On Sun, 20 Oct 2019 at 14:54, Nch wrote:
> "Person Switch" is used in multiple rules, but not explicitly defined. This
> should probably be fixed, but it also sets a precedent for a common
> definition where X Switch is a switch all Xes have if X isn't a pre-defined
> type of switch. Does that
On Sun., Oct. 20, 2019, 05:08 Timon Walshe-Grey, wrote:
> On Sunday, October 20, 2019 7:39 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey
> wrote:
> > On Sunday, October 20, 2019 6:09 AM, Aris Merchant
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > A draft follows. I'm aware my ordering is... unconventional. It's
Unofficial correction to the below report: CuddleBeam and Walker were
zombies at the time it was published, so should have been listed in
the Zombie section.
On Tue, 15 Oct 2019 at 03:36, James Cook wrote
On Sun, 20 Oct 2019 at 18:20, Edward Murphy wrote:
>
> Proposal: Yes, Prime Minister
> (AI = 2, co-author = Gaelan)
>
> Amend Rule 2193 (The Registrar) by removing this text:
Should be 2139.
--
- Falsifian
On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 at 22:16, Reuben Staley wrote:
> > A1. Appendix 1: Graphs > A2. Appendix 2: Other attachments
> > A.3 Appendix 3: Code
>
> I really appreciate these appendices and submit that the Agoran public
> take them into account while considering which degree to give the H.
> Jason
Thanks for putting this together! Minor comments below.
On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 at 20:19, Jason Cobb wrote:
> There is a 3-way tie for having the most direct dependencies: Rule 2532
> ("Zombies"), Rule 2438 ("Ribbons") and Rule 2581 ("Official Patent
> Titles"). R2483 is a great example of pulling
On Sun, 20 Oct 2019 at 05:37, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> Currently, this sort of penalty is allowed for the Cold Hand of
> Justice, but not for Summary Judgement. That seems like an error to
> me. I'd be tempted to repeal the mandate entirely, but a) allowing
> non-players to join contracts is
On Tue, 15 Oct 2019 at 03:30, James Cook wrote:
> 08-Oct-19 14:59 Gaelan flips Gaelan's master switch to Gaelan.
Correction: the time on this event should be 15:02, when Gaelan sent
"TTttPF". Keeping this on the discussion list to make sure it doesn't
count as a CoE since it doesn
On Tue, 15 Oct 2019 at 10:09, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 5:51 AM, Aris Merchant
> wrote
...
> > How would you feel if we explicitly made it so it repealed itself
> > immediately before each ruleset ratification takes effect? That’d stop it
> > lurking forever
On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 at 22:17, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 3:12 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 12, 2019 9:15 PM, D. Margaux
> > wrote:
> > > I point my finger at Murphy for uttering the forbidden name
> >
> > -twg
> >
> > After a not-inconsiderable amount
On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 at 21:36, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> For future reference, naming your zombie in the message is required, no
> references like "my zombie" allowed (CFJ 3663). OTOH, as came up in an
> earlier conversation this week, CFJ 3663 also found that "I cause" works
> fine as an "I act on
Two comments:
* The Registrar's report traditionally includes an unofficial list of
"Watchers". It would be nice if this rule used different terminology;
otherwise I think we'd have to either change the unofficial term or
wrap that part of the Registrar's report in a careful disclaimer. (It
would
On Wed., Oct. 2, 2019, 13:15 Jason Cobb, wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
>
>
> Title: Blasphemy
>
> AI: 1
>
> Text:
>
> {
>
> Destroy the contract that is known as the Reformed Church of the Ritual.
>
> [It's useless now.]
>
> }
>
>
> --
> Jason Cobb
>
The parties can destroy it on
On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 at 05:03, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> Title: Extenuating Circumstances
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Aris
> Co-author(s):
>
>
> [The intent of the below is that if one rule says SHALL and another one says
> SHALL not, the conflict resolution rules are applied to determine which
>
On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 at 22:22, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 3:10 PM James Cook wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 at 18:44, Edward Murphy wrote:
> > > Proposal: Finger bending
> > > (AI = 1.7, co-author = twg)
> > >
> > &g
On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 at 18:44, Edward Murphy wrote:
> Proposal: Finger bending
> (AI = 1.7, co-author = twg)
>
> Amend Rule 2478 (Vigilante Justice) by replacing this text:
>
>The Referee is by default the investigator for all Finger
>Pointing. When a Finger, other than the
On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 at 13:17, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> I intend, without objection, to clean Rule 107, "Initiating Agoran
> Decisions", by replacing the following:
But why? I hereby grumble vaguely about prescriptivist grammar, but do
not necessarily object.
