On Wed, 26 Jun 2019 at 00:14, Jason Cobb wrote:
> for 60 days. It is IMPOSSIBLE to commit the crime of Oathbreaking
> multiple times for a single pledge; breaking a single pledge
> multiple times constitutes a single crime.
Wouldn't lower-case "impossible" be more appropriate here?
On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 23:35, Rebecca wrote:
> I also transfer tar's 20 coins to myself
Does this work?
R2466 requires that you "must, in the message in which the action is
performed, uniquely identify the principal and that the action is
being taken on behalf of that person."
Specifically, you
On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 at 04:18, James Cook wrote:
> I judge CFJ 3751 FALSE.
However, I think the answer to the question Murphy was trying to ask
is TRUE. The message in G.'s gratuitous evidence makes it very clear
that Murphy intends to place those votes. This seems to me like common
sense or ba
The rule says "remove (syn. retract, withdraw)".
On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 at 15:54, Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> This may be a bit nit-picky, but I don't believe "withdraw" is defined
> for rules, only "repeal".
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 7/6/19 10:52 AM, James
On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 at 17:20, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On 7/6/2019 6:56 AM, James Cook wrote:
> > On Fri, 5 Jul 2019 at 15:11, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >> On 7/2/2019 6:02 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >>> [Quick! While it's still current!]
> >>&
It might be enough just to post the text to BUS. Cuddle Beam, you might
want to look up the past discussions. Besides the un-addressed point G.
raised, I think I had some positive comments which you could copy to this
new thread.
- Falsifian
On Mon., Nov. 4, 2019, 11:20 Kerim Aydin, wrote:
>
>
This announcement had the wrong version of the text for 8259. Gaelan
replaced eir proposal twice; the second time was an email dated
2019-10-23 00:22 UTC.
On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 at 06:31, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> //
> ID: 8259
>
On Sun, 10 Nov 2019 at 07:58, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> Here's a draft of my Promotorial style guide. I'd appreciate comments.
> It's written in my characteristic verbose style. I'm happy to
> formulate a condensed version if people agree with the idea, but would
> prefer something they can read
On Mon, 11 Nov 2019 at 06:11, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> Here's a draft that separates out contracts from pacts, and creates an
> office of Notary to track contracts and pledges. NOTE: Volunteers are
> needed for Notary! Apply now!
I really like the idea of tracking pledges and contracts. A few
On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 at 02:35, James Cook wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Nov 2019 at 06:11, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
> > Here's a draft that separates out contracts from pacts, and creates an
> > office of Notary to track contracts and pledges. NOTE: Volunteers are
> > needed for
> > Should this be "A pledge or pact is invisible"? Also, is it really
> > possible for a pledge to be invisible, since a pledge must be made
> > publicly per R2450?
>
> No, it shouldn’t. Pacts can be made privately, even under the new rules. It
> would be irrational to subject old pacts to
On Sun, 3 Nov 2019 at 18:42, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> I note that I’m actively working on producing an updated ruleset—if anyone is
> doing the same, please get in touch so we can avoid duplicating work.
>
> Gaelan
I'm not working on an updated ruleset, but I do like to keep a list of
recent
On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 at 03:47, Jason Cobb wrote:
> > 8274 Murphy, Oerjan 1.0 Interested proposals
> >
> > [1] "Clean up your own mess, without making a bigger one"
>
> AGAINST [I'm not sure what this is supposed to accomplish. As far as I
> can tell, all this does is reduce the profit
On Mon, 28 Oct 2019 at 05:36, omd wrote:
> Proposal: Self-ratifying statements (AI=3)
>
> [Create a mechanism for a public message to be defined as self-ratifying a
> statement that's not in the message.
>
> Currently, Rule 2034 does this in a strange implicit way, by saying that the
> message
On Wed, 6 Nov 2019 at 23:27, Jason Cobb wrote:
> On 11/6/19 6:22 PM, James Cook wrote:
> > * Proposals 8253-8265 are resolved after further votes, except the H.
> >Assessor finds the decisions on Proposals 8257 and 8259 were not
> >initiated.
> >
> >
# Notable events
* G. ratifies the 2019-09-22 Herald's Monthly Report. Thread:
"protective ratification".
* Nch wins the election for Tailor. It is uncontested.
