BobTHJ wrote:
AGORAN AGRICULTURAL ASSOCIATION REPORT
For convenience, could you add the following to your report?
Harvest this within one weekto do this
--
Proposal number gain 1 or 2 points
root wrote:
As required by the Fantasy Rules Contest contract, I award points as
follows for the week ending February 24 (the Fantasy Rules Contest's
members are BobTHJ, Iammars, Murphy, pikhq, and root, so by Rule 2136
it can award up to 5 * 5 = 25 points per week).
Oh, hey, good catch.
Eris wrote:
On 3/4/08, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Proposal: Secure more judicial aspects
(AI = 2, please)
Do we need to bring back some notion of a 'property' of an entity so
we can auto-secure rule-defined properties?
That wouldn't help for things like types of judicial classes
woggle wrote:
Also I think a supine player could judge an equity case
concerning the Social Contract, which might be unintended and
certainly doesn't seem like a good idea.)
Note the wording of P5467 (emphasis added):
If an equity case identifies this contract,
entities other
root wrote:
5463 D1 2Murphy Make notes more ephemeral
AGAINST (did you mean to write each pitch or each /such/ pitch?)
I meant each pitch. Yes, it's deliberately more dangerous than VC
decay was.
5465 O1 1Murphy Simplify case transfer
AGAINST x 13 (the removal of
pikhq wrote:
The caller offers an opinion that this case merits EXILE, but provides
no argument to back up eir claim of severity. I shall not give effect
to the caller's attempt to persecute the ninny. I therefore sentence
pikhq to CHOKEY for pi seconds. May Eris have mercy on eir soul.
Proto-Proposal: Political Parties
(AI = 2, please)
Create a rule titled Political Parties with Power 2 and this text:
Political Party is a player switch, tracked by the Precinct
Captain, with values as defined below. A player CAN flip eir
Political Party by announcement,
I wrote:
Proto-Proposal: Political Parties
Oops, clout is already used by Rule 2134, how about replacing it
with influence here?
I wrote:
I intend, with the consent of the SoA and the majority consent of the
other Farmers (at least 4 out of 6), to amend the AAA contract by
replacing clauses 6 through 10 with the following (with substitutions
as indicated), and renumbering clauses 11+ in order starting with 7.
6. A
root wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 10:43 AM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/11/08, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I considered something like this in my original scam, but it falls
afoul of R105.
Does it? I think destroying a rule is unambiguously equivalent to
repealing
root wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The claim being made is that unowned assets get transferred to the
Bank (by the second sentence) and then destroyed (by the second half
of the third), if the Bank is not an authorised owner. That's highly
ihope wrote:
I agree to this pledge: When this contract is created, Ivan Hope
CXXVII is awarded 1,000,000 Notes of every type, then this contract
terminates itself.
I'd CFJ on the statement Ivan Hope CXXVII has at least 1,000,000
Notes of every type, but that'd be just silly, I think.
woggle wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 4:34 PM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 4:18 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd missed updating the database to reflect that OscarMeyr had
gone on hold. The alleged assignments were ineffective.
I
root wrote:
5473 O1 1.7 Murphy Contingency plan
AGAINST x 13. Isn't could not be accurately described as either true
or false the same thing as could not be accurately described as
either not false or not true? Both those cases read as contingency
to me, neither as
root wrote:
Or here's another option. If a judge gets a case file with a lack of
arguments, e could, you know, ping the caller for arguments. Judging
UNDETERMINED without even making an effort is arrogant and uncalled
for.
Which is why I proposed requiring it (likewise for SLIPPERY). And
comex wrote:
Not, in my opinion, when the caller has also arrogantly failed to make
an effort. However, in this case it was just a matter of omitting
See above which, in my opinion, should not have been necessary in
the first place, because the arguments were *right above* the CFJ
call.
I
BobTHJ wrote:
It would seem to me that Agoran tradition is the inverse. The impetus
lies with the judge to research all the messy details of the case and
present a judgment that includes all of them (including all the
possiblities that have yet to even be discussed), and if they fail to
do
Goethe wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Zefram wrote:
(More of a concern with clause 14 is that it does not specify any
*mechanism* for amending the contract, but only gives permission.
The contract therefore probably can't be amended from within. If it is
unamendable then my references to
root wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 8:17 AM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/14/08, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The above notwithstanding, a Contract Change is INVALID if:
a) It would make a person a party to a contract against
root wrote:
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 3:20 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 3:14 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 15/03/2008, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Spot: Initiate at least one judicial case per week.
