On Jan 1, 2008 11:28 AM, Iammars [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When you say concurring opinion, do you want an opinion on the original
statement or an opinion on why it should be appealed?
Rule 911 defines the term:
A panel CAN publish a concurring opinion when judging AFFIRM,
and SHALL
On Jan 7, 2008 2:08 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now combined with root's.
I intend to act as following on behalf of the Panel:
The panel overrules to TRUE. The judge has only been cursory in examining
the purpose of words: eg, communication. In particular, for the purposes
On Jan 7, 2008 6:02 PM, Josiah Worcester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
I intend to appeal this judgement.
Maybe you'd like to describe the method of dependent action as rule
1728 would seem to require to initiate an Agoran decision on this
matter?
- woggle
On Jan 8, 2008 6:26 PM, Josiah Worcester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I submit the following proposal (AI=2, coauthor to anyone who tells me what
needs to be fixed, if anything):
Create a rule title Power of Attorney, Power 2, with the following text:
A Power of Attorney is a kind of public
On Jan 10, 2008 4:58 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 10, 2008 2:38 PM, Iammars [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FACT 4: Bearing Patent Titles isn't limited to persons. (Only being awarded
a patent title is limited to persons.)
Devil's advocate here. What about the first sentence of
On Jan 11, 2008 5:49 AM, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hereby assign the judicial panel of Murphy, root, and woggle as judge
of CFJ 1860a.
Proto-judgement here:
With the consent of Murphy and root, I intend to have the panel rule REASSIGN.
Arguments:
The original judge's ruling is clearly
On Jan 11, 2008 4:50 PM, Josiah Worcester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 11 January 2008 10:55:49 Ian Kelly wrote:
On Jan 11, 2008 7:55 AM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 11, 2008 5:49 AM, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hereby assign the judicial panel of Murphy
Proto-Proposal:
Title: Determined Partnerships (AI=2)
{
Amend rule 2145 by replacing the text:
A partnership that is a public contract and whose basis contains
at least two persons is a person.
with:
If, using information required to be in officers' reports, it can be
On Jan 11, 2008 9:55 AM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 11, 2008 5:49 AM, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hereby assign the judicial panel of Murphy, root, and woggle as judge
of CFJ 1860a.
Proto-judgement here:
With the consent of Murphy and root, I intend to have
On Jan 14, 2008 7:09 PM, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
H. woggle, I hereby inform you of criminal case 1868 in which you are
the defendant, and invite you to rebut the argument for your guilt.
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1868
==
On Jan 15, 2008 4:34 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 15, 2008 2:33 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fortunately, the rules don't provide any way for a nonperson to become
a person (other than by ceasing to exist).
That should be for a person to become a nonperson...
On Thursday 17 January 2008 00:23:55 Benjamin Schultz wrote:
On Jan 16, 2008, at 7:18 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
From R869:
A player CAN deregister by announcement. E CANNOT register
within thirty days after doing so.
Enjoy your
On Thursday 17 January 2008 22:45:30 Ed Murphy wrote:
pikhq wrote:
On Thursday 17 January 2008 14:56:13 Josiah Worcester wrote:
I intend to ratify Murphy's report on the voting results on proposals
5390-5404.
I claim this as erroneous.
The purported report, or your intent to ratify
On Thursday 17 January 2008 21:52:25 Ed Murphy wrote:
[snip]
Net changes:
pikhq would have 4 more Rests and a Blue Ribbon.
pikhq has a Blue Ribbon regardless (from eir judgement on culpability in CFJ
1866 if the original resolution was valid, from VC conversion otherwise).
- H. Possibly
On Saturday 19 January 2008 22:56:48 Levi Stephen wrote:
[...]
Date of this report: Sat 19 Jan 08
[...]
Fri 18 Jan 01:34:12 Murphyinstalled as Assessorby Murphy (DO)
[...]
Office Holder Since Last R2154 Stability
On Monday 21 January 2008 00:08:41 Josiah Worcester wrote:
The Office of Ambassador of Agora Nomic presents its compliments to
the Canadian Embassy in Denver and directs the attention of the latter
I think you mean the Consulate General.
