BobTHJ wrote:
On 7/23/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hereby change all sitting players to standing.
I hereby assign BobTHJ as judge of CFJ 1699.
I hereby rule FALSE. From the nature of the message in question it is
clear that Comex was not attempting to deliberatly or recklessly make
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Each player has a State with one or more Districts, a Base, and
a Constituency.
These names are quite opaque as to the significance of the parameters,
and the relationships that the names evoke don't match the behaviour of
the concepts.
State
Zefram wrote:
== CFJ 1699 ==
[snip]
Judged FALSE by BobTHJ: 24 Jul 2007 17:12:45 GMT
BobTHJ's message was NttPF. Rule 2158.
Proto-Proposal: Civil cases revisited
A criminal case has the additional purpose of punishing the
guilty. A civil case's purpose is limited to determining
guilt; any response to this determination is left to the
agreement.
Alternate version:
A criminal case
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Unnecessary generality. First come up with a method for
non-reflexive registration that we might actually want to use.
Not that we want to use it, but it's happened before. I believe you
were around when Morendil became Speaker while not a Player, and thus
Eris wrote:
On 7/27/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
a) Should Rule 754 (3)'s primarily used in ... legal contexts be
interpreted as primarily used by Agora in legal contexts, or
primarily used by the English-speaking population in general in
legal contexts
comex wrote:
On Monday 23 July 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
Wooble wrote:
I believe my votes on these proposals were submitted within the voting
period to the proper forum and were not counted.
Correct. Those votes were as follows:
5080 5081 5082 5083 5084 5085 5086
Zefram wrote:
I hereby recuse BobTHJ from CFJ 1651. I hereby assign Murphy as judge
of CFJ 1651.
Statement: if a R107 notice initiating an Agoran decision does not contain
an explicit list of the eligible voters, and there is later a
dispute (evidenced by submission of
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Per the judgement of CFJ 1703, comex's claim was false. However,
only deliberately or recklessly making a false statement
violates Rule 2149, and per the judgement of CFJ 1699, comex
did neither. Accordingly, I judge UNIMPUGNED.
You seem to have misunderstood
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
I call for judgement to determine whether CotC Zefram violated
Rule 1871 (The Standing Court) by changing all sitting players
to standing on or about Mon, 30 Jul 2007 22:11:48 +0100.
determine whether indicates an inquiry case, although your mention
root wrote:
On 8/1/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
For each decision, the options available are
ADOPTED, REJECTED, and FAILED QUORUM.]
No they're not. The options are FOR, AGAINST, and PRESENT.
There's a distinction between the options available
comex wrote:
On Wednesday 01 August 2007, Ed Murphy wrote
Neither CAN nor MAY is explicitly defined by Rule 2152, so ordinary
language applies. Game custom for both is (not CANNOT) and (not
MAY NOT).
This is severely broken. Certainly MAY/CAN are not capitalized merely for
emphasis
Zefram wrote:
proto-proposal: clarify Mother, May I?
* x CAN y: it is POSSIBLE for x to y.
* x CANNOT y: it is IMPOSSIBLE for x to y.
This eliminates x CAN y only if z as a synonym for
x CANNOT y if not z. Similarly for the other cases.
In particular, we might want to amend
comex wrote:
On Friday 27 July 2007, Antonio Dolcetta wrote:
I was wandering if anyone is interested in creating a faction.
Since the faction rules have been introduced no one has made one, Is
there any interest at all in playing factions out ?
I cause Agora to join B Nomic per rule 5-2.
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
This eliminates x CAN y only if z as a synonym for
x CANNOT y if not z. Similarly for the other cases.
Those semantics are the usual meaning of only if, aren't they?
How else might only if be interpreted?
As if not z, then the rules do not specify whether x
Peekee wrote:
I
register
as
a
*player*
.
Channeling
root wrote:
On 8/12/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dates given are generally from the Date: header of the applicable
message. This is not the legally effective time (CFJ 1646), but is an
approximation of it. See the message in question for exact timing.
