comex wrote:
On Dec 21, 2007 9:07 PM, Josiah Worcester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And have since destroyed it.
I seriously just thought that a report without any points seemed bare. That's
all there is to it. I had no idea that people would be this damned offended
by it.
THIS
IS
AGORA
Then
comex wrote:
On Dec 21, 2007 9:42 PM, Josiah Worcester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I solemnely swear on my offices patent titles not to further use a scam.
I note that it's a *single point*. Argument over a single point is Less Fun
Than Not Fun.
I think you might have a point.
88
Anyone feel like creating some? I'd play in a Catan variant if
someone started one.
(http://www.aworldlikemyown.com/index.php?comic=180)
comex wrote:
On Dec 22, 2007 12:12 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
An announcement claiming that such an import has occurred is
self-ratifying.
I don't think you get around to specifying that it must be imported by
announcement.
True, though the Ambassador's report
avpx wrote:
Any player may spend N pesos to cause another player to gain .75*N
pesos. However, if one of the parties in the transaction is the
Treasury, then N pesos may be spent by one party to cause the other
party to gain N pesos.
I spend 500 of the Treasury's pesos to cause myself to gain
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
[Rather than limit the minting of currency, simply devalue it. This
is both simpler and more realistic.]
Been done before, and it was horrendous. Making currency units decay
(as we now have them do) involves a lot less paperwork.
When was this? Were
Goethe wrote:
I CFJ on the following statement (criminal case): comex has violated
Rule 2149 in his communication of voting on proposal 5375.
Arguments: comex has stated specifically in the past that e does not
believe that e has huge numbers of ordinary votes, nor would any reasonable
Zefram wrote:
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
H. Assessor Murphy properly reported the votes on Prop.
5373, but inadvertently omitted the specification of the outcome as
required by R208 item (c). I therefore (draft)judge FALSE.
That's the logic that I used. The question is whether,
Goethe wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
2) 1048576 is such a huge number in context that it could be interpreted
as an implicit most of these will be invalid disclaimer. (A player
who intentionally casts just a few more votes than eir voting limit
would be more likely
avpx wrote:
One of the reasons I wanted to make it rule-regulated, BTW, was so
that it could possibly replace the system of VCs and marks, which,
personally, I find a little messy. It might be a good idea, if we can
all agree on that (which I doubt we can), to re-engineer the whole
idea, and
The rules used to define certain actions as either Crimes (matters of
law, requiring CFJ) and Infractions (matters of fact, requiring a simple
claim-of-error-style announcement, generally less serious), each with a
specified penalty. Rule violations not otherwise defined as one of
these things
avpx wrote:
Also, I intend for pesos to be spent similar to VCs, in that one can
increase his own VVLOP and others' as well. In fact, the biggest
difference in terms of this is that they can be transfered.
I've also some ideas for what they could be spent on. Namely, they
could be used
Ed Murphy wrote:
avpx wrote:
Also, I intend for pesos to be spent similar to VCs, in that one can
increase his own VVLOP and others' as well. In fact, the biggest
difference in terms of this is that they can be transfered.
I've also some ideas for what they could be spent on. Namely
OscarMeyr wrote:
b) comex referred to R2149 in eir arguments, and presented no other
rule in the message as provided to this CFJ. A statement in the CFJ
argument is not a clear designation in the CFJ statement proper of the
rule allegedly breached. FAIL
Criminal cases don't have
OscarMeyr wrote:
We do need a patch in 2126, along the lines of replacing:
VCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the
color is specified):
With:
VCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the
color(s) is/are accurately specified
pikhq wrote:
Common sense dictates that, when you spend something, you have also lost it.
The rules do not say otherwise, so common sense prevails.
This whole case is centered around whether or not to spend is sufficiently
similar to to lose to allow the VC loss to be waived.
I invite the
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Sun 23 Dec 00:40:15 Zefram -3R increase root's VVLOP by 6
Sun 23 Dec 00:40:15 Zefram -3R increase Goethe's VVLOP by 6
I increased root's VVLOP by 8 and Goethe's by 4.
Corrected in next draft.
Proto-Proposal: Synaesthesia
(AI = 2, II = 2, please)
Change the title of Rule 2126 to Ribbons, and amend it to read:
Ribbons are a class of fixed assets. Changes to Ribbon holdings
are secured. Ownership of Ribbons is restricted to players.
