> On Feb 17, 2019, at 7:31 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> I'm not clear how your win attempt relies on it though. I understand that
> you've arranged matters so that you only win* if intents are broken (because
> otherwise the CFJ is eventually judged DISMISS), but not _why_ you've done
> On Feb 17, 2019, at 7:15 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> Forgive me, but I can't seem to find the rule(s) where the action of "causing
> to vote for for " (presumably == "setting
> 's Vote for switch to ") is defined or
> regulated.
Lol bugged
Greed relic— taking all of the coins of an active player against eir will (e.g.
through a contract scam)
> On Feb 17, 2019, at 6:02 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>
> The same applies to Ribbons. Raising a Banner (which just gives you a win)
> is harder than just winning (because it has as a
> On Feb 17, 2019, at 4:54 PM, Madeline wrote:
>
> Yo, this doesn't get you a win regardless of what follows because the Win by
> Paradox rule only works for "a CFJ about the legality or possibility of a
> game action", which this is not.
Arg. Well played, Ruleset, well played.
> On Feb 17, 2019, at 3:37 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> Gaelan had to specifically ask me to remove my
> standard intent boilerplate, otherwise eir scam would have been trivially
> stopped
But Gaelan’s scam did identify a dangerous flaw in the intent rules. Would you
have noticed it and
To the People of Agora:
Your humble Arbitor beseeches you to consider signing up as a Day or Weekend
judge. We’ve had a glut of CFJs recently, and I think it may be worthwhile to
spread the caseload out more in hopes of getting more diversity in judicial
opinions and alleviating a little bit
> On Feb 17, 2019, at 3:03 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> We used to have a "the judge SHALL NOT knowingly assign an inappropriate
> judgement" (which is one reason "appropriate" is in all the judgement
> choices). Looks like we lost that somewhere along the line? Or am I missing
> it.
I
> On Feb 17, 2019, at 2:58 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 2/17/2019 11:48 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
>> Anyhow, I don’t really expect this PARADOXICAL win (if it becomes a win) to
>> be permanent.
>
> Why wouldn't it be permanent? Nothing takes away t
, 2019, at 2:34 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
>> If my attempt to announce intent for a Moot was successful - there seems to
>> be some question about this? - you would also have needed to use (3) the
>> power to delay a Moot for up to a week (and/or its resolution for a further
>
> On Feb 17, 2019, at 2:17 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> Yes you did: (1) the power to assign a judge to a CFJ in the same message
> it's initiated; and (2) the power to personally select who judges a CFJ.
Nope. I didn’t use any Arbitor power. I used the Prime Minister’s cabinet order
always been written the correct way.” Not sure how to make that language
work, but that would be the general idea.
If it worked right, that would eliminate the below scam and also make sure
nothing else is broken because of this intent issue.
> On Feb 17, 2019, at 8:08 AM, D. Margaux wr
> On Feb 16, 2019, at 6:59 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>
> Or it could just be the Priest, really
Yes except that as currently worded, if there is a heretic, then the priesthood
remains vacant. We could say that, when/if a player becomes a heretic, then the
most recent priest becomes the
> On Feb 16, 2019, at 6:54 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>
> Maybe an Inquisitor to coordinate the consensus-shunning process and
> otherwise suggest appropriately religious punishments.
I like it!!!
Maybe if there is a heretic in a given week, then the Inquisitor can be an
office imposed on the
> On Feb 16, 2019, at 5:25 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Feb 16, 2019, at 2:58 PM, Aris Merchant
>> wrote:
>>
>> I don’t much like the idea of enforcing minor violations against someone
>> who hasn’t agreed to it. It doesn’t quite seem
> On Feb 16, 2019, at 2:58 PM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>
> I don’t much like the idea of enforcing minor violations against someone
> who hasn’t agreed to it. It doesn’t quite seem fair.
Well, the heretic can point eir finger at all of the faithful for abetting
heresy...
I _love_ the idea of enforcing minor rule violations against a pariah.
Hilarious.
Some revisions to the protocontract below—
///
This contract is to be known as The Church of The Ritual. Parties to the
contract are the faithful; nonparties are heathens. A heathen can become
faithful by
Thanks—if there’s any interest in this, we can fix that for sure.
