Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Nominations

root wrote: On Jan 11, 2008 6:07 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Something that can afford to be broken for a while without significantly affecting anything else. (We may not have any good candidates, in which case we may want to adopt one for testing purposes.) We could brin

Re: DIS: Contest Idea

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.

Re: DIS: Contest Idea

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 contestmaste

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJs 1857a, 1858a: assign comex, Goddess Eris, Murphy

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, an

DIS: Re: OFF: judicial status

Zefram wrote: Inquiry cases (rule 591): each has a question on veracity, which is always applicable. 1831 was omitted here (but included under appeals), as was 1864. Generally qualified judges (non-supine active first-class players): I've updated the DB to reflect Fookiemyartug's deregistr

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: judicial status

Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: 1831 was omitted here (but included under appeals), as was 1864. Eh? 1831 was present in the message you're responding to. 1864 was missing because I hadn't recorded it yet; fixed in my current document. *looks again* You're right, that was

DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1828a: recuse, assign Levi, Murphy, root

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.

DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1831b: recuse, assign Iammars, Murphy, root

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.

DIS: Proto: Reasonable judicial effort

Proto-Proposal: Reasonable judicial effort (AI = 1.7, please) Amend Rule 591 (Inquiry Cases) by replacing this text: * UNDETERMINED, appropriate if the statement is nonsensical or too vague, or if the information available to the judge is insufficient to determine which of

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1828a: recuse, assign Levi, Murphy, root

root wrote: On Jan 14, 2008 9:15 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 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. I would prefer REMAND. There's no

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1865: assign root

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 Cham

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1864: assign Goddess Eris

root wrote: On Jan 14, 2008 5:17 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Initiator: root Initiated by Murphy:12 Jan 2008 05:52:41 GMT These don't match. The first one is correct.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1831b: recuse, assign Iammars, Murphy, root

root wrote: On Jan 14, 2008 9:37 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 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

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1831b: recuse, assign Iammars, Murphy, root

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, no

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Brainfuck Golf Hole #2

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 arou

DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1831b: recuse, assign Iammars, Murphy, root

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 "thi

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1860a: assign Murphy, root, woggle

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

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1860a: assign Murphy, root, woggle

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

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1828a: recuse, assign Levi, Murphy, root

Levi wrote: Is it worth considering the decision that was almost made before for this appeal? Yes, I had forgotten about this. (I wasn't on the panel at the time, so I just filed it away in case it led to an actual panel action.) Having considered it more carefully, I stand by my opinion tha

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1860a: assign Murphy, root, woggle

BobTHJ wrote: On Jan 14, 2008 3:14 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I consent. Judges should not get away with accepting bribes. Even if the judgment was appropriate? In the case at hand, you did a poor job of addressing and refuting arguments in favor of the statement'

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Shoot me down

pikhq wrote: Murphy, could you get the Left Hand to bail me out? :p Not at the moment. (I also have yet to take the time to actually sit down and grok the darn thing.)

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Breakout

pikhq wrote: On Monday 14 January 2008 18:53:13 Ian Kelly wrote: On Jan 14, 2008 6:49 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ah, I missed that clause. In that case, the P2PP fills the Buy Ticket quoted below and agrees to terminate the Vote Market. I note that nothing prevents the P2PP fro

DIS: Re: BUS: My rule 101 rights

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?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1860: assign Iammars

Iammars wrote: Just out of curiosity, is it considered okay to mention the previous judges arguments if you're the second judge on a case? Yes. There used to be a rule that you weren't allowed to make the same decision using the same reasoning, but nowadays this is covered by the expectation

DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1863a: assign comex, Murphy, root

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: In BobTHJ's judgement of CFJ 1860, e explicitly cites the last paragraph of Rule 2159, and accurately discusses its direct interpretation

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1870a: assign Levi, Murphy, root

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 ju

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1872: assign BobTHJ

Goethe wrote: On Tue, 15 Jan 2008, Roger Hicks wrote: At the point in time that Vote Market was formed Fookiemyartug was a person (as comex had already joined). Therefore there were two parties to at its inception and the Vote Market contract was in formed correctly. Hypothetical: When Fooki

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1872: assign BobTHJ

root wrote: On Jan 15, 2008 11:33 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Here is the relevant timeline: Dec 14: BobTHJ and Fookiemyartug form the VM Dec 31: P2PP joins; Proposal 5381 revokes personhood from non-public contracts Jan 7: pikhq joins Jan 10: root joins Jan 14