* H. Herald G. announces intent to award an M.N. degree to Jason Cobb,
after a discussion about which degree to award. Threads:
On Sun, 1 Dec 2019 at 23:39, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, November 26, 2019 8:25 PM, James Cook
> wrote:
> > 10Jacob Arduino
>
> CoE: Jacob Arduino has no coins because e is no longer a player.
Thanks. I'll publish a revision soon.
> I intend with
In the week of 2019-11-25..12-01, not much happened:
* Proposals 8275 and 8276 are adopted.
* Proposal 8275 clarifies some rule text that was the subject of CFJ 3781.
* Proposal 8276 contains minor fixes to rules about elections.
--
- Falsifian
On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 at 22:04, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Pledge: If CFJ 3780 is judged false and therefore CFJ 3781 isn't a
> CFJ, I will assign any CFJ covering 3781's disputed matter to the
> "judge" of CFJ 3781, if at all possible.
I think you meant CFJ 3779. I guess it all works out in the end.
On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 at 05:52, James Cook wrote:
> The obvious reading of 'Election speech: "X"' is that one
> is announcing X, and also noting that it is one's election speech.
(In case anyone was thinking of arguing that election speeches are
traditionally dishonest and
On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 at 02:56, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
>
> On Thu, 5 Dec 2019, Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> > [This is accurate to the best of my knowledge. It is very likely that I have
> > missed or messed up something. You can see the changes from Trigon's last
> > SLR
> > at
On Sat, 7 Dec 2019 at 17:16, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> The below CFJ is 3782. I assign it to Falsifian.
Here are preliminary thoughts on CFJs 3780 and 3782. Comments welcome,
especially precedent.
R478 says performing a by-announcement action requires "unambiguously
and clearly specifying the
Summary of last week, 2019-12-02..08. I'm storing these at
https://github.com/AgoraNomic/Reporter/tree/master/weekly_summaries
# Notable events
* Jason Cobb takes over the office of Rulekeepor by deputising to
publish the first Short Logical Ruleset (SLR) since October 15.
* There is some
On Sat, 7 Dec 2019 at 20:55, ATMunn wrote:
> I flip my Master switch to myself.
Welcome back! I cause ATMunn to receive a Welcome Package.
--
- Falsifian
On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 at 16:59, Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> On 12/11/19 11:54 AM, James Cook wrote:
> > Can you point to an example? At a quick glance, the formatting looks
> > the same as athttps://agoranomic.org/ruleset/slr.txt . In particular,
> > I see blank lines between pa
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 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 Sun, 27 Oct 2019 at 01:51, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> That’s a very interesting point, and one that I hadn’t considered. One
> possibility would be to have a few days at the beginning of each week in
> which only the person with the top reward (i.e. the “main” officeholder).
> This would help
On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 at 01:38, Nch wrote:
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 7:31 PM, James Cook
> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 26 Oct 2019 at 15:23, Gaelan Steele g...@canishe.com wrote:
> >
> > > To be honest, I’m not sure I see
On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 at 01:43, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> This has been proposed before, IIRC, and consensus is against it for
> two reasons (it’s possible I’m misremembering here, but all the
> concerns are valid regardless). Firstly, many official duties are
> essential to the game, and having them
This is a summary of events and discussion over previous Agoran week,
2019-10-21..27.
It's intended to serve as a reference when building a more succinct and
readable monthly or quarterly newsletter. I think it will be a lot easier to do
something like that if the individual weeks have already
Correction: I got the threads mixed up between the following two items:
> * There is debate about whether ais523 is a player. See thread
> "Democracy".
> * Jason Cobb, assuming eir ability to initiate an election for Speaker
> was a bug, proposes a fix. Threads: "Democracy" and "CFJ -- Is
On Wed, 23 Oct 2019 at 06:37, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> On 23 Oct 2019, 01:40, Ada Worcester < ag...@ada.pikhq.com> wrote:
> > I initiate a Call for Judgement into the following: {
> > The person known as ais523 is a player.
> > }
> >
> > I bar ais523 from this case.
>
> Oh great, this 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 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 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 07:38, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I recuse Trigon from CFJ 3775. I assign CFJ 3775 to Falsifian.
