On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 11:40 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009, Jay Campbell wrote:
I intend, without objection, to flip the Recognition of B Nomic
to Abandoned.
Ooh, power struggle. Anyone care to explain?
Meanwhile, don't remember if j is a player here: I Object.
B
On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 14:18 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
Note that A has purportedly a rule to the effect of text within
[[ and ]] - can someone please explain why they think that B is
broken on this issue but A is not?
Because within has a different meaning to between; it implies
that /enclosing/
On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 08:43 -0800, Taral wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 5:04 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
A contest's contestmaster CAN transfer ownership of or destroy a Medal
in that contest's possession, but only as explicitly described by the
contest's text; one exception
On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 17:56 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, comex wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 8:32 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Notice of Violation:
Actor: ehird.
Action: Failure to publish a an apology explaining eir error,
shame,
On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 13:33 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
Proposal: Support Plutocracy
(AI = 2, please)
Create a rule titled Support Plutocracy with Power 2 and this text:
A player CAN, with 4 support, change a democratic decision
with Adoption Index less than 3 to be ordinary.
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 08:14 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 7:48 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
I intend, without two objections, to create a Medal in the possession of
Enigma.
I object. I don't trust the contestmaster of Enigma not to form a scam
alliance
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 14:44 +, Alex Smith wrote:
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 09:41 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:34 PM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote:
THE SHORT LOGICAL RULESET
I publish an NoV accusing comex of violating R2223, a Power-2 Rule, by
failing
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 09:51 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 9:49 AM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com
wrote:
A player CAN, with 2 support, change an ordinary decision to be democratic
provided the voting of the people has not already commenced
The voting of the
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 08:54 -0600, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 8:49 AM, Aaron Goldfein
aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
Proposal: Democracy When Reasonable (AI = 2, II = 0)
{
Change the text of rule 2142, Support Democracy from:
A player
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 10:00 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 09:51 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 9:49 AM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com
wrote:
A player CAN, with 2
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 15:05 +, Alex Smith wrote:
Ah, good point. Probably the first intent will fail then, though. (It
would definitely fail if someone forms a contract that defines Medal
in the meantime.) The second intent should still succeed, though.
Ah, I see what was going on. CFJ
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 08:47 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
Wooble wrote:
I intend, with Support, to publish an NoV accusing H. Rulekeepor comex
of violating Rule 2215, a Power 1 Rule, by publishing a copy of the
ruleset which doesn't include the rule created by P6072, in an attempt
to mislead
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 08:52 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
ais523 wrote:
On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 13:33 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
Proposal: Support Plutocracy
(AI = 2, please)
Create a rule titled Support Plutocracy with Power 2 and this text:
A player CAN, with 4 support, change a
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 09:56 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
I intend, without two objections, to create a Medal (as defined by the
rule which will be created by my Champion's Contests proposal if it
passes) in the possession of Enigma.
I Object
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 10:03 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
I intend, without two objections, to create a Medal in the possession of
Enigma.
If I am not a member of Enigma, I join Enigma.
I object to the proposed change in the Enigma contest text
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 12:32 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Please check the following for errors/wording improvement/bugs?
It breaks badly if more than one method is specified, With support and
without objection becomes rather insane under those definitions (I
can't figure out what happens at all
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 13:25 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, comex wrote:
I cause Rule 2241 to amend itself to read:
comex CAN cause this rule to do any of the following by announcement:
* amend itself
* make arbitrary rule changes
Er, I'm lost now.
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 13:35 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
It was created by the edited proposal 6072, when it was enacted, to
replace the repealed rule 2238. (CFJs have just ruled that the proposal
was successfully edited, and that the Agoran Decision on it successfully
enacted the edited
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 13:47 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
comex wrote:
I create 7 E notes in the AFO's possession. This fails, because the
AFO is not a player. Oh well.
I'm surprised you didn't re-register the AFO while you were at it.