--
- Falsifian
Welcome to the game. Would you like me to add you to the unofficial
list of watchers in the Registrar weekly reports? If so, what's the
best name or handle to use?
On Sat, 21 Sep 2019 at 02:26, Sara Berman wrote:
>
> I think i set up all the mail filters needed to be a watcher (or a player,
> if
On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 at 20:04, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 10:53 AM Reuben Staley
> wrote:
> >An interest group is an entity defined as such by this rule. Each
> >interest group has a goal. The following are the interest groups
> >of Agora and their
On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 17:52, Jason Cobb wrote:
> I was thinking my system could be used to implement Auctions (by opening
> a Market for each Auction and having the Rules specify what Orders the
> Auctioneer accepts - that's part of why I included a provision for Agora
> doing stuff).
I do like
On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 18:04, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Maybe call them all "trade orders"? They're symmetric after all and it
> avoids people asking "sell? what about buy?" Or you could just call them
> "offers".
Agreed. I like "trade orders"; "offers" sounds a bit generic.
Judicial orders sound
On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 16:32, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On 9/14/2019 9:57 AM, James Cook wrote:
> > I'm being an officer to have fun, help out the game, and earn brownie
> > points with you all. I wouldn't do it just for the Coins.
>
> Agreed, for the most part.
>
> > Th
> You can't accurately match something that /doesn't yet exist to be
> matched against/.
>
> TRUE.
No objection to TRUE, but I don't think I understand this argument. If
the date were in the past instead of the future, could I argue that I
can't accurately match something that no longer exists to
On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 at 05:00, Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> Inspired by Falsifian's suggestion of a market for Trigon's cheques
> (and, I believe, could be used to implement that idea).
>
> Essentially, formalizes the idea of a trade of two actions between two
> entities. It's formulated to be as general
On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 21:49, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> On Thursday, September 12, 2019 6:15 PM, James Cook
> wrote:
> > Benefits:
> > * Self-balancing: We still have the property that if officers slack
> > off, then efficiency cheques are worth more, simply because
On Thu., Sep. 12, 2019, 14:15 James Cook, wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 at 10:07, Reuben Staley
> wrote:
> > Create a new rule with title "Balancing", power 2, and text:
> >During the first Eastman week of each month, the Treasuror CAN and
> >S
I bid 43 Coins.
On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 14:35, Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> On 9/11/19 10:14 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > I bid 41 coins. -G.
> >
> > On 9/11/2019 7:10 AM, James Cook wrote:
> >> The auction was initiated 2019-09-05 18:20 UTC, and will end
>
On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 at 10:07, Reuben Staley wrote:
> Create a new rule with title "Balancing", power 2, and text:
>During the first Eastman week of each month, the Treasuror CAN and
>SHALL perform the following actions, collectively known as
>Balancing, in sequence:
>
>
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 at 18:46, Jason Cobb wrote:
> On 9/7/19 6:46 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> > CoE: 12/4 >= 3.0, so this should be ADOPTED.
> >
> > -twg
>
>
> Accepted. The resolution code has been updated so that this won't happen
> again.
>
> Revision:
>
> PROPOSAL 8232 ("Increased
On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 at 23:36, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 3, 2019 1:32 AM, James Cook
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 at 22:50, Jason Cobb jason.e.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > I don't think the pledges affect the CFJ, since they were made after the
&g
On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 at 20:12, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On 9/2/2019 12:58 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > On 9/2/2019 12:44 PM, James Cook wrote:
> >> Jason Cobb's CoE did identify eir report, and I think eir statement
> >> explains "the scope and nature of a
On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 at 01:44, Jason Cobb wrote:
> On 9/2/19 9:40 PM, James Cook wrote:
> > Claim of Error on the below report: Falsifian might have a spaceship
> > at the (future) time of the report.
> >
> > I'm blocking self-ratification because I tremble to
On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 at 22:22, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> It occurs to me that that's all for nothing if the Arbitor delays the case
> until after the superposition resolves on the date of your future self's
> report, but historically e's been susceptible to light bribery...?
