more obvious and forceful obligation.
BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Give the Equity Court Teeth!
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 1:15 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nothing, other than trying to make a more obvious and forceful obligation. Without some sort of suggestion of what a strict sentence should entail, and maybe something more forceful than just encouraging the judge, I'm not sure this rule would have much effect. It could be read to rule out FINE and APOLOGY, but we can already encourage judges to deal harshly with such cases, and if we disagree about whether an infraction is of little consequence, we can appeal sentences of FINE or APOLOGY as inappropriate if they're assigned in such cases. If I'm not mistaken the only place the rules even try to influence a judge's discretion in sentencing is for violations of Rule 2144, where a judgement of EXILE is fairly self-evidently the only judgement that would give the rule any purpose at all. Breach of an equation is, IMO, a fairly serious offense, but if other serious offenses don't get special instructions to the judge I'm not sure we need them here.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA action
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:10 AM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 12:59 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 8:15 AM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 10:22 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 1:52 AM, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I harvest 1992, a CFJ, for 2 WRV. Fails, you lack a 2 crop. Disregard...I made the same mistake here as with Wooble. You have an X crop to substitute for the missing 2 crop. Doesn't the contract require em to specify which crops e is using? It's not really specific on the issue, and I'd argue that it's been custom to specify the ID number of the CFJ/Rule/Whatever you wish to harvest and no one's been specifying which crops they were spending to do so. Of course, it wasn't actually *necessary* to specify those crops to be unambiguous about what you were doing before there were X crops, so that argument probably doesn't hold up very well. From my perspective, I don't think there is a need to specify. Assuming I can remember about X crops in the future I will use regular 0-9 crops first and then X crops if none are available. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA action
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 12:49 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From my perspective, I don't think there is a need to specify. Assuming I can remember about X crops in the future I will use regular 0-9 crops first and then X crops if none are available. I imagine it could cause some grief if somebody were to harvest a number thinking e had a particular crop, when in fact e didn't and therefore ended up spending an X crop e didn't mean to. -root
DIS: Re: BUS: RE: distribution of proposals 5547-5555
On 6/14/08, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FOR if voting FOR would cause the resulting VI to be exactly 3, PRESENT otherwise Somehow this makes me uncomfortable. What happens in this case? Player A: I vote FOR if player B votes FOR, AGAINST otherwise. Player B: I vote FOR if player A votes AGAINST, FOR otherwise. -- Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you. -- Unknown
DIS: @BobTHJ
Did you ever vote FORx7 AGORA AGORA AGORA AGORA? If not, I initiate a criminal CFJ against you, for, uh, not doing so. Yeah. ehird
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: RE: distribution of proposals 5547-5555
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 1:13 PM, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Somehow this makes me uncomfortable. What happens in this case? Player A: I vote FOR if player B votes FOR, AGAINST otherwise. Player B: I vote FOR if player A votes AGAINST, FOR otherwise. My opinion as Assessor is that neither ballot is clearly identified, hence both are invalid. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: RE: distribution of proposals 5547-5555
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 3:13 PM, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6/14/08, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FOR if voting FOR would cause the resulting VI to be exactly 3, PRESENT otherwise Somehow this makes me uncomfortable. What happens in this case? Player A: I vote FOR if player B votes FOR, AGAINST otherwise. Player B: I vote FOR if player A votes AGAINST, FOR otherwise. R2127: The option selected shall be considered to be clearly identified if and only if the truth or falsity of the specified condition(s) can be reasonably determined, without circularity or paradox, from information published within the voting period.
Re: DIS: @BobTHJ
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 1:17 PM, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Did you ever vote FORx7 AGORA AGORA AGORA AGORA? If not, I initiate a criminal CFJ against you, for, uh, not doing so. Yeah. You could, you know, read the voting results and find out. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Werewolves of Agora Nomic
On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 10:28 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: the goal of the game becomes to survive with as few survivors as possible, not to eliminate the other side. sounds like warfare -- the on-going feudal eugenics program -- take the idiots to battle and bump them off with full honor. Anyone read http://www.amazon.com/WORLD-WAR-II-INFANTRY-SOLDIER/dp/B000LZG698 by W. Y. Boyd? There are several scenes of annoying supply clerks getting posted to the front lines where the enemy politely murders them. Also the communications channels were not very good: the mine-sweeping squads kept getting shelled as shelling known mine-fields was something the artillery apparently did during random lulls, without checking if there was a minesweeping squad there or not.
