comex wrote:
On Monday 22 October 2007, Zefram wrote:
It's also an open question whether a non-unanimous voting process for
amendment (such as the rules have) is compatible with R1742.
Primo Corporation's existence makes CFJing on this easy...
R1742 never says that its method is the only
root wrote:
On 10/21/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In general, subsequent changes would be successful, as it would be
unambiguous which rule was intended to be amended (especially if the
subsequent proposals referred to them by both number and name).
If that's true, then the system
pikhq wrote:
-[-+++]-.+[+-].++.---.+.---[-+].
Mrphl? I ran this through http://koti.mbnet.fi/villes/php/bf.php
and http://www.iwriteiam.nl/Ha_bf_online.html and neither one gave
any coherent output.
Zefram wrote:
Ian Kelly wrote:
Noting this, I find that FOR
and SUPPORT are, in fact, synonyms, and I judge TRUE accordingly.
I'd also like to bring up a precedent from 1997, when the Frankenstein
Rule said that Frankenstein Monsters get an extra vote
Peekee wrote:
Quoting Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Peekee wrote:
1+1 = 3
Based on the above: I am the winner there are no rules.
How do you figure?
egg.
Fish!
pikhq wrote:
I *really* don't think that there *have* been any mandatory reports
for the herald in a while; reports are only mandatory with a change
in patent title, and there haven't *been* any that I'm aware of.
Incorrect on both counts. Rule 649 defines the Herald as a low-priority
Zefram wrote:
I hereby spend 1R+1G+1B VCs to decrease AFO's VVLOP by 2.
Huh. I'd forgotten that the introduction of colored VCs also
made decreases cheaper.
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
A player SHALL NOT possess VDs for more than one month. When
a sentence of CHOKEY for violating this rule becomes active, all
of the sentenced player's VDs are destroyed.
The sentence becoming active also triggers a black VC loss. Presumably
comex wrote:
On 10/27/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you're preparing for one specific AI=1 vote and know who will
vote which way, decreasing the opposition VLOP is equally as good as
increasing friendly VLOP. For a specific AI1 vote, it's more effective
to modify the AGAINST VLOP,
Zefram wrote:
I hereby submit the following proposal, titled truthfulness:
{{{
Retitle rule 2149 to Truthfulness, and amend it to read
A person SHALL NOT make a false statement in any public message
while knowing that the statement is false or being reckless as
to its
comex wrote:
On behalf of the AFO:
The AFO hereby initiates 10,000 inquiry cases, barring Zefram, for the
statement:
- This is Sparta
If this works, I'm only entering the first and last ones into the
database, with an explanatory comment.
Levi wrote:
The IADoP's report includes the following:
b) The stability of each office.
Already covered by Rule 2162 (c).
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
(Having MWP as a PT was bad design, I reckon.)
Why?
PTs were designed, and work best, as mostly-permanent titles of
distinction that have very little influence on the game. They've never
been satisfactory for tracking frequently-changed state.
Apart from
Levi wrote:
Change Rule 402 to read:
The Speaker is the active player who has borne the Patent Title
of Minister Without Portfolio the longest, with ties broken in
favor of the player who has been registered the longest.
You should also amend R1922(e) so that it doesn't
BobTHJ wrote:
On 10/28/07, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/28/07, Levi Stephen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* BobTHJ was thrown in the chokey, but this was changed to an apology sentence
upon appeal
Now that you mention it, I don't recall em ever posting eir apology.
Too bad e
Zefram wrote:
Levi Stephen wrote:
If they're assigned Default Justice does this mean an inactive player is
going to be required to be a member of the judicial panel?
No. An inactive player, or a non-player, is categorically unqualified
to judge. For that matter, a non-first-class player is
comex wrote:
5271 D1 2Murphy Implicit Switches v1.1
[Knowing how long a player has been continuously inactive is needed to
determine whether e can be deregistered for inactivity.
Knowing how long a player has been continuously inactive is less
important.]
AGAINST - What?
