Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5564-5568
On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 8:59 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 4:39 PM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 5564 D0 2rootRepeal Partnerships AGAINST If I may ask, why do you support retaining a construct that is only useful for running scams? I don't believe that partnerships are only useful for running scams, although I do think that some reform is necessary to make it harder to use them to run scams. Quite frankly, having them run scams against other contracts doesn't bother me too much; I think the Bank of Agora thing could have been fixed by inserting first-class in one place, and if a contract isn't written to be robust it probably *should* be exploited.
Re: DIS: RE: Apology for CFJ 1993
On Jun 20, 2008, at 4:42 AM, Alexander Smith wrote: Murphy wrote: How slow is triple unanimity! That lofty goal of undisputed truth That three must reach in no more time than one. And so the order handed down to me: Recuse the lot if they be so uncouth That none persuade the rest before the gun. But I was lost, the cases like a sea; Extended kindness, as if to a youth And gave them extra time to judge and run. Apologies, I register a plea: No fun. Wow, that's pretty impressive. You may even end up winning Goethe's Bard pseudo-contest with that! Dang, they found out my plan! Quick, to the escape hatch! - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Housecleaning
On Jun 20, 2008, at 9:15 AM, comex wrote: On 6/19/08, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 8:40 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I hereby deregister Jeremy without objection. I initiate an auction for the Zombie Jeremy. Starting bid is 1 Stem. So, can someone who was there tell me: were Zombies a Good Idea or a Bad Idea? Good Idea: Making a Zombie out of an inactive player. Bad Idea: Making a Zombie out of an active player. - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] Docket
OscarMeyr wrote: I initiate a criminal CFJ against comex, for violating Rule 1504 by not publishing eir apology as per the sentence from CFJ 1942 within the time frame specified in R1504. (See evidence above.) Already prosecuted via CFJ 2022. Want to retract this one? Is it just me, or have we been very criminal-CFJ happy lately? *quickly revises case_count.php* May 2008 set records for cases per month (51), criminal cases per month (13), and proportion of criminal cases to total cases (about 25.5%). June 2008 (up through CFJ 2025) has already beat the second record (14) and is currently beating the third (about 33.3%).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] Docket
On Jun 22, 2008, at 11:09 AM, Ed Murphy wrote: OscarMeyr wrote: I initiate a criminal CFJ against comex, for violating Rule 1504 by not publishing eir apology as per the sentence from CFJ 1942 within the time frame specified in R1504. (See evidence above.) Already prosecuted via CFJ 2022. Want to retract this one? According to my mail reader, my retraction came through 28 seconds later. Is it just me, or have we been very criminal-CFJ happy lately? *quickly revises case_count.php* May 2008 set records for cases per month (51), criminal cases per month (13), and proportion of criminal cases to total cases (about 25.5%). June 2008 (up through CFJ 2025) has already beat the second record (14) and is currently beating the third (about 33.3%). Wow. No wonder I've been busy as a hanging judge. - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] Docket
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 12:43 AM, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's now well past tomorrow. You know, I had already published my apology when you sent this message.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Housecleaning
2008/6/22 Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Good Idea: Making a Zombie out of an inactive player. Bad Idea: Making a Zombie out of an active player. I agree but the other way around. :-P ehird
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2026 assigned to Wooble
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 11:51 AM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: == CFJ 2026 == The Left Hand is a public contract. [SNIP] I judge CFJ 2026 FALSE. I've gone through the necessary gamestate recalculation if this finding holds. Fortunately, the Left Hand hasn't actually done all that much: From: Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 22:45:27 -0800 I spend C E G to increase the Left Hand's VVLOP by 1. I spend Db F Ab to increase the Left Hand's VVLOP by 1. I spend Ab C Eb to increase the Left Hand's VVLOP by 1. This failed, but note holdings have since self-ratified. From: Josiah Worcester [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:47:44 -0700 5411 O1 1OscarMeyr Fix the FAGE bug The Left Hand votes AGAINSTx3. 5412 O1 1woggle More permanant patent titles The Left Hand votes FORx3. 5414 O1 1Murphy Generalise deputisation The Left Hand votes FORx3. This failed, but the voting results on Proposals 5411 and 5414 have since self-ratified. The voting results on Proposal 5412 have NOT self-ratified, due to CFJ 1885, so that proposal has not yet been adopted, with the result that patent titles can still be borne only by persons. This may have some implications for the current set of patent titles, but I think that all existing patent titles are borne by persons anyway. Proposal 5437, which subsequently amended the same rule, is not affected. From: Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 17:14:51 -0800 The Left Hand votes as follows: 5434 FOR x 3 5436 FOR x 3 5437 AGAINST x 3 5439 FOR x 3 The voting results on all these have self-ratified. From: Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 20:23:39 -0800 The Left Hand and I agree to the following, which thereby becomes a public contract. I intend, without 3 objections, to make it a contest. 1) The name of this public contract is Enigma. ... I believe the upshot of this is that Enigma actually became a public contract when I joined it shortly after this message. This means that the intent to make it a contest actually came before the contract existed. I don't see why this should make it invalid, though. The contest-ness of Enigma is already in question anyway due to the Brainfuck Golf fiasco. -root