Re: DIS: Re: BAK: Proto-Judgement on 1989, ponderances of 1990
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 9:07 AM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 15 Jun 2008, comex wrote: How about Rule 101 (vi), the right of participation in the fora? This all rather depends on the definition of participation. As you found in your spam scam there's a difference between sending something to a forum and via a forum. One sensible definition of participation might be a players ability to send messages via a forum and to receive messages from a forum, a definition that has nothing to do with protecting message content. Perhaps, but see CFJ 1738. Similarly with the right of refusing to agree to things. We do and can prosecute people for violating the Rules even if they have not agreed to them (see CFJ 2003), but not contracts. This distinction exists only because Rule 101 says it does. This was broken when the Rules = contracts was removed. And even broken, there's no precedent there yet. All we know at the moment is that someone can allege an infringement. And can be prosecuted, what's stopping them? If they never read the rules, like in CFJ 2003, maybe UNAWARE or EXCUSED is appropriate, but not in the case of, say, a watcher who has never become a player (but lied in the public forum). I agree we don't have a privilege precedent yet, and that the thing was made extremely unclear when Rules = contracts was removed (trivial fix needed: add or Rule after binding agreement). But as it stands, while the precedence in the final clause is important, I think the operative piece to consider is the assumed to exist clause, which is not strong. If we assume that something exists, we give it the a priori benefit of the doubt UNTIL OTHER EVIDENCE SHOWS WE ARE INCORRECT. We don't will it into being (create or grant it) the way we would if we affirmed outright that something exists (as we do for Rights). Well, I think I agree with you here, but how do the two sentences interact? A person's defined privileges are assumed to exist in the absence of an explicit, binding agreement to the contrary. Every person has the privilege of doing what e wilt. The former sentence clarifies, explains, and probably regulates the latter, but the latter does say that everyone *has* (not just is assumed to have) the privilege of doing what e wilt.
DIS: Re: BUS: Give the Equity Court Teeth!
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:10 AM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I submit the following proposal:
Give the Equity Court Teeth!
AI: 1.7
II: 1
{
Append to the second to last paragraph of R2169:
{{
A person SHALL NOT violate the terms of such a binding agreement they
are party to. The judge of a criminal case regarding a breach of this
rule is encouraged to assign a strict sentence should the defendant be
found GUILTY.
}}
}
Isn't this redundant with Rule 1742?
DIS: Re: BUS: Housecleaning
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 1:13 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jeremy has been inactive for three months. I intend to deregister em without objection. I intend, with Agoran Consent, to make Jeremy a zombie with myself as zombiemaster.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Banking, farming
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 2:58 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I also mill 2009 and 2010 (CFJ numbers) for 4 WRVs. harvest?
DIS: Re: BUS: Werewolves, take two
ehird wrote: I agree to this contract. There are 5 contestants, so I'm obligated to start a game. I'll wait a few more days in case anyone else wants to join.
Re: DIS: @BobTHJ
2008/6/16 Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED]: You could, you know, read the voting results and find out. -root WHAT A RIDICULOUS IDEA. ehird
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Werewolves of Agora Nomic
2008/6/16 David Nicol [EMAIL PROTECTED]: sounds like warfare -- the on-going feudal eugenics program -- take the idiots to battle and bump them off with full honor. Anyone read http://www.amazon.com/WORLD-WAR-II-INFANTRY-SOLDIER/dp/B000LZG698 by W. Y. Boyd? There are several scenes of annoying supply clerks getting posted to the front lines where the enemy politely murders them. Also the communications channels were not very good: the mine-sweeping squads kept getting shelled as shelling known mine-fields was something the artillery apparently did during random lulls, without checking if there was a minesweeping squad there or not. This is your first post, right? I can't see anything else by you in the logs. If so, do you know what Agora Nomic is? This isn't a general discussion list. ehird
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Werewolves of Agora Nomic
2008/6/16 Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED]: This is your first post, right? I can't see anything else by you in the logs. If so, do you know what Agora Nomic is? This isn't a general discussion list. ehird Extra notes: no, not his first post - but his other ones don't look too good either, see http://osdir.com/ml/games.nomic.agora.discuss/2006-08/msg3.html. ehird
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Werewolves of Agora Nomic
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 3:14 PM, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is your first post, right? I can't see anything else by you in the logs. If so, do you know what Agora Nomic is? This isn't a general discussion list. E's a former player, by the nickname of Crito. And there's nothing wrong with the occasional digression. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Werewolves of Agora Nomic