If someone Opined NO WAY on this, how
Ivan Hope wrote:
On 15/03/2008, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Someone should write up an amendment to the effect of if the spot
refers to a recurring type of time period, then each instance of that
type of time period is evaluated separately for violations.
Every millisecond, post
root wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 9:47 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
a) gained by does not apply; gain is explicitly defined (by the
fourth paragraph of Rule 2166) as applying only to newly created
assets. transferred to is ambiguous; it is not explicitly
defined
comex wrote:
On 3/17/08, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is it reasonable to interpret assets as being transferred from a
state of being unowned to a state of being owned by entity?
Yes, but it is unreasonable to interpret objects as being transferred
from the ownership of null
root wrote:
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 11:54 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
comex wrote:
On 3/17/08, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is it reasonable to interpret assets as being transferred from a
state of being unowned to a state of being owned by entity?
Yes
Eris wrote:
Sorry, I'd look it up but I'm at work. What does 2156 look like after
this change?
On 3/16/08, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Proposal: VLOD decay
(AI = 2, please)
Amend Rule 2156 (Voting on Ordinary Decisions) by inserting this
text immediately after eir EVLOD
Goethe wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008, comex wrote:
Between when their voting periods begin and end, cast, and do
not retract before the voting period ends, a ballot FOR the
proposal God-emperor I, INSTEAD OF casting and not retracting
a ballot FOR the proposal God-emperor II.
I opine
Proto-Proposal: Spelling it out
Create a rule titled Arguments and evidence with this text:
Each of the following participants in a judicial case SHOULD
present such arguments and/or evidence (explicitly labeled)
relevant to that case as e is reasonably able to collect:
Eris wrote:
It occurs to me that there are not enough VPs for every player to
maintain a 50-count. Perhaps something like this?
Yeah, anyone leaving with 50 VPs throws off the zero-sum status
(counting relative to the 50-VP baseline).
13. At the beginning of each week, if the sum of all VP
Ivan Hope wrote:
On 24/03/2008, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I guess I'd like to try to get a Notary report ratified, so with
Agoran Consent, I intend to make myself the Notary.
Having received Agoran Consent, I now install myself as Notary. This
will be fun, I guess.
In light of
Zefram wrote:
What an extraordinary judgement. E'd make a good Player.
Apparently e does this sort of thing all the time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_B._Kent#Notoriety
Proto-Proposal: Per-case panels
(AI = 2, please)
Amend Rule 2157 (Judicial Panels) by replacing this text:
A judicial panel's membership cannot change,
and if two panels have the same membership then they are the
same panel. Judicial panels exist implicitly,
root wrote:
To assign a member to a judicial panel is to add em to its
membership, provided that e is qualified to become a member of
that panel. To recuse a member from a judicial panel is to remove
em from its membership.
Confusing overloading of assign and
root wrote:
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 10:39 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As for complexity, I've
already pointed out how the old system (under which the individual
significance of an individual action could be determined immediately)
is simpler than the new (in which it cannot
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 12:27 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 9:49 AM, Iammars [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wow. That was probably the worst land for me to get. I had 2 Digit Ranches
(4) and a subtraction Mill. 0 is the only number I can make!
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
So long as appeals are handled by sets of three, they're going to be
sui generis no matter what you call them.
What is sui generis (that I'm talking about) in your system and in
the pre-reform system is the framework governing appeals. Under the
current
root wrote:
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Individual actions /are/ significant, whether or not they are entered
into the database individually or not. See CFJ 1908.
I submit that if comex and woggle had at some point indicated that
they had silently
root wrote:
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
More confusing than having to inspect the entire case history in order
to determine what panels exist?
No, but the proposed revision would eliminate both.
I'm not sure what revision you're
Goethe wrote:
I agree with Zefram in that I greatly prefer the collective-decision model,
but notwithstanding what the CotC is supposed to track, as a panelist I (and
others) have had trouble knowing what was consented to (e.g. if a panelist
consents to a judgement I propose, but I mildly
BobTHJ wrote:
Uh...yeah. I'm gonna recuse myself from this one too. Too busy at the
moment to give it a fair look.
I believe this falls afoul of the same problem as I'll consent.
pikhq wrote:
I disqualify Agora Nomic from this case.
(Agora Nomic, by rule 2145, is a partnership, and therefore a
person. I can disqualify any person I damned well want to. Have fun
judging this one!)
This fails on multiple points:
* Rule 2171 (Rules Viewed as Binding Agreement) was
BobTHJ wrote:
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 1:08 PM, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Roger Hicks wrote:
Uh...yeah. I'm gonna recuse myself from this one too.
Go on then.
-zefram
Very well then, at exactly 03:59 UTC on April 5, 2008 I recuse myself
from this case.
