On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 11:15 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The answer, of course, is that equations were not envisioned as being
restricted by R101 (iv), and ruling that right ineffective would
prevent the equity court from being largely useless, and (thanks to
your recent proposal) the
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
Proposal: Repeal Rule 101!
Adoption index: 3.
Word of advice: If you want this to work, make this power 3.1, enact a
Rule (power 3.1) that says Rule 101 CAN be repealed by a Proposal of
power 3.1. *Then* repeal Rule 101, then repeal the power 3.1
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 8:33 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Assessor's Voting Limits Report
The Assessor no longer tracks voting limits; most of this document
isn't part of the Assessor's report and should be ignored if this is
ratified.
Þann 12. ágúst 2008 ritaði Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 11:15 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The answer, of course, is that equations were not envisioned as being
restricted by R101 (iv), and ruling that right ineffective would
prevent the equity court from
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 04:39, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Proposal: Repeal Rule 101!
Adoption index: 3.
Interest index: 1.
[Before we start, let me please justify this.
Rule 101 is broken.
Firstly, we are on a game played via computers. Really, we have no
inherent rights at
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 11:59 AM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[*] Lower-power rules notion of agreement is largely influenced by the
properties they ascribe to contracts, but if we let these characterize
agreements entirely from R101 purposes, this suggests an obvious
end-run around
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 10:07, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 11:59 AM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[*] Lower-power rules notion of agreement is largely influenced by the
properties they ascribe to contracts, but if we let these characterize
agreements
On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 05:14 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
Proposal: Repeal Rule 101!
Adoption index: 3.
Word of advice: If you want this to work, make this power 3.1, enact a
Rule (power 3.1) that says Rule 101 CAN be repealed by a Proposal of
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 8:39 AM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If a party fails to act as specified, e is in violation of this
Rule; in such a situation, the judge CAN act on the party's behalf
to fulfill said obligations Without 3 Objections, or the party may
be
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 8:43 AM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 8:33 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Assessor's Voting Limits Report
The Assessor no longer tracks voting limits; most of this document
isn't part of the Assessor's report and should be
On Tuesday 12 August 2008 11:19:26 am ais523 wrote:
I think R101 is here to stay; it's also possible to claim that any
change to the ruleset that makes it possible to repeal rule 101 is
an indirect method of removing rights. (If there's a rule that
allows repealing rule 101, that rule itself
On Tuesday 12 August 2008 11:50:46 am you wrote:
On Tuesday 12 August 2008 08:54:45 am Elliott Hird wrote:
Repeal rule 101.
I come off hold, as I want to be able to vote against this.
Pavitra
In particular, I think we should keep rights ii, iii, and viii, and
probably also v, vii, and
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Zarutian wrote:
Þann 12. ágúst 2008 ritaði Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 11:15 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The answer, of course, is that equations were not envisioned as being
restricted by R101 (iv), and ruling that right ineffective
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Charles Reiss wrote:
Anyways, the real broken things about R101 are:
(a) that it was devised under the idea that the rules would be
adjudicated as an agreement (making the R101 right regarding
amendments to agreements apply to proposals), but for a long while,
the rules
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, ais523 wrote:
I think R101 is here to stay; it's also possible to claim that any
change to the ruleset that makes it possible to repeal rule 101 is an
indirect method of removing rights. (If there's a rule that allows
repealing rule 101, that rule itself is removing
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, comex wrote:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 8:39 AM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If a party fails to act as specified, e is in violation of this
Rule; in such a situation, the judge CAN act on the party's behalf
to fulfill said obligations Without 3
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Ben Caplan wrote:
On Tuesday 12 August 2008 11:50:46 am you wrote:
On Tuesday 12 August 2008 08:54:45 am Elliott Hird wrote:
Repeal rule 101.
I come off hold, as I want to be able to vote against this.
Pavitra
In particular, I think we should keep rights ii, iii, and
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In tusho's proposal, the power 3.1 Rule doesn't actually repeal 101 when
the rule is created. It enables the Repealing, but it doesn't do it.
So that step doesn't remove, abridge, etc. a right.
Once it's in place, it
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 12:08, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In tusho's proposal, the power 3.1 Rule doesn't actually repeal 101 when
the rule is created. It enables the Repealing, but it doesn't do it.
So that step
On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 12:17 -0600, Charles Reiss wrote:
But, seriously, it would really be against the oldest of all game
custom if we couldn't make arbitrary changes to the ruleset somehow.
What came first, rule 101 or the Town Fountain? If the Town Fountain
came first then it's always had
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But, seriously, it would really be against the oldest of all game
custom if we couldn't make arbitrary changes to the ruleset somehow.