The
For the record, here is as much history of winners as I've been able
to construct (mostly from the AWJ archives):
10/08/97 Steve (thrice), Andre (thrice), Morendil [proposal]
03/18/98 Blob, elJefe, General Chaos, Steve, Swann
05/12/98 Murphy [points]
07/08/01 Elysion [points]
02/18/02
comex wrote:
On Wednesday 31 October 2007, Taral wrote:
Well, I guess this works as well as the original attempt. However,
it's likely to hit you with 10,000 violations of Rule 1871.
I'm not sure about that. R1871 only says that the *CotC* SHALL NOT do
this. However, I think it's more
Zefram wrote:
Kerim Aydin wrote:
When Agoran Rules allow an action to be conducted by announcement,
the specific announcement is the action in question, giving the
appearance that we support ISIDTID. In reality, we are recognizing
the actual act of posting a message as the action.
Yes.
I wrote:
The AFO spends:
1 Red and 1 Green VC to increase comex's VLOP by 1
1 Red and 1 Green VC to increase comex's VLOP by 1
1 Red and 1 Orange VC to increase Levi's VLOP by 1
1 Red and 1 Orange VC to increase Levi's VLOP by 1
VVLOP, that is.
OscarMeyr wrote:
On Oct 31, 2007, at 2:45 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
For the record, here is as much history of winners as I've been able
to construct (mostly from the AWJ archives):
10/08/97 Steve (thrice), Andre (thrice), Morendil [proposal]
03/18/98 Blob, elJefe, General Chaos, Steve, Swann
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Sat 3 Nov 17:35:00 pikhq -1B Proposal 5269 rejected (no R
to lose)
As previously noted, proposal 5269 was not submitted by pikhq. It was
in fact never submitted at all, but was a corruption of a proposal
that pikhq
root wrote:
On 11/4/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
root wrote:
Second, the statement of this case is deliberately vague; it does not
specify the circumstances to which it applies, but an UNDECIDABLE
judgement is permissible iff it is appropriate. Therefore, a
judgement
comex wrote:
On 11/5/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hereby assign pikhq as judge of CFJ 1784.
You're a very efficient CotC. Nevertheless...
I nominate AFO, Pineapple Partnership, Human Point Two, myself, and
Goethe for the office of CotC.
PP and HP2 are inactive. Rule 2154 only
root wrote:
Fatigue is a standing player switch, the possible values of
which are the natural numbers, and the default of which is the
maximum fatigue value ever set. Fatigue is tracked by the Clerk
of the Courts, as is the maximum fatigue value ever set. A
Goethe wrote:
I call for judgement on the following criminal case:
Goethe, while holding the office of Notary, did breach the
terms of eir office contained in Rule 2173 by identifying
the membership of the private contract known as the AFO
without the consent of its members or as
root wrote:
On 11/7/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
5287 AGAINST (these are privileges, not duties)
The speaker's assignment of the privileges is a duty.
I would support that change if it were proposed separately. Also,
when it comes time to revoke MwP from someone, non-players
root wrote:
On Nov 7, 2007 10:53 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 7, 2007 12:47 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* GUILTY, appropriate if the defendant breached the specified
rule via the specified act and none of the above judgements
is appropriate
comex wrote:
On 11/9/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
comex wrote:
I publically and explicitly challenge this message
ISIDTID doesn't work for that. See CFJ 1690.
-zefram
But if I make any of these claims publically, from CFJ 1690:
(a) Proposal 6000 was rejected.
(b) Joe's vote on
root wrote:
On Nov 10, 2007 11:55 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I intend, with 2 support, to appeal the judgement of CFJ 1772.
Appelant's argument:
This judgement is inconsistent with the judgement of CFJ 1773.
They don't seem inconsistent to me.
CFJ 1773: comex did not initiate
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
5295 AGAINST (the pool should remain part of the report)
Why? The promotor is obliged to distribute everything in the pool each
week, so separate reporting of the pool is redundant.
A few different reasons. Retaining the obligation increases the
Promotor's
root wrote:
On Nov 10, 2007 12:24 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I interpret the statement of CFJ 1778 as Judging UNDECIDABLE is
permissible in all circumstances in which a judgement is to be
rendered. Judging UNDECIDABLE is permissible in some such
circumstances, but not all of them
Proto-Proposal: Named methods of winning
This proposal has no effect unless the text of Rule 2110 (Win by
Paradox) contains wins the game by paradox.