Eep. Looking at CFJ 1646, I'm
Peekee wrote:
Quoting Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I intend to ratify the VC holdings listed in the Assessor's Report
that I published within the past hour.
Could that cause problems if it turns out I am not a player anymore?
In that situation, the first paragraph of Rule 2126 would
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
If such a proposal received no AGAINST votes, its proposer
gains one Zinnwaldite VC.
Zinnwaldite isn't a colour AFAICT. Otherwise I like the proto.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_colors
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinnwaldite_(color)
root wrote:
Incidentally, I don't like these new dependent action rules; all the
Agoran decision cruft makes them much more heavyweight than they
really have any need to be. When are we ever going to use a dependent
action with a majority index other than one?
When we think of something
comex wrote:
Amend the rule titled Truthiness, or the Island of
Knights and Knaves by replacing the entire text of the rule with:
Knight and Knave are player switches with values NAY and YAY,
tracked by the Speaker, with default values of YAY and NAY,
respectively.
Eww.
comex wrote:
For the agoran decision I initiated in this message:
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2007-August/007098.html
(published 7 days ago)
the options available are APPROVED and REJECTED.
No votes were made.
The option therefore selected by Agora is
comex wrote:
On Monday 13 August 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
No, it isn't. S/(S+O) = 0/(0+0) = 0/0 = 0 (Rule 2146), which
is = 1/2 (Rule 2124), so the OSbA is REJECTED (Rule 955).
You're right. Therefore, my notice resolving the decision was invalid, so
the decision is still active. Would you
comex wrote:
On Monday 13 August 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
Eww.
I couldn't think of a better way to allow a player to be a Knight and a
Knave at the same time.
Smullyan is rolling over in his grave. Peekee is jumping for
joy, but you can't tell which ones are him and which ones are
just
comex wrote:
On 8/14/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hereby agree to be bound by the following agreement:
This contract does not exist until someone else agrees to it, correct?
Someone has. Two someones, in fact.
d) 1 point to a contestant who was an officer all week
1) Amend R955(d)(3) to make majority index actions require the ratio
be greater than or equal to the index if the actor is an (active)
first-class player; strictly greater otherwise.
I prefer amending R1728(d) so that the vote collector is generally
allowed to vote on actions with Agoran
root wrote:
On 8/16/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(a) With N Supporters. For this method, the support index is N,
and the tally of votes need only include a number of SUPPORT
votes sufficient to approve the action. With Support is
synonymous
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Proto-Proposal: Republic repair
I'm opposed to this being a separate proposal from the Republic of Agora.
Merge the fixes into the main proposal.
I plan to; that was written before I saw the votes swinging
roughly 2 to 1 against.
Zefram wrote:
Here's a list of things that you could get Boons for, about a year ago:
What was a Boon?
Boons and Albatrosses were Ephemeral Patent Titles. At the end of each
quarter, each player's Kudos (used to pay for various interesting
actions) were reset to a baseline + #Boons -
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
A permissively regulated attribute CANNOT be modified, and a
permissively regulated action CANNOT be performed, except by an
instrument with power at least as great as that of the rule
defining that attribute or action as permissively
Pavitra wrote:
There's little point in a security level higher than the power of the
securing rule.
Actually, that's under the old system. Under the new system, there
would be little point in a security level higher than the power of the
rule defining security levels. (And so that rule
Zefram wrote:
Amend rule 2149 by inserting the words or which e is reckless
regarding the veracity of at the end of each sentence in the second
paragraph.
I still think this should define reckless, perhaps by example.
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
e.g. why bother enshrining the basic behavior of some concept in a
Power 3 rule if you're going to let Power 2 rules modify that behavior?