>
> status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3775
>
> === CFJ 3775 ===
>
>Ratifying the SLR also
On Sat, 26 Oct 2019 at 16:53, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On 10/26/2019 9:33 AM, James Cook wrote:
> > The first two simply use the word "all". Since the natural definition
> > of "ruleset" is the set of Agora's rules, meaning all of them, I find
> > that R10
On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 12:04, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> on my phone so can't provide detailed arguments (and sorry for the execrable
> mess it will undoubtedly produce of the reply chain), but I would argue that
> the entity defining switches, assets etc. is not any one rule, but rather the
>
On Sat, 26 Oct 2019 at 15:23, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> To be honest, I’m not sure I see the point. In my experience interim
> incumbents nearly always win elections, and most modern Agoran offices have
> very little power anyway. All I really see this doing is punishing those who
> take up work
On Sat, 26 Oct 2019 at 16:55, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
wrote:
> On Sat, 2019-10-26 at 16:23 +, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
> > It's not just you who isn't receiving it. I'm not receiving Nch's
> > mail either.
> >
> > Nch, could you send an email directly to my mailserver at
> > ? That
On Sat, 26 Oct 2019 at 15:21, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 3:19 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey
> wrote:
> > I would be happy to take it on if I can get Trigon's code working.
>
> which reminds me, can someone add me to the GitHub org? My username is @qenya.
>
> -twg
For the
On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 at 01:42, Nch wrote:
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 7:56 PM, James Cook
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
On Tue, 22 Oct 2019 at 05:03, Reuben Staley wrote:
> I resign Rulekeepor.
>
> As of this message, I will not be responding to any Agoran mail for
> approximately two years as I will be moving to a location where I will
> have very limited internet access. I am not deregistering. Rather, I
>
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, 20 Oct 2019 at 21:39, Ada Worcester wrote:
> I would prefer "pikhq", thanks for asking! (this is probably the easiest for
> record keeping consistency, regardless :) )
>
> --
> Ada "pikhq" Worcester, Agoran Spy
Welcome, pikhq!
--
- Falsifian
On Sun, 20 Oct 2019 at 21:40, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> Bleh.
>
> I note that holding a potentially-infinite number of offices would be an
> amusing punishment for lazy rule-writing, but conclude that it’s a little
> harsh. I retract my proposal and submit the following one:
The new proposal is
On Wed, 23 Oct 2019 at 01:04, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-10-23 at 00:59 +0000, James Cook wrote:
> > I think it's pretty unclear.
> >
> > * Why should an attempt to do a players-only action indicate intent to
> > become a player anyway? If I were
In the week of 2019-11-18..24:
# Officers
* Our H. Assessor, Jason Cobb, will be away until the end of the month.
* Gaelan may not take on Rulekeepor after all.
* Incumbent G. declares emself the winner of the uncontested election
for Arbitor, and earns an Emerald ribbon, which was probably
I act on ATMunn's behalf to vote to endorse Falsifian on the below decisions.
I vote as follows.
> ID Author(s)AITitle
> ---
> 8275 Jason Cobb 3.0 "By announcement" clarification
I started a repository to keep track of these:
https://github.com/AgoraNomic/Reporter
This report covers the previous Agoran week, November 11 to 17.
# Notable events
* Proposals 8266-8274 are resolved after the voting period is extended.
* The November zombie auction ends with no bids. (twg
On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 at 17:39, James Cook wrote:
> I act on ATMunn's behalf to vote to endorse Falsifian on the below decisions.
>
> I vote as follows.
>
> > ID Author(s)AITitle
> >
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
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 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
Archived at https://github.com/AgoraNomic/Reporter/tree/master/weekly_summaries
The week of 2019-12-09..15 was quiet:
# Miscellaneous
* Falsifian judges CFJs 3780 and 3782, about whether a person who
publishes an action as part of quoted text performs that action.
* G. submits a proposal
On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 at 23:25, Jason Cobb wrote:
> On 12/22/19 6:24 PM, omd wrote:
> > Will Gmail deliver a list message if it's sent from a different IP?
>
> Received.
>
> --
> Jason Cobb
I got both these messages, but GMail attached the note "This message
was not sent to Spam because of a
I got "Testing my new address filter." but not "Yeah... I was trying
to send from an unsubscribed address, ...".
On Mon, 23 Dec 2019 at 03:49, Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> On 12/22/19 10:35 PM, Nicholas Allegra wrote:
>
> I received this, but not Falsifian's reply nor the one that says
> "Testing my
I got this one.
On Mon, 23 Dec 2019 at 03:36, Nicholas Allegra wrote:
>
>
--
- Falsifian
Never mind; I eventually got "Yeah ... I was trying" at 03:59 UTC.
