DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in Sean Hunt v. Renaissance, CFJs 3359 and 3360
On Sunday, July 28, 2013, Fool wrote: But really as with CFJ 3357, it seems the underlying issue is: who wrote this junk? I did. Sorry. —I also apologize if this email turns out to be in HTML Machiavelli
DIS: Re: BUS: R101(ii)
I suggest the following method: these questions shall be treated as CFJs would be treated under the assumption that the scam did not work. —Machiavelli
DIS: Re: BUS: May as well REALLY settle this
please explain how fool is not a player 1. he is a living entity 2. he is capable of coherent english 3. he did register(I think) On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 11:47 AM, John Smith spamba...@yahoo.com wrote: If I register between now and when the intent expires, and the CfJ assignment is late, I can assign the case to myself without being CotC. This is important if e.g. everyone else who's paying attention is either barred or unable to register due to having been non-passively deregistered. This would in turn allow me to give the case a judgment identical to the one given by the person who would be assigned to it if the purported deregistration did not succeed. Of course, I would very much prefer not to register. But if it saves all the players a few weeks of sitting around before resolving the controversy, I might do so. Incidentally, this situation is an excellent argument for keeping Rule 101(ii) around. - Original Message - From: Fool fool1...@gmail.com To: agora-busin...@agoranomic.org Cc: Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 4:49 PM Subject: Re: BUS: May as well REALLY settle this On 29/07/2013 5:41 PM, John Smith wrote: In case of emergency: I intend to deputize for the CotC to assign this CfJ. I intend to deputize for the CotC to rotate the bench. Fails. You need to be a player to deputize. (And you weren't even a player before this as I recall.)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: May as well REALLY settle this
On Tue, 2013-07-30 at 16:33 -0400, Matt Berlin wrote: Does fool's announcement of intent to destroy a promise: a) destroy the promise b) begin the destruction of the promise c) schedule the destruction of the promise d) place a time-limit on the action of destroying the promise e) only announce intent It creates a time window (from 4 to 14 days in the future) during which the promise can be destroyed; e's under no obligation to actually destroy it during that time period, though. So I guess c), d), and e) all apply. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Stuff
On 31 Jul 2013, at 22:25, Jonathan Rouillard jonathan.rouill...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 3:55 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: On Wed, 2013-07-31 at 12:49 -0700, John Smith wrote: Fails because you aren't authorized to act on behalf of Davy 1. Saying 'Person X told me to act on their behalf' isn't considered sufficient around here. I also have a strong suspicion that Davy I is not a person, and thus generally incapable of acting. -- ais523 Pretty sure it's a cat, really. Preeetty sure. =P ~ Roujo The rules do not require first-class persons to be human. Davy I may, however, struggle with the requirement to be generally capable of communicating via email.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Stuff
On Thu, 1 Aug 2013, Charles Walker wrote: Davy I may, however, struggle with the requirement to be generally capable of communicating via email. I dunno, I hear cats are quite proficient at using keyboards. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Stuff
On 31/07/2013 7:59 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: On Thu, 1 Aug 2013, Charles Walker wrote: Davy I may, however, struggle with the requirement to be generally capable of communicating via email. I dunno, I hear cats are quite proficient at using keyboards. And it's impressive how badly a lot of software reacts to cat typing. (E.g. 6 j's overflows something)
Re: DIS: Gratuitous arguments for logicians
On 30/07/2013 5:57 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: I fail to see the alleged biconditional. As discussed, promise destruction is secured. There is no other instrument allowing a promise to be destroyed. How about cashing it? The question is specifically whether _I_ can destroy the promise, and the promise belongs to the Tree.
Re: DIS: Gratuitous arguments for logicians
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 10:33 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote: On 30/07/2013 5:57 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: I fail to see the alleged biconditional. As discussed, promise destruction is secured. There is no other instrument allowing a promise to be destroyed. How about cashing it? The question is specifically whether _I_ can destroy the promise, and the promise belongs to the Tree. You can transfer it to yourself and cash it. -scshunt
Re: DIS: Gratuitous arguments for logicians
On 31/07/2013 10:34 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: The question is specifically whether _I_ can destroy the promise, and the promise belongs to the Tree. You can transfer it to yourself and cash it. It doesn't work that way anymore, and in any case the author is excluded, and I am the author.
Re: DIS: Gratuitous arguments for logicians
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 10:41 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote: On 31/07/2013 10:34 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: The question is specifically whether _I_ can destroy the promise, and the promise belongs to the Tree. You can transfer it to yourself and cash it. It doesn't work that way anymore, and in any case the author is excluded, and I am the author. Hmm... I will have to consider more. -scshunt
DIS: Re: BUS: A Criminal Case
sorry for being a pain but in lamens terms he tried to have us all deregistered and kicked is that it sorry my learning disability makes it a pain when there are a lot of words surrpounding a point On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 11:45 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.cawrote: I submit a criminal case, barring the Serious Party, alleging that Fool violated Rule 101 by failing to treat Agora right good forever, by purporting to deregister all other players and subsequently lock them out of the game. -scshunt
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A Criminal Case
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 12:18 AM, Max Schutz maxschutz...@gmail.com wrote: sorry for being a pain but in lamens terms he tried to have us all deregistered and kicked is that it sorry my learning disability makes it a pain when there are a lot of words surrpounding a point Yes, but see Rule 101 and CFJ 2515 in particular. -scshunt
