> 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...
> 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
> 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 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 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
, 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 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.
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 9:00 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
>
> And y'all wonder why I've been falling behind on cases.
I was just being silly—I didn’t really plan to go forward with that motion :-)
> On Feb 17, 2019, at 5:11 PM, James Cook wrote:
>
> Is it easy to make that a separate proposal from my amendment
> proposal? Or is that complicated to do?
I think it would make the most sense to do it in one proposal if we could,
right?
I’m not sure what the right language would be.
> 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
> 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 7:04 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
>
> I pay 2 COS favours to gain 3 influence over Ronald Ray Gun.
Oops; that was supposed to be 2:2, not 2:3... I think?
Don’t know if that makes it INEFFECTIVE, or what. But wanted to point it out
for H. Clork’s benefit.
> On Feb 18, 2019, at 4:18 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> ais523 mentioned something about the original definition being NttPF - we've
> already checked the a-d archives, but maybe there was once something in the
> IRC channel? Or does anyone know of any other discussion forums that have
To address G’s concern, what if the proposal were to say something like this:
The gamestate is changed to what it would have been if the text of the
following amendment to Rule 2124 had determined whether Agora was Satisfied
with any dependent action attempted after Proposal 7815, rather than
Apologies—will send now. Thanks for alerting me.
Also if anyone else is waiting for me, please feel free to let me know.
> On Feb 18, 2019, at 12:22 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> D. Margaux,
>
> Did you ever get around to resolving Space Battle 3 (Gaelan vs. me)? I ha
t; (Pssst! For this to be EFFECTIVE I think you also have to say by how much
> each of our Armour was reduced by.)
>
> -twg
>
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
>> On Monday, February 18, 2019 5:34 PM, D. Margaux
>> wrote:
>>
>> Resolved battle 003
What if we approach this from the other direction—i.e., what kind of a thing
could this “Protocol” action possibly be?
If this Protocol action isn’t somehow authorized (directly or indirectly) by
the Rules, then it cannot be used to perform regulated actions and so there’s
no reason for us to
9's "must state the correct
> set of assets for the fee". But feel free to CFJ.
>
> -twg
>
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
>> On Monday, February 18, 2019 12:39 AM, D. Margaux
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 17, 2019,
ts to induct the unwilling:
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039950.html
> (Judged to have failed, but pointed out the need for clearer wording or
> stronger protections in the Rules).
>
>
> Honorable Mentions:
>
> D.
> 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
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.
>
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
> 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
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 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
>
gt;> I submit the following proposal, No Academic Fraud, AI-1:
>> ------
>> The A.N Degrees for D. Margaux and twg are hereby revoked.
>> --
>>
> 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
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
> 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
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?
>>>
>
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
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
> 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
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 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
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
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
> 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!
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
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,
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
>&
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.
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
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
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 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:
>
>
> "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.
>
&
> 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).
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
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
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
> 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
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.
>
>
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
Space went over well, but twg has been busy so there hasn’t been an astronomor
for a while.
The Ritual proposal also passed, but it hasn’t really been the source of much
activity yet.
Overall, not much new has happened recently because a lot of people have
stopped actively playing.
But
rules, and I don't have
> the time at the moment. That said, this case is pretty simple, so I'll
> probably have a verdict in the next day or two.
>
> -The Arbitor
>
>> On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 3:54 PM D. Margaux wrote:
>>
>> If the H. Arbitor agrees, then I aut
n something else like
> ratification without objection?
>
> -Aris
>
> On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 2:09 PM D. Margaux wrote:
>
> > It may be worthwhile to wait a couple days. If the reports self-ratify
> > without any claim of error, then the information therein will be
> > ret
t week.
>
> I CFJ on the statement: "It would be LEGAL for me to create a proposal
> with text 'omd violated Rule 2450 by creating this proposal' and no
> optional attributes."
>
--
D. Margaux
> On May 26, 2019, at 5:37 PM, omd wrote:
>
> Ratification changes the gamestate to what it would be if the report
> had been accurate... but it doesn't *literally* make it retroactively
> accurate, so it doesn't change whether there was a rule violation.
Why not?