Re: DIS: Proto-Contract: The Protection Racket
2008/6/22 Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Counter-blackmail: if I am replaced due to the above, then I'm not giving my successor access to the database update interface (especially since several parts still haven't been webified). This won't make eir job impossible (cf. Goethe, Zefram), but will make it more difficult. It's just a CRUD app. ehird
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2026 assigned to Wooble
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 12:57 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I intend, with two support, to appeal this judgement. Clause 0 of the Left Hand agreement (and its Right Hand counterpart) could be removed without changing anything else about either contract. It would then be possible to be party to one without being party to the other, so the restrictions of the Right Hand would not be necessarily included among the restrictions of the Left Hand. Furthermore, by H. Judge Wooble's logic, an equation arguably becomes part of the original contract (if it still exists). No, because new parties to the original contract are not automatically subject to the equation. -root
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2026 assigned to Wooble
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 1:00 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I support Murphy's attempt to appeal this. Although I agree with the judge's arguments with respect to contracts which attempt to bind would-be parties to other contracts, it does not seem to me like the Left Hand is trying to bind anyone who agrees to it to the Right Hand. Instead, the clause: 0. Each party to this agreement is also a party to the Right Hand agreement, and vice versa. seems to me just a statement of fact. It happens that this fact would become false if anyone guesses the nature of the Right Hand's restrictions... and becomes a party to the Left Hand while not being a party to the Right Hand, not unlike the The contestmaster shall be root.. If you agree to the Left Hand, then you agree to that clause. If you agree to that clause, then you agree that you are a party to / agreeing to be bound by the Right Hand. I also don't believe that your interpretation fits what Murphy and pikhq intended. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2026 assigned to Wooble
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 3:05 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you agree to the Left Hand, then you agree to that clause. If you agree to that clause, then you agree that you are a party to / agreeing to be bound by the Right Hand. I can agree to a contract that says Zefram is an avocado; that doesn't make it true. I also don't believe that your interpretation fits what Murphy and pikhq intended. Perhaps not. I think the Left Hand was a bit sloppily worded.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2026 assigned to Wooble
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 3:08 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I submit both of the following messages as gratuitous arguments in the possibly upcoming appeal of CFJ 2026. I submit my reply to that message as gratuitous arguments. On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 3:08 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 3:05 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you agree to the Left Hand, then you agree to that clause. If you agree to that clause, then you agree that you are a party to / agreeing to be bound by the Right Hand. I can agree to a contract that says Zefram is an avocado; that doesn't make it true. I also don't believe that your interpretation fits what Murphy and pikhq intended. Perhaps not. I think the Left Hand was a bit sloppily worded.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5564-5568
On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 8:59 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 4:39 PM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 5564 D0 2rootRepeal Partnerships AGAINST If I may ask, why do you support retaining a construct that is only useful for running scams? Consider the AFO and its participation in the AAA and voting. Although partnerships are very useful for running scams, they are not solely useful for that purpose. In fact, consider also deregistered players playing through partnerships, which lets them violate the 30-day limit or an EXILE, at the cost of losing many capabilities of a real player and having to cooperate with their partners. I still think Groups wouldn't be such a bad idea. But not repealing the things altogether (which, IIRC you proposed before, when partnerships had just been created).