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 2:41 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 3:16 PM, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2008/6/16 Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED]: This is your first post, right? I can't see anything else by you in the logs. If so, do you know what Agora Nomic is? This isn't a general discussion list. ehird Extra notes: no, not his first post - but his other ones don't look too good either, see http://osdir.com/ml/games.nomic.agora.discuss/2006-08/msg3.html. ehird David Nicol is what I have come to know as an Elder Lurker (Michael Norrish would also fall into this category). These are true legends that were involved in Agora in its early days and now continue to grace us with their presence by lurking on the lists to occasionally add tid-bits of wisdom or insight to discussions. BobTHJ Elder Lurker sounds like it should be a patent title, and it should be immediately awarded to the aforementioned two.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Werewolves of Agora Nomic
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 3:39 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 3:14 PM, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is your first post, right? I can't see anything else by you in the logs. If so, do you know what Agora Nomic is? This isn't a general discussion list. E's a former player, by the nickname of Crito. And there's nothing wrong with the occasional digression. Er, that's my recollection anyway. The Registrar's report lists Crito's email as 'dalbertz', so I hope I'm not mistaken. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Werewolves of Agora Nomic
2008/6/16 Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED]: E's a former player, by the nickname of Crito. And there's nothing wrong with the occasional digression. -root Ah, OK then. I apologise. ehird
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Werewolves of Agora Nomic
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 3:45 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Er, that's my recollection anyway. The Registrar's report lists Crito's email as 'dalbertz', so I hope I'm not mistaken. Dang, I did misremember. I dug up an email from the actual Crito, who was still lurking as of 2005. I'm not certain then whether Dave was ever a player of Agora, but I do know e was involved in Nomic World. Dave, care to enlighten us? :-) -root
DIS: Re: BUS: Elder Lurker
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I submit the following proposal entitled Elder Lurker. BobTHJ is a co-author of this proposal even though E doesn't know it yet. Append the following to Rule 1922 (g) Elder Lurker, to be awarded to Persons who are true legends that were involved in Agora in its early days and now continue to grace us with their presence by lurking on the lists to occasionally add tid-bits of wisdom or insight to discussions. Award Elder Lurker to both Michawl Norrish and David Nichol I endorse this proposal (though not necessarily the spelling of the names of our soon-to-be honored elder lurkers). BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: Elder Lurker
2008/6/16 Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Award Elder Lurker to both Michawl Norrish and David Nichol MICHAWL NORRISH ehird
DIS: rules?
On the business thread I noticed there was some talk of harvesting and crops and what not. I saw no rules for such in the SLR and as a potential player I'm interested in learning where I can find out more? It is possible they are referring to some contract or contest, so mainly my question is does the SLR contain all rules that would apply in the absence of any contracts or anything like that. -- Chester Mealer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DIS: Re: BUS: Elder Lurker
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Award Elder Lurker to both Michawl Norrish and David Nichol At least you managed to misspell both their names equally... I suspect that Maud, Steve, Kelly, and Crito are are still lurking as well. -root
Re: DIS: rules?
2008/6/16 Chester Mealer [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On the business thread I noticed there was some talk of harvesting and crops and what not. I saw no rules for such in the SLR and as a potential player I'm interested in learning where I can find out more? It is possible they are referring to some contract or contest, so mainly my question is does the SLR contain all rules that would apply in the absence of any contracts or anything like that. -- Chester Mealer [EMAIL PROTECTED] I believe it's a contract or something. And yes. ehird
DIS: Re: BUS: Elder Lurker
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Award Elder Lurker to both Michawl Norrish and David Nichol At least you managed to misspell both their names equally... I suspect that Maud, Steve, Kelly, and Crito are are still lurking as well. And Chuck. E wished Agora a happy birthday back in 2006. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Elder Lurker
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 2:56 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Award Elder Lurker to both Michawl Norrish and David Nichol At least you managed to misspell both their names equally... I suspect that Maud, Steve, Kelly, and Crito are are still lurking as well. And Chuck. E wished Agora a happy birthday back in 2006. -root I can either re-retract my proposal to add em all, or we can write another proposal to award them Elder Lurker if it passes.
Re: DIS: rules?