> On Feb 16, 2019, at 1:21 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> I think the proposed fix to Telnaior's scam includes an amendment such that
> offices can only be defined by the Rules.
>
>> On 2/16/2019 10
We must ensure that the Ritual is appeased. I therefore humbly submit to the
Agoran public this proto contract:
///
This contract is to be known as The Church of The Ritual. Parties to the
contract are the faithful; nonparties are heathens. A player can become
faithful by announcement upon
Any chance we can have it repeal with Agoran Consent or something more than
notice? Or is that excessive? :-)
> On Feb 15, 2019, at 3:41 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> Actually, one more time. Empty sacrifices are meaningless.
>
> I withdraw my proposal, The Ritual.
>
> I submit the following
> On Feb 15, 2019, at 10:04 AM, James Cook wrote:
>
> 1. The action is to be performed Without N Objections, there are
> at least N Objectors to that intent.
This needs an “and,” but otherwise looks good to me!
> On Feb 14, 2019, at 11:14 PM, James Cook wrote:
>
> Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action
> unless at least one of the following is true:
>
> 1. The action is to be performed Without N Objections, and it has
> at least N objectors.
>
>
t it out" at that time so your thoughts were
> original). But I'm happy to respect that.
>
>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 11:23 AM D. Margaux wrote:
>>
>> H. Herald: I ask that my entry be withdrawn, because it’s in essence
>> duplicative of twg’s which ca
the Ruleset Week Contest - update
>>>
>>> Before I give opinions or try to start a process to determine the
>>> winner, here's a list of all the entries I saw (Telnaior, Gaelan,
>>> CuddleBeam, twg, D. Margaux). Did I miss anyone?
>>>
>
> On Feb 14, 2019, at 9:27 AM, James Cook wrote:
>
> That would work, because Rule 1728 already covers notice: "3. If the
> action is to be performed With T Notice, if the intent was announced
> at least T earlier.". Is there anything wrong with leaving it that way
> (which would be
Nice find. This is definitely a badly worded rule, and in need of fixing!
“Agoran Satisfaction” refers to meeting the specific conditions for performing
an action by a particular method. So, for example, Agora is satisfied if there
are 0 objections and the action is Without N Objections, but it
Wait... hmm... so you’re saying it’s both shenanigans and you’re imposing a
fine for it? Can you do that? Weird!
> On Feb 13, 2019, at 7:16 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Feb 13, 2019, at 7:01 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>>
>> In this case, I belie
> On Feb 13, 2019, at 7:01 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> In this case, I believed no rule violation occurred. Therefore I COULD, and
> did, announce Shenanigans regardless of whether or not a rule violation
> actually occurred, and doing so discharged my obligations under R2478. (It is
> On Feb 13, 2019, at 6:01 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> Neither of these interpretations imposes any obligation on any player to
> re-enact repealed rules. Therefore, for each player other than Gaelan, I
> announce the below-quoted Pointing of Gaelan's Finger at that player to be
>
> On Feb 13, 2019, at 3:23 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> To start, a process question for people in general: Does this meet
> the "original" criterion in R1367, as it was clearly written for
> another purpose?
I think the thesis itself must be an “original” creation; that is, the work
must
gt;> I submit the following proposal, No Academic Fraud, AI-1:
>> ------
>> The A.N Degrees for D. Margaux and twg are hereby revoked.
>> --
>>
Seems like a good idea. Some suggested edits are added in capital letters
below.
> On Feb 13, 2019, at 10:55 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Create the following Rule, "No Mousetraps", at Power 3.1:
> Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a person CANNOT be bound to
> abide by any
player Speaker.
> On Feb 12, 2019, at 4:44 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Actually, I withdraw this CFJ. There's a lot of CFJs right now. Having
> pointed out the issue, it can wait until D. Margaux decides either a new
> intent or tries the action.
>
>> On 2/12/2019
gt; after my scam? (Speaking of which, H. Judge Aris…)
>
> Gaelan
>
>> On Feb 12, 2019, at 1:09 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
>>
>> I intend with 2 days’ notice to deputise for Prime Minister to appoint a
>> Speaker from among the laureled players.