-woggle
On Tuesday 22 January 2008 02:45:09 Levi Stephen wrote:
Josiah Worcester wrote:
On Monday 21 January 2008 19:37:28 Ian Kelly wrote:
On Jan 21, 2008 7:21 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I intend to ratify my message alleging to announce the voting results
of proposals 5390-5404.
On Thursday 24 January 2008 17:20:44 Ian Kelly wrote:
On Jan 24, 2008 9:46 AM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think this still leaves small contracts in a bad state under the rules,
given that amending, terminating and changing the parties (except by
adding new parties
On Thursday 24 January 2008 20:04:04 comex wrote:
On Jan 24, 2008 11:46 AM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Enact a new rule titled Defining Contract Changes, with Power 1.5:
A Contract Change can be one or more of any of the following:
(a) a person who intends
On Friday 25 January 2008 04:02:07 Ed Murphy wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1882
== CFJ 1882 ==
watcher is a Player
On Friday 25 January 2008 05:36:18 Ed Murphy wrote:
woggle wrote:
There is some evidence that Pravita did not intend to become a player.
This might be seen to create a R101 issue, since per R2171, the
registration process is to preserve player's rights as if entering the
rules were a
On Monday 28 January 2008 21:02:55 Jeremy Koo wrote:
With the following I hope to eliminate situations where a vote of
OBJECT would result in a given vote achieving quorum, making the
objector's vote that allows the vote to be accepted.
Uh, perhaps you didn't notice that the quorum on
On Wednesday 30 January 2008 17:43:08 Levi Stephen wrote:
I agree to REMAND also.
Is it also worth considering the possibility that the registration
notice registered a player 'Pavitra', rather than 'watcher'? (I believe
this was the initial interpretation from the registrar?)
I believe that
Soliciting comments/things I may have forgotten here:
Examining Pavitra's message in the context of the panel's concerns, I must
examine what effect the modifier 'as a watcher' as upon Pavitra's alleged
message of registration. There are several plausible interpretations:
(1) Pavitra intends to
On Friday 01 February 2008 23:44:07 Ed Murphy wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1889
== CFJ 1889 ==
Zefram violated Rule 2149 in the above message by making the
statement I intend to deputise
On Saturday 02 February 2008 15:57:40 Zefram wrote:
Charles Reiss wrote:
I strongly disagree. R754's preference for rule-defined definitions would
be of little effect is we always choose the most plausible interpretation
instead of choosing the rule-defined one whenever it might reasonably
On Saturday 02 February 2008 21:24:37 Ian Kelly wrote:
On Feb 2, 2008 9:58 AM, Josiah Worcester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I CFJ on the following: comex's non-binding agreement 'X' is a
contract.
This may not be sufficient; there are other reasons that the scam may
have failed.
I CFJ on
On Saturday 02 February 2008 21:53:12 comex wrote:
On Feb 2, 2008 9:44 PM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It would be good to know what exactly makes an agreement binding,
anyways... Since the contract in question didn't seem to ever impose any
obligations on comex, if imposing
On Saturday 02 February 2008 22:27:05 Kerim Aydin wrote:
comex's non-binding agreement 'X' is a contract.
Proto-judgement: FALSE. a non-binding contract is a contradiction
in legal terms, and a meaningless semantic construct. R1742, and R2169,
both explicitly and explicitly link the
On Sunday 03 February 2008 13:12:29 Iammars wrote:
On Feb 2, 2008 9:24 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I CFJ on the following: comex successfully caused at least one player
other than emself to cast a vote on Proposal 5419.
Wouldn't he have caused the AFO to vote even if the others
On Saturday 02 February 2008 20:51:24 Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Sat, 2 Feb 2008, Zefram wrote:
The rules do not explicitly define the meaning of registered as a
watcher. I wonder how I wish to be registered as a carpenter. would
be interpreted.