Perhaps some aspects need to be power=3 difficult to modify, but other
aspects should be modifiable at power=2 in certain
Proposal: Refactor regulation
(AI = 3, please)
Amend Rule 2125 (Regulation Regulations) to read:
An action is regulated if any of the following is true:
(a) The rules specify that the action CANNOT be performed, or
CAN be performed ONLY IF certain conditions are
Levi wrote:
By Rule 2136:
A player with 100 or more points may win the game by announcing
this fact. Upon such an announcement, each player's score is
set to zero.
I announce that I now have 100 points. Therefore I win the game.
Actually, you have 101 points.
Peekee wrote:
Problems are the discussion forums defined in the rules? I suspect there
would be little way of regulating protos.
Yes, Rule 478:
Publicity is a forum switch with values Public, Discussion, and
Null (default), tracked by the Registrar.
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
5171 AGAINST (invisible F)
Ah, you're in the unless == iff not camp too? Curious. I had
no idea that interpretation of unless existed in formal logic.
I've always used it to mean if not.
I'm undecided. I think the matter warrants further discussion.
comex wrote:
On 8/20/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's strictly on the merits. With 5159 I nearly voted PRESENT, but
I'm worried that it's a scam setup. I had a nightmare two nights ago
that involved a R2134 win being sprung, which is probably related.)
You're correct in that the
Levi wrote:
In Rule 2139 replace the following text:
The Registrar's report shall include the following:
with:
The Registrar's report SHOULD include the following:
I agree with the idea of saying The X's report includes Y, and
leaving it to other rules to place requirements on
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
a) Default Officeholder.
We repealed this for a good reason.
And what reason was that, then?
b) Default Justice.
This is a better way to handle a default justice than what we had before.
Why?
c) Wielder of Veto.
Undemocratic
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
And what reason was that, then?
Having a default officeholder makes officeholding indeterminate when
we're not sure who the default officeholder is. It spreads uncertainty
regarding the game state. We ran into this recently regarding the CotC,
when resolving
Levi wrote:
Just noticed that Rule 2160 uses POSSIBLE.
If it's the reverse of IMPOSSIBLE, it would be defined the same as CAN.
But then, in Rule 2160, I'm not sure POSSIBLE is the right term?
There was a proposal to change it to LEGAL, whereupon it was pointed
out that many actions are
Zefram wrote:
At the end of a proposal's voting period, each player who cast
at least one valid vote on it, but cast more invalid votes than
valid votes on it, loses one Pink VC.
Cute. BobTHJ will hate you.
It's principle rather than practice. If e believed eir VLOP was
Zefram wrote:
[I'm concerned that the fiddliness of the condition might increase the
assessor's workload unreasonably. Murphy?]
I'm already publishing F/A totals, so identical results there would
trigger a count of PRESENT votes. However, checking this condition
would potentially require
Zefram wrote:
The distributor is an office. The distributor SHALL send eir
weekly report to each non-null forum at least once each quarter.
This could be a monthly report; it's not like the fora change very
often. I don't know whether the Distributor's workload is large
enough
Zefram wrote:
proto-proposal: allow non-player wins
Create a rule titled Non-Player Wins with this text:
When a non-player wins the game, e becomes a player.
comex wrote:
On 8/29/07, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I concur with the Initiator's arguments and enter a judgement of TRUE.
I intend, with 2 support, to appeal this.
I vote SUPPORT. At least wait for our sole knave to weigh in on the
discussion (in a-d, so as to avoid further
root wrote:
On 8/29/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
comex wrote:
I submit the following proposal:
Proposal: Refactor regulation
(AI = 3, please)
Murphy is a coauthor of this proposal.
Why? And why did those who voted AGAINST it do so? Perhaps this one
could do with some more
I've updated the database code to identify criminal cases and recognize
the possible judgements on culpability, and filled in the correct values
for the past judgements. Please let me know if you spot any problems.
Eris, how do I regenerate cotc_amend.pyc from cotc_amend.py? Not that
it
comex wrote:
I intend, with Agoran Consent, to make Peekee the holder of the office
of Clerk of the Courts. (E will have a chance to register shortly
before the 14-day limit expires.)
I vote OBJECT.