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 3:54 PM, Chester Mealer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On the business thread I noticed there was some talk of harvesting and crops and what not. I saw no rules for such in the SLR and as a potential player I'm interested in learning where I can find out more? It's a contest called the Agoran Agricultural Association. You can find the latest publication of the contract in the archives here: http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2008-June/011128.html It is possible they are referring to some contract or contest, so mainly my question is does the SLR contain all rules that would apply in the absence of any contracts or anything like that. Yes, there are no secret rules or anything like that. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Elder Lurker
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 4:00 PM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can either re-retract my proposal to add em all, or we can write another proposal to award them Elder Lurker if it passes. Probably best to wait for them to prover their lurkership by posting, anyway. -root
DIS: WIn by Ribons
When R2199 states If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors for Ribbons, then a player CAN destroy one Ribbon of each such color in eir possession to satisfy the Winning Condition of Renaissance. does it mean that a player must have all types of ribbons to win OR that e must have 6 types of ribbons to win?
Re: DIS: WIn by Ribons
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 4:14 PM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When R2199 states If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors for Ribbons, then a player CAN destroy one Ribbon of each such color in eir possession to satisfy the Winning Condition of Renaissance. does it mean that a player must have all types of ribbons to win OR that e must have 6 types of ribbons to win? You gotta have all of them. -root
DIS: Black ribbons
Would anybody support changing black ribbons to be awarded for judging a question on culpability rather than sentencing? It seems a bit arbitrary that you can only get a black ribbon in cases where the defendant happens to be guilty. In fact, it sort of provides a motivation to illegally find somebody guilty, just to get the black ribbon. -root
Re: DIS: Black ribbons
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 3:28 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Would anybody support changing black ribbons to be awarded for judging a question on culpability rather than sentencing? It seems a bit arbitrary that you can only get a black ribbon in cases where the defendant happens to be guilty. In fact, it sort of provides a motivation to illegally find somebody guilty, just to get the black ribbon. -root SUPPORT, except the black ribbon should only be awarded when your judgement isn't appealed.
Re: DIS: rules?
2008/6/16 Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Yes, there are no secret rules or anything like that. -root private contracts ehird
Re: DIS: rules?
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 4:58 PM, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2008/6/16 Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Yes, there are no secret rules or anything like that. -root private contracts Those aren't rules. They don't apply to anybody who hasn't specifically agreed to them. -root
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5547-5555
On Monday 16 June 2008 10:13:14 ihope wrote: Hmm, yes, you're probably right about the contract-defined actions thing. I would rather have a sentence or two stating that the gamestate can only be changed as the rules allow than a list of what's regulated and what's not that uses ambiguous terms such as allowed and, I suppose, under certain conditions (though my initial interpretation of that phrase was unpopular). You'd have to have a good definition of gamestate.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5547-5555
On Saturday 14 June 2008 8:38:19 ihope wrote: So what is it that you need to do that the rules have the power to prevent you from doing, and do not allow you to do? I'm taking out scammable paragraphs and replacing them with a sentence or two that have the same effect, if not a better one. How about making statements to the DF that I haven't taken the time to carefully evaluate for truthfulness? Or, for that matter, making jokes to the DF (see CFJ 1849 and [EMAIL PROTECTED])?
Re: DIS: rules?