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2026 assigned to Wooble
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 3:00 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Although I agree with the judge's arguments with respect to contracts which attempt to bind would-be parties to other contracts, it does not seem to me like the Left Hand is trying to bind anyone who agrees to it to the Right Hand. Considering it requires to parties to it to abide by the Right Hand in acting on the contract's behalf and in making every kind of contract change, I strongly disagree.
Re: DIS: Proto-Contract: The Protection Racket
I would agree to this. I'd like some protection. --Ivan Hope CXXVII
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5564-5568
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 2:02 PM, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I also vote 4x(denounce Wooble) on every proposal. ehird Wait, no. I vote 4x(denounce root) on every proposal. Ineffective, unless you also retract your earlier votes. -root
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5556-5563
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 10:30 AM, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I revise my votes. 5560 O1 1Quazie A monstrous win AGAINSTx4 I'm going to consider this a reasonable synonym of I retract my votes on Proposal 5560 and cast these votes instead. Any objections? -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5564-5568
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 2:55 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 2:02 PM, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I also vote 4x(denounce Wooble) on every proposal. ehird Wait, no. I vote 4x(denounce root) on every proposal. Ineffective, unless you also retract your earlier votes. Okay, I changed my mind. Wait, no is sufficiently clear in context to retract the quoted votes. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] Docket
On Jun 22, 2008, at 12:30 PM, comex wrote: On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 12:43 AM, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's now well past tomorrow. You know, I had already published my apology when you sent this message. Actually, my message fell into a grey area, and got sent out Friday at 04:43:26 UTC accoring to the Agoranomic archive, but didn't make it to the mailing list until today. As soon as I saw that you had posted your apology (at 13:38:30 UTC) and that Murphy had filed a CFJ over the delay, I retracted mine. - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2017 assigned to root
On Wednesday 18 June 2008 7:30:57 ihope wrote: It's an unregulated action, so I have the right to take it. I believe precedent is that generally, if I have the right to do something, but the rules provide no mechanism for it (and it's of the fictional type), I can do it by announcement. Making yourself a contract would change information for which the Notary is required to be a recordkeepor, so it is in fact regulated.
Re: DIS: Proto-Contract: The Protection Racket
ehird wrote: 2008/6/22 Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Counter-blackmail: if I am replaced due to the above, then I'm not giving my successor access to the database update interface (especially since several parts still haven't been webified). This won't make eir job impossible (cf. Goethe, Zefram), but will make it more difficult. It's just a CRUD app. Determining the correct set of CRUD operations to represent a given event is non-trivial - but yeah, it was done from scratch before, so it could be done from scratch again. Scraping history via the web query interface is also possible (comex did it for good reason, setting up a mirror when my server's net connection went flaky for several months). What really matters here is the conceptual issue: which of the three stances I suggested are the Dons pursuing, and how many of the players would be on each side?