The judge is
On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 at 22:50, Jason Cobb wrote:
> On 9/2/19 6:22 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> > Not sure if it was clear, but if all went according to plan, you are
> > currently in a superposition of having been brought to justice and having
> > been exonerated. I'm trying to win by paradox.
On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 at 19:22, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On 9/2/2019 8:44 AM, James Cook wrote:
> > On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 at 14:36, Jason Cobb wrote:
> >> CoE: Corona is no longer a player (whoops).
> >>
> >> Accepted. Revision: Corona is a Fugitive, not a play
On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 at 14:36, Jason Cobb wrote:
> CoE: Corona is no longer a player (whoops).
>
> Accepted. Revision: Corona is a Fugitive, not a player
Is this revision a self-ratifying report containing anything other
than the assertion that Corona is a Fugitive? Also, is it a revision
at all,
On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 at 04:27, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 1, 2019 at 9:13 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> >
> > On 9/2/19 12:11 AM, James Cook wrote:
> > > Aris suggested it's unnecessary [0]. I thought the reasoning was that
> > > an action conditioned on inde
On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 at 04:40, Jason Cobb wrote:
> On 8/26/19 10:38 PM, James Cook wrote:
> >
> >
On Sun, 1 Sep 2019 at 17:11, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On 9/1/2019 8:06 AM, James Cook wrote:
> >Whenever a player has not done so in the past 4 days, e CAN
> >Commune with the Wheel by announcement, specifying a new value for
> >the wheel. A player CA
On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 at 01:15, Jason Cobb wrote:
> I CFJ: "Existing is a regulated action."
>
> Evidence:
>
> {
>
> Rule 2125:
>
> > An action is regulated if: (1) the Rules limit, allow, enable, or
> > permit its performance; (2) describe the circumstances under which
> > the
On Sun, 1 Sep 2019 at 23:32, Reuben Staley wrote:
> On 9/1/19 5:21 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> > On 9/1/19 5:26 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >> Also curious why twg and Jason Cobb voted against it? Is there something
> >> wrong with the idea that I wholly missed a discussion about?
> >
> > I linked
On Sun, 1 Sep 2019 at 19:20, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On 9/1/2019 10:52 AM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
> > (Who should track this? The Treasuror is the obvious choice, but
> > possibly we want a separate office. It shouldn't be much work, though,
> > given that the only way to create Fruits
On Sun, 1 Sep 2019 at 12:16, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> That was my original logic, but there's a more fundamental problem I've just
> noticed, which is that the document being ratified is the text of the
> regulation itself, not just a statement that the regulation exists and has
> that text.
On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 at 23:45, Jason Cobb wrote:
> Rule 1586 ("Definition and Continuity of Entities") reads in part:
>
> >If the entity that defines another entity is amended such that it
> >no longer defines the second entity, then the second entity and
> >its attributes
On Thu., Aug. 29, 2019, 13:08 Aris Merchant, <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 9:44 AM James Cook wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 at 06:04, Aris Merchant
> > wrote:
> > > The proposal pool is currently empty.
> >
On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 04:02, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 12:46 PM Aris Merchant
> wrote:
> >
> > This is entire message is OOC.
> >
> > I'm not doing very well. I've been having both physical health problems and
> > fairly serious mental health problems, in addition to a
On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 at 10:48, D. Margaux wrote:
> > On Aug 15, 2019, at 6:41 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > * R869 doesn't prohibit rules or proposals from making a non-player a
> > player.
>
> That may be true. But it does prevent a proposal from using the method of
> "registration" to
On Sun., Aug. 11, 2019, 13:26 Jason Cobb, wrote:
> On 8/11/19 4:06 PM, James Cook wrote:
> > This rule is dedicated to JUSTICA THE REASONABLE, ENFORCER OF THE
> > RULES: please be assigned that new title, and may Proglet and every
> > other Fugitive of the Old Law b
On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 at 20:06, Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> On 8/11/19 3:52 PM, James Cook wrote:
> > Praise THE AGORAN SPIRIT OF THE GAME.
>
> So, my previous rule was INVALID. However, that doesn't invalidate
> Titles and Continual Worship, so I'm not sure if that means tha
On Wed., Aug. 7, 2019, 16:55 Nich Evans, wrote:
>
> On 8/4/19 11:47 PM, James Cook wrote:
> > On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 at 04:46, Jason Cobb wrote:
> >> On 8/5/19 12:45 AM, James Cook wrote:
> >>> I will spend 1 Energy in this Space Battle.