I added a Criminal cases link, just above All cases.
comex, your mirror is broken; please let me know if something on
my end's caused it, though I can't think of anything that would.
Zefram wrote:
comex wrote:
but possibly end up just a useless pain.
How exactly was truthiness ever going to avoid this fate?
It was perfectly fine in its original form, if you ask me.
TITLES OF HONOUR
Listing date-awarded would make for a nice research project.
Ephemera were repealed long ago, so that note can be removed.
First Speaker: Michael
This is defined by the rules, but not as a Patent Title. If e was
awarded the title as a Patent Title at some point, then
open judicial cases
Can this be given in tabular format, please? e.g.
Inquiry Caller Called Judge Assigned
---
1729 Zefram 21 Aug root21 Aug
1730 Pavitra 22 Aug BobTHJ 22 Aug
1731 Zefram 23 Aug Murphy 23 Aug
Criminal
Here and Gone Again: a Registrar's Report
EVENT HISTORY
This could be trimmed back to the last month or two.
PLAYERS (16-18)
ACTIVITY LEVEL
Can these lists be combined, please?
WATCHERS (24)
//BethMo [EMAIL PROTECTED] 30 Jun 1993
The significance of // should
root wrote:
PLAYERS (16-18)
ACTIVITY LEVEL
Can these lists be combined, please?
I've considered doing that before, but I haven't found a way to do it
within 70 columns such that I'm happy with the legibility.
How about this?
Nickname E-mail address Registered
Peekee wrote:
So players willing to sit on appeals only would
be welcome.
-zefram
Persons?!
You've got less than two weeks left to wait.
Zefram wrote:
A knight SHALL NOT publish a statement unless e believes it
may be true, and SHOULD NOT do so unless e believes it is.
Too loose. How about the stricter:
A knight SHALL NOT publish a statement unless e believes it is
true.
As long as the paragraph about
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Each VC has a color. Red, Green, and Blue are common colors.
Add All other colors are uncommon..
This is covered by ordinary language (*), unless e.g. we explicitly
define rare as a third type of color.
(*) Notwithstanding Peekee, who (in some past
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
A player performs an action by announcement by announcing that
e performs it (unless e is a knave, in which case e performs it
by announcing that e does not perform it).
Still no way for a knave to publish a report in a rule-satisfying manner
comex wrote:
On Friday 31 August 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
Truthiness is a player switch, tracked by the Speaker, with
values Knight (default) and Knave.
What about spies?
This rule does not prohibit any actions during Guy Fawkes Day.
root wrote:
5218 D1 3Zefram distributor as an office
AGAINST. IMO, R2154's encouragement of frequent officer turnover is
incompatible with the responsibilities of the Distributor.
R2154 encourages frequent suggestions of officer turnover; the turnover
itself won't happen unless
Eris wrote:
CFJ: 1739
Statement: A part of a message sent to a Public Forum that is quoting
another message (even if the quote is intended to perform an
action) is never a violation of Rule 2149 to publish.
Veracity: UNDETERMINED
There are at least two reasonable
Zefram wrote:
Taral wrote:
When a judge is recused with cause, e becomes supine.
Such an automatic posture change loses some of the safety of the current
system that distinguishes between VALID and LEGAL. I'd prefer to have
an explicit step here.
When the CotC recuses a judge with
Eris wrote:
On 9/7/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
a) 1 to root(Proposal 5155, VI = 48)
b) 1 to Levi(Proposal 5152, VI = 0.2; 5150 also eligible)
c) 1 to Zefram (Proposal 5161, VI = 2, AI = 2; 5151 also eligible)
d) 1 to Levi
e) 1 to Wooble
f) none
g) 1
root wrote:
On 9/7/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ian Kelly wrote:
Amend Rule 2140 (Power Controls Mutability) by replacing all
occurrences of the phrase greater than with not equal to.