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1984a assigned to Murphy, OscarMeyr, Eris
comex wrote: On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 12:51 PM, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 8:56 AM, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: With the consent of Murphy and OscarMeyr, I intend to cause the panel to judge AFFIRM. Having received the neceesary support, I cause the panel of Appeal 1984a to judge AFFIRM. I consider affirming a ruling of IRRELEVANT on a CFJ I initiated to be a punishment to me. That is to say, this was a ruling that I should be punished. Therefore, I hereby appeal it, which R101 (iii), paragraph 2 allows me to do. Disclaimer: This probably is ineffective. I believe that (at least for players) the R101 (iii) right in question is fulfilled by the ability to submit a proposal on the topic in question, and thus cannot be extended to allow appeals not explicitly allowed by other rules. I'm treating this attempt as unsuccessful until/unless judgement and/or legislation indicates otherwise.
DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: explicitly defined recordkeepors
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 5:34 PM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I submit the following proposal, entitled Recordkeepors keep Records: In Rule 2143, at the end of the last paragraph, insert: The current holder of the office is the recordkeepor of that information. This would only define it for information that is part of an officer's report without specifying which report. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5564-5568
root wrote: On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 2:55 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 2:02 PM, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I also vote 4x(denounce Wooble) on every proposal. ehird Wait, no. I vote 4x(denounce root) on every proposal. Ineffective, unless you also retract your earlier votes. Okay, I changed my mind. Wait, no is sufficiently clear in context to retract the quoted votes. Are you also treating it as retracting ehird's unquoted votes?
Re: DIS: Proto-Contract: The Protection Racket
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 7:22 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What really matters here is the conceptual issue: which of the three stances I suggested are the Dons pursuing, and how many of the players would be on each side? I see this as an attempt to corrupt the judicial system (it's called The Protection Racket), which I support. Attempting to monetize the choice between multiple reasonable interpretations is something I'd also support but would be less excited about. I'm not sure what you mean by changing the truth. --Ivan Hope CXXVII
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5564-5568
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 6:14 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are you also treating it as retracting ehird's unquoted votes? No. I also didn't feel particularly compelled to point that out. I retract my votes FOR proposals 5556, 5558, and 5564, and I vote PRESENT on each of those proposals. Does it seem odd to anybody else that the net effect of denouncing another player's vote on a democratic proposal is to damage that proposal's VI, regardless of which way the denounced player actually voted on it? -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: explicitly defined recordkeepors
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 7:48 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 5:34 PM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I submit the following proposal, entitled Recordkeepors keep Records: In Rule 2143, at the end of the last paragraph, insert: The current holder of the office is the recordkeepor of that information. This would only define it for information that is part of an officer's report without specifying which report. An oversight on my part, but the only specific reports in the rules are the SLR and FLR, and changing the rules is regulated completely independently of them being information someone's required to report on.
Re: DIS: Proto-Contract: The Protection Racket
Ivan Hope wrote: On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 7:22 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What really matters here is the conceptual issue: which of the three stances I suggested are the Dons pursuing, and how many of the players would be on each side? I see this as an attempt to corrupt the judicial system (it's called The Protection Racket), which I support. Like I said, expect vehement opposition. Agora has a long tradition of keeping the judicial system honest, while its stance on the legislative system has softened since the old days (there used to be a rule that any proposal directly bribing favorable votes was completely nullified). I'm not sure what you mean by changing the truth. I accept that judgement X sets a precedent that Y is true, but I don't /want/ Y to be true. Such a stance is properly pursued by proposing a rule stating (or at least clearly implying) that Y is true, thus legislatively overturning the precedent.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: explicitly defined recordkeepors
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 6:23 PM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: An oversight on my part, but the only specific reports in the rules are the SLR and FLR, and changing the rules is regulated completely independently of them being information someone's required to report on. It still would be nice to correct the proposal. Otherwise, we'll just have to remember to do it later. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5564-5568
root wrote: Does it seem odd to anybody else that the net effect of denouncing another player's vote on a democratic proposal is to damage that proposal's VI, regardless of which way the denounced player actually voted on it? I can't answer that yet, because I haven't figured out the motivation for denouncing someone (I just threw it in for parallelism). The motivation for endorsing someone is presumably I don't really care about this proposal, but rather than voting PRESENT, I'll log-roll toward player endorsed with the assumption of some future payback.