> >>>
&g
On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 at 04:55, Aris Merchant
wrote:
>
> On Sun, Aug 4, 2019 at 9:51 PM James Cook wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 14:53, Jason Cobb wrote:
> > > On 8/4/19 2:57 AM, James Cook wrote:
> > > > I submit myself to the Agoran Gods! I submit the f
On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 14:53, Jason Cobb wrote:
> On 8/4/19 2:57 AM, James Cook wrote:
> > I submit myself to the Agoran Gods! I submit the following rule to the
> > contest:
> >
> > {
> >
> > I dedicate this rule to ARCAS.
> >
> > Every new rule
On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 at 04:02, Jason Cobb wrote:
> On 8/5/19 12:01 AM, Rebecca wrote:
> > Btw jason u made a tactical error in getting the fame first bc now the
> > other lad can wait u out and assure themselves the speakership with intent
> > reaolution
>
> Cool.
>
> --
> Jason Cobb
We could just
On Sun., Aug. 4, 2019, 18:33 Jason Cobb, wrote:
> On 8/4/19 10:32 PM, James Cook wrote:
> > I will spend 0 energy in this space battle.
> >
> > - Falsifian
>
> I cause G. to resolve the Space Battle between Jason Cobb and Falsifian
> as follows:
> {
> Jason
On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 at 23:37, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> If the proposal created a power 3.1 rule that said "nch is registered"
> then we could use rule 1030, but that's not what the clause does.
I think at this point it would only save nch one week, so I don't know
if I will bother submitting this.
On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 05:45, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 10:31 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> > On 8/4/19 1:23 AM, James Cook wrote:
> > >Whenever a player has not done so in the past 4 days, e CAN
> > >Commune with the Wheel by announ
On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 05:23, James Cook wrote:
>
> > Okay, a few things.
> >
> > * Defining “unconditional announcement” is probably overkill; any sane
> > judge would arrive at that that anyway, and it adds a bit to bloat.
> > * You should probably say "Rosh
On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 06:42, Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> On 8/4/19 2:38 AM, Rebecca wrote:
> > COE: I am not a player, so I dont own a spaceship. You also have to delete
> > a sector for me and for nch.
> >
> Accepted.
>
> Revision: What was R. Lee's spaceship is currently possessed by the Lost
> and
On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 03:38, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> 2. Variety. Contributions that move things in a new direction shall be
>rewarded. Contributions that merely repeat things that have come
>before shall be punished. Remember that there are three distinct goals for
>the contest;
On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 04:33, Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> On 8/4/19 12:24 AM, Rebecca wrote:
> > I submit myself to the Agoran Gods! I join the FRC and create the following
> > rule
> >
> > O Hark, the commandments of the LORD are upon us! The LORD demanding the
> > respect he deserves, the LORD hereby
On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 at 19:57, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Hello my bruddah and sistahs, please make way for my infinite swagger:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_izvAbhExY
Hi Cuddle Beam! In case you're trying to not become a zombie, a
reminder that you need to post to a public forum to prevent that.
On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 at 14:08, Nich Evans wrote:
> In a decluttering effort, I'm going to start using this address.
>
> --
> Nich Evans
Let me know if you'd like it to be included somewhere in the
Registrar's reports. E.g. I could add it to your footnote at
On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 at 21:04, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Actually, I wonder if we should think about some kind of "debugging"
> mechanism for victories. Something like "when a win method is first
> implemented (some mechanism, probably involving Agoran Consent, for
> figuring out whether the first win
> Random "I" after "then at time T".
>
> Jason Cobb
Thanks, should be fixed in the draft I just published.
--
- Falsifian
> Okay, a few things.
>
> * Defining “unconditional announcement” is probably overkill; any sane
> judge would arrive at that that anyway, and it adds a bit to bloat.
> * You should probably say "Roshambo Score is an integer player switch" (R
> 2509)
> * You should probably say "increased by 1"
On Thu, 1 Aug 2019 at 16:08, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On 8/1/2019 8:59 AM, James Cook wrote:
> > Note: The previous monthly report incorrectly listed the deregistration
> > dates of 天火狐 and pokes as January 2019. The correct month is February
> > 2019, as listed in this rep
On Thu, 1 Aug 2019 at 23:00, Aris Merchant
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 3:44 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> > On 7/30/19 9:51 PM, James Cook wrote:
> > > On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 02:31, Edward Murphy wrote:
> > >> I vote as follows. Also, not sure what the diffi
On Thu, 1 Aug 2019 at 15:46, James Cook wrote:
>
> No zombie auction is necessary right now under R1885. This
> announcement is required by that rule.