The AFO doesn't really work if any of its partners
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 14:06 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
ais523 wrote:
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 13:47 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
comex wrote:
I create 7 E notes in the AFO's possession. This fails, because the
AFO is not a player. Oh well.
I'm surprised you didn't re-register the AFO while
On Sat, 2009-02-28 at 14:21 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
Sgeo wrote:
Why would BobTHJ lose eir MwPship? pikhq should have lost it after
ais523+AFO won. BobTHJ then loses MwPship when comex wins. ais523
gains Speakership.
Actually, I think your awards were correct, while the revocations
On Sat, 2009-02-28 at 17:57 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I spend C D# G to reduce ais523's caste by 1.
I spend C D# G to reduce ais523's caste by 1.
I spend F# A C# to reduce ais523's caste by 1.
I spend F# A C# to reduce ais523's caste by 1.
I spend F# A C# to reduce ais523's caste by 1.
A
On Sat, 2009-02-28 at 21:39 -0600, Dvorak Herring wrote:
Wouldn't the following fail:
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
Without objection, I make Billy Pilgrim inactive.
Without objection, I make j inactive.
Without objection, I
On Sat, 2009-02-28 at 20:13 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
ais523 wrote:
I spend D F# A to increase Murphy's caste to Alpha.
OMG you suck.
Sorry, it was cheaper that way. If it's any consolation to you, I reset
everyone's Caste (including mine), not just yours.
--
ais523
On Sun, 2009-03-01 at 11:02 -0500, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
On Feb 27, 2009, at 9:21 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I submit the following proposal, Nothing Original, AI-3:
--
Create a Rule with the following text and a power of 3:
On Sun, 2009-03-01 at 11:07 -0500, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
On Feb 28, 2009, at 11:13 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
ais523 wrote:
I spend D F# A to increase Murphy's caste to Alpha.
OMG you suck.
I am mildly surprised more people didn't do last-minute adjustments.
Caste changes coming up soon.
On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 14:20 +, Elliott Hird wrote:
2009/3/3 Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk:
I submit the following proposal, Open It Up, AI 3:
--
Create a Rule with the following text and a power of 3:
If a rule
On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 14:53 +, Elliott Hird wrote:
2009/3/3 Elliott Hird penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com:
Any activity.
einos is run by our player Craig/Teucer, and since we can make it a
Protectorate we might as well.
The Ambassador handles recognition changes.
Although,
On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 09:05 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 14:20 +, Elliott Hird wrote:
2009/3/3 Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk:
I'm all for legitimate scams.
I'm all for legitimate wins, too
What's the difference?
Not all
On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 09:26 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
Rule 2150 does not specify the type or quality of the translation
service. Also, English-to-Hungarian-to-English is not an ideal test
of native-Hungarian-to-English.
Rule 2150 requires me to be able to participate via a translation
service.
On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 09:34 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
I interpreted this as relatively clear consent to allow me to act on
Murphy's behalf support such an intent, although not as being a
contract. Note that my intent to protectorise Einos came after
On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 09:37 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
Oh, so you're interpreting R2150 as must include. Again, though, this
is trivially satisfied by your theoretical ability to hire one or more
sufficiently competent human translators.
Is a theoretical ability enough, though? For instance, I'm
On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 09:44 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
ais523 wrote:
On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 09:26 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
Rule 2150 does not specify the type or quality of the translation
service. Also, English-to-Hungarian-to-English is not an ideal
On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 09:57 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
ais523 wrote:
On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 09:37 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
Oh, so you're interpreting R2150 as must include. Again, though, this
is trivially satisfied by your theoretical ability to hire one or more
sufficiently competent
On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 22:36 +0100, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
2009/3/3 Taral tar...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 6:09 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
Voting for this one could be useful insurance against whatever Goethe is
trying. We already have H. Cassandra Goethe, don't make me
On Wed, 2009-03-04 at 12:46 +, Alex Smith wrote:
On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 20:06 -0800, Taral wrote:
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
ais523's fix is not to be trusted. Read it. If a rule mentions
the possibility... that someone can modify
On Wed, 2009-03-04 at 08:48 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Elliott Hird
penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
2009/3/4 Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk:
I submit the following proposal (AI 3, Title=Open It Up,
coauthor=Goethe
On Wed, 2009-03-04 at 20:11 +0100, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
6137 O 0 1.0 Tiger Ambassador Anarchy
AGAINST (probably invalid)
Why? Did I fail to use correct adoption index again?