Amend Rule 2136 (Contests) by replacing win the game with win the
game on points.
Amend Rule 2134 (Voting Limits are Limited) by replacing wins
Proto-Proposal: Claims of error, redux
(AI = 3, please)
Amend Rule 1551 (Ratification) by replacing this text:
Any public document defined by the rules as self-ratifying is
ratified one week after its publication, unless explicitly
challenged during that period.
with this
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
When a judicial question is applicable and open, and its case
has a judge assigned to it, the judge CAN assign an appropriate
judgement to it by announcement,
Making it impossible to assign an inappropriate judgement is a very
bad idea
Goethe wrote:
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007, Taral wrote:
My argument hinges on timing. I read at the time the CFJ is called
to limit the scope of relevance to the state that exists on that
boundary. I believe it is within the authority of this panel and the
judge to exclude the CFJ itself from that
Goethe wrote:
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007, comex wrote:
Then we shall interpret the first-class player clause as something
completely different, where intent is the more important thing?
Not intent, but specific practicality of what first-class players are.
If we take the whole term allow any
Proto-Proposal: Plagiarism is the sincerest form of flattery
(AI = 2, please)
Wonko and bad leprechaun are co-authors of this proposal.
Create a rule titled Winning by Legislative Dominance with Power 2
and this text:
If, during a given Agoran week, all of these conditions are met:
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Create a rule titled Winning by Legislative Dominance with Power 2
I dislike this idea.
Why?
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Zefram wrote:
I dislike this idea.
Why?
I think it's not a naturally significant condition, but one that could be
expected to occur in some perfectly ordinary circumstances. Attempts to
avert such a win would induce people to make good proposals fail, which
pikhq wrote:
On Thursday 15 November 2007 19:37:23 comex wrote:
On Thursday 15 November 2007, Josiah Worcester wrote:
I intend to join the AFO, with SUPPORT of all AFO members.
Judge CFJ 1783 already!
I judge comex GUILTY in the CFJ 1783, with the initiator's arguments.
NttPF.
Levi wrote:
It just occured to me that another possible hole is that I could, with
two other senators, control the game by continually declaring emergency
sessions and filibuster on all proposals except our own.
But three other senators could just de-filibuster them, and filibuster
yours, so
Goethe wrote:
When an emergency session begins, all non-Senators' postures
become supine, and non-Senators may not flip their posture
while the session lasts.
Any reason not to make this CANNOT?
Levi wrote:
comex wrote:
Levi, you going to support or object to his attempt to join the AFO?
Undecided so far :)
Any thoughts on pros/cons of an extra member for the AFO?
I'm happy to support if both you and Murphy do. I notice you did
already, not in the public forum but I believe
comex wrote:
Proposal: Urgent Actions (AI=2)
Amend Rule 1728 by replacing item (f) of the list in that rule with:
(f) The vote collector of such a decision CANNOT resolve it if
it was initiated more than fourteen days ago, or less than
its urgency index ago.
Indices
For my own reference, here is a list of things that remain up in the air
wrt the CotC database.
Mon 5 Nov 18:02:12 Goethe judges 1774-5, if e did not before
(see CFJ 1784)
Wed 7 Nov 19:28:36 Murphy intends to remand 1786
Thu 8 Nov 05:50:05 root consents to remanding
Proto-Proposal: Formalize judicial findings
(AI = 3, please)
Amend Rule 591 (Inquiry Cases) by appending this text:
A judicial finding is a judgement of a question on veracity
that is not appealed within the time limit for doing so, or
that is sustained on appeal.
Amend Rule
I wrote:
Proto-Proposal: Formalize judicial findings
(AI = 3, please)
This should probably be two separate proposals. First one:
Amend Rule 591 (Inquiry Cases) by appending this text:
A judicial finding is a judgement of a question on veracity
that is not appealed within the
comex wrote:
On Saturday 17 November 2007, Taral wrote:
No, repeatly appealing the *same* judgement is a loophole. Appealing
the *new* judgement is perfectly reasonable.