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Vote Market - Broker's Report

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:

Re: DIS: Proto-Judgement on CFJ 1860

Iammars wrote: Since Steve Wallace is not a game, he cannot be a nomic either. Since he is a nomic, proclaiming falsely that something is a protective decree to him is not a violation of Rule 2159, therefore I judge FALSE. This does not address either of the recommendations from woggle's argu

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Election status

pikhq wrote: The role of Assessor has ceased to exist, BTW. ;) s/Assessor/Accountor/

DIS: Proto: Transposition

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

Re: DIS: Proto-Judgement on CFJ 1860

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 m

DIS: Re: OFF: [Non-Assessor] Voting Limits Non-Report

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: Roll call:

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Non-Assessor] Voting Limits Non-Report

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 li

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Fix Rule 1586

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Fix Rule 1586

Iammars wrote: On Jan 16, 2008 10:37 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: On Jan 16, 2008 10:13 PM, Iammars <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > T What is with these blatantly unwrapped proposals?? > Huh? Some of us are old-scho

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Non-Assessor] Voting Limits Non-Report

BobTHJ wrote: I register. Note that your posture has been reset to supine.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Report

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 t

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposal 5409

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Report

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 s

DIS: On second thought, let's not wait

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

DIS: On third thought...

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.

Re: DIS: On second thought, let's not wait

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Ratification

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 inte

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Report

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

Re: DIS: On second thought, let's not wait

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 otherwise

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Ratification

root wrote: 6) Get the Default Officeholder prerogative definitively assigned and have em claim the office and publish the results, issue delayed at least until CFJ 1862 or 1873 is judged. CFJ 1862 has been judged, so this could be done at any time. (But, like any other "legally admit the err

DIS: Re: BUS: Ribbons

comex wrote: Ribbons can only be used to win. You can only have one of each kind. They cannot be transferred or spent on anything else, and are therefore otherwise useless.A Renaissance victor would have to do *all* of the following (in addition to other stuff) each time e attempted to win:

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1863a: assign comex, Murphy, root

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.)

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1831b: recuse, assign Iammars, Murphy, root

root wrote: On Jan 14, 2008 12:37 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: One could argue that the URL counts as a single OBJECT vote, ignoring the content behind that URL. I now intend to cause the panel to judge REMAND, with instructions to the judge to consider all of these po

DIS: Re: BUS: Nominations

pikhq wrote: If the first attempt at resolving the voting for proposals 5390-5404 was unsuccesful: I nominate avpx for Mad Scientist. I nominate Iammars and woggle for Tailor. I nominate Murphy for Conductor. I SUPPORT all of the above. I consent. I support all of the above.

Re: DIS: Proto-notification of Recognition of Canada

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 and directs the attention of the latte

Re: DIS: Proto-notification of Recognition of Canada

root wrote: On Jan 19, 2008 2:46 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dear Canadian Embassy, This message is being sent to you in order to inform you of occurances in a game of Nomic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomic), called Agora (http://agoranomic.org/). By Agora's ruleset, I a

DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1831: remanded to Goddess Eris

Zefram wrote: == CFJ 1831 == Initiator: pikhq Judge: Goddess Eris Appeal 1831b: 20 Dec 2007 20:35:09 GMT REMANDED on appeal: 20 Ja

Re: DIS: Not judging CFJ 1828

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 f

Re: DIS: Not judging CFJ 1828

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 f

DIS: Re: BUS: [Brainfuck Golf] Results for Hole #2

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/

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1831: remanded to Goddess Eris

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 s

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1864: assign Goddess Eris

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

Re: DIS: Canada

Eris wrote: Well, that settles that. Canada is not a game either, by the definitions cited. Canadian MPs might disagree.

DIS: Re: BUS: Assessor Election

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).

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Ratification

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 hav

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Ratification

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.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Ratification

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

DIS: Proto: Generalize ratification

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 obje

Re: DIS: Proto: Generalize ratification

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.