You would clearly become a player with the nick
On Feb 7, 2008 6:02 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 7, 2008 3:50 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1903a
Appellant Goethe's Arguments:
I support Murphy's call for appeal of CFJ 1903. In spite of reading this
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 3:19 PM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 2:54 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The question yes/no = equivalent statement true/false is a legal fiction
that applies only after the CFJ is initiated. Until that CFJ is clearly
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Ben Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 02 March 2008 1:26 Charles Reiss wrote:
The prior judge was improperly relied on a newer version of the rule
that included a bugfix for precisely this reason.
The judgement is still appropriate, however
On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 2:01 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1897
== CFJ 1897 ==
BobTHJ is a player
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 6:55 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 12:26 PM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Arguments:
The arguments given in Wooble's purported causing the panel to judge
CFJ 1903a are not labeled as a concurring opinion and therefore do
OscarMeyr, Iammars: Do you consent to the judgement I propose below?
Have any opinions on the case?
[Since OscarMeyr has not agreed to this judgement, Iammars past
blanket consent won't apply.]
- woggle
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 5:42 PM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Mar 1, 2008
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 4:18 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd missed updating the database to reflect that OscarMeyr had
gone on hold. The alleged assignments were ineffective.
I hereby assign CFJs 1911-13 to BobTHJ. These are linked assignments.
Since I'm not likely to get
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 4:34 PM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 4:18 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd missed updating the database to reflect that OscarMeyr had
gone on hold. The alleged assignments were ineffective.
I hereby assign CFJs
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I intend to deputise the delivering of a judgement by the judicial panel of
Appeal 1897a.
Note that no judicial panel has been assigned in CFJ 1897a because the
assignment of a panel including inactive player OscarMeyr
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 7:25 AM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 8:32 AM, Iammars [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
comex hasn't agreed to anything in panel 1903a, so it can't be judged and a
concurring opinion hasn't been published. I judge FALSE on both 1908
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 4:12 PM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 7:25 AM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 8:32 AM, Iammars [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 8:17 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Regarding 1903, I intend to cause the panel to judge AFFIRM with the
following concurring opinion:
Goethe's original judgement of CFJ 1903 alludes to the following
interpretation:
Questions are not statements. An
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 6:38 PM, Nick Vanderweit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I come off hold (Guatemala was amazing, thanks for asking).
I submit the following proposal, titled, Grarrgghh!, with AI=2 and II=3:
Uh, that's not very disinterested, H. Mad Scientist.
-woggle
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 9:24 PM, Josiah Worcester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 15:24 Sun 30 Mar , Ed Murphy wrote:
Iammars wrote:
I initiate a criminal case on pihkq for misrepresenting Agora on the
Nomic Wiki by failing to include my name in the players list.
I initiate a
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 8:41 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 8:23 PM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Claim of error: This fails to list comex's pledge and public contract
which purports to make persons assets.
That pledge has been terminated
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 5:34 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
{This is a public contract and a pledge by the name of The Note Exchange.
For each pitch of Note, the corresponding Credit is a currency, and
the corresponding Marker is a fixed currency. Ivan Hope CXXVII is the
recordkeepor
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 6:37 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/04/2008, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
? Consider allowing acting on behalf for the purpose of fulfilling
marker-holder's obligations?
Good idea. Could this be automatic? It is triggered manually
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 10:57 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 4:37 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
? Consider allowing acting on behalf for the purpose of fulfilling
marker-holder's obligations?
Good idea. Could this be automatic? It is
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
root wrote:
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 12:06 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Zefram, root, you voted against the previous version of this; would
you support this revision?]
What's the difference from the
On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 12:06 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree to the following, making it a contract:
{The name of this contract is Bumblebee. This contract is a pledge.
This contract is a location. Any party to this contract can leave it
by announcement.}
I leave the
On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 7:24 PM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 7:53 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
== Equity Case 1927 ==
Judge: Wooble
As a hugging
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 8:03 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 5:30 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 5:22 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree to the following: All players SHALL act as if this paragraph
were a rule
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 5:41 PM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am an Agoran, and also a player of IRCnomic. However, I have not (from an
Agoran point of view) knowingly joined comex's contract, if it is one. Many
IRCnomic rules conflict with Agoran rules anyway. (Doesn't Agora
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 2:56 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
[Current list:
Crops (0 through 9)AAA BobTHJ
Mills (+ - * /)AAA BobTHJ
Notes (C through B)Rule 2126 Conductor
Pens Bank of
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 12:21 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 10:08 AM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/1/08, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
3. After this equation has been binding for 30 days or after all
eligible parties have specified
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 8:27 PM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I intend to make the following contract with comex:
{
Parties to this contract cannot leave this contract.