On Mon, 23 Dec 2019 at 03:52, James Cook wrote:
>
> I got "Testing my new address filter." but not "Yeah... I was trying
> to send from an unsubscribed address, ...".
>
>
>
On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 at 01:19, James Cook wrote:
> Archived at
> https://github.com/AgoraNomic/Reporter/tree/master/weekly_summaries
>
> The week of 2019-12-09..15 was quiet:
Correction: the week was not as quiet as I thought. Here is an updated
weekly summary, still for 20
On Mon, 23 Dec 2019 at 07:27, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 8:00 PM omd wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Starting on December 14, Gmail started rejecting mail being relayed
> > from the agoranomic.org list server. I didn't realize this was
> > happening until earlier today when
On Mon, 23 Dec 2019 at 04:55, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> Alright, everyone, this would seem to be as good a time as any to make
> the grand announcement, so here goes nothing. Agora has a new MUD.
> It's almost completely empty at the moment, and the game mechanics are
> as of yet quite undefined.
On Mon, 23 Dec 2019 at 04:55, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> As a final matter, with regard to the PM Election, my election speech
> follows: I'm bringing a MUD back to Agora.
>
> -Aris
That's a good speech, but have you become a candidate? If you meant to
do it with this message, it's nttpf. I guess
On Mon, 23 Dec 2019 at 04:02, James Cook wrote:
> I intend to Declare Apathy without objection, specifying myself.
Some data about trying to pinpoint the end of the mailing list outage.
It looks like it's slightly different per list; I suppose this may
reflect the dates omd upda
Archived at https://github.com/AgoraNomic/Reporter/tree/master/weekly_summaries
For the week 2019-12-16..22:
# Mailing list trouble
* Certain list subscribers continue to be unable to receive list
messages. Our H. Distributor, omd, is alerted at the very end of the
week and begins to work
On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 at 05:01, Aris Merchant via agora-business
wrote:
> Fucking hell. I didn't even fix the numbers. I'm so stressed out about
> my mistake that I only fixed half the problem. I am so sorry everyone.
> This is truly mortifying.
If I got this embarrassed every time I made two
> (I seem to find decisions tough. Aris, G. and Alexis have all been
This was meant to say "PM decisions" but is probably true as written.
- Falsifian
On Sun, 23 Feb 2020 at 17:30, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Feb 2020 at 12:26, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> > Proto: Amend the paragraph in question to:
> >
> >The winner of the lot SHALL, in a timely fashion, pay a fee (the
> >number of
Sorry for the delay. This would be on time if it were an officer's
report, but only barely.
Archived at https://github.com/AgoraNomic/Reporter/tree/master/weekly_summaries
Report for the week of 2020-02-17..23:
# Summary
The zombie auction mess continues. Discussion of how to fix them
On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 04:41, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On 1/20/20 4:46 PM, James Cook wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 at 03:29, Jason Cobb via agora-official
> > wrote:
> >> PROPOSAL 8286 (I Forbid Vetos!)
> >> FOR (3): Aris, Falsifian, twg
>
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 at 02:10, Rebecca via agora-business
wrote:
> I register
>
> I am interested in judging CFJs
> --
> From R. Lee
Welcome back. I cause R. Lee to receive a welcome package.
(Registrar's note: R. Lee most recently deregistered on January 25,
which is more than 30 days ago.)
-
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 at 05:41, Tanner Swett via agora-discussion
wrote:
> By the way, it's starting to seem awfully inconvenient that any
> contract must have at least two people on whose behalf the contract
> can effectively act.
You may have some more catching up to do on the ruleset after the
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 05:53, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 9:44 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 1/22/2020 8:13 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote:
> > > On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 02:11
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 at 05:18, Aris Merchant via agora-business
wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 9:14 PM James Cook via agora-business
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 08:34, omd via agora-business
> > wrote:
> > > Note that I long assumed that the pa
On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 at 04:34, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion
wrote:
> A zombie has its voting strength halved.
Specify rounding? Otherwise R2422's provision that voting strength is
an integer might cause this provision to have no effect on zombies
with odd voting strength.
- Falsifian
Archived at https://github.com/AgoraNomic/Reporter/tree/master/weekly_summaries
For the week 2020-01-13..19:
# Voting
* Voting continues on Proposals 8280-8286. G. pleads for Rule 2597
("Line-item Veto") to not be repealed yet.