Each Ribbon has exactly one
I wrote:
Create a rule titled Rests with Power 2 and this text:
Rests are a fixed currency. Ownership of Rests is restricted
to players.
Whenever a player possesses a Rest, the Conductor CAN destroy
it and award a Note of random pitch to that player, and SHALL
Eris wrote:
On 12/26/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(A#) If Y X = 0, then e gains an A# Note.
This is usually written Bb, not A#.
Yes, but A# fits the alphabetic correlation (inspired by Nomicron's
Runes) between the pitches and the events awarding them.
Eris wrote:
On 12/26/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Eris wrote:
On 12/26/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(A#) If Y X = 0, then e gains an A# Note.
This is usually written Bb, not A#.
Yes, but A# fits the alphabetic correlation (inspired by Nomicron's
Runes
I wrote:
Proto-Proposal: Synaesthesia
(F#) If X Y = 0, then e gains an F# Note.
(F) If X Y 0, then e gains an F Note.
(A#) If Y X = 0, then e gains an A# Note.
(A) If Y X 0, then e gains an A Note.
Oh, I have a better idea - change
pikhq wrote:
Tue 25 Dec 02:52:40 Murphy -1k transfer to pikhq
Tue 25 Dec 02:52:40 pikhq -1k transfer from Murphy
*Excuse* me? WTF?
Typo. Fixed in next draft.
pikhq wrote:
On Monday 24 December 2007 21:40:32 Ed Murphy wrote:
Assessor's Voting Limits and Voting Credits Report
Accountor's Marks Report
[snip]
Murphy's VLOP is disputed (CFJ 1850).
Your *win* is disputed, not your VLOP. Since you announced that your EVLOP was
higher than everyone
pikhq wrote:
From playing B Nomic, I've seen one potentially useful idea: transactions. I'm
not sure if everyone wants them, but let's see:
Proto: Transactions (power=3?)
Create a rule titled Transactions with the following text:
A transaction is a method of announcing actions, contained
root wrote:
On Dec 22, 2007 8:44 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I cause the AFO to publish the following.
Perhaps I'm misremembering, but didn't a recent proposal cause Murphy
to become Assessor?
Yes, but the AFO remains vote collector for anything distributed
while it was Assessor
pikhq wrote:
On Monday 31 December 2007 11:08:56 Ian Kelly wrote:
On Dec 31, 2007 11:04 AM, Josiah Worcester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps: An announcement may be made asserting the success or failure of
a
Transaction. This announcement is self-ratifying.?
We'd have to remember to make
pikhq wrote:
What a waste. . . VVLOPs are almost inevitably going to be reset in a bit as
it stands.
Only if CFJ 1850 is judged TRUE.
Goethe wrote:
On Tue, 25 Dec 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
All AGAINST votes in this message are cast only on the condition that
the proposal in question would meet quorum even if I didn't vote on it.
Interesting. Technically, this isn't known within the voting period
but only at the endpoint
pikhq wrote:
On Monday 31 December 2007 15:28:22 Benjamin Schultz wrote:
On Dec 31, 2007, at 2:16 PM, Josiah Worcester wrote:
I intend, with 2 Senate supporters, to call an Emergency Session.
The topic?
Developing tensions with B Nomic.
Other than B thinking we surrendered, what tensions
Goethe wrote:
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
Goethe wrote:
On Tue, 25 Dec 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
All AGAINST votes in this message are cast only on the condition that
the proposal in question would meet quorum even if I didn't vote on it.
Interesting. Technically, this isn't known
Goethe wrote:
No, extending the voting period for these is the whole purpose of holidays.
The If some Rule bases paragraph clearly doesn't apply to
these. The If some Rule requires paragraph might, though.
2006-07: 4877-92 started after the holiday, 4874-75 ended
before. Zefram's proposal
April 1 was a holiday through 2006.
2006: 4851-54 ended before, 4855 started before and intersected,
4856-59 started after.
2005: 4654-62 ended before, 4663-70 and 4671-73 started before
and intersected, 4674-75 started after.