Parties to this contract are obligated not to consent to making a
Contract Change.
Parties to this contract
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 11:18 AM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(I will hereby rebut the argument which is against my guilt and,
therefore, for my innocence.)
These arguments relate to CFJ 1943.
The Argument:
I should not be found GUILTY because the contract obligated
its parties
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/5/14 Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I win the game.
ehird
I initiate an inquiry CFJ on the statement: In the message archived
at the URL
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/5/14 Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I win the game.
ehird
I initiate an inquiry CFJ on the statement
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 2:04 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I submit a proposal, titled Recordkeepors must recordkeep, with an
adoption index of 2:
[snip]
The recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity defined as such
by its backing document. If the recordkeepor is an office, that
On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 2:51 PM, Ben Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 1 June 2008 3:41:29 comex wrote:
Except that pledges can't do things automatically. So really, he's out of
luck.
Why not?
Acting on behalf authority is pretty poorly defined already (being now
primarily a matter
On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 6:22 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Proposal: An elephant sometimes forgets (AI=1.7, II=0)
I don't think this should be disinterested. It's a rather more than a bug fix.
-woggle
I vote as follows:
On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 6:53 AM, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
NUM FL AI SUBMITTER TITLE
5541 O0 1ais523 Motto of the Monster
FOR x 6
5542 O1 1.7 Wooble equation as amendment
FOR x 6
5543 D1 2Murphy Faster support
FOR
5544 D1 2.1
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 9:39 AM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This (very late and overlooked; my apologies) message initiates the
Agoran Decision to choose the holder of the Assessor office. The
valid options are ROOT and MURPHY, the eligible voters are the active
players, and the
On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 8:09 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ivan Hope, I inform you of
http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2009
and invite you to rebut the argument for your guilt.
Some gratuitous arguments:
The R101(iii) right may take precedence here (even if Ivan
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 11:53 PM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 10:48 PM, Chester Mealer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm about to be busy and ehird gave me an idea.
[...]
8. Any party with support of a majority of trustees and without objection
from
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 9:01 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 9:57 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2018
== Equity Case 2018 ==
comex made use
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 1:53 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is just a rough proto so far. The idea is to prevent scams that
involve repeating the same set of actions over and over again within a
short period of time.
A game action is liberal iff the rules explicitly indicate
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I leave the pledge that talks about things being able to perform
actions on my behalf.
How?
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 2:20 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2032
== CFJ 2032 ==
The hypothetical contract in the evidence section, if made a
contest, would be
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 11:15 PM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I might be wrong, but don't reports traditionally go in OFF?
It is equally effective to send a report to agora-business as to
agora-official, and it's not conventional to send reports that aren't
directly required by the rules to
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 9:25 AM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 12:57 AM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Comments please?
Proto-judgment:
It's a good proto-judgement.
Too bad it doesn't yield my desired outcome... :(
Have you considered Goethe's argument
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 2:45 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 4:22 PM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/6/28 comex [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
My VP is now 50 or above.
I give Pavrita 20 Vote Points.
You know, ais523 stole VP from me and gave them to you
because
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 11:59 AM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 1:44 PM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not really. You make the contract a partnership, have all the parties
sponsor it, and require it to cast the exact number of votes you'd
have cast under the
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 8:50 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 5:15 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
== CFJ 2032 ==
The hypothetical contract in the evidence section, if made a
contest, would be
On 7/2/08, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I call a inquiry CFJ on the following statement: The CotC MAY NOT
refuse cases based on cases being excess as defined by Rule 2175
Evidence:
Rule 101(iii) gives all persons the right to initiate a formal
process to resolve matters of controversy,
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 6:11 PM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I submit the following proposal AI = 2 ii = 1 entitled Time to trade notes
---
Remove the word 'fixed' from the first paragraph of R2126
---
If you're going to do this, you should also get rid of a note spending method.
