Sgeo wrote:
I make the following pledge:
{
This is a pledge, and a public contract. If I am on an appeals panel,
any member of an appeals panel that I'm on may, by announcement, act
on my behalf to cause me to support a decision in that appeals case.
This pledge terminates as soon as I am
I wrote:
I initiate an inquiry case on the following statements, disqualifying
Quazie (who pointed this out to me via IM):
If a partner acts on behalf of a partnership to cast a vote,
that vote is still cast by that partner, and is thus subject
to that partner's voting
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 9:38 PM, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Addition and subtraction mod 11 are moderately less obnoxious to figure out
than division.
Well, ok, when you're dealing with single-digit operands addition is
incredibly simple and subtraction's not much worse once you
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2133
== CFJ 2133 ==
Speech act. The previous sentence is false. results in
speech act being performed.
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 3:02 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
== CFJ 2133 ==
Speech act. The previous sentence is false. results in
speech act being performed.
I judge FALSE.
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 10:05 AM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Whups, I was too late! This nullifies Zefram's arguments in 2087,
dunno what to do with that now. -Goethe
Zefram: For the record, I am dubious about this interpretation of a statement
being made, and action being taken, at
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
While
I'm not sure a phrase like simultaneous but ordered makes sense,
it's one I might use in this situation.
Simultaneous but ordered makes perfect sense, but that breaks
when a later message goes back and modifies a previous one (the
preceding
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
Maybe I'm misreading this, but it seems to me that the context of the
process of making a statement contained in a message is the
publication of that entire message. While the ordering of actions
announced in a message can be significant, we should
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 2:59 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
== CFJ 2077 ==
Ivan Hope is a player
Is there anyone who thinks this should not be judged
== CFJ 2077
Ivan Hope is a player
Is there anyone who thinks this should not be judged FALSE?
hmm... would not judging it FALSE make it TRUE? I think it ought not
to be judged FALSE, but on moral grounds not Agoran-rules grounds.
ihope hadn't really
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 12:44 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I consent, and also request the prior judge to consider whether the
message in fact had the effect of making Sgeo supine (another possible
meaning of 'I lie').
In the context of the defendant's message, I can't see any way you
On Fri, 2008-08-15 at 13:17 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 12:44 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I consent, and also request the prior judge to consider whether the
message in fact had the effect of making Sgeo supine (another possible
meaning of 'I lie').
In
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Followup: The old Rule 1527 has been repealed. Nothing has explicitly
replaced it and so the Rules are silent on how to deal with those
situations now. It is perfectly in keeping with custom and precedent,
then, to use
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 12:32 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 12:49 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I recuse myself from this case.
I transfer one prop from BobTHJ to CotC Murphy, on account of the
hassle created by the former to the latter.
I pledge that
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008, comex wrote:
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Followup: The old Rule 1527 has been repealed. Nothing has explicitly
replaced it and so the Rules are silent on how to deal with those
situations now. It is perfectly in keeping with
On Fri, 2008-08-15 at 13:37 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008, ais523 wrote:
I judge CFJ 2110 as follows:
At the time the CFJ was called, its statement was FALSE. Vote validity
is evaluated instantaneously (see root's gratuitous arguments and CFJs
1959 and 1960), and at the
On Fri, 2008-08-15 at 13:55 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
This message serves to initiate the Agoran Decision to choose the
holder of the Promotor office.
The eligible voters are the active players, and the vote collector is the
IADOP.
The valid options are:
* PerlNomic Partnership
*
2008/8/15 Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
This message serves to initiate the Agoran Decision to choose the
holder of the Promotor office.
The eligible voters are the active players, and the vote collector is the
IADOP.
The valid options are:
* PerlNomic Partnership
* comex
* Murphy
On Fri, 2008-08-15 at 23:07 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote:
How can you NOT vote PNP with this?:
http://nomic.info/perlnomic/current-proposals/proposal.ais523.code_for_being_the_Agoran_Promotor
Heh, my email system even labeled that message as spam. Arguably, it
was...
--
ais523
2008/8/15 ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Fri, 2008-08-15 at 23:07 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote:
How can you NOT vote PNP with this?:
http://nomic.info/perlnomic/current-proposals/proposal.ais523.code_for_being_the_Agoran_Promotor
Heh, my email system even labeled that message as spam. Arguably, it
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 13:25, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 9:00 PM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 14:26, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
AGORAN AGRICULTURAL ASSOCIATION REPORT
Time of last report: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 21:50
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does this mean that the change to democratic can be made after results
are announced (though before self-ratification)? -Goethe
I'd say that once an Agoran Decision is resolved, it's no longer a
decision and can't be changed
On Fri, 2008-08-15 at 15:38 -0700, The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
This distribution of proposal 5673 initiates the Agoran
Decisions on whether to adopt it. The eligible voters for ordinary
proposals are the active players, the eligible voters for democratic
proposals are the active
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 6:41 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2008-08-15 at 15:38 -0700, The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
This distribution of proposal 5673 initiates the Agoran
Decisions on whether to adopt it. The eligible voters for ordinary
proposals are the active players, the
2008/8/15 The PerlNomic Partnership [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
This distribution of proposal 5673 initiates the Agoran
Decisions on whether to adopt it. The eligible voters for ordinary
proposals are the active players, the eligible voters for democratic
proposals are the active first-class players,
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 6:47 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmmm... just testing it so that Agoran voters can see how the PNP
would distribute proposals. Which seems fine, although it ought to
send to official, not to business with a false OFF:
Proposed, but I'll need to subscribe the
woggle wrote:
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 13:25, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 9:00 PM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 14:26, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
AGORAN AGRICULTURAL ASSOCIATION REPORT
Time of last report: Mon, 04
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is your RNG stuck on 4 or something? 4 4 ranches really aren't that
useful these days.
-woggle
At the rate CFJs are being called lately I think 4s will be in high
demand before too longjust wait for another 2k CFJs to
28 matches
Mail list logo