No, because ehird probably has a voting limit of 0 on ordinary
proposals. So it's a valid proposal,
On Wed, 2009-03-04 at 17:26 -0500, comex wrote:
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
6135 O 1 1.5 comex because e is one
8xFOR. I wrote this.
By the way, I'm quite fine with getting Scamster again now that I've
successfully removed the
This basically makes Notes more consistent, hopefully easier for the
Conductor to calculate, and probably more numerous (thus existing notes
are doubled as a result). Anyone have good suggestions for what F# and G
should be? (I was wondering about things like new player bonuses.) The
principle is
On Sat, 2009-03-07 at 10:11 -0700, Sean Hunt wrote:
coppro wrote:
I, coppro, am registering.
There's no point starting off with confusion as to whether I'm a player
or not.
Why not? It seems that half the registrations here start out that way.
Anyway, welcome.
--
ais523
Speaker
On Sun, 2009-03-08 at 15:02 +, Alex Smith wrote:
On Fri, 2009-03-06 at 09:13 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
I intend, without 3 objections, to flip the contestmaster of Enigma to None.
I object to this one. I have at least two puzzles lined up for future
weeks, but am waiting until after
On Sun, 2009-03-08 at 11:39 -0400, comex wrote:
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 3:04 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Declaring a senator to be not a senator is regulated as it switches
a status. Declaring a non-senator to be not a senator is just stating
a fact, and reasonably to me
On Sun, 2009-03-08 at 09:33 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
ais523 wrote:
On Sat, 2009-03-07 at 19:59 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
Wed 18 Feb 22:28:36 6072 possibly resolved by ais523
[snip]
Thu 19 Feb 20:19:11 6072 possibly resolved by Goethe
Thu 19 Feb 20:22:22 6072 possibly resolved by
On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 10:49 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Gratuitous response:
The text of Rule 2234 is performed duties related to the contest in a timely
manner. There are two ways to read this. The first (which ais523 argues
for) is that if the contest currently mandates no duties, then
On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 16:13 -0400, comex wrote:
In my opinion, if it had said all duties, ais523's argument would be
valid; as it is, I think the best interpretation (considering that 'in
a timely manner' is located at the end and vaguely defined) is that
the contestmaster is merely required
On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 15:15 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 16:13 -0400, comex wrote:
In my opinion, if it had said all duties, ais523's argument would be
valid; as it is, I think the best interpretation (considering that 'in
a timely
On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 08:04 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
I agree to these terms.
NttPF. (In other words, you sent to a-d, rather than a-b, by mistake;
don't worry, everyone does it.)
Note that there is judicial precedent that unlike other actions, it's
often possible to agree to a contract in a
On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 11:44 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Even with multiple contestants capable of gaming it? I considered
withdrawing my agreement and re-posting with a AAA-style contestants
SHALL NOT submit spam
On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 15:49 +, Alex Smith wrote:
On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 11:44 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Even with multiple contestants capable of gaming it? I considered
withdrawing my agreement and re
On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 09:58 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
ais523 wrote:
Also, I have a much better idea. Get the PNP to join the contest and
make a guess that's the amount it's distributing, immediately before the
distribution (maybe in the same message?)
Anyone tries any funny stuff gets
On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 19:49 +0100, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
I agree to this contract.
(or is that how you say when you want to join the contest?)