-woggle
On 7/2/08, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
I'm obligating myself to give everyone who has not participated in the
fora since April 29 a D note. This is equivalent to giving everyone a
D note and then penalizing people D notes for participating in the
fora. However, by rule 101,
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 2:27 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 9:50 AM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2008-07-01 at 14:36 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2028
= Criminal Case 2028
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 8:54 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're half right. I initiate an appeal on the question of sentence in
this case.
I'm pretty sure that's unsuccessful unless I'm missing something big...
Are you trying to argue R101(iii)?
-woggle
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 11:14 PM, Ben Caplan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
5583 O1 1ais523 Right to Vanish
AGAINST*10 (shouldn't be such an easy way out of contracts; if you really
want a get-out like that it should have a longer auto-exile)
In particular, it should be at least as long
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 10:31 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 10:26 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008, Taral wrote:
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 6:48 AM, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That depends on the value of 4.
Please give a
On Sun, Jul 6, 2008 at 12:01 PM, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jul 6, 2008 at 6:31 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
= Criminal Case 2048 =
ehird violated Rule 2149 by saying that e joins.
As much as I appreciate Goethe's
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 10:33 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
a) An attempted speech act is equivalent to a claim that the
person will perform the action by sending the message.
Why on earth are we codifying this? For years,
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 10:47 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2008, Charles Reiss wrote:
People will need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you did not
believe the action would be successful if you don't include a
disclaimer. I don't think that's chilling really
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 4:06 PM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Assuming I'm a Banker Without 3 proto-objections I proto-change the
RBOA contract as follows:
---
Add the following to the end for the RBOA conract:
9. Whenever a Player transfers a Mill to the Bank of Agora, and the
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 5:17 AM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:41 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I still need 3 more votes on whether to lynch Pavitra.
I recommend amending the contract to require votes to be cast as soon
as possible, with severe
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 7:09 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 2:55 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Therefore, there is no recordkeepor of
public contracts (the phrase itself is an oxymoron), and therefore I
judge FALSE.
I intend to appeal this judgement with
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 8:31 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 9:46 PM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The first issue is whether the statement of intent unambiguously
descri[s] both the action and the method. The method (Agoran Consent)
is correctly
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 9:32 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree to the following: {This is a pledge. Ivan Hope is always in
violation of this pledge. Ivan Hope can leave this pledge by
announcement.}
Now, assuming that Ivan Hope is always in violation of this pledge
works, I'm
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 1:13 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2097
== CFJ 2097 ==
The Executor of a message that contains a CFJ is also the
Initiator of that CFJ,
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 12:25 PM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 1:13 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2097
== CFJ 2097 ==
The Executor
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 4:32 PM, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
= Criminal Case 2088 =
tusho violated Rule 2029 by changing eir posture to sitting.
As
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 4:48 PM, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 20, 2008, at 6:43 PM, Charles Reiss wrote:
Are you trying to imply that it is not possible for non-players to
violate the rules?
How could a non-player be bound by the rules of Agora? It would be
completely
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 8:25 PM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
In the PNP i believe that the PNP is indeed the Executor of its own
messages, as it has an e-mail address set up specifically for it, and
it sends its own messages. I see no reason that partnerships be
Read the definition
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 8:35 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Proposal: Awful proposal (AI=2)
{
Amend Rule 649 by replacing person with entity and by replacing
the entire second paragraph with:
Awarding or revoking a Patent Title is a secured change.
Amend Rule 2162 by replacing its
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 9:05 PM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmm, then I think that Executor can/should be modified to take into
account the PNP and other partnerships of that nature, as I've always
(until now) seen the PNP as its own executor.
Your argument that the PNP is its own
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 3:58 AM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/7/21 Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Your argument that the PNP is its own executor wouldn't work even if
you removed first-class from the definition. The PNP that Agora
recognizes is a contract. A document. It can't
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 10:15, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I object to every dependent action I can object to. I support every
dependent action I can support.
So you don't want to leave the Protection Racket?
-woggle
1 - 100 of 206 matches
Mail list logo