Then why is, say, an OVERRULE judgement unappealable, while other
judgements resulting from appeals are not?
Rule
Eris wrote:
On 11/17/07, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Good enough for me at this point. I SUPPORT Pikhq and OPPOSE Wooble.
Um, people, you can't vote yet (Rule 2154).
They can vote in the Agoran Consent decisions, though those decisions
can't be resolved because there are
root wrote:
On Nov 17, 2007 9:37 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
*I'm* the one still think UNDECIDED is reasonable, and I came up with
arguments supporting it which I think are perfectly fine. I think that
root should be the winner.
I thought that ship sailed as soon as the first
comex wrote:
On Saturday 17 November 2007, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I call for appeal of Murphy's latest judgement in CFJ 1787, and suggest
at this point REASSIGN. CotC, please consider the preceding paragraph
to be my Appellant's arguments.
I object!
Repeatedly appealing a judgement because of
Goethe wrote:
I don't suppose there's any way of just appending this to the arguments
of the judgement I haven't appealed yet, is there... really wishing for
concurring opinions here...
I can always throw 'em into the database as gratuituous arguments.
Proto-proto: More types of proposals
On majority party proposals, each player has a number of votes
equal to the size of eir party.
On minority party proposals, each party (measured at start of
voting period) has one vote (members vote FA - FOR, FA -
AGAINST, F=A - PRESENT).
On cabinet
Eris wrote:
On 11/17/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Eris wrote:
On 11/17/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A judicial finding is a judgement of a question on veracity
that is not appealed within the time limit for doing so, or
that is sustained on appeal
Eris wrote:
On 11/17/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Um, people, you can't vote yet (Rule 2154).
They can vote in the Agoran Consent decisions, though those decisions
can't be resolved because there are multiple consenting nominees.
Okay, you can't vote *meaningfully* yet. :D
Eris wrote:
On 11/17/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Proto-Proposal: Concurring opinions
(AI = 1.7, please)
Why?
To formally distinguish between the concepts described under the
new AFFIRM and CONCUR. For instance, Rule 2126 would revoke the
prior judge's salary on CONCUR.
Also
Goethe wrote:
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
The rules only ascribe importance to the actual judgement, not to the
arguments presented; the CotC isn't even required to track them. So
it's not as if any rule would be broken by doing that.
I forgot that. How can we have a meaningful
pikhq wrote:
The recordkeeporship of VCs being split amongst these different offices just
makes VCs far too tricky to handle. Just leave it all with the Accountor.
Also, why does the Accountor keep track of all VDs, but not all VCs?
VC tracking is the bulk of the Assessor's workload - I have
Eris wrote:
On 11/18/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The serial comma's role of disambiguation can be reasonably extended
to lists of two, provided that the items in the list are sufficiently
complex. Furthermore, as demonstrated multiple times in this reply,
there are several other
Eris wrote:
On 11/18/07, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 18 November 2007, Taral wrote:
I can't find any style guides that support or even mention this
extension of the serial comma.
You're probably right, but if that humongous sentences had no commas
whatsoever, it would be ugly.
comex wrote:
On Sunday 18 November 2007, Taral wrote:
A judicial finding is a judgement of a question on veracity
that is neither appealed within the time limit for doing so
nor sustained on appeal.
Logic error.
In fact, this is not necessary at all. Since AFFIRM
comex wrote:
On Sunday 18 November 2007, Levi Stephen wrote:
(g) If the outcome is APPROVED, then the vote collector MUST
perform the action as soon as possible after resolving the decision.
add CAN
Replace with CAN, actually. A player intending to perform a dependent
action should
Levi wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
comex wrote:
On Sunday 18 November 2007, Levi Stephen wrote:
(g) If the outcome is APPROVED, then the vote collector MUST
perform the action as soon as possible after resolving the decision.
add CAN
Replace with CAN, actually. A player intending
root wrote:
On Nov 18, 2007 8:21 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 18, 2007 6:51 PM, Levi Stephen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks. I think CAN does better describe what I'm trying to achieve here.
CAN isn't sufficient; there's still no mechanism to replace the one
you're
root wrote:
On Nov 18, 2007 9:34 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(g) If the outcome is APPROVED, then the vote collector CAN
perform the action (by announcement if no other mechanism
is specified) within one week after resolving the decision.