Getting your nomics
root wrote:
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 10:30 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Getting your nomics crossed again? (B Nomic allows actions to be
performed in the future like this; ties are broken in favor of the
player who published first.)
Hmm. Suppose I announce in B Nomic that I
Zefram wrote:
When I was registrar, many years ago, I actually used the appropriate
Received: header routinely. As far as I know this is unique among
officeholders.
Likely because it requires remembering which Received: header is the
appropriate one.
Proto-Proposal: When Am I?
(AI = 3,
Goethe wrote:
On Thu, 3 Apr 2008, Zefram wrote:
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
Rule 478: Any action performed by sending a message is performed at
the time date-stamped on that message.
I'd point at the preceding sentence:
Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed by
Zefram wrote:
I'd prefer to legislate that messages take effect at the time they
are processed by the list software. That'd make it the same Received:
header that is significant in each message, and any skew affects everyone
equally.
If you propose this, then please annotate it to explain
root wrote:
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 3:57 PM, Ben Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Replace paragraph c) with the following:
c) Exactly one recordkeepor who tracks instances of that switch.
i) If the type of switch's backing document is an instrument,
then the
Pavitra wrote:
On Monday 07 April 2008 8:02 Ed Murphy wrote:
root wrote:
There must be some way of making this cleaner.
By generalizing weekly duties beyond officers?
Actually, the third paragraph of R2166 implies that this is already done.
Non-officer reports are not directly defined
Wooble wrote:
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 10:07 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What's the point, really? -Goethe.
I'd think the point is that American-style voting where the plurality
rules isn't that great.
Not that Agora frequently has hotly-contested elections with more than
2
Wooble wrote:
On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I create a Mill (land #37) with an Operator of + (Addition) and a WRV
in the possession of Wooble
Bah. Anyone interested in trading a Digit Ranch for a + mill? I'd
prefer a 2 or a 5 since they're the
ihope wrote:
On 08/04/2008, Iammars [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 1:01 AM, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I request subsidization.
Me too!
Yo también.
Note that messages in non-English languages are generally effective
(CFJ 910), but a requirement to inform someone of
Zefram wrote:
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
I sentence the ninny to CHOKEY for 30 days per CFJ =
60 days total,
You can't. You have to pass sentence separately for each CFJ, and all
time-based sentences are served simultaneously. The ninny would be in
chokey for two separate
Pavitra wrote:
Equivalently, make criminal sentences flexible enough to provide
equity, and treat contract violations as R1742 infractions (which they
are).
This misses the ability of equity cases to compensate for situations in
which a party obeys the letter of a contract but violates its
Ivan Hope wrote:
Agoran Twister (public, contest)
The Agoran Agricultural Association (public, contest)
Fantasy Rules (public, contest)
Enigma (public, contest)
Brainfuck Golf (public, contest)
The AFO (private, partnership)
Pineapple Partnership (public, partnership)
The Left Hand
I wrote on April 6:
I nominate BobTHJ, comex, Pavitra, and woggle for Ambassador.
BobTHJ consented. Wooble supported, Zefram objected.
Zefram also supported woggle and objected to comex.
Right now, I can't resolve any of these attempts. The time limit for
me to do so is April 20.
ihope wrote:
On 10/04/2008, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can this part be table-ified? Maybe with the members listed in the
same section.
What do you mean? Make a table with the contracts as rows and people
as columns and put an X wherever the person is a party to the
contract
Iammars wrote:
Fight Arena Points (hereafter FAPs) are a type of currency.
Can we not use this acronym, please?
BobTHJ wrote:
Member contracts could be contests using the PRS as a spillover when
it's points maximum is reached, or they could be pseudo contests with
no official status that use the PRS for their sole means of points
awards.
With the attendant risk that, while a pseudo-contest exists that
root wrote:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With the attendant risk that, while a pseudo-contest exists that is
deemed unfair, then (since it has no contest-hood to revoke) players
may move to revoke the PRS's contest-hood instead.
Why? The procedure
comex wrote:
But, ummm, is it just me, or did Murphy judge CFJs 1911-13 FALSE
without argument and without publishing the result in the database? I
suppose I didn't notice it at the time...
I did present arguments, but missed entering them into the database
at the time. I just added them
Eris wrote:
On 4/14/08, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Murphy pledged on 2/10 to swap two VVLOD increases (by spending
Gb Bb Db on eir end).
For the purpose of the above pledge:
I spend Eb G Db to increase Murphy's voting limit by one.
I spend Eb G Db to increase Murphy's voting
Proto-Proposal: Contract Changes, take two
(AI = 1.5, please)
[Zefram, root, you voted against the previous version of this; would
you support this revision?]