2004: 4557-62 ended before, 4563-65 started before and
Iammars wrote:
So far, I know that I need to affirm CFJ 1828a, Judge
on CFJ 1844 and CFJ 1839, Vote on a lot of proposals, and come to a
conclusion on the panel of CFJ 1831b, and I'm a little over halfway
through. My question is, since we're on holiday, when is the first time
I can legally
pikhq wrote:
I Call for Judgement on the following: Dependent actions with fewer than
Quorum voters have not been made since clause (a) of rule 955 was made to
have its current text, except for the self-ratification of the voting
results.
Evidence:
(a) If there is more than one
Goethe wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
Has the AFO become public? I've lost track.
[Feel free to inform me if the following was somehow against the AFO
contract at the time or not with consent. -Goethe]
From: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org (Josiah Worcester)
Date: Wed, 28
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
It's not against the AFO contract, which allows any partner to control
the partnership itself without prior consultation. The interesting
question is whether the contract rules recognize this;
It doesn't qualify as any of the formulations of rule 2178
Goethe wrote:
I submit the following proposal, No silent partners, AI-2. -Goethe
No Silent Partners
Amend Rule 2145 by replacing:
A partnership that is a public contract and whose basis contains
at least
Eris wrote:
On 1/2/08, Josiah Worcester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I CFJ on the following: There are elephants Over There.
Something tells me you made all that machinery just so you could do this. :D
Blame root for locations. And blame Goethe for CFJ 1629.
What interpreter/debugger are the other contestants using? I've been
using http://www.iamcal.com/misc/bf_debug/ but it's rather slow. I also
found http://esoteric.voxelperfect.net/wiki/Brainfuck#Implementations
but I can't be arsed to test all of them individually.
root wrote:
On Jan 7, 2008 9:33 AM, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hereby assign the judicial panel of Murphy, root, and Zefram as judge
of CFJ 1836b.
I intend, with the agreement of my fellow panelists, to cause the
panel to judge AFFIRM in this case with the following concurring
Goethe wrote:
The issue of cron jobs is where Judge Zefram and I differ, and I'm
considering both those judgments and my own initial thoughts carefully.
Since Zefram uses cron jobs, I assume e considers them legally
effective. Does that mean that you don't? Or is the distinction
on some
Zefram wrote:
APPROX DATE (UTC) CASE SUBJECTAWD EVENT
04 Dec 2007 20:01:00 1812 BobTHJ +1K sentence on time
07 Jan 2008 17:39:09 1850 root +1B judge on time
07 Jan 2008 19:31:11 1846 pikhq -1B judgement overturned
07 Jan 2008 21:01:47 1839 Iammars+1B
Zefram wrote:
Roger Hicks wrote:
I appeal this decision.
There were two appealable decisions there: verdict and sentence.
You must specify which one you are appealing.
I already entered the appeal into the database. On the assumption
that e'll initiate it with the proper specification,
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
I lost one for 1840 being reassigned.
Oh yes, I missed that.
OscarMeyr gained one for judging 1851;
No e didn't; e was late.
Ah, you're right, the holiday only delayed obligations to January 10
at 00:00 UTC. Draft report corrected.
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Sat 22 Dec 04:29:53 pikhq awarded Champion; each player's VVLOP set to
BVLOP
Claim of error: as pikhq did not win, I believe e could not be validly
awarded the patent title of Champion, and therefore this VVLOP reset
did not occur. Many
Zefram wrote:
The report shows a reset of VVLOP due to an award of Champion, but that
award came from a non-win. It looks to me like the announcement of
the award was therefore INVALID, and so the VVLOP reset did not occur.
I haven't formulated this properly for a CFJ yet.
Rule 649, relevant
Zefram wrote:
(Disclaimer: I'm not convinced about the accuracy of the most recently
reported voting limits, so some of the following votes may well be
invalid due to VLOP.)
Explain please?
root wrote:
I submit the following proposal, titled As late as possible (AI=2):
==
Amend Rule 1023 (Common Definitions) by replacing this text:
(a) The phrase as soon as possible means within seven days.
with:
(a) The phrase as soon as possible means within seven days,
root wrote:
On Jan 10, 2007 12:42 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I like the idea, but this highlights an abuse of the language that has
long been overlooked. I suggest in a timely fashion before and in a
timely fashion against.