That would be an awful mess. Proposals with AI3 not allowed to modify
rules of more than one power
Zefram wrote:
All these hoops to jump through are just going to add extra work to
the ordinary business of the game. I predict that players will make
a habit of attempting to the appropriate location via the town square
before taking actions, so the net effect will be a lot of paperwork for
root wrote:
So I'm going to poll the players and watchers: Upon first seeing
Peekee's message, were you able to understand it within a reasonable
amount of effort? If so, was a knowledge of HTML required?
Yes. No, Thunderbird automatically Did The Right Thing (tm).
I'm generally familiar
Wooble wrote:
On 9/11/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only textual file format that is reliably legible
is text/plain with strict ASCII. We have done very well by keeping our
game documents in this format. I'd favour legislation requiring it.
I'd definitely support that.
I can't
root wrote:
On 9/12/07, Peekee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I am not a player then I register as a player. (Do such conditionals work?)
Traditionally no, apart from conditional votes, which are explicitly
legislated. However, it is customary to allow it in cases such as
this where the
Goethe wrote:
Murphy wrote:
Performing an action by announcement CAN be done conditionally;
the action is performed if and only if the condition can be
reasonably determined, without circularity or paradox, to be
true at the time (or, if the action is casting a
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
or if less than two members of its
basis have taken an active role in determining its actions
during the past four weeks,
Needs to be more precise. Taking an active role in determining its
actions could be interpreted
Zefram wrote:
It seems to me that switches are a special case of your variable concept,
where the restricting type is an enumeration.
It doesn't have to be. A rule could define a switch's valid values
as all real numbers from 0 (default) to 1, inclusive, for instance.
root wrote:
On 9/17/07, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/17/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Zefram wrote:
It seems to me that switches are a special case of your variable concept,
where the restricting type is an enumeration.
It doesn't have to be. A rule could define
pikhq wrote:
Kmail sent my email to discussions by mistake.
That's by design. Most responses to a-b are of a discussionary
nature, so Reply-To: is set to a-d. As root mentioned, several
of us have occasionally forgotten to change it when appropriate.
A rarer case is mixing up a-b and a-o
OscarMeyr wrote:
On Sep 18, 2007, at 7:47 PM, Ian Kelly wrote:
On 9/18/07, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sep 17, 2007, at 9:13 PM, Ian Kelly wrote:
The List
Wed 29 Aug 05:38:44 Adoption of Proposal 5147 adds Spies and Fools
This is just too
Eris wrote:
On 9/23/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Goddess Eris 1 5 5 1R 2B
I should have 1 black VC, no?
You're right; your judgement on culpability was late, but your
judgement on sentencing wasn't (the ASAP timer didn't start
ticking until your
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
If the AFO is not the vote collector, then I implicitly published
the results acting as myself.
I'm not convinced that you did. I think your ... publish the following:
bit makes the entire following report a subordinate clause.
Feel free to CFJ. I didn't
root wrote:
On 9/23/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My
secondary reason for deregistering was to let First Speaker Michael
keep the record for longest continuous registration.
By the way, Murphy, could you please clear up your registration
history for me? The registrar's report
root wrote:
5236 D1 3AFO Ministers Without Portfolio
AGAINST (Murphy, did you intend for this to repeal R2019 immediately
after amending it?)
No, I forgot that the proto was re-using that rule rather than
creating a new one. Will fix in the next version.
comex, as for your
Eris wrote:
On 9/26/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
b) Any other votes are unprotected. The vote collector CAN
invalidate or change an unprotected vote by announcement
when e resolves the decision.
Actually, I'm just tired of people voting
Levi wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Eris wrote:
On 9/26/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
b) Any other votes are unprotected. The vote collector CAN
invalidate or change an unprotected vote by announcement
when e resolves the decision.
Actually, I'm just
root wrote:
On 9/27/07, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/27/07, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Human Point Twoc/o Murphy 29 Apr 07 A
Murphy left the Human Point Two partnership at the time e deregistered.
Who are the current members?
Quazie and
Murphy wrote:
I leave The Variety Show.