>
> --
> - Falsifian
I expect we'll have many eligible zombies by the start of September.
Let me know if you'd like me t
On Thu, 1 Aug 2019 at 14:25, Jason Cobb wrote:
> Title: Moot cleanup
>
> AI: 1.7
>
> Text:
>
> {
>
> [Comment: this appears to be left over from when favouring cases was
> given Rules-defined meaning.]
>
> Amend Rule 911 ("Motions and Moots") by replacing the text "unless no
> other eligible
On Thu, 1 Aug 2019 at 01:24, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I submit the following proposal "Era of the Salted Earth", AI=1.5:
>
>
> Amend Rule 2415 (Badges) by appending the following paragraph:
>
>The current Era of Agora is
On Thu, 1 Aug 2019 at 00:06, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> New month, so:
>
> I award a Gray Ribbon to Falsifian (doesn't fully make up for a precious
> indigo but it's something at least!)
Thanks for the ribbon! I guess I got sloppy with ribbons after I got
my Transparent one. I certainly don't expect
> Once per Agoran week, each player CAN Play Roshambo by
> unconditional announcement, specifying Rock, Paper or Scissors.
> When e does so:
Oops, this part still needs to be updated.
Once per Agoran week, each player Can Play Roshambo by unconditional
announcement, specifying
> That's a good point. Maybe we could add "as long as the announcement
> is not conditioned on anything". It's possible that R478's requirement
> that "by announcement" actions must be unambiguous would imply this
> anyway.
>
> --
> - Falsifian
I have realized the value of the Roshambo Wheel
On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 at 02:45, Jason Cobb wrote:
> How does this work with conditionals? A conditional on the state of the
> wheel would probably be inextricable, but I don't see any text that
> actually stops inextricable conditionals (except for a SHOULD) besides
> voting.
>
> Jason Cobb
That's
On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 16:06, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Proto for time protection (a homage to B Nomic):
>
> Amend Rule 1698 (Agora Is A Nomic) by replacing its first paragraph
> with:
>
>Agora is ossified if it is IMPOSSIBLE for any reasonable
>combination of actions by players to
New subject line as I'm hoping to focus a new thread just on this
proto-proposal.
The below power-0.5 game is intended as a test of the idea of actions
depending on the future. I'm happy to reduce the winning condition to
just getting some Coins or a congratulations or something, if people
Okay, first, practical matters:
* Given your position on the matter, Aris, I don't plan to push for
this change any time soon.
* I'm still keen to try out the power-0.5 mini game. I have at least
one correction which I'll post separately. I'm curious to hear your
thoughts.
Now,
> - Enforce this norm by lowering people's honor for not following it (I
> just generally like the idea of using honor to reinforce norms since it
> doesn't do much else)
I like this idea.
--
- Falsifian
On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 02:31, Edward Murphy wrote:
> I vote as follows. Also, not sure what the difficulties were here, but
> in any case, how would people feel about multiple distributions per week
> (5 to 10 per day, say)? (No, I'm not bidding for the office myself.)
As a voter, I would be
On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 06:57, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> First off, I’m very happy you published this. It’s very interesting and it
> adds a lot to the discourse. I will now proceed to state why I think it’s a
> bad idea. (Upon retreading your post, these amount to explanations of why
> concerns c
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 at 22:45, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> On Sunday, July 28, 2019 8:45 PM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
> > [This is one of the most complicated distributions in my time in office.
> > There will be errors; CoE and I'll try to correct. I've been working at this
> > for well over 4
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 at 22:08, Jason Cobb wrote:
> On 7/28/19 6:04 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > I'm willing to try this voluntarily for Proposals and it might be
> > interesting to broach the idea of requiring Subject format (that we've
> > never
> > done before).
>
>
> Rule 2463 ("Motion of No
On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 at 03:37, Jason Cobb wrote:
> A Rule that designates a switch as "secured" (at a given power
> level) designates changes to that switch's value as secured (at that
> power level).
...
> Amend Rule 869 as follows:
>
> Delete the text "Changes to citizenship are
On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 at 03:00, Rebecca wrote:
> I deregister. Sad!