Rule 2172
Zefram wrote:
I have a problem with your criterion for the defence. It appears to make
ignorance of the law an excuse, even wilful ignorance. Agoran law is not
very large, and I think it is reasonable to require that everyone subject
to it be aware of all relevant parts, other than the rare
root wrote:
On Nov 19, 2007 10:35 PM, Josiah Worcester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 19 November 2007 17:48:08 you wrote:
With *Agoran Consent*, I intend to have Agora join B Nomic as a faction.
SUPPORT
We have 2 for, 1 against, and 1 against but not to the public forum.
I recommend
pikhq wrote:
I submit the following proposal, named Non-reporting Office:
Create a rule with the following text:
{
There exists an office of Governmental Waste. This office shall have no
duties, shall make no reports, and shall exist as the sole result of
governmental waste.
}
[ I want to
Proto-Proposal: Expanded foreign relations
Er. I think I originally intended the second one to be some
sort of economic trade proto (with strong pragmatic safeguards
against allowing an ambiguous foreign gamestate to infect ours).
comex wrote:
On Nov 22, 2007 4:04 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A player CAN spend N+1 VCs of different colors to gain N cimons.
A player CAN spend N+1 cimons to gain N VCs of a color that e
gained within the past week.
This would allow a player who just gained
pikhq wrote:
I spend 2B and 1K to increase my VVLOP by one.
I'm interpreting different colors in Rule 2126 as requiring each VC
in the set to be a different color from any of the others in that set,
so this is ineffective.
BobTHJ wrote:
Decision: I intend with Agoran Consent to unconditionally surrender to B Nomic.
Options: SUPPORT, OBJECT
SUPPORT: comex, OscarMeyr
OBJECT: Zefram, Levi
The option selected by Agora is: SUPPORT
No, it isn't. S/(S+O) = majority index is insufficient, it must exceed.
pikhq wrote:
I intend to amend the AFO contract, with consent of all of its Partners, so
that it reads as follows:
I consent to the amendment.
comex wrote:
The AFO transfers 98 blue marks to comex.
This was successful.
The AFO transfers 98 blue marks to comex.
The AFO transfers 98 blue marks to pikhq.
The AFO transfers 98 blue marks to Murphy.
The AFO transfers 98 blue marks to Levi.
These were not; the AFO had no marks left to
Goethe wrote:
People outside the conspiracy: can we be done with currencies again
for a while? Zefram, care to do the honors of proposing?
We might want to just repeal VCs and Marks, while leaving the Asset
infrastructure in place (for contracts wishing to use them).
pikhq wrote:
On Friday 23 November 2007 15:41:55 Ed Murphy wrote:
The AFO retracts all CFJs that it called within the past 24 hours.
Fortunately, the marks are still in existence. :)
Unfortunately, I still have to process all the actions in comex's
long message. :(
pikhq wrote:
Mi voyagxas al Esperanto.
Que?
root wrote:
From an alternative standpoint, after Rule 2110/2 was replaced with
Rule 2110/3, the former version could no longer affect the game in any
way; thus it could not cause a win, and this CFJ would be FALSE. This
interpretation is troubling when applied to other rules; for example,
a
[Primo] became de facto inactive in July, and was dissolved
by Issue (proposal) 26 in October.
Will add a mention that this tested the dissolution-by-unanimous-
agreement clause; one partner directly opposed Issue 26, but indirectly
agreed to abide by the voting results on Issues in general.
Goethe wrote:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
BUS: Proto-Thesis: 2007, the Year of Partnerships
What degree is this for?
I don't know. Since Rule 1367 no longer contains any objective
standards, I'll probably submit a proposal recognizing pseudo-votes
at each level.
PRE-HISTORY
root wrote:
On Nov 26, 2007 2:06 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
root attempted to register square root (emself, acting as a corporation
sole) and Nemo (no one, acting as a soulless corporation). CFJs 1682
and 1683 held that agreements must be made among two or more players.
I
BobTHJ wrote:
I could have swore that Primo was the first partnership with a
non-player member (as several players of B became Primo shareholders).