>
> On Feb 11, 2019, at 1:56 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> The current Contract definition is here in R1742:
> > Any group of two or more consenting persons (the parties) may
> > make an agreement among themselves with the intention that it be
> > binding upon them and be governed
On Feb 10, 2019, at 1:39 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
>> On Feb 9, 2019, at 8:30 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>>
>>
>> I award myself an Indigo Ribbon.
>> I CFJ: "I own an Indigo Ribbon."
>
> This is CFJ 3705.
Gratuitous Arguement:
Here’s one rea
Here’s a revised proto proposal for cleaning up dependent actions. I think it’s
markup compliant and addresses Gaelan’s comments. Any further comments?
Title: Dependent Action Cleanup Act
Author: D Margaux
Co-author: Gaelan
AI: 3
Retitle Rule 1728 to “Dependent Action Methods.”
Amend Rule 1728
Sorry CB! I considered it to be linked with the other CFJs just given to G.
> On Feb 10, 2019, at 4:35 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>
> I was about to say that I favored the CFJ but oh well.
>
>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2019 at 19:49, D. Margaux wrote:
>>
>> I CFJ: “The parti
And at least one more...maybe...
> On Feb 10, 2019, at 11:34 AM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
>
> Ah I see you thought of the same bug as I.
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.
>
>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2019, D. Margaux wrote:
>>
>> Just in case...
>>
>>>
> On Feb 9, 2019, at 11:09 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
>
> In my view, rule 1742 doesn’t pose a problem. A person by registering gives
> willful consent to be bound by the rules, and the rules say that parties to a
> contract can modify it by adding additional players as partie
In my view, rule 1742 doesn’t pose a problem. A person by registering gives
willful consent to be bound by the rules, and the rules say that parties to a
contract can modify it by adding additional players as parties. So by virtue of
willfully consenting to be bound by the rules, a player also
> On Feb 9, 2019, at 9:13 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> Oh dear, I'm sorry. I did think your setup looked similar to mine but I
> couldn't see why, if you were planning the same thing but your end goal
> didn't rely on a dependent action, you wouldn't just activate it immediately.
> I
> On Feb 8, 2019, at 8:47 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
>
> Actually, the markdown-compliance has been broken for a while, for example by
> Rule 2531 as of revision 3.
Ha! That was my fault too. I introduced those formatting issues.
> On Feb 8, 2019, at 8:53 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
>
>
to make the Ruleset valid markdown, and I don't
>> quite remember for sure, but that may be how this rule ended up with the
>> confusion of two top-level lists with the same numbering scheme. I suspect
>> this proposal breaks that.
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Ør
On Feb 8, 2019, at 1:38 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
>>> 1. A person (the initiator) published an announcement of intent to
>>> perform the action within the 14 days preceding the action;
>>
>> Since 2 says 4-14, we could make this apply only to support and suc
> On Feb 8, 2019, at 1:29 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>
> Also, G, this is a little problematic for the contest—I’m required to
> propose a patch, but someone beat me to it.
>
>
Sorry! This wasn’t meant to interfere with that. I’ve been annoyed by the
formatting of this rule for a while,
the bug was able to
slip through was that the formatting of the rule makes it hard to
parse.
Comments welcome. I won't be offended if people say that they don't
want to reformat the rule, but I do think it's currently very hard to
read.
Title: Dependent Action Cleanup Act
Author: D Margaux
Co-author
> On Feb 8, 2019, at 4:52 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>
> I agree with G. IMO it’s not a bug at all - it’s how the mechanic was
> supposed to work and understandable via plain reading.
Yeah, this mechanism does make sense. Maybe there could be a reset, though,
when someone wins by space.
> On Feb 7, 2019, at 4:47 PM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>
> Y’all, come on. Surely you have an opinion?
>
> -Aris
I like it in general.
Under Rule 2201, the publisher of an optional self-ratifying claim (like this
one) SHOULD resolve any claims of error, and that doesn’t seem like a good
I have no objection if people want to use the singular “they,” but I have come
to enjoy the peculiar (and IMO elegant) Agoran style of e/em/eir.
Perhaps the Rules could provide that Agorans SHOULD use gender neutral
pronouns, without legislating specifically which ones?
> On Feb 7, 2019, at
Sorry to see you go, ATMunn. (I’ll plan to take you off the weekend court until
you say otherwise.)
> On Jan 30, 2019, at 1:25 PM, ATMunn wrote:
>
> So remember like 2 weeks ago when I said I would catch up on Agora over the
> weekend or something? And then I didn't?