Not to mention being in direct conflict with the central premise of
The Paradox of
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Charles Reiss wrote:
Just abandon the game, and create a new one (Agora Second Era!)
copying the game state (lots of simulation of retroactive things) from
before we dissolved the game, except with R101 missing.
That exact suggestion (abandon and restart) is what led to
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 2:26 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That exact suggestion (abandon and restart) is what led to 4 proposals
getting rid of 2/3 of the ruleset, and (incidentally) the new R101. -G.
I hit my Panic Button, build a Phoenix Egg, and declare myself to be a
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, comex wrote:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In tusho's proposal, the power 3.1 Rule doesn't actually repeal 101 when
the rule is created. It enables the Repealing, but it doesn't do it.
So that step doesn't remove, abridge, etc. a
On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 14:28 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 2:26 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That exact suggestion (abandon and restart) is what led to 4 proposals
getting rid of 2/3 of the ruleset, and (incidentally) the new R101. -G.
I hit my Panic
On Tuesday 12 August 2008 07:14:59 am Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
Proposal: Repeal Rule 101!
Adoption index: 3.
Word of advice: If you want this to work, make this power 3.1,
enact a Rule (power 3.1) that says Rule 101 CAN be repealed by a
Proposal of
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 1:13 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, Equity cases weren't new contracts, but obligations placed on one
by the overarching (Rules) contract.
Not quite. Proposal 5194, which created the modern equity court, had
the new contract thing from the beginning. I
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, the conflict is directly between R3.1 and R101. The conflict resolution
is *defined* by R1482 as favoring R3.1. This works fine, just as having a
simple definition of a term in a lower powered rule works to modify the
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But, seriously, it would really be against the oldest of all game
custom if we couldn't make arbitrary changes to the ruleset somehow.
Not to mention being in direct conflict
On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 14:39 -0400, comex wrote:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, the conflict is directly between R3.1 and R101. The conflict resolution
is *defined* by R1482 as favoring R3.1. This works fine, just as having a
simple definition of
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, comex wrote:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 1:13 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, Equity cases weren't new contracts, but obligations placed on one
by the overarching (Rules) contract.
Not quite. Proposal 5194, which created the modern equity court, had
the new
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 2:56 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[context: other rules apply specific punitive penalties; chokey, fines,
etc, for failure of players to perform as Ordered].
What if a judge issued an unfair Order? Was there an appeals mechanism?
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/8/12 root [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Also, subject lines are informal.
Also, you forgot the GPG key.
It was an error. Because somehow the .gnupg directory got deleted. I
really have no idea how.
On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 14:16 -0700, The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
I consent to my nomination as Promotor.
Incidentally, I'm writing and testing a web interface for Promotor at
the moment, designed to run on the PerlNomic server as the PerlNomic
Partnership, but which could run elsewhere as
On Tuesday 12 August 2008 04:56:10 pm Elliott Hird wrote:
2008/8/12 comex [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 5:26 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I nominate Quazie and Zefram.
I second Zefram.
And how. (I second/third Zefram.)
tusho
Note that one more false lynching
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 6:53 PM, Ben Caplan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Note that one more false lynching will end the game in favor of the
werewolves. Please only vote to lynch Zefram if you genuinely believe
e is a werewolf, not merely out of revenge for inconvenient
inactivity. That would be
comex wrote:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 5:26 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I nominate Quazie and Zefram.
I second Zefram.
Voting starts 2 days after comex's message. Discuss!
On Tuesday 12 August 2008 07:04:01 pm Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 6:53 PM, Ben Caplan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Note that one more false lynching will end the game in favor of
the werewolves. Please only vote to lynch Zefram if you genuinely
believe e is a werewolf, not
On Tuesday 12 August 2008 09:40:39 pm Ed Murphy wrote:
}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
}{
Proposal 5670 (Democratic, AI=2, Interest=1) by Murphy, Zefram,
Michael But what is truth?
Zefram and Michael are co-authors of this proposal. Goethe is a
Pavitra wrote:
On Tuesday 12 August 2008 07:54:29 am Ed Murphy wrote:
C#D# F#G#A#
Player C D E F G A B
31 Pavitra 1 111 1
Ways to spend Notes (Rule
http://cfj.qoid.us/current_flr.txt
http://cfj.qoid.us/current_flr.txt,v
Anyone have the script for FLR--SLR?
I patched Wooble's SLR against the FLR, then I went through each
adopted proposal and reviewed the effects manually, adding
history/revision numbers as necessary. The index should also
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 7:45 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2090
== CFJ 2090 ==
CFJ 2019 is a valid CFJ.
42 matches
Mail list logo