# Rules questions
* Debate continues on CFJ 3792, which is
On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 at 21:44, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
wrote:
> Our precedents on message timing are pretty messy because we never had
> complete agreement there - but I'm pretty sure we set the final send date
> based on when the message "left your own control and headed to the PF".
>
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 02:11, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
wrote:
> Why are we reading the date-stamping to refer to the date-stamp of the
> original message? I would think it obvious that the relevant message is the
> one to the public forum, not the original one which wasn’t to the public
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 10:23, omd via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 9:07 PM Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> > Personally, I’m vaguely of the opinion that we should switch to they/them
> > instead of Spivak in general. Our use of Spivak now feels like using
> >
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 21:54, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
wrote:
> However, it can be blocked by only three objections, and the
> rule refuses to apply any abusive change, which on its own prevents it
> from being used as part of a scam.
Isn't it a memorandum's decision what it finds in
Come back soon!
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 at 13:31, Rebecca via agora-business
wrote:
>
> I deregister
>
> On Sat, Jan 25, 2020 at 8:12 PM Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > Aris wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 3:25 PM Rebecca via
On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 21:53, James Cook wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 21:54, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> > However, it can be blocked by only three objections, and the
> > rule refuses to apply any abusive change, which on its own prevents it
> >
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 at 22:04, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
wrote:
> Over time I've managed to backfill in about half the cases in the
> 3400s, but took time off in the 3500-3600s, so there's still gaps
> there. Getting 10-20 old cases up per month or so, generally working
> backwards.
When
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 04:00, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion
wrote:
> Rule 991 states:
>
> > At any time, each CFJ is either open (default), suspended, or
> > assigned exactly one judgement.
>
>
> What exactly does it mean for a CFJ to be "assigned exactly one
> judgement"?
On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 18:09, James Cook wrote:
> Are we just going to let a steady stream of sufficiently dedicated
> players claim their standard victories? I say we raise the bar a
> little.
By the way, I don't mean for this comment to take away from G.'s
victory. G. built quit
On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 17:58, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 9:47 AM James Cook via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 17:34, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion
> > wrote:
> > > On 2/6/20 12:02 PM, James C
On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 18:52, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On 2/6/20 1:49 PM, James Cook wrote:
> > Title: Blink test v1.1
> > AI: 1
> > Chamber: Legislation
> > Text: {
> >
> > Amend Rule 2601 to read in full:
> >
> > If this
Thought of another comment:
On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 at 22:56, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion
wrote:
> that revert what it has already done. Additionally, this interpretation
> would likely break self-ratification of switch reports, which would be
> against the best interests of the game, so Rule 217
Archived at https://github.com/AgoraNomic/Reporter/tree/master/weekly_summaries
Report for the week of 2020-01-27..02-02:
# Summary
Welcome Tcbapo!
A lot happened last week. twg won the game the hard way. Many parts of
the rules are changed after the adoption of twelve proposals, and
voting
On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 17:34, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On 2/6/20 12:02 PM, James Cook wrote:
> > It's not clear to me your judgement would break self-ratification of
> > switch reports. Aris's documents were written in an unusual way: they
> > said that
On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 at 22:56, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On 2/1/20 7:05 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> > On 2/1/20 6:57 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote:
> >> I intend, with 2 support, to group-file a motion to reconsider.
> > I self-file a motion to reconsider in CFJ 3788.
> >
>
This is a counter-proto to Alexis's "Ratification by Legal Fiction", in
the sense that I think it also fixes the problem of ratification
failing due to minimal gamestate changes being ambiguous. It is a more
radical change and makes the use of ratification less concise, but in
my opinion the
On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 at 16:30, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
wrote:
> On Sat, 2020-02-01 at 16:17 +0000, James Cook via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> > This is a counter-proto to Alexis's "Ratification by Legal Fiction",
> > in the sense that I think it also fixes the problem
On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 at 18:20, James Cook wrote:
> Bah, sorry, I overlooked the stuff about ordering of facts when I wrote that.
I mean ordering the evaluation of legal fictions.
Finally had time to read this sort-of-carefully. It do like it better
than the current "minimally modified" language for ratification.
Wasn't there a time in the past when ratification worked by the rules
simply declaring that when a document is ratified, it becomes true at
the time specified? I
301 - 400 of 718 matches
Mail list logo