Yep, that's correct. It isn't a contest yet, just an ordinary contract
atm; however, it's clearly intended to become a contest, and there's an
intent to
On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 20:11 +0100, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
2009/3/11 Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk:
On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 19:49 +0100, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
I agree to this contract.
(or is that how you say when you want to join the contest?)
Yep, that's correct. It isn't a contest yet
On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 23:29 +, Alex Smith wrote:
On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 15:50 +, Alex Smith wrote:
I intend, with Agoran Consent, to make Einos
(http://einos-nomic.blogspot.com/) a protectorate.
I confirm, as Ambassador, that Einos meets the conditions to be a
Protectorate
On Thu, 2009-03-12 at 15:12 +, Elliott Hird wrote:
2009/3/12 Alexander Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk:
ehird wrote (with top-posting corrected):
Blame the iPhone's lack of adequate text box movement.
On 2009-03-11, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
Incidentally, can anyone else here
On Thu, 2009-03-12 at 23:02 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
Since it seems
unreasonable to add an obligation retroactively due to changing
circumstances, it seems equally unreasonable to remove one.
I judge case 2403 to be TRUE.
On Fri, 2009-03-13 at 14:19 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
G1
G2
G3
I terminate the above 3 pledges (assuming they're the ones that are mine,
which I believe can be terminated by my announcement). -Goethe
Yep, that succeeds.
--
ais523
Notary
On Sat, 2009-03-14 at 03:15 -0500, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
Anarchist: ehird, Yally, Tiger
denounce the Anarchist
Is it even possible to denounce in an election where the choices aren't
FOR/AGAINST/ABSTAIN?
--
ais523
On Sat, 2009-03-14 at 07:52 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Sat, 14 Mar 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
If the proposal entitled Fix recursive SHOULD was adopted at the same
time as this proposal, it is of no effect.
This is an
On Sat, 2009-03-14 at 00:53 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
After having carefully considered the consequences of doing so,
including the fact that it opens up Agora to multiple easy wins; that it
reveals a serious flaw in the rules; and that it allows me to win, for
the duration of this message I
On Sun, 2009-03-15 at 16:21 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
ais...@normish.org wrote:
As permitted by the rule created by proposal 6130, I cause
Rule 2223 (Win by Junta) to amend itself to change its text
to Any non-player partnership whose basis contains no other
members but ais523, comex,
On Mon, 2009-03-16 at 13:06 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
ais523 wrote:
I'm very disappointed that you didn't find a way to escalate that to
power 3. What a waste of a good scam!
I could have added rules with lower Power take precedence over rules
with higher Power, but then you would have
On Mon, 2009-03-16 at 16:02 -0700, Taral wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 12:42 PM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote:
I CFJ on the statement: { A rule was amended in the message in which
this CFJ was called. }
Ugh. This is why I voted AGAINST.
I would have thought that the fact that it was a
On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 15:55 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
[2] Is a proposal distribution considered a Proposal Pool report?
The PNP reports the emptiness of the pool in the same message that it
distributes proposals. This works as long as there's at least one
proposal distribution each week.
--
On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 16:53 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
Goethe wrote:
[2] Is a proposal distribution considered a Proposal Pool report?
Proposal distributions have been routinely including the boilerplate
text Proposal pool: empty (which counts)
On Wed, 2009-03-18 at 09:19 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
I harvest the following CFJ numbers, for 2 WRV each:
2411
2413
2414
2415
2416
2417
2419
2401
2403
2405
2406
2407
2409
Murphy's CotC website for CFJ 2401 says:
Called by Warrigal 7 Mar 2009 20:42:01 GMT
Assigned to Goethe 7
On Wed, 2009-03-18 at 14:33 +, Elliott Hird wrote:
2009/3/18 Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk:
As for the question the CFJ was trying to ask; either a right-side up or
upside-down moo would have been appropriate to fulfil the obligation,
due to rule 754(1) (they are clearly synonyms
On Thu, 2009-03-19 at 11:49 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
6155 FOR
Ineffective due to caste.