Would anyone else like to become contestmaster (if this failed),
or re-create it as contestmaster (if it succeeded)? I still like
the idea of it, I've just gotten tired of digging through the
messages and figuring out who gets what.
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
When a player deregisters, e ceases to be a party to all
contracts, unless e specifies otherwise at the time, or the
contract specifies otherwise.
I think that's the wrong default. We've decoupled contractual capacity
from playerhood; let's
Peekee wrote:
I'm being a bit lazy here. The rule below would need to be Power 3, do I
need to specify that in the proposal or what is a good way to word that.
Create a rule with Power 3 and this text: ...
Does the AI follow from the power of rules or does that need to be
stated also?
comex wrote:
Proto: Let the AFO vote
Amend 1950 to read:
The eligible voters on a democratic proposal are those entities
that were active players at the start of its voting period and
are either first class players or partnerships. The voting
limit of an eligible voter
comex wrote:
On 10/4/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The AFO nominates Levi, Peekee, and pikhq for Ambassador, Herald,
and IADoP.
So you are nominating each person for all three offices?
Yes. (Well, the AFO is.)
CFJ 1735 is well overdue for recusal. CFJs 1752-3 and 1756-7 will also
be eligible for recusal within the next 24 hours.
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
7) A member CAN deposit one of eir withdrawn VCs by announcement;
e gains 100 kopecks of that color. A member CAN withdraw one
of eir deposited VCs by transferring 100 kopecks of its color
to the Bank. A member CAN transfer one of eir IOUs to the Bank
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
comex became supine on August 20. Either I missed the message in
which e sat up, or eir assignment to CFJ 1763 (and hence eir
purported judgement of same) was invalid.
I believe you are correct. It appears that e was sitting at the time
that e attempted
Zefram wrote:
== CFJ 1737 ==
Judge BobTHJ assigned: 29 Aug 2007 09:43:20 GMT
Judge BobTHJ recused: 05 Sep 2007 11:47:24 GMT
Judge BobTHJ assigned: 13 Sep 2007 08:48:59 GMT
Judge
The CotC database is now fully up to date (I had to patch a couple of
things on CFJ 1711). It also includes and recognizes internal flags
for leaning judges and Hawkishness (criminal cases now include a list
of eligible judges) and equity cases.
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Amend Rule 1688 (Power) by appending this text:
A secured change CANNOT be performed except as allowed by an
instrument with power at least as great as that of the rule
defining that change as secured.
I'm dubious about doing it this way round
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
threshold defaults to the securing rule's power, but CAN be
altered as allowed by that rule, up to a maximum of 1.1 times
the securing rule's power.
I think it's stupid to allow a threshold higher than the power of the
defining rule
Zefram wrote:
Ordinary proposals are not the most common type.
Maybe a reason for a different name, but House doesn't seem any better.
How about Skewed, to contrast with Democratic?
As previously noted, the US House and Senate have voting strengths
directly in line with their proposed uses
Eris wrote:
I'm just not getting to my CFJs.
I recuse myself from CFJs 1711 and 1764. I lie down (if possible).
You're standing, so it isn't.
Zefram wrote:
== CFJ 1767 ==
Initiated by pikhq: 21 Oct 2007 19:53:50 GMT
Judge Goddess Eris assigned:21 Oct 2007 20:01:35 GMT
Judged FALSE by Goddess Eris: 21 Oct 2007 20:04:29 GMT
I suspect
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Measured from assignment, though, the record is 0 s (set or at least
tied by some CFJ earlier this month, in which you assigned it to
yourself and judged it in a single message).
I don't recall doing such a thing, and I can't find it in my files.
Neither can
root wrote:
All the proposals in question were adopted before ID numbers (proposal
5110), so I believe there would be no invalid rule number assignments.
If 5110 had already taken effect, it could have been quite
problematic; if any rules had been created with invalid ID numbers,
then any
201 - 300 of 3133 matches
Mail list logo