Amend Rule 1742 (Contracts) by replacing this text:
A contract automatically terminates if the number of parties to
it
root wrote:
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 12:06 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Zefram, root, you voted against the previous version of this; would
you support this revision?]
What's the difference from the previous version?
Mainly any of these in both parts of the revised R2198.
I
Ivan Hope wrote:
Murphy: 0 pens (Banker)
I should have 44 pens. (A transaction history would facilitate
getting to the bottom of issues like this.)
Ivan Hope wrote:
So, who's going to publish the Banker report next week? I didn't plan
on doing one every couple of days :-P
I can take the next shift.
== Equity Case 1927 ==
Judge: Wooble
As a hugging judge, Wooble is poorly qualified for this assignment. The
alternative is an early rotation (with comex and Goethe failing to get
eir turns, though comex is
Eris wrote:
On 4/18/08, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As a hugging judge, Wooble is poorly qualified for this assignment.
I thought hugging was *for* equity?
Rule 2203:
* Hanging. Hanging players are unqualified to be assigned as
judge of any inquiry case
root wrote:
Since then, I note that we've added R2197, which curiously (and
probably by accident) restricts both joining and leaving contracts to
persons.
Actually, it's murkier than that:
* R2197 does not directly restrict a non-person joining or leaving a
contract; it merely fails to
root wrote:
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 2:18 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Proposal: Liberalize objection
(AI = 2, please)
Amend Rule 2124 (Agoran Satisfaction) by replacing this text:
An Objector to a dependent action is a first-class player
with this text
Kyevan wrote:
Hello, Agora. I am Kyevan, and I am writing on behalf of IRCNomic. As
per IRCN's Rule 305, Agora is authorized to act as the protector of
IRCNomic. We respectfully ask for Agora's benevolent gaze as we struggle
to establish ourselves.
*skims logs* This points out a loophole
root wrote:
You were able to access the logs? Neither of the URLs in the original
post work for me. The first is a mostly blank page, and the second is
a 404.
Yes, I re-checked and they still work fine.
Name:elliotthird.org
Address: 208.78.103.223
Maybe your firewall is objecting to
Goethe wrote:
As soon as possible after formal request for a Friend of Nomic Decree
(FOND) is made, the ambassador SHALL announce the request in both
Agora and in a public forum of the Nomic affected by the decree. In
this announcement, e shall assign the Decree
comex wrote:
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 7:27 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I made my comment in a-d-- does it count as acting? If I am not
allowed to truthfully describe the game in any forum, does that
violate my R101 right of participation in the fora?
By the way, if it is ruled
Wooble wrote:
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 4:28 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wooble Thu 17 Apr 13:02:48 114
48.48/ 53.6 4 crops
I withdraw two 4 crops for 107.2 pens, leaving me with 6.8 pens.
This actually costs you 108 pens, and my withdrawal of April 17
cost me
comex wrote:
Perhaps, but if hypothetically R2206 weren't a real rule, not only
would I be forbidden from this discussion without much circumlocution,
but, if I were elected Rulekeepor, I would be unable to publish an
accurate report. Also, in this hypothetical case, the contract's only
root wrote:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 12:28 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(b) either the performer was the initiator, or the performer has
supported the action and the rule allowing the action to be
performed dependently does not explicitly prohibit supporters
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
the plaintiff and defendant are the same first-class person,
This is misusing the term plaintiff, which is a civil law concept not
appropriate in criminal law.
Prosecutor?
the pre-trial phase ends immediately.
I think it's a bad idea to skip
http://zenith.homelinux.net/assessor/proposals.php
(filters not yet implemented)
During my last tenure as Assessor, I generally accumulated votes
throughout the voting period, so I knew at any given point how many
players would have to be convinced to vote for/against a given
proposal to get it
Goethe wrote:
Appeal 1925a
Panelist: Goethe
Panelist: Wooble
Panelist: Pavitra
Goethe wrote:
The preamble isn't part of the arguments (wasn't sent on behalf of the
panel). -Goethe
Fixed in the database. (Also fixed the PHP code so that e.g. 1897
translates OVERRULE/TRUE to OVERRULED to TRUE on Appeal.)
Goethe wrote:
Due to the LAND GRAB pledge, Goethe is the recordkeeper for the types of
crops currencies referenced by the Agoran Agricultural Association contract.
While LAND GRAB refers to the AAA, it doesn't explicitly assert the
statement of the CFJ, so the precedent of CFJs 1922-23 should
root wrote:
Oh, coolness. Here I've been arguing against this without even
realizing I was assigned as judge.