Actually, given the PNP's standard voting header, it was specifically
purporting to vote 0 times. So ineffective due to being a no-op.
--
ais523
On Thu, 2009-03-19 at 21:02 +, Charles Walker wrote:
I am proud to announce the rebirth of InterNomic II. It is hosted at
http://internomic2.wikidot.com/ and includes a fully functioning set
of
forums. (The groups 'General' and 'Off-topic' under 'General' in the
forums
allow for
On Sun, 2009-03-15 at 21:16 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
I join the Vote Market.
It was terminated by proposal. I'm therefore treating this as not
sufficiently clear to agree to a new copy of the contract.
--
ais523
Notary
On Fri, 2009-03-20 at 15:26 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Ian Kelly ian.g.ke...@gmail.com wrote:
4x4:
...
Bits and Bytes:
...
Crap, sorry, I forgot to change the To: address.
Note that you have to submit answers privately. Submission to a-d
doesn't
On Sun, 2009-03-22 at 15:39 -0400, Warrigal wrote:
I submit the following proposal, titled A Silly Bribe, with adoption
index 1.1:
{Set the power of every player with at least one valid FOR vote and no
valid AGAINST votes on this proposal to 1.05.}
Don't worry, having power doesn't
On Sun, 2009-03-22 at 14:41 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
Warrigal wrote:
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
You seriously don't want to see the sort of thing a decent player could
do if they had a positive power. (It wouldn't even need to be as high as
1
On Mon, 2009-03-16 at 16:39 +, Alex Smith wrote:
I call for judgement on the statement Murphy's recent attempt to cause
Rule 2223 to amend itself to read 'This rule intentionally left blank'
was using the mechanism specified in rule 2223, rather than the
mechanism specified in the rule
On Sun, 2009-03-22 at 23:06 +0100, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
The following proposal is made as a part of the Anarchist's weekly
duties.
Date of this message: Sun 22 Mar 09
Date of last fulfilment of these duties: Sat 14 Mar 09
Proposal: Speaker Anarchy
(AI=3, Disinterested)
Repeal Rule 104
On Sun, 2009-03-22 at 19:35 -0500, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 5:39 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/3/22 Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk:
On Sun, 2009-03-22 at 23:06 +0100, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
The following
On Mon, 2009-03-23 at 10:51 +0100, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
2009/3/23 Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@googlemail.com:
You could say something along the lines of
'Where another nomic makes it possible for Agora or a representative of
Agora to perform actions within that nomic, X (person or
On Mon, 2009-03-23 at 11:09 -0400, comex wrote:
does. The proposal took effect but was unauthorized to make any Rule
Changes so did nothing.
No, I think it didn't take effect, but nevertheless was not prevented
from taking effect. There isn't a contradiction there.
--
ais523
On Mon, 2009-03-23 at 14:25 -0400, comex wrote:
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
ais523, comex, and coppro can join this contract by announcement. Other
players can join this contract only with consent of all existing
members. Any party to this contract
On Mon, 2009-03-23 at 13:11 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
Just in case:
If proposal 6122 did create a new rule, then I cause said new rule to
amend itself to read 'This rule intentionally left blank' by means of
rule 2243.
And I suppose the upshot of all this is, if you're going to run a scam,
On Tue, 2009-03-24 at 22:26 +0100, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
2009/3/24 Elliott Hird penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com:
2009/3/24 Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu:
A humble request: can players (esp. newish players without email addresses
matching their nicknames) get in the habit of
On Tue, 2009-03-24 at 15:03 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I believe that ais523's win by clout is uncontentious, and that Goethe and
OscarMeyr's win by Junta is uncontentious (or at least un-CFJ'd for a while)
and all other non-awarded potential champions are currently contentious.