I meant to write in a timely fashion after here.
I
pikhq wrote:
Object. I was awarded the patent title Minister Without Profile by proposal.
Unless CFJ 1859 is appealed and overturned. I suspect it won't be,
but I've been maintaining an unofficial Mark record just in case.
Goethe wrote:
Other thought: Legal name in an Agoran CFJ means must refer to legal in
terms of Agora and that means Agoran name which is necessarily unique
which is legally trivial and not the statement intent but it's what it says.
Objection, Your Honor. That sentence should be taken out
comex wrote:
For the CotC election I intend to vote for and only for a candidate
who will maintain a database with a web interface (preferably *the*
database) emself. Currently we have, in effect, two redundant
databases (one of which is a set of text files), one maintained by
Murphy, one
comex wrote:
- I will try to get stuff from Zefram's archives into the database.
(I don't know how flexible the database structure is, but...) CFJ
818*, for example, makes excellent reading, but it's too old to even
be in the current database's Stare Decisis.
I have offline files of CFJs
comex wrote:
It was relocated once before (from Eris's server to mine), but it
took a good bit of head-scratching. I could give you a shell account,
but then you'd be cut off whenever my server's net connection decided
to flake out for a while. (The cfj.qoid.us mirror is a good workaround
for
comex wrote:
This is a non-issue as far as I can see. If a player submits a CFJ
through a web interface, it doesn't actually exist in the gamestate
until the submission is posted on a public forum. So the interface
would in any case email business on eir behalf (CFJ 1719). That's
just to
comex wrote:
On Jan 11, 2008 7:13 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why would automatic assignment be too difficult? Posture and activity
changes can easily be tracked manually, and if an occasional invalid
judge were to be assigned due to the manual changes not being updated
the judge
comex wrote:
If such a thing were implemented, any confusion would only occur if
someone was delibrately trying to confuse it, i.e. I de-register.
This probably wouldn't happen and if so, I'm sure the CotC would be
EXCUSED :)
Or all messages could be disclaimered with if it is possible and
Iammars wrote:
Just out of curiosity, would people be interested in a Rumble contest?
The rules to Rumble can be found here: http://kevan.org/rumble.cgi
Neato.
Iammars wrote:
1. At any time, the contestmaster MAY announce a new game of Rumble
provided that there are no games of Rumble currently going on. In this
announcement, the contestmaster SHOULD announce a number of powers for
each contestant to submit and a number of powers for the
Eris wrote:
On 1/10/08, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/10/08, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hereby assign the judicial panel of comex, Goddess Eris, and Murphy
as judge of CFJs 1857a and 1858a.
I agree with the appellant's arguments. I intend to OVERTURN with GUILTY.
Murphy, any
Zefram wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1828a
I intend to cause the panel to judge REASSIGN, on the basis that
comex apparently did not make the reasonable effort to ask pikhq
whether the alleged event occurred.
Zefram wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1831b
I intend to cause the panel to judge AFFIRM. Objection clearly
appears in the web page (not just its URL), so the multiple votes
- FALSE that it was exactly one vote interpretation is correct.
root wrote:
On Jan 14, 2008 5:56 AM, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Initiator's Arguments:
Rule 649 says
A Patent Title CAN only be awarded by a proposal, or by the
announcement of a person specifically authorized by the Rules to
make that award.
The Patent Title of
Goethe wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
I'm confused. You appear to be accepting the appellant's argument
that a URL on its own is not a vote, but asserting that the
objection on the web page does constitute a vote. This would lead
to reversing to TRUE, not to affirming.
The web
Goethe wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
I scored 6945, although I'm absolutely certain that if the deadline
wasn't today I could've significantly cut that down by the simplest of
optimization.
Well, I feel dumb too... I got 549, but misremembered the timezones and
dinked
root wrote:
We have established precedent that base64 encoding is not an
acceptable format for delivering a message containing game actions.
It's acceptable when properly labeled (as you judged in CFJ 1741),
unacceptable otherwise (as I did in CFJ 1580).
I would lean toward any sort of this
root wrote:
On Jan 14, 2008 2:33 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 11, 2008 3:49 AM, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hereby assign the judicial panel of Murphy, root, and woggle as judge
of CFJ 1860a.