>
> --
> From R. Lee
We'll miss you!
--
- Falsifian
> "The CFJ becomes unassigned" is covered in R991 as synonymous with being
> Recused, so it wasn't needed (I think?):
>
...
>
> Fine on putting the SHOULD back, hopefully that's not a deal-killer in terms
> of voting for this one... (in the few self-recusals I've seen in the past
> few months I
On Tue, 23 Jul 2019 at 10:27, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> Amend Rule 2595 by replacing the text "Any player CAN, by
> announcement, spend a coin to increase the Armour of a Pilotable
> Spaceship e owns by 1." with the text "Any player CAN pay a fee of 1
> coin to increase the Armour of a Pilotable
On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 at 00:08, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Amend Rule 2492 (Recusal) to read in full:
>
>A judge CAN recuse emself from a CFJ e is assigned to, by
>announcement.
>
>The Arbitor CAN recuse a judge from a case by announcement, if that
>judge has violated a
.)
> >
> > I recognize that this is really scammy and probably against game custom,
> > but oh well.
> >
> > Jason Cobb
> >
> > On 7/24/19 9:58 AM, James Cook wrote:
> >
> >> Just in case, for future reference, here's my record of purported
>
Two responses inline...
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 at 20:20, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On 7/28/2019 1:03 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > That may be a reasonable point; I know that tends to be a weakness in
> > my proposals, although I tried pretty hard not to do it in that one.
> > Still, I'm not sure I see a
On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 at 18:38, Jason Cobb wrote:
> Title: Double Jeopardy Prevention Act
Is this a serious problem? If the current referee really wants to levy
a fine for something a previous referee found to be Shenanigans, the
accused is still protected by items (2) and (3). Those are likely to
On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 at 15:00, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On 7/25/2019 7:38 AM, James Cook wrote:
> > Title: Fresh start
> > Co-authors: (empty list)
> > Adoption index: 3.1
> > Text: {
> > Register nch.
> > nch receives a Welcome Package.
> > Destro
On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 at 16:07, Jason Cobb wrote:
> Also, if you want em to have the welcome package, you might not want to
> destroy all of eir coins after giving it to em.
>
> Jason Cobb
The purpose was to effectively deny em a welcome package.
On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 at 14:33, James Cook wrote:
> I submit a proposal as follows.
>
> Title: Fresh start
> Co-authors: (empty list)
> Adoption index: 3.01
> Text: {
> Register nch.
> nch receives a Welcome Package.
> Destroy all of nch's Coins.
> }
I believe
On Wed, 24 Jul 2019 at 23:55, Rebecca wrote:
> I retract that proposal and substitute this one.
>
> Title: No secret contracts
> AI: 2.5
> Text: Destroy each contract the full text of which has not been posted in
> public. If this destroyed Agora, put it back again the same as it was.
> Nobody
On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 at 01:25, nch wrote:
> I deregister. I register.
Sorry, you can't be registered for 30 days after deregistering
yourself by announcement. R869
--
- Falsifian
Between the July 9 and July 15 reports, I deregistered Tarhalindur and nch
registered.
- Falsifian
On Wed., Jul. 24, 2019, 17:17 Rebecca, wrote:
> The last registrar's report listed 25 but nch also registered.. Unless
> someone also derregistered?
>
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 1:30 A
On 7/24/19 9:58 AM, James Cook wrote:
> >> Just in case, for future reference, here's my record of purported
> >> actions related to NSC:
> >>
> >> 2019-07-22 20:22: 10 Coins G. -> NSC
> >> 2019-07-22 20:39: 10 Coins NSC -> Trigon
> >> 2019
the battles in a message with subject "Phantom Strike".)
On Wed, 24 Jul 2019 at 15:02, David Seeber wrote:
>
> I am completely lost.. What is going on here?? :0
>
> Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>
>
>
> From:
On Wed, 24 Jul 2019 at 14:23, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Remembering that the standard is preponderance of the evidence ("more likely
> than not"), reasonable possibilities that aren't No Faking:
>
> - if e was in the know, one or more transfer messages were genuine but
> simple mistakes. E.g. if e
> Yes, "agreement" includes both consent and agreement specified by contract.
I'm confused by the wording. Does that mean both consent and
contract-specified agreement are (possibly different) ways to agree,
or that one doesn't agree unless both conditions (consent and
contract-specified
401 - 500 of 718 matches
Mail list logo