I understand now. -- Chester Mealer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5547-5555
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 5:28 PM, Ben Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Saturday 14 June 2008 8:38:19 ihope wrote: So what is it that you need to do that the rules have the power to prevent you from doing, and do not allow you to do? I'm taking out scammable paragraphs and replacing them with a sentence or two that have the same effect, if not a better one. How about making statements to the DF that I haven't taken the time to carefully evaluate for truthfulness? Or, for that matter, making jokes to the DF (see CFJ 1849 and [EMAIL PROTECTED])? I just feel that there's no need to prohibit actions which aren't explicitly disallowed. I don't see how it's scammable and see reasons to allow such actions (see above). avpx
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5547-5555
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Ben Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Monday 16 June 2008 10:13:14 ihope wrote: Hmm, yes, you're probably right about the contract-defined actions thing. I would rather have a sentence or two stating that the gamestate can only be changed as the rules allow than a list of what's regulated and what's not that uses ambiguous terms such as allowed and, I suppose, under certain conditions (though my initial interpretation of that phrase was unpopular). You'd have to have a good definition of gamestate. If it's not explicitly prohibited, then why bother disallowing it? We'll prohibit what we see as counter to our game, but if someone wants to do something as part of a contract or simply as a joke and this harms no one, why would we disallow it? avpx
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Housecleaning
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 4:31 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I intend, with Agoran Consent, to make Jeremy a zombie with myself as zombiemaster. I support. --Ivan Hope NTTPF
DIS: Re: BUS: Banking, farming
Just to say so, when I wrote the Bank of Agora contract, I intended the announcements for depositing and withdrawing to include both what's deposited and withdrawn and the number of pens. --Ivan Hope CXXVII
DIS: Re: BUS: Monstrous win
On Monday 16 June 2008 2:22:56 Quazie wrote: I submit the following proposal entitled A win of monstrous proportions with the following text: --- Upon the adoption of this proposal The barlog, Large Luigi the Beholder, the Jabberwocky, Pikachu, Dracula, The Hydra, Godzilla, and the Dover Deamon win the game. --- You misspelled balrog and Dover Demon. Also, Jabberwocky is the title of the poem; the creature itself is called the Jabberwock. And I don't think Pikachu deserves to be on this list; I suggest replacing em with the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man. Pavitra
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Monstrous win
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 5:41 PM, Ben Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Monday 16 June 2008 2:22:56 Quazie wrote: I submit the following proposal entitled A win of monstrous proportions with the following text: --- Upon the adoption of this proposal The barlog, Large Luigi the Beholder, the Jabberwocky, Pikachu, Dracula, The Hydra, Godzilla, and the Dover Deamon win the game. --- You misspelled balrog and Dover Demon. Also, Jabberwocky is the title of the poem; the creature itself is called the Jabberwock. And I don't think Pikachu deserves to be on this list; I suggest replacing em with the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man. Pavitra And you forgot the Cthulhu. . . avpx
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5547-5555
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 7:28 PM, Ben Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How about making statements to the DF that I haven't taken the time to carefully evaluate for truthfulness? Or, for that matter, making jokes to the DF (see CFJ 1849 and [EMAIL PROTECTED])? The rules can't stop you from posting to the DF. They can prohibit it, but my proposal doesn't (well, shouldn't) claim to do so. --Ivan Hope CXXVII
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5547-5555
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 5:50 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 7:28 PM, Ben Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How about making statements to the DF that I haven't taken the time to carefully evaluate for truthfulness? Or, for that matter, making jokes to the DF (see CFJ 1849 and [EMAIL PROTECTED])? The rules can't stop you from posting to the DF. They can prohibit it, but my proposal doesn't (well, shouldn't) claim to do so. --Ivan Hope CXXVII Even so, the occasional joke is submitted to the business forum. Also, there are cases when it could prohibit certain totally legitimate actions. For example. . . Someone forms a contract on a certain condition. He then performs an action on its behalf before this actually happens. If your proposal passed, then doing this would be illegal. It's just not necessary. avpx
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5547-5555
On Monday 16 June 2008 6:39:52 Nick Vanderweit wrote: On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Ben Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You'd have to have a good definition of gamestate. If it's not explicitly prohibited, then why bother disallowing it? We'll prohibit what we see as counter to our game, but if someone wants to do something as part of a contract or simply as a joke and this harms no one, why would we disallow it? Well, some players would like to think that making arbitrary changes to the ruleset isn't explicitly prohibited. Agora traditionally encourages scams; depending on good faith for the rules to work is a generally bad idea.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5547-5555
On Monday 16 June 2008 6:50:33 ihope wrote: The rules can't stop you from posting to the DF. They can prohibit it, but my proposal doesn't (well, shouldn't) claim to do so. R2141: Rules are unlimited in scope.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Monstrous win
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 5:41 PM, Ben Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Monday 16 June 2008 2:22:56 Quazie wrote: I submit the following proposal entitled A win of monstrous proportions with the following text: --- Upon the adoption of this proposal The barlog, Large Luigi the Beholder, the Jabberwocky, Pikachu, Dracula, The Hydra, Godzilla, and the Dover Deamon win the game. --- You misspelled balrog and Dover Demon. Also, Jabberwocky is the title of the poem; the creature itself is called the Jabberwock. And I don't think Pikachu deserves to be on this list; I suggest replacing em with the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man. I was wondering what on earth the barlog was. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Monstrous win
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 5:16 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 5:41 PM, Ben Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Monday 16 June 2008 2:22:56 Quazie wrote: I submit the following proposal entitled A win of monstrous proportions with the following text: --- Upon the adoption of this proposal The barlog, Large Luigi the Beholder, the Jabberwocky, Pikachu, Dracula, The Hydra, Godzilla, and the Dover Deamon win the game. --- You misspelled balrog and Dover Demon. Also, Jabberwocky is the title of the poem; the creature itself is called the Jabberwock. And I don't think Pikachu deserves to be on this list; I suggest replacing em with the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man. I was wondering what on earth the barlog was. -root I apologize for my recent misspellings, they shall be less frequent in the future.