Part of the gamestate is
> On May 26, 2019, at 8:51 PM, omd wrote:
>
> I searched the archives a bit, and the situation seems to be more
> complex than I remembered.
>
> In CFJ 3337, G. ruled that statements about the past *could* be
> ratified, but that it wasn't in that particular case because the scope
> of what
should extent their prohibition
> > farther than they explicitly do so. It is also a principle of American
> > criminal law that if the statue is ambiguous it may be void for
> vagueness,
> > so this law, which doesn’t make it clear who is responsible, should be
> too
> > vag
enerally intend to respect the favoring of cases, but I'm not
> sure that it's appropriate in this instance.
>
> -Aris
>
>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 7:45 AM D. Margaux wrote:
>>
>> I favour this CFJ
>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 1:49 AM Rebecca wro
A proto-proposal offered to shake things up a little. I’ve been curious about
how Agora would operate under different rules of interpretation.
Title: Let’s Get Serious
AI: 3
Author: D. Margaux
Co-Author(s):
A. Amend Rule 217 as follows:
1. Delete the following text from Rule 217
>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 1:26 PM omd wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 7:05 AM D Margaux wrote:
>>> Additionally, I do not think the conditional vote “required the report
>>> ratification to go through before the voting period ended”; did it? If the
>
Interesting catch! Is there any argument that, in this circumstance, MUST
implies CAN? I think probably that argument doesn’t work, but here’s what it
might say:
There is no method for the Referee to discharge eir mandatory duties except by
imposing the Cold Hand of Justice when warranted.
Hmm. If the intent didn’t work, the report self-ratification did. So I
think we are in the same place anyway.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 8:03 PM James Cook wrote:
> I think I might have found a problem with my proto-judgements: D.
> Margaux may not have properly announced intent to rati
'd be interested to hear about precedent or arguments about
> > > self-ratification of reports making them retroactively legal to
> publish,
> > or
> > > whether CFJs judgements should change after ratification events.
> > >
> > > On Mon., Jun. 3, 201
n entity. Same with the Ritual.
>> On Mon, 2019-06-03 at 02:38 +, James Cook wrote:
>> I Point my Finger at every player, in the following order:
>>
>>omd, Aris, Gaelan, G., Cuddle Beam, Trigon, Murphy, ATMunn, twg,
>> D. Margaux, Jacob Arduino, Falsifian,
early
>>> unreasonable, since their individual responsibility to perform The Ritual
>>> was never explicitly stated.
>>>
>>> -Aris
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 12:59 PM D Margaux wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Below is a proto-d
> On Jun 3, 2019, at 11:47 PM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>
> Under the present conditions,
> however, each player can quite reasonably claim that someone else should
> have performed The Ritual, and that it wasn’t *their* fault that it wasn’t
> performed. Unless the rule explicitly states that
I may have miscounted; it does not appear to affect the result though. Apologies
> On Jun 5, 2019, at 10:08 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Jun 3, 2019, at 5:38 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
>>
>> Proposal 8179
>> ===
>> AGAINST: Ar
Original Message ‐‐‐
> On Friday, July 6, 2018 10:58 AM, Corona
> wrote:
>
> > I become a candidate for Prime Minister.
> >
> > Platform: Not being the other guy, who currently supports unpopular and
> > somewhat misguided reforms.
> >
> > ~Corona
>
--
D. Margaux
I think this could be ambiguous — it could provide a reward for the first
decision resolved in a week, or for the first time that any particular decision
is resolved in a week (so only one reward for a decision resolved FAILED QUORUM
and then REJECTED within a single week).
What about:
e: AGAINST if a Notice of Veto has
>> been published specifying this proposal, otherwise"
>>
>>> IDAuthor(s) AITitle
>>>
>> -------
>>> 8180 Trigon, D Margaux
I could see this coming out either way. It's the sort of hyper literalist
interpretation that Agorans seem to adopt sometimes.
It's really interesting to me, because within my discipline (law), those sorts
of hyperliteralist interpretations simply wouldn't work. Lawyers would just
intuitively
> On Jun 18, 2019, at 11:59 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> In eir first judgement,
> Judge Trigon opined that, in R2125, in this list:
>
>> An action is regulated if: (1) the Rules limit, allow, enable, or
>> permit its performance;
>
> include synonyms for CAN, CANNOT, and MAY, but no
Instead of this:
> The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, impose
>Summary Judgment on a person who plays the game by announcement.