Any
On Tue, 2009-03-24 at 18:46 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
Alex Smith wrote:
READ ME by ais523:
Oh drat, I made a mistake! New answer (suffers no ambiguities!):
8414004
Answers only count if submitted privately. (You've made this bad enough,
make sure that your answer officially counts
On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 06:24 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
ais523 wrote:
I intend to appeal CFJ 2426 with 2 support, because its reasoning is
based on that of CFJs 2424 and 2425, and they should therefore be
appealed as a set or not at all.
ITYM 2423.
Oh, I misread your message, and thought
On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 10:27 -0400, comex wrote:
Testing, sorry for the spam
I object.
(Sorry, couldn't resist...)
--
ais523
On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 10:16 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 2:49 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
/me considers sending Enigma puzzles via private email to all
contestants to avoid a repeat of this sort of thing in the future...
-1, if non-contestants don't see
On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 19:12 +0100, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
Okay, I guess I didn't really know exactly what was allowed since I
just read outline changes to the gamestate. The only thing I can see
that would stop it is that it requires higher power than the 1 it gets
from adoption index, but
On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 13:21 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
ais523 wrote:
On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 10:16 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 2:49 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
/me considers sending Enigma puzzles via private email to all
contestants to avoid a repeat
On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 16:54 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
But if rests are not fungible, the recordkeepor would be required to
track each rest as a distinct thing, and attempts to destroy rests
would have to match, e.g. I hereby destroy the rest that was created
when I broke rule foo. We don't do
On Thu, 2009-03-26 at 09:39 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I submit the following Proposal, enough again already, AI-2:
--
[The PNP was the last partnership which seemed to justify
partnerships existing. Now it is also
On Thu, 2009-03-26 at 10:13 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I object to the intent. I vote AGAINST 6167. I raise the point
that a record of votes is part of resolving a decision, but not actually
part of anyone's Report as far as I can tell (that must be explicitly
defined as being part of a
On Thu, 2009-03-26 at 12:18 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I firmly believe that the publication of a false fact is inherently
misleading. If it is done purposefully, it is purposefully misleading.
I do see your argument. What you claim is that you published a document,
and that it's not your
On Thu, 2009-03-26 at 13:01 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
comex wrote:
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 11:56 AM, The PerlNomic Partnership
perlno...@nomictools.com wrote:
NUM C I AI SUBMITTER TITLE
6167 D 1 3.0 comex Foo
I intend, without objection, to ratify the
On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 09:23 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I vote FOR Proposal 6165 and AGAINST proposal 6166 (not because of lack of
trust of comex-as-rulekeepor, but because I never thought ruleset
ratification
was a good idea to begin with...ratify everything else but let the rules be
On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 10:29 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I understand the tradeoff, I just prefer to ratify change events (e.g.
proposals) rather than the state for the ruleset in particular. Unlike
those who like hard-resets every time there's uncertainty (B? Or at
least my impression of B) I
Murphy's website (including things like the CotC database) appears to be
down; I can't load from it locally, nor ping it from Normish. Can anyone
confirm this? If so, can Murphy fix it?
--
ais523
On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 11:31 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
The bug is in rule 754, which doesn't define
announcement anywhere in the published versions of the FLR or SLR for
months.
Actually, we've got a judicial precedent (I'll look up the number later
On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 14:55 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
Also, perhaps we should allow the Assessor to end a voting period early
if there is a certain amount of positive votes (say, VI twice the AI and
at least half of all
On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 22:10 +, Alex Smith wrote:
This is the Enigma results from last week's puzzles: 4x4, er ev hg is ni
no, and Bits and Bytes.
Because many contestants are likely to be interested, I'd like to
informally request Murphy to reveal eir solution to er ev hg is ni
On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 17:21 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
ais523 wrote:
The bug is in rule 754, which doesn't define
announcement anywhere in the published versions of the FLR or SLR for
months.
Rule 478, last paragraph.
Nope, it defines action by announcement in terms of announcements.
301 - 400 of 1537 matches
Mail list logo
