Re: DIS: proto

On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 12:51 AM, Tanner Swett wrote: > This is a really long proposal that makes a heck of a lot of changes, some of > which I disagree with; I'd almost certainly vote AGAINST it, or any similar > proposal, unless it were broken into something like a dozen smaller > proposals, i

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3381 assigned to ais523

ok we can attack this from either side and still arrive at the same conclusion though you have to admit that timing of moves is a key element of gaming On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 1:28 AM, Tanner Swett wrote: > The thing is, though, Fool doesn't really have a plan. E created the > promises and then

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3381 assigned to ais523

On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 1:02 AM, Tanner Swett wrote: > Arguments: I'm not sure whether I agree with you or not. I agree that 00:53 < tswett> If a rule were to say "if it is POSSIBLE to do X, then it is POSSIBLE to do Y", I think we would treat this as meaning something very diffe

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3381 assigned to ais523

The thing is, though, Fool doesn't really have a plan. E created the promises and then (allegedly) deregistered everyone else; now it doesn't matter what happens to the promises, because Fool's already finished. The fact that destroying one promise changes matters with regards to the other promise

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3381 assigned to ais523

I was looking at it more like a stack than a circle but then again stack is more of a magic the gathering thing though it does work in this case On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 1:21 AM, Tanner Swett wrote: > Alternative, far shorter argument for TRUE: Fool's alleged conditions were > circular and there

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3381 assigned to ais523

Alternative, far shorter argument for TRUE: Fool's alleged conditions were circular and therefore meaningless. –Machiavelli, whose dash seems to be rather short at the moment

DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3381 assigned to ais523

On Aug 4, 2013, at 7:07 PM, Jonathan Rouillard wrote: > > == CFJ 3381 == > >I am a player. > > > > Caller: omd Arguments: Rece

Re: DIS: proto

Comments on omd's proto: This is a really long proposal that makes a heck of a lot of changes, some of which I disagree with; I'd almost certainly vote AGAINST it, or any similar proposal, unless it were broken into something like a dozen smaller proposals, in which case I'd vote AGAINST only t

DIS: Re: BUS: proposal

On 6 August 2013 04:14, omd wrote: > A person has the right to register and to > remain a player except where forbidden due to eir own > prior actions. Needs handling for inactivity?

DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] (re-)Distribution of proposals 7569-7573

On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 8:04 PM, Fool wrote: > Fool's party is the Serious party, and that party has set a 3-line > Whip on 7572. No other Whips are set. By the way, this is the first accidental rule violation on your part I've noticed, but it only applies if your interpretation is correct.

Re: DIS: Re: CoE Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7548-7564

On 6 August 2013 02:25, omd wrote: > Was it really necessary to post this out a week - 3 hours after > initiation, requiring a revote? This is Fool's nomic now -- we just play it. Oh, wait; no we don't.

DIS: Re: CoE Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7548-7564

On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Fool wrote: > Same problem -- doesn't list parties of authors. (And omd is not Promotor.) Was it really necessary to post this out a week - 3 hours after initiation, requiring a revote?

DIS: Re: CoE Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7567-7582

On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 8:09 PM, Fool wrote: > On 05/08/2013 7:15 PM, omd wrote: > [...] > Rule 107 says that for a notice of distribution to be valid it must include > "any additional information defined by the rules as essential parameters" > (unless this error goes unnoticed for a week). Oh, bo

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in R. v. everyone but Fool, CFJ 3381

On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 8:25 PM, Fool wrote: > One more CoE: As we see, people appeal judgements out of spite, and I expect > they pass judgements out of spite as well. In fact, in a discussion some > time ago it was already mentioned that this was expected in dictatorship > cases. I think even it

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in R. v. everyone but Fool, CFJ 3381

On 6 August 2013 01:25, Fool wrote: > One more CoE: As we see, people appeal judgements out of spite, and I expect > they pass judgements out of spite as well. In fact, in a discussion some > time ago it was already mentioned that this was expected in dictatorship > cases. I think even it was you

DIS: Re: OFF: publicity

On 05/08/2013 2:53 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: This is a Public message. Having received no objections, I flip the Publicity of agora-busin...@agoranomic.org and agora-offic...@agoranomic.org to Public. I intend to depu

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in R. v. everyone but Fool, CFJ 3381

On 04/08/2013 12:39 PM, omd wrote: But to reiterate one last time, after which I will verily shut up and wait for a judge to be assigned: Agora necessarily must proceed according to consensus; we have a formal procedure to arrive at a consensus, which is reasonably fair; One more CoE: As we see