I would recommend moving "by announcement" like so:
> The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, by announcement
> impose
Gratuitous arguement: Seems to be TRUE to me. Corona subsequently
became a zombie, but I see no rules that would retract a player's
consent to holding office upon becoming a zombie, nor are there any
prohibitions against zombies being elected to offices. Not sure what
I'm missing, but seems
rse of a particular election, I wouldn't
> think I'd be consenting to every future election! (and if it's construed
> that I did consent for all future elections, it sure wasn't with my
> informed wilful consent!)
>
>> On 6/12/2019 7:23 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
>> Gratuitous ar
On Jun 12, 2019, at 12:28 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:40 AM D. Margaux wrote:
>> Under R2154, “In a timely fashion after the nomination period ends, the ADoP
>> CAN and SHALL” initiate an Agoran decision to resolve that PM “election.”
>
M, Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> Why do people not like OUGHT? I get the issue with contractions, not really
> OUGHT, though.
>
> Jason Cobb
>
>> On 6/12/19 2:03 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
>> I vote and cause L to vote as follows:
>>
>>
>> 8180 Trigon, D Ma
;
> Jason Cobb
>
>> On 6/12/19 4:35 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
>> I resolve this by reference to CFJ 3734
>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 4:24 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
>>>
>>> Under Rule 2201, I issue a challenge to the above report: pending
>&
It's still unclear what method a player can use to "deny" a claim (or even what
a denial is).
What about this:. "publicly and clearly announce that the claim is denied" or
"publicly and clearly deny the claim by announcement"
> On Jun 12, 2019, at 6:01 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> I submit
This is creative! But performing the ritual is a regulated action, and
therefore it can be performed only using methods expressly specified in the
rules (per Rule 2125).
> On Jun 9, 2019, at 9:22 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> There's no such thing as a Call for *Justice*. :)
>
> Jason Cobb
>
I offer this proto for comment.
***
Judge Trigon recused emself believing that no valid judgement could be entered
in this CFJ.[1] As the newly assigned judge, I am required by Rule 591 to
assign to this CFJ a "valid" judgement. The law does not require me to assign
an "appropriate"
The reasoning by R. Lee as described by G. below seems sound to me. I plan to
adopt it as the reasons for judgement on 3737, unless someone gives me
persuasive arguments to the contrary.
> On Jun 17, 2019, at 3:45 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> I think V.J. Rada had it right - the Rules
> On Jun 14, 2019, at 2:29 AM, David Seeber wrote:
>
> If this is accepted, {
>
> { I cfj the following:
>
> "Trigon is the winner of the auction"
>
> Argument in favour :
>
> Trigon bid two coins, which is more than CuddleBeam bid.
> The highest bidder wins the auction.
> Therefore
As stated, this CFJ is trivially FALSE because no fine CAN be imposed for
anything. Maybe there is a different way to pose the CFJ that would be
PARADOXICAL though?
> On Jun 16, 2019, at 1:25 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> Oooh look, I broke my Oath. How unexpected!
>
> I point my finger at Jason
imposing the Cold Hand of Justice is
impossible after all.
I note in passing that there might be odd results if a similar
situation occurred (rule claiming to make something POSSIBLE without
specifying a method) with a rule that takes precedence over Rule 2125.
I re-judge CFJ 3736 FALSE, and earn another 5 coins for doing so.
--
D. Margaux
> On May 9, 2019, at 11:14 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> But overall, I'm not sure that this is an improvement over a straight up
> repeal, followed by a simple "re-enact Rules XXX, YYY" if someone wants to
> bring it back?
I agree it’s probably not an improvement. I mostly wrote it up this way
nditional votes).
> >
> > IDAuthor(s) AITitle
> >
> ---
> > 8177 Aris, [1] 3.0 Side-Game Suspension Act (v3)
> >
> > The proposal pool is currently empt
201 - 300 of 324 matches
Mail list logo