DIS: Re: BUS: Contract: anti-corruption squad
On Sunday 22 June 2008 8:33:21 Geoffrey Spear wrote: 2. Any first class person join or leave this contract with the consent person can join
DIS: Proto-Judgement of CFJ 2027
== CFJ 2027 == The Notary is the recordkeepor of public contracts. We usually treat Rule 754 (1) as broadly as possible, and the initiator's arguments misleadingly point to a trivial judgement of TRUE, because recordkeepor and recordkeeper clearly fall under Rule 754 (1). But I don't really think Rule 754 (1) is relevant here. That would determine whether recordkeepor and recordkeeper mean the same thing if each term is used in a different place in the Ruleset. The Rules don't at any point say recordkeeper specifically; recordkeeper is just what ihope says that the Notary is. But it's true that if recordkeepor is a rule-defined word, the Notary is not the recordkeepor of public contracts, because of Rule 754 (2): (2) A term explicitly defined by the Rules by default has that meaning, as do its ordinary-language synonyms not explicitly defined by the rules. For example, since contracts are defined by the Rules, a contract I make under any legal system besides Agora's is not, to Agora, a contract. If recordkeepors are defined by the Rules, the person in charge of keeping records of something is not a recordkeepor unless the Rules specifically say e is. But Rule 2166 (Assets) only says that: The recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity defined as such by its backing document. This wording implies not an attempt to define recordkeepor, but a denotation of what the recordkeepor of an asset is, just as a Rule could define what a co-author of a proposal is, or what a public message is. That would not mean that the co-author of a CFJ or a public contract is defined by that rule. There is no wording like A recordkeepor is a person who is responsible for keeping track of assets. In other words, even though Rule 2166 tells us who the recordkeepors of assets are, and it is the only rule that mentions recordkeepors, it does *not* define the term. Therefore, Rule 754 (2) does not apply, but rather Rule 754 (3) or (4). I (proto-)judge CFJ 2027 TRUE.
Re: DIS: Proto-Contract: The Protection Racket
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 6:24 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ivan Hope wrote: On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 7:22 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What really matters here is the conceptual issue: which of the three stances I suggested are the Dons pursuing, and how many of the players would be on each side? I see this as an attempt to corrupt the judicial system (it's called The Protection Racket), which I support. Like I said, expect vehement opposition. Agora has a long tradition of keeping the judicial system honest, while its stance on the legislative system has softened since the old days (there used to be a rule that any proposal directly bribing favorable votes was completely nullified). I was hoping the Protection Racket might cause a little corruption of the judicial system, though I'm not looking to cause widespread failure (there are certainly times when we need it to work correctly!). That's part of the reason why I included the exit clause that allows the Dons to un-protect a CFJ with a majority vote. Anything deemed to be too corrupting can be tossed out. BobTHJ
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2026a assigned to BobTHJ, woggle, ais523
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 6:44 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2026a Appeal 2026a Panelist: BobTHJ Decision: Panelist: woggle Decision: Panelist: ais523 Decision: History: Appeal initiated: 23 Jun 2008 00:39:02 GMT Assigned to BobTHJ (panelist): (as of this message) Assigned to woggle (panelist): (as of this message) Assigned to ais523 (panelist): (as of this message) Appellant Murphy's Arguments: I intend, with two support, to appeal this judgement. Clause 0 of the Left Hand agreement (and its Right Hand counterpart) could be removed without changing anything else about either contract. Furthermore, by H. Judge Wooble's logic, an equation arguably becomes part of the original contract (if it still exists). Appellant comex's Arguments: I support Murphy's attempt to appeal this. Although I agree with the judge's arguments with respect to contracts which attempt to bind would-be parties to other contracts, it does not seem to me like the Left Hand is trying to bind anyone who agrees to it to the Right Hand. Instead, the clause: 0. Each party to this agreement is also a party to the Right Hand agreement, and vice versa. seems to me just a statement of fact. It happens that this fact would become false if anyone guesses the nature of the Right Hand's restrictions... and becomes a party to the Left Hand while not being a party to the Right Hand, not unlike the The contestmaster shall be root.. Thanks for including my gratuitous arguments... -root
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2026a assigned to BobTHJ, woggle, ais523