Perhaps I am mistaken however.
I don't remember this happening. They may certainly have talked
about it, though.
OscarMeyr wrote:
I just looked over these registration dates. Are they correct -- am I
the ONLY player who did not (re)register this year?
Yes. I deregistered so that Michael could keep the record for
longest continuous registration, and also to test the ramifications
of a partnership (the
As of the last Herald's report (June 21), these players were already
recorded as having Long Service titles:
Three Months Long Service: Goddess Eris, Goethe, Sherlock
Six Months Long Service: Michael, Murphy, OscarMeyr, root, Sherlock
Nine Months Long Service:Michael, Murphy,
Of course, /right/ after I send that out, I remember that another
batch of Red Marks were platonically awarded about an hour ago.
Corrections coming up shortly.
BobTHJ wrote:
As do I
On Nov 27, 2007 8:26 PM, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I also join these contests.
On 11/27/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hereby join The Slow-Winning Contest 1, The Slow-Winning Contest 2,
The Slow-Winning Contest 3, The Slow-Winning Contest 4, The
root wrote:
On Nov 28, 2007 9:08 AM, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rule 2110 (either version) is not expressed as setting up a delayed
action.
Indeed. To me it reads as if it the rule acts at the moment the
judgement is entered, provided that it remains unappealed for the
following week.
BobTHJ wrote:
Proto-Proposal: Quality Judge Assignment
I suspect that this would be a PITA to add to the CotC DB. Would it
be a big deal if it failed to reflect this stuff?
Goethe wrote:
For example, nkep could be a contract action in a private contract, which
is permissible or not permissible by the contract (and thus answerable to
in Agoran courts).
[snip]
A compromise offer: nkep is clearly not understandable to most Agorans,
and thus the burden falls onto
comex wrote:
If I *right now*, to the PF, defined nkep as deregister (not claiming to
have defined it beforehand), would TRUE then become appropriate for this
appeal?
Rule 911 (Appeal Cases) measures appropriateness as follows:
AFFIRM - past
REMAND - unspecified
REASSIGN - unspecified
Goethe wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Nov 28, 2007 3:23 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is broken, but I must find GUILTY. [If anyone has a way out,
please suggest it]. I also submit the following [proto-proposal]:
I concur, and I suggest that DISCHARGE is
BobTHJ wrote:
On Nov 28, 2007 5:18 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BobTHJ wrote:
Oh, and just to note: The proof already exists. It simply requires
time for me to make it public.
I don't buy it. Provide an outline of the proof and I may change
my mind.
Here's a possibility
Zefram wrote:
Too late, I already assigned a judge (root). I would have given you more
time, but CFJ 1810 came up and I wanted to get it processed promptly.
(And I wanted to avoid out-of-sequence CFJ numbering.)
I previously assumed that the retraction was successful, so the CotC
database
BobTHJ wrote:
nkep would be nonsensical even if it were a defined action either in
the rules or a contract. These statements are not contradictory.
Then in what way would the private whatever-it-is impact the
appropriateness of judgement on either CFJ 1799 or CFJ 1805?
pikhq wrote:
I do hereby initiate an equity CFJ on the following:
Murphy is in breach of our contract concerning marks by not sending me 1 blue
mark and 1 black mark.
Murphy and I are parties to the contract in question.
For evidence of this contract, ask H. Notary Goethe.
It's a fair cop.
BobTHJ wrote:
Beccause, nkep can be both nonsensical and an action at the same time.
Just because it is nonsense doesn't mean it can't be an action (and
therefore permissible).
Nonsense. Stuff and. Caddy smelled like trees.
comex wrote:
The AFO claims a rule 2134 win.
Might be invalid, because you misspelled decrease
I tend to agree with the other two reasons that this will probably
be shot down, but not this one; R754(1) applies, especially coming
hot on the heels of your message.
Eris wrote:
On 11/28/07, Levi Stephen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I spend 2 Green VCs to gain 200 Green Marks
I don't think this works.
Correct. Again, voluntary conversion is one-way in the Marks - VCs
direction.
301 - 400 of 3133 matches
Mail list logo