Yay for the CotC's discretionary power, which allows me to do things
like assign this to you (since you judged the similar 1922-23).
Pavitra wrote:
Good point. It should be phrased as an Agoran decision instead.
Agreed. Would require the following:
* Any person (except current/recent Promotor or Asssesor) is
authorized to initiate an Agoran decision per R107.
* Amend R107 to allow shorter voting period (minimum
Ivan Hope wrote:
Bankers shall take turns publishing the text of and parties to this
contract and ownership of pens.
We really ought to figure out whose turn it is this week before the
week is over.
Proto-report, anyone should feel free to publish this (I'll be offline
intermittently for
Ivan Hope wrote:
Article 4: If the Articles state that a person can perform an action,
it can be performed by sending a public message. A message to a public
forum, as the term is defined by Agora or B Nomic, is a public message
if its subject line contains the word Pancake.
I suggest
Wooble wrote:
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 8:28 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 7:29 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Proto-report, anyone should feel free to publish this (I'll be offline
intermittently for the rest of the weekend). Someone should also
Goethe wrote:
On Wed, 7 May 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
I should have followed this up with an example. An existing contest
seems apropos. Would you not agree that the Enigma contract's
contesthood is a part of that agreement? Or similarly, that the
Pineapple Partnership's partnershiphood is a
Wooble wrote:
In any case, there appears to be precedent beyond just game custom
that regulated actions are impossible to perform unless otherwise
authorized by the rules, but unfortunately the CotC database stops 2
cases later than the one I found cited (CFJ 1237), but CFJ 1295a does
say
Goethe wrote:
The confusion of case law finally reached the point that it was stated
very explicitly in Rule 101/2 (Power=3) introduced by Maud, August 2005:
Agora May I?
Any player is permitted to perform an action which is not
regulated. An action is regulated if:
comex wrote:
I do hereby publish this text, which is of a potential contract:
{{
1. This contract will be public when it forms.
2. This contract is a pledge.
}}
I may at any time decide to make this into a contract (without telling
anyone), at which point it will be identified as a
CFJ 1941 requires a mass flip from sitting to standing. Would
any supine players like to flip emselves to sitting first?
Also, I'm going to be at a conference in the Washington DC area
for most of next week, though I should be able to catch up on
events during the evenings.
root wrote:
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 9:55 AM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh, this is just a specious analogy. Without objection's public
mechanism and waiting period strongly implies that you are asking for
tacit permission from the public to perform the action, and that you
can't
Eris wrote:
On 5/9/08, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 10:15 AM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hora iam est pro Viri Clarissimi venire succuro pro patria.
Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country?
I thought it said Now is
Ivan Hope wrote:
5508 O1 1Murphy Economic overview
FORx4, though it really shouldn't make the Accountor list assets
defined by private contracts.
Point, but (1) that can easily be fixed later, (2) the recordkeepor
of such assets is required by R2166 to report on them, and (3) the
ehird wrote:
The Metagoracontractian Metareligion's commandments:
1. A member of the Metagoracontractian Metareligion
must obey the commandments of the Metagoracontractian
Metareligion.
2. A member of the Metagoracontractian Metareligion
must be a member of the
Ivan Hope wrote:
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 7:57 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I submit a Suggestion: Create an Article, with the text If an Article
does not have a number, its number becomes the lowest positive integer
Did everyone get these Suggestions, by the way? I don't think they
Pavitra wrote:
On Friday 9 May 2008 10:18:15 Elliott Hird wrote:
The Argument:
I should not be found GUILTY because the contract obligated
its parties to not be party to it, and therefore the contract
obligated its parties to break the rules. Therefore, since I
could not have done anything
ehird wrote:
I submit a proposal, with adoption index 1, to create a rule of power
1 with the text I guess the thing you podded doesn't have any pod.
:psyduck:
I yell CREAMPUFF.
comex wrote:
On 5/9/08, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
and so should be EXCUSED.
I apologize for the overlong quotation (forgot to trim) and do end the
pre-trial phase of Wooble's CFJ.
At the time of the above announcement, there were two criminal cases
(1935 and 1942) initiated by Wooble,
Blaise Pascal wrote:
My intent with any was at least one, not all. I will try to
remember in the future that any is considered problematic, and
instead use terms like there exists a statement in the following set
such that..
At least one would suffice.
Can you provide me with pointers
pikhq wrote:
When I was Ambassador, I actually posted my report monthly;
this is something that no Ambassador in recent memory actually
did.
You still are Ambassador, and you still haven't addressed the
unfulfilled duties referenced by CFJs 1918-19.
701 - 800 of 3133 matches
Mail list logo