>
> So yeah... I feel
> "Pilotable" if it is neither Defeated nor engaging in a Space
> Battle.
>
> Any player CAN, by announcement, spend a coin to increase the
> Armour of a Pilotable Spaceship e owns by 1. This is called
> "Repairing" the Spaceship.
>
&
person says.
> On Feb 5, 2019, at 8:49 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 5 Feb 2019, D. Margaux wrote:
>>
>> I guess if a person had power >3, then the R2125 limitation wouldn’t be a
>> barrier anymore, though.
>
> I don't see why. I don't think t
I'll have to dig to see what text we used or if we got away without any
>> extra text by just saying we did stuff.
>>> On 2/5/2019 4:36 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>>> Side note: would a rule with the text “Gaelan has power 3” be sufficient to
>>> establish a dictato
Well, I admit I am totally perplexed by this. Excited to see what the scam is,
that ties together dependent actions, nonconsensual deregistration, arbitrary
power 3 rule-creation, and currency fungibility!
Unless there are multiple separate scams being run here? Or there’s some
misdirection
I have communicated my choice to the Astronomor
> On Feb 4, 2019, at 4:15 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>
> I initiate a Space Battle between my (only) ship and D.Margaux’s (only)
> ship, and I specify the Astronomor as the resolver.
sent is considered rude, but if you're willing to wait until
> the weekend I can distribute it for you as a one-off, if Aris hasn't already
> by then.
>
> -twg
>
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
>> On Tuesday, February 5, 2019 5:41 PM, D. Margaux
>&
You are listed as registered in the most recent Registrar’s report, so for game
purposes you remain extant. Whether you exist for other purposes, I suppose, is
a question I can’t answer.
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg09220.html
> On Feb 5, 2019, at 3:20 PM,
Whoops, thanks.
> On Feb 2, 2019, at 5:06 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> No, R2532/2: "A zombie's master CAN flip that zombie's master switch to Agora
> by announcement."
>
> -twg
>
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
>> On Saturday, Febru
I think the second action fails for the same reason, no?
> On Feb 2, 2019, at 4:25 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 2 Feb 2019, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>>
>> I transfer all Tenhigitsune's liquid assets to myself, flip eir master
>> switch to Agora, and bid 1 coin in this auction.
>
>
> On Jan 30, 2019, at 1:39 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> I wouldn't feel that you had to wait
> more than say 48 hours before resorting to an arbitrary/random assignment
> (And if you want, as a policy, to encourage more frequent favoring, that's
> totally cool but you'll probably have to remind
FWIW, I think this is ineffective because it does not specify the resolver
> On Jan 30, 2019, at 12:14 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>
> I spend 3 energy to move to sector (4->5 5->6 6->7).
>
> I initiate a space battle with twg.
>
> Contract under rules should twg accept: the parties SHALL, in
a need to
account for the situation where the Referee is the interested party,
rather than (or in addition to) the Arbitor.
On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 11:16 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> [D. Margaux has said e is not further abusing Arbitor to affect the course
> of eir abuse-of-office cases
ed, they will submit a
> value in the range N-30, where N is between 0 and 20, inclusive.
>
> (thoughts on punishment if broken?)
>
> This contract is not an alliance.
>
>> On 1/29/2019 8:15 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
>> I resolve space battle 0002 as follows:
>&g
> On Jan 29, 2019, at 12:28 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
>
> Interesting that I judged 3592 more recently than 83 or 84 but it's not
> recorded anywhere.
Oops. The decision in 3692 was recorded in the Court Gazette of 20 January, but
I forgot to add it to the list of recently judged CFJs. Will
I object to that question. E doesn’t need to explain emself. Object object
object!
> On Jan 29, 2019, at 12:30 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>
> Why do you object lol
>
>
>> On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 6:29 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>>
>> On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 5:27 PM, Cuddle Beam
>> wrote:
> On Jan 29, 2019, at 11:36 AM, Madeline wrote:
>
> Are you sure? The Spaceship I possessed as a zombie was deemed to have been
> destroyed the moment it entered the L office upon my deregistration two
> weeks ago.