DIS: Re: BUS: Proto-contest: The Agoran Agricultural Association

I wrote: BobTHJ wrote: 1. The name of this contest is "The Agoran Agricultural Association". I join this contest. Oh, wait, no I don't; missed "proto" there. I agree with root's concern re inflating proposal numbers, but am uncertain how best to deal with it.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Brainfuck Golf] Results for Hole #2

Goethe wrote: On my interpreter your program goes to the left of the start (many times, back and forth over the left edge) and then also prints out (for both the example you give above and my own test entries), maybe the behavior following the (undefined) left shift gives the differenc

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposal 5417

Levi wrote: NUM FL AI SUBMITTER TITLE 5417 D0 2Murphy No notes for disinterested proposals FOR NttPF.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJs 1873-1875: assign OscarMeyr

root wrote: According to the most recent Herald's report (published November 30), the MWoPs were Murphy, Human Point Two, Levi, and root, with Murphy having held the title the longest. Since then, HP2 lost MWoP (due to losing personhood) and then pikhq gained MWoP (by proposal, due to our thin

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal

Levi wrote: The recent voting results and self-ratification of those results I think concluded that voting results self ratify, even if not published by the assessor. Any message claiming to resolve an Agoran decision self-ratifies (unless challenged in time). This is intentional, to paper o

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal

pikhq wrote: On Thursday 24 January 2008 20:05:13 comex wrote: On Jan 24, 2008 9:41 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "This rule takes precedence over all other rules." is needlessly redundant; the only other Power 4 rule is the Fountain. CFJs have determined that you need not ha

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] Docket

Iammars wrote: Judicial case ID numbers (Rule 2161) Highest orderly: 1880 Disorderly: This should probably be 1882. Ah yes, sorry. I'll move that up top so it's less likely to be overlooked in future.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1882 assigned to woggle

woggle wrote: There is some evidence that Pravita did not intend to become a player. This might be seen to create a R101 issue, since per R2171, the registration process is to preserve player's rights as if entering the rules were a binding agreement. Problematically, every relevant rule here

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Watcher

Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: CFJ 1659 found that even a contract can't override an explicit rule definition, much less a long-standing but still unlegislated custom. And as a result we amended the rule that led to that judgement. Contextual modifications now can override rule defini

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Watcher

Zefram wrote: Ian Kelly wrote: R869 is pretty clear on the definition of "to be registered", so I'm interpreting this as a successful registration as a player. I think "to be registered as a watcher" can perfectly well have a different meaning from the rule-defined "to be registered". What m

DIS: Proto: Scale back ribbons

Proto-Proposal: Scale back ribbons (AI = 2, please) Change the title of Rule 2126 to "Defined Unique Patent Titles", change its power to 1, and amend it to read: The following are unique Patent Titles (when one of these is awarded to a given entity, it is automatically revoked from

Re: DIS: Proto: Scale back ribbons

Zefram wrote: Some thoughts on ribbons: the dynamics of collecting them have changed now that they're not transferrable. Whereas previously one could be transferred (say) a yellow VC from someone else who was a contestmaster, and use the transferred VC for a rainbow win, now one must *personall

DIS: Re: BUS: Anyone want this sinecure?

pikhq wrote: On Saturday 26 January 2008 11:46:17 comex wrote: On Jan 26, 2008 10:08 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I nominate comex, Eris, OscarMeyr, and Wooble for Accountor. I consent. I nominate the AFO for Accountor. The AFO consents. I object to your nomination. I s

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 1883-84 assigned to Murphy

Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: == CFJ 1883 == Where the above referenced decision on amending the Vote Market agreement able to be validly resolved as of the calling of this CFJ would Pavitra's vote of OBJECT be valid?

DIS: Proto: Domestic trade

Proto-Proposal: Domestic Trade (AI = 2, please) Amend Rule 2166 (Assets) by appending this text to the paragraph beginning "An asset generally CAN be destroyed": To "spend" an asset is to destroy it from one's possession for exactly one purpose as explicitly allowed by its backing

Re: DIS: Quick start guide

Jeremy wrote: Folks with multiple votes, the difference between democratic and ordinary proposals, the senate, it's sort of a lot to handle. Does anybody have some sage advice for a complete newbie such as myself? Rules have a Power (R1688), generally from 1 to 3; higher-Power rules have hi

Re: DIS: Proto: Quorum Busting

Pavitra wrote: Create a new rule with power 3, titled "Option Consequences", with the following text: Each available option on an Agoran decision has a consequence, which is a possible outcome for that decision. The consequence of FOR is ADOPTED. The consequence of AGAINST

Re: DIS: Proto: Quorum Busting

pikhq wrote: The courts have ruled that they are valid synonyms (I don't remember the case number). *runs a couple searches* Aha, it was CFJ 1764.