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1860a
This case
root wrote:
On Jan 11, 2008 3:49 AM, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hereby assign the judicial panel of Murphy, root, and woggle as judge
of CFJ 1860a.
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1860a
This case requires further consideration. Due to the disregard for
the
pikhq wrote:
iv. Every person has the right to refuse to become party to a binding
agreement.
I refuse to be party to the Vote Market.
You have the right to refuse to /become/ party, not the right to refuse
to /be/ party. What do you think binding means, anyway?
root wrote:
On Jan 14, 2008 6:40 PM, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hereby assign the judicial panel of Levi, Murphy, and root as judge
of CFJ 1870a.
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1870a
I intend to cause the panel to judge REMAND, as requested by the prior
root wrote:
On Jan 15, 2008 3:40 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
January 21, 2008 - BobTHJ obligated to deregister
The contract doesn't specify any such time frame. I'd say that as
long as you eventually deregister, you will have fulfilled this
obligation.
From the VM agreement:
Proto-Proposal: Transposition
(AI = 2, please)
Amend Rule 2194 (Notes) by replacing (5) During Agora's Birthday,
with (W) During Agora's Birthday, and inserting this text immediately
before it:
(5) A player CAN spend one Note to alter the pitch of all eir
other notes by a
Goethe wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Zefram wrote:
Iammars wrote:
The statement here boils down to Is Steve Wallace a Nomic? since if Steve
Wallace is a Nomic, the statement is true, where as if Steve Wallace isn't a
Nomic, the answer is false.
This misses the possibility that Steve Wallace
Non-Assessor's Voting Limits Non-Report
H. Assessor BobTHJ, you should add the following (from Rule 2177)
to subsequent reports, as I had been inadvertently neglecting them:
Most recent (21-day) emergency session
Date: none
Roll call: none
Goethe wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
From R869:
A player CAN deregister by announcement. E CANNOT register
within thirty days after doing so.
Enjoy your vacation!
But e didn't deregister by announcement. The CotC deregistered em
in a Writ of FAGE. So this
Iammars wrote:
I propose the following: (Name=Fix Rule 1586, AI = 2, Interest = 1)
Amend tule 1586 to read:
Two Rule-defined entities CANNOT have the same name or nickname.
If the game state changes such that a entity ceases to exist, then that
entity and its properties cease to exist.
If
Iammars wrote:
On Jan 16, 2008 10:37 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 16, 2008 10:13 PM, Iammars [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
T
What is with these blatantly unwrapped proposals??
Huh?
Some of us are old-school to
root wrote:
Registrar
-
Thu 12 Jul 17:25:19 root nominated by Human Point Two
Tue 17 Jul 06:18:01 root installed by Human Point Two
Fri 7 Sep 18:25:49 PPnominated by comex
Mon 31 Dec 10:55:53 avpx nominated by Murphy
Levi, you appear to be compensating for
root wrote:
On Jan 17, 2008 11:04 AM, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Per CFJs 1758-1759, the vote collection duty moves with the assessorship.
The assessor is liable to be delinquent if the office stays vacant,
but we'd still have deputisation available.
Proposals 5390 - 5404 have not been
root wrote:
On Jan 17, 2008 11:59 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If your self-nomination is treated as implicit consent, then Levi
is overdue to initiate an election between you and BobTHJ. If not,
then nothing could have been done; only BobTHJ consented, and e
received 2 support
I had some time to kill, so I went ahead with the recalculations.
Here is how things would be affected if my results for 5390-5404
were formally disputed, and BobTHJ then posted the same results:
Wed 16 Jan 04:40:37 pikhq +3B CFJs 1866-68
Wed 16 Jan 04:46:53 pikhq +1B CFJ 1870
Wed
BobTHJ can't announce the results because the Writ of FAGE removed
em from the office of Assessor, hence from the position of vote
collector.
Let's go back to the leave the purported results alone approach,
then. Meanwhile, possible proposal coming up shortly.
I wrote:
woggle wrote:
On Thursday 17 January 2008 21:52:25 Ed Murphy wrote:
[snip]
Net changes:
pikhq would have 4 more Rests and a Blue Ribbon.
pikhq has a Blue Ribbon regardless (from eir judgement on culpability
in CFJ 1866 if the original resolution was valid, from VC conversion
woggle wrote:
On Thursday 17 January 2008 22:45:30 Ed Murphy wrote:
pikhq wrote:
On Thursday 17 January 2008 14:56:13 Josiah Worcester wrote:
I intend to ratify Murphy's report on the voting results on proposals
5390-5404.