DIS: Re: BUS: I proclaim myself Doopy!
On Jun 15, 2008, at 1:23 AM, George Roberts wrote: I hereby register under the name 'doopy'. Welcome to Agora, doopy! - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Monstrous win
On Monday 16 June 2008 7:16:50 Ian Kelly wrote: On Monday 16 June 2008 2:22:56 Quazie wrote: I submit the following proposal entitled A win of monstrous proportions with the following text: --- Upon the adoption of this proposal The barlog, Large Luigi the Beholder, the Jabberwocky, Pikachu, Dracula, The Hydra, Godzilla, and the Dover Deamon win the game. --- I was wondering what on earth the barlog was. None of these are creatures of this earth.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Werewolves of Agora Nomic
On Jun 15, 2008, at 11:27 AM, Elliott Hird wrote: 2008/6/15 ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Well, this is not what I'm used to. I thought roleclaiming and public voting (which entails bandwagons) were nice aspects of the game. /me shrugs --Ivan Hope CXXVII Ditto, add these and I'll play. ehird I concur with ehird's conditions. I played one game of Mafia, got lynched on Day 3, and won with Town. Our practice was to capitalize the Day and Night phases, to distinguish them from real world days and nights (as many people had to work during one and could only post during the other). - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr
DIS: BOA
If the Bank of Agora doesn't currently have an exchange rate for a type of currency how does an exchange rate get initiated?
Re: DIS: BOA
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 6:43 PM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the Bank of Agora doesn't currently have an exchange rate for a type of currency how does an exchange rate get initiated? The list of exchange rates is part of the contract, so it requires a Contract Change with the consent of all Bankers. -root
Re: DIS: BOA
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 5:48 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 6:43 PM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the Bank of Agora doesn't currently have an exchange rate for a type of currency how does an exchange rate get initiated? The list of exchange rates is part of the contract, so it requires a Contract Change with the consent of all Bankers. -root Then I ask the kind Bankers of the BOA to consider an exchange rate for Points.
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1966 judged TRUE by Pavitra
Under the concept of Don't Muck With the Ruleset By Fiat, I am inclined towards ruling REVERSE on 1966c. - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr
Re: DIS: BOA
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 8:53 PM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Then I ask the kind Bankers of the BOA to consider an exchange rate for Points. Points are a fixed asset and as such couldn't be transferred to the Bank (well, not without making it a Contest, but I don't see that happening without 3 objections). Not that the AFO has been consenting to otherwise-unanimous contract changes recently anyway.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 1995 and 2004 assigned to OscarMeyr
On Jun 16, 2008, at 9:05 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 9:01 PM, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To resolve CFJs 1995 and 2004, I request the Bank of Agora to inform me of Ivan Hope's holdings of pens as of Mon, 09 Jun 2008 13:11:46 -0400. Umm... I intend, with the consent of the other Bankers, to cause the Bank of Agora to inform OscarMeyr of the requested information. Would it simplify matters if I requested that from any Banker, or from any particular Banker (such as you)? - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr
Re: DIS: BOA
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 8:53 PM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Then I ask the kind Bankers of the BOA to consider an exchange rate for Points. Points are a fixed currency, so they can't be transferred (and that includes depositing or withdrawing them at the Bank of Agora). --Ivan Hope CXXVII
Re: DIS: BOA
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 6:01 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 8:53 PM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Then I ask the kind Bankers of the BOA to consider an exchange rate for Points. Points are a fixed currency, so they can't be transferred (and that includes depositing or withdrawing them at the Bank of Agora). --Ivan Hope CXXVII Aha, I knew I was missing something.
Re: DIS: Black ribbons
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 6:28 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Would anybody support changing black ribbons to be awarded for judging a question on culpability rather than sentencing? It seems a bit arbitrary that you can only get a black ribbon in cases where the defendant happens to be guilty. In fact, it sort of provides a motivation to illegally find somebody guilty, just to get the black ribbon. I'd support repealing ribbons, does that count?