Re: DIS: Proto: Domestic trade

Pavitra wrote: It seems to me that most of the text of "Cimons" (specifically, all but the first paragraph) really belongs either in 2166 or in a third rule. It's describing currencies in general, not cimons specifically. Perhaps in a new rule named "Currency conversion". Point; I should have

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1879: assign Goddess Eris

Pavitra wrote: I would like to include as nomics: -- Pen-and-paper nomics. -- Email nomics. -- Programming nomics. -- Hybrid some-or-all-of-the-above nomics. -- RL governments which have nomic-nature (allow self-amendment). -- Contracts (Agoran and otherwise) which have n

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1879: assign Goddess Eris

comex wrote: On Jan 29, 2008 5:57 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: A more interesting case, which came up in my earlier era of playerhood when we first considered recognising Canada as a nomic, is the German constitution. It has rules providing for amendment to the constitution, but an ex

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Corporate judges

Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: The entities qualified to be assigned as judge of a judicial case are the active first-class players, plus the active non-first-class players whose basis does not contain any standing or sitting players, So two partnerships with the same

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Corporate judges

Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: So two partnerships with the same basis can both be qualified? Yes, but Rule 2144 still lets any player deregister one of them with Agoran Consent. R2144 only applies to partnerships with identical bases. I'm also concerned about overlapping non-iden

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1879: assign Goddess Eris

comex wrote: On Jan 28, 2008 11:36 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I intend [with two support] to appeal this. Arguments: Judgement is not sufficiently verbose and does not appeal to sufficiently esoteric sources for its logic. My attempt to appeal Eris's judgement of CFJ 1879 garnered

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1879: assign Goddess Eris

Pavitra wrote: Consider the mailing lists that support Agora; even though Agora would not run without them (well, it *could*, but *currently* we are depending on them), no Agoran rule, ruling, or custom allows for them to be messed with from within the game. Yet Agora exists and is nomic, depend

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5423-5426

comex wrote: I vote as indicated below. A vote for TOOR on a proposal is a vote cast opposite to the player root's final vote on that proposal (FOR->AGAINST and vice versa, PRESENT->PRESENT.) http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/yee_haw_my_vote_cancels_out

DIS: Re: BUS: Anyone want this sinecure?

I wrote: I nominate comex, Eris, OscarMeyr, and Wooble for Accountor. H. IADoP Levi, you're required to conduct an election. The consenting nominees were comex, Eris, Wooble, and the AFO (nominated by comex).

DIS: Re: OFF: Assessor, Tailor, MS Elections

Levi wrote: I initiate an Agoran Decision to resolve the holder of the Assessor office. The eligible voters are the active players. The vote collector is the IADoP. The valid options are BOBTHJ and ROOT. This voting period has ended. Please resolve it with all due speed.

DIS: Transition

For the convenience of the new Assessor, here are records for the proposal voting periods currently in progress. [Voting periods ending February 2 at approx. 12:53:00 UTC] 5418 5419 5420 5421 5422 BobTHJ R R6R6R R LeviF A

Re: DIS: Re: A CFJ

pikhq wrote: On 18:17 Wed 30 Jan , Josiah Worcester wrote: THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED TO BE PUBLIC - The AFO joins the Vote Market. I transfer 1 VP to the AFO. The AFO transfers 1 VP to me. The AFO leaves the Vote Market I CFJ on the following: The above

Re: DIS: CFJ 1314

comex wrote: http://cfj.qoid.us/1314 I can't find (in any of the archives on Zefram's page, for one thing) much information about this CFJ. Specifically, there are no judge's arguments listed. Does anyone have a copy of the list from Aug. 2001, or can anyone tell me where to find it? From c

DIS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5423-5426

Zefram wrote: 5423 O0 1.5 woggle Refactoring Contracts II 5424 D0 2Zefram everything in its place 5425 O1 1.7 Murphy A different sort of judicial question 5426 D1 2Murphy Corporate judges The next Assessor should also note that Jeremy's registration increa

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registration

OscarMeyr wrote: On Jan 30, 2008, at 3:16 PM, ihope wrote: I register. --Ivan Hope CXXVII Another visitor! Stay a while This is just begging to be added to the Mad Scientist role, somehow.

<    4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   >