I claim this as erroneous.
The purported report, or your intent
root wrote:
On Jan 17, 2008 2:56 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fix looks fine, but on a broader scale remind me why dependent actions
have to be a subclass of Agoran Decision at all (i.e., the reporting
requirements have been fairly burdensome of late). -Goethe
Because somebody
Ed Murphy wrote:
Zefram wrote:
I hereby assign the judicial panel of comex, Murphy, and root as judge
of CFJ 1863a.
I intend to cause the panel to judge REMAND. Arguments:
comex, root, did this look okay? (If you've already consented, let me
know, I may have misfiled something.)
Dear Canadian Embassy,
Not sure how they're usually addressed. To whom it may concern?
*googles*
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,3-1258378,00.html
The Office of Ambassador of Agora Nomic presents its compliments to
the Canadian Embassy in city and directs the attention of the
Zefram wrote:
== CFJ 1831 ==
Initiator: pikhq
Judge: Goddess Eris
Appeal 1831b: 20 Dec 2007 20:35:09 GMT
REMANDED on appeal: 20
comex wrote:
CFJs 1860 and 1828 deal with the same issue and one should be judged
based on the precedent of the other. Since 1860 is the CFJ that's
garnered all the discussion, and also an inquiry CFJ (whereas mine is
criminal) I intend to wait for Iammars's judgement on 1860 to
determine the
root wrote:
Entrant: Murphy
Validity: Invalid
Length: 1216
Reason: No matter what I enter, I always seem to get back
as the result.
Could someone double-check this? It passed my unit tests, at least,
which were something like
1 1+
10 1-
10 11*
110 11/
root wrote:
CFJs 1295 and 1533 have similar histories.
List of all cases on record as appealed twice:
1268 T, reassign, T, sustain
1295 T, reassign (2/1 over sustain), F, reassign, T
1533 F, remand, T, remand (2/1 over reverse), F
1550 F, sustain (2/1 over remand), reverse (2/1 over
pikhq wrote:
On Sunday 20 January 2008 20:59:22 Taral wrote:
On 1/14/08, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hereby assign Goddess Eris as judge of CFJ 1864.
I judge TRUE. One of the members of the Left Hand has stated that the
Right Hand agreement provides for one or another of the partners
Eris wrote:
Well, that settles that. Canada is not a game either, by the definitions cited.
Canadian MPs might disagree.
Levi wrote:
I initiate an Agoran Decision to resolve the holder of the Assessor office.
The valid options are BOBTHJ, ROOT and MURPHY.
Did I consent to this? In any case, I don't want it (thus triggering
pikhq's conditional).
root wrote:
This doesn't work, because the voting results aren't part of an official report.
Gah. And I should know, too, I wrote that part of Rule 1551.
Oh well, it will self-ratify on the 23rd at 03:07:21 UTC. (Also, any
previous results incorrectly announced by the AFO rather than me
woggle wrote:
They would self-ratify. Quoth R2034:
A public document purporting to resolve an Agoran decision is
self-ratifying.
No they wouldn't, because messages purporting to resolve Agoran
decisions generally aren't public documents. Fix proposal coming up.
I wrote:
woggle wrote:
They would self-ratify. Quoth R2034:
A public document purporting to resolve an Agoran decision is
self-ratifying.
No they wouldn't, because messages purporting to resolve Agoran
decisions generally aren't public documents. Fix proposal coming up.
Never
Proto-Proposal: Generalize ratification
(AI = 3, please)
Amend Rule 1551 (Ratification) by replacing this text:
An official document is a public document purported to be part
(possibly all) of an official report; this part is the
document's scope. Any player CAN, without
pikhq wrote:
On Monday 21 January 2008 20:08:03 Ian Kelly wrote:
On Jan 21, 2008 8:02 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Any player CAN, without objection, ratify a specified public
document.
I bet the distributor could come up with nice scams based on this.
-root
501 - 600 of 3133 matches
Mail list logo