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 10:35 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for including my gratuitous arguments... g
Re: DIS: Proto-Judgement of CFJ 2027
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 9:58 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In other words, even though Rule 2166 tells us who the recordkeepors of assets are, and it is the only rule that mentions recordkeepors, it does *not* define the term. Therefore, Rule 754 (2) does not apply, but rather Rule 754 (3) or (4). I (proto-)judge CFJ 2027 TRUE. Yes, I think you're right. --Ivan Hope CXXVII
DIS: Re: BUS: Protection Racket
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 10:49 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK, let's see what happens. I agree to the following which becomes a contract as soon as someone agrees to it: 1. This is a public contract, the name of which is the Protection Racket. I agree. I don't believe agreement actually has to be to a public forum, though it's not effective until it's acknowledged in public. --Ivan Hope CXXVII
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2026a assigned to BobTHJ, woggle, ais523
root wrote: On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 6:44 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2026a Thanks for including my gratuitous arguments... Sorry, I attached them to the original case by mistake. Fixed now.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2020 judged GUILTY / APOLOGY by comex
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 9:28 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I appeal this decision. This should clearly be UNIMPUNGED. Is that a synonym of EXPUNGED? -root
DIS: Re: BUS: Reformed Bank of Agora
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 9:28 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 9:17 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 10:43 AM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I intend without three objections to cause the Reformed Bank of Agora to register. Without three objections I cause the Reformed Bank of Agora to register. I initiate a criminal case against the Reformed Bank of Agora, for violating R2144 by registering while having the same basis (BobTHJ and Ivan Hope CXXVII) as the Protection Racket, a registered player. Oops, didn't think about that. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2020 judged GUILTY / APOLOGY by comex
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 9:31 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 9:28 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I appeal this decision. This should clearly be UNIMPUNGED. Is that a synonym of EXPUNGED? Sureexpunge this case. Let's try UNIMPUGNED. BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: Bidding for heraldry
I transfer one towel to Goethe. --Ivan Hope CXXVII
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5556-5563
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 2:14 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 10:30 AM, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I revise my votes. 5560 O1 1Quazie A monstrous win AGAINSTx4 I'm going to consider this a reasonable synonym of I retract my votes on Proposal 5560 and cast these votes instead. Any objections? -root I object, but only on the grounds that I want someone to vote on my proposal. So I don't really object... No objection.
DIS: trustees
I'm about to be busy and ehird gave me an idea. I would announce intent to act according to the announcements unless I specify otherwise of the following when someone creates a partnership with the following clauses: 1. this Partnership shall be known as the cdm014 board of trustees. 2. No player may join this partnership if 5 first class players are already party to this contract. 3. Only first class players may join this contract, they may do so by announcing eir intent to join. 4. Parties to this contract are known as trustees. 5. No party may amend this contract without support of cdm014 and support of a majority of trustees. 6. All trustees shall act in the best interest of cdm014 when acting according to the terms of this contract. 7. this partnership shall act to ensure that cdm014 and this partnership fulfill all obligations and duties under Agoran rules and laws. 8. Any party with support of a majority of trustees and without objection from cdm014 may make an announcement about how the player cdm014 will act if e does not declare intent to act otherwise by announcing cdm014's intent to act in the form of cdm014 action the action must be one cdm014 is capable of making according to the rules and laws of agora. I'm buying a house and moving soon but I didn't want to deregister and I wanted to be able to remain an active participant and so I think this is an interesting idea, if I announce my intent to act according to the announcements made by the partnership. -- Chester Mealer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