Under Rule 2576 (power=3), “Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the Lost
Does any player favour resolving the CFJs relating to my politics scam? I’m
required to assign them to someone. I’ll assign them to the first eligible
player who favors it, or else choose randomly among day/weekend judges
(excluding me).
> On Jan 20, 2019, at 7:25 PM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>
> It’s definitely 1,000,000,000 actions, according to CFJ 3597, but
> I think that CFJ may also suggest that we can only levy one fine (I’m not
> sure about that though).
I admit that I don’t fully understand this CFJ decision. However,
Pointing
> to be Shenanigans may be IMPOSSIBLE, or if not, is certainly ILLEGAL. And
> that would be a violation that the Arbitor _could_ take over the
> investigation of.
>
> -twg
>
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
>> On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 4:20 PM, D. Margau
Pointing
> to be Shenanigans may be IMPOSSIBLE, or if not, is certainly ILLEGAL. And
> that would be a violation that the Arbitor _could_ take over the
> investigation of.
>
> -twg
>
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
>> On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 4:20 PM, D. Margaux
&g
‐
>> On Sunday, January 20, 2019 5:29 PM, D. Margaux
>> wrote:
>>
>> How annoyed would people be if I abused an office to exploit a gamebreaking
>> bug in one of our mini-games?
>
>
How annoyed would people be if I abused an office to exploit a gamebreaking bug
in one of our mini-games?
> On Jan 17, 2019, at 3:31 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> That's worth thinking about, but first I was curious at other people's
> thoughts between #1 and #2.
I prefer interpretation #2. The person being communicated to is the resolver;
what is necessary is that e has knowledge sufficient to
> On Jan 16, 2019, at 3:48 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> Even if I made that pledge, nobody would trust me, and rightly so.
FWIW, I would trust you if you made that pledge.
Theoretically, the pledge has a loophole if you’re the Referee, since you could
decide any pointer finger
2019-01-15 - UNRESOLVED
> SECTOR 07
> Aggressor: twg VS. Defender: G.
> Energy: ?? Energy: ??
> Resolver: D. Margaux
>
> -twg
> On Jan 16, 2019, at 4:10 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> Hold on, isn't that exactly what happened here? "rau" is effectively (if we
> strip away all the fluff about constructed languages, which was a fun excuse
> but isn't really relevant) a secret code devised for communication between
message and my election of rau+1 also doesn’t work.
> On Jan 15, 2019, at 6:16 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
>
>
>> On Jan 15, 2019, at 5:49 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>>
>> Actually, at the time you posted the quoted message, "rau" meant "a pigeon
>>
> On Jan 15, 2019, at 5:49 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> Actually, at the time you posted the quoted message, "rau" meant "a pigeon or
> dove", so your statement is clearly incorrect. twgese is, after all, an
> evolving language - the meanings of words change all the time.
I apologize, I
> On Jan 15, 2019, at 4:18 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> I act on behalf of Tenhigitsune to announce that e will spend rau Energy in
> Space Battle 0001, where "rau" is a word in twgese, which is a constructed
> language invented by me. (Other twgese words include "quang" and "spaaace".)
Another issue that has just arisen in my battle is, what do you do when the
resolver controls a zombie that’s engaged in the battle?
Don’t really know how the zombie can “communicate” the choice to the resolver
there!
Hash would be fine if it worked, but it may be broken.
It doesn’t work
Lol, great idea!
If all of these proposals pass, then I think any resulting CFJ can have only
two possible outcomes: (1) it would read “Tangelo” into the beginning of every
rule, or (2) it would somehow maneuver to give the rule no practical effect
(basically the same outcome). Otherwise,
Meant to reply to twg’s comments on the zombie auction CFJ earlier, but got a
bit busy this week. A few thoughts for your consideration:
> Twg wrote:
>
> The implication would seem to be that rules can redefine what other rules
> mean.
This does seem to me to be one reasonable approach to
> On Jan 10, 2019, at 1:17 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> I terminate this auction, as per R2552.
>
>
> I CFJ: The zombie auction for January 2019 has been terminated.
Gratuitous counterarguement:
The CFJ is FALSE, because a necessary implication of the Rules is that Agora
CAN transfer a
Arg. The registrar resignation and subsequent emails got caught in my spam
filter. Sorry.
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 8:15 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> The Registrar just resigned, but it was due first week of Jan.