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 1995 and 2004 assigned to OscarMeyr
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 9:29 PM, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: However, the Defendant is dangerously close to contempt of court in eir defense. Too bad contempt isn't clear enough in the rules for me to slap em with a trout regarding it. Slapping with a trout is an unregulated action, so slap away. I bribed someone, didn't I? --Ivan Hope CXXVII
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 1995 and 2004 assigned to OscarMeyr
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 9:32 PM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sure. E had 502 ribbons before the transfer e posted at that second took place, 452 afterwards. I wish. :-P --Ivan Hope CXXVII
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 1995 and 2004 assigned to OscarMeyr
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 6:32 PM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 9:08 PM, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jun 16, 2008, at 9:05 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 9:01 PM, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To resolve CFJs 1995 and 2004, I request the Bank of Agora to inform me of Ivan Hope's holdings of pens as of Mon, 09 Jun 2008 13:11:46 -0400. Umm... I intend, with the consent of the other Bankers, to cause the Bank of Agora to inform OscarMeyr of the requested information. Would it simplify matters if I requested that from any Banker, or from any particular Banker (such as you)? - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr Sure. E had 502 ribbons before the transfer e posted at that second took place, 452 afterwards. Ribbons?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 1995 and 2004 assigned to OscarMeyr
On Jun 16, 2008, at 9:33 PM, ihope wrote: On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 9:29 PM, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: However, the Defendant is dangerously close to contempt of court in eir defense. Too bad contempt isn't clear enough in the rules for me to slap em with a trout regarding it. Slapping with a trout is an unregulated action, so slap away. I bribed someone, didn't I? Very well, I will slap you with a trout as soon as I can find you on Sage Ocean (sage.puzzlepirates.com)... assuming that my trout hasn't turned to dust by then. - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 1995 and 2004 assigned to OscarMeyr
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 9:41 PM, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Very well, I will slap you with a trout as soon as I can find you on Sage Ocean (sage.puzzlepirates.com)... assuming that my trout hasn't turned to dust by then. My pirate's name is Igo. Catch me if you can. :-P --Ivan Hope CXXVII
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 1995 and 2004 assigned to OscarMeyr
On Jun 16, 2008, at 9:46 PM, ihope wrote: On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 9:41 PM, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Very well, I will slap you with a trout as soon as I can find you on Sage Ocean (sage.puzzlepirates.com)... assuming that my trout hasn't turned to dust by then. My pirate's name is Igo. Catch me if you can. :-P --Ivan Hope CXXVII You, sir, are on. Let me change computers, as this one can't run YPP too well. - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM Hildebrand of Silent Fools
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 1995 and 2004 assigned to OscarMeyr
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 9:52 PM, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You, sir, are on. Let me change computers, as this one can't run YPP too well. Unfortunate that this computer doesn't have Puzzle Pirates installed at the moment. You'll have to wait a bit. --Ivan Hope CXXVII
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 1995 and 2004 assigned to OscarMeyr
On Jun 16, 2008, at 9:54 PM, ihope wrote: On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 9:52 PM, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You, sir, are on. Let me change computers, as this one can't run YPP too well. Unfortunate that this computer doesn't have Puzzle Pirates installed at the moment. You'll have to wait a bit. --Ivan Hope CXXVII Will you be on later tonight? Or shall we set this up for tomorrow? - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 1995 and 2004 assigned to OscarMeyr
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 9:55 PM, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Will you be on later tonight? Or shall we set this up for tomorrow? I'll be able to do it later tonight, most likely. Just a few minutes. --Ivan Hope CXXVII
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 1995 and 2004 assigned to OscarMeyr
On Jun 16, 2008, at 9:58 PM, ihope wrote: On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 9:55 PM, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Will you be on later tonight? Or shall we set this up for tomorrow? I'll be able to do it later tonight, most likely. Just a few minutes. --Ivan Hope CXXVII Okay, I'll log off this system now and log in there. - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr
DIS: Re: BUS: registration
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 10:55 PM, Chester Mealer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am posting an announcement of my intent to register as a player under the name cdm014 Welcome to Agora! Any relation to ais523? -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: registration
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 10:41 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 10:55 PM, Chester Mealer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am posting an announcement of my intent to register as a player under the name cdm014 Welcome to Agora! Any relation to ais523? -root New player explosion! 3 in about a week or so. Hooray agora! Welcome, may your presence lead to few (or many if that is your type of play) CFJs