Re: DIS: proto

On 5 August 2013 23:59, omd wrote: > Proto: I Am Wearing A Unicorn Horn (AI=3, PF=100) > > aka Unnecessary Nebulous Intricacies & Complexities Oblige Repeal Now I express my general agreement. > Amend Rule 101 (The Rights of Agorans) by removing item i., and > renumbering the following items acc

DIS: proto

Proto: I Am Wearing A Unicorn Horn (AI=3, PF=100) aka Unnecessary Nebulous Intricacies & Complexities Oblige Repeal Now Amend Rule 101 (The Rights of Agorans) by removing item i., and renumbering the following items accordingly. [Meaningless.] Repeal Rule 2125 (Regulation Regulations). Amend R

DIS: Lots of judges these days

There are actually a lot of judges in the rotation these days, so being in the rotation at the normal rate is not too much effort. So, for the time being, I'll stop recusing myself from every other case, but I reserve the right to start doing this again if the number of judges decreases or I get bu

DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3386 assigned to Fool

On Aug 5, 2013, at 9:21 AM, Jonathan Rouillard wrote: > == CFJ 3386 == > >Providing an audio version of the ruleset is a reasonable way to >allow vision-impaired persons to play. Arguments: I don't think the word "reasonable" is cl

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Possibly Registrar] Census

On 5 August 2013 21:35, omd wrote: > On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 4:32 PM, omd wrote: >>> Can someone please give me a counterargument to "When created, >>> switches have their default values" == "new switches have their >>> default values"? >> >> Rule 1586. > > By the way, the rules didn't actually sa

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Possibly Registrar] Census

On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 4:32 PM, omd wrote: >> Can someone please give me a counterargument to "When created, >> switches have their default values" == "new switches have their >> default values"? > > Rule 1586. By the way, the rules didn't actually say "when created, switches have their default v

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Possibly Registrar] Census

On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Charles Walker wrote: > On 5 August 2013 20:49, omd wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: >>> An alternate viewpoint: >> >> CoE since ratification will probably be fixed in the next week: in the >> normal universe, this is incorrect for o

Re: Fwd: DIS: Ambassador's Survey - Your Chance To Win Great Prizes!

On Mon, 5 Aug 2013, Tanner Swett wrote: If I'm not mistaken, this hasn't gone through yet. I distinctly recall seeing it before. Greetings, Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Possibly Registrar] Census

On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Charles Walker wrote: > On 5 August 2013 20:49, omd wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: >>> An alternate viewpoint: >> >> CoE since ratification will probably be fixed in the next week: in the >> normal universe, this is incorrect for o

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Possibly Registrar] Census

On 5 August 2013 20:49, omd wrote: > On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: >> An alternate viewpoint: > > CoE since ratification will probably be fixed in the next week: in the > normal universe, this is incorrect for obvious reasons. Can someone please give me a counterargument

Fwd: DIS: Ambassador's Survey - Your Chance To Win Great Prizes!

If I'm not mistaken, this hasn't gone through yet. Begin forwarded message: > From: Tanner Swett > Date: August 3, 2013 4:25:43 PM EDT > To: "Agora Nomic discussions \(DF\)" > Subject: Re: DIS: Ambassador's Survey - Your Chance To Win Great Prizes! > > On Aug 3, 2013, at 12:01 PM, Charles Walke

DIS: Re: BUS: Defense in R. v. Fool, CFJ 3383

On 5 August 2013 19:30, Fool wrote: > The Crown cited the precedent of CFJ 2515 against me, where it is said that > bringing Agora into severe disrepute could constitute an R101 violation. Clearly bringing Agora into severe disrepute is not the only way of failing to treat Agora right good foreve

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: May as well REALLY settle this

On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Jonathan Rouillard < jonathan.rouill...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Can one intent to deputize on an action that hasn't reached its time > limit yet? I know I've been slow (haven't been home in a while) and > it's an unfortunate time to be slow, but as far as I know I have

DIS: Re: BUS: May as well REALLY settle this

On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 10:48 PM, Craig Daniel wrote: > It's been suggested that it may be useful for me to repeat these intents. So: > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 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

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7548-7564

On 5 Aug 2013, at 04:30, woggle wrote: >> 7553 3 20 O omd Remove useless vote protection > If G. casts a vote on this proposal, ENDORSE G. x my voting limit on it; > otherwise, AGAINST x my voting limit on it. G.'s vote was cast by me on this proposal, using the Summer Votes promise, a