>
> The auctions may still be broken.
>
> On 1/9/2019 4:41 PM
Speaking of zombies, hasn’t it been a while since we’ve had a zombie auction?
I think we are overdue
> On Jan 6, 2019, at 3:34 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> I intend, With Notice:
> - to flip Hālian's master switch to Agora;
> - to flip L.'s master switch to Agora; and
> - to flip Publius
True...
> On Jan 9, 2019, at 5:58 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> Oh, and:
>
>> On Wednesday, January 9, 2019 11:22 PM, D. Margaux
>> wrote:
>>anyone who
>> wants to can feel free to chan
> On Jan 2, 2019, at 1:19 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> However if you really feel strongly about this one I'm open to
> reclassification if there's a consensus - to me it seemed that the added
> "rule then-make announcement a week later" seemed to be a fairly minor
> part of the process when
I don’t think you can withdraw a pledge, but perhaps that should be
possible—but only when withdrawing the pledge does not upset someone else’s
reasonable expectations that the pledge will be fulfilled.
Maybe it could be withdrawn by announcement provided that no other person has
taken any
; On Monday, December 10, 2018 12:37 AM, Kerim Aydin
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Personally I was going to test (with that particular phrasing) whether
>> merely quoting the original message counted.
>>
>>> On Sun, 9 Dec 2018, D. Margaux wrote:
>&g
No, nothing specifically in mind about that. That’s just how my phone
renders quote marks for some reason.
On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 7:19 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> Now that this has been defused: D. Margaux, did you have anything in mind
> about curved vs. straight quotes i
er reasonable interpretation would be that I do, because my
> conditional vote isn’t evaluated until the end of the voting period, so
> until then I haven’t really voted FOR. This isn’t really addressed in the
> judgement.
> >
> > Gaelan
> >
> > > On Dec 3, 2018,
> On Dec 2, 2018, at 8:05 PM, ATMunn wrote:
>
> CFJ 3690, that is.
>
>> On 12/2/2018 8:04 PM, ATMunn wrote:
>> What message thread was CFJ 2690 called under?
Here is the CFJ Email thread:
Cfj
> -- Forwarded message -
> From: Timon Walshe-Grey
> Date: Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at
Does that actually work though?
I don’t see any provision that resets the resale value to 2 after the master
switch is set back to the player. So I think nichdel’s resale value is still 1,
because eir master switch was previously transferred to me.
Next time nichdel is resold, eir resale
I don’t think it ever got a second supporter. I would support an intent to
put it into moot.
On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 5:58 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Did we ever actually do this?
>
> -Aris
>
> On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 6:29 PM D. Marga
I confess I am hopelessly confused. The contract doesn’t seem to affect anyone
besides twg and Gaelan. Is it a flaw in the proposal? But then what does that
have to do with the timing of adoption?
> On Nov 5, 2018, at 3:49 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> Actually, why am I even bothering
I’ve been wondering why we call them “gratuitous” arguments. I would have
thought that a “gratuitous” argument is one that is unwarranted, excessive, or
improper, or at least one that wouldn’t change the outcome of the question
under consideration. “Gratuitous” has a secondary meaning of “free
Why don’t i just take the next two unused numbers, and use them to renumber two
of the duplicates. Shouldn’t affect the judgement. Sorry all.
> On Nov 3, 2018, at 5:46 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> D. Margaux wrote:
>> Fair enough. This is CFJ 3678. I assign it to Murphy.
Re CFJ 3680—
I don’t disagree with the conclusion. I think you’re right that the plain
language meanings could go either way, and I have no problem with the plain
language being interpreted in the parliamentary sense so that only one
objection counts as an objection.
The rest of the
> On Nov 2, 2018, at 8:41 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
>
>
>> On Nov 2, 2018, at 1:58 AM, Aris Merchant
>> wrote:
>>
>> I CFJ "Performing an action with N support is a dependent action".
>
> This is CFJ 3681.
>
>> I CFJ &q
last CFJ and one without)?
>
> On 11/1/2018 6:01 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
>>> On Oct 31, 2018, at 12:32 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>>>
>>> I CFJ: "Gaelan transferred a coin to me today."
>> This is CFJ 3678. I assign it to Murphy.
>>> On Nov
101 - 200 of 324 matches
Mail list logo
