tem, which, while far less fun in theory, forced all to
engage with its systems and had real consequences: weeks with one
proposal alternating with weeks with 30, say. Now, proposals are
artificially scarce and CFJs are infinite: removing incentives to
engage with either.
On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 8:14 P
purchase a new one and acquire its riches.
>
> ~Corona
>
> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 12:14 PM, Rebecca wrote:
>
>> The bids on zombie auctions are freakin' silly: I just bid 2 coins to
>> get 22 coins for free. Meanwhile people are bidding tens of coins on
>> land unit
.
On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 8:40 PM, Rebecca wrote:
> That's nearly always objectively correct.
>
> Note also that because bids can be retracted, PSS could have and
> should have retracted his bid here and bid 3, giving em (even more)
> free money. Zombie auctions cannot be sustained like
Not that I think blognomic is the best way of doing things. Unlike
blognomic, this game's main attraction is slow development, proposals
and legal interpretation: all of which are entirely equitable from the
outset.
On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 8:49 PM, Rebecca wrote:
> (sorry for the spamm
Should be untracked as they used to be, with the onus on players.
On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 3:06 PM, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 10:03 PM Edward Murphy wrote:
>
>> V.J. Rada wrote:
>>
>> > This is a Notary weekly report.
>>
>> Notary was repealed by Proposal 8054.
>>
>> And
I intend not to recreate the finger pointing contract, which is a
workaround of the Rules. Summary Judgment exists for a reason.
However, I will propose (as, in fact, I did last time) reasonable
reform of the position, and I do intend not to be overly harsh with
the imposition of Blots.
On Mon,
Clarification: that is not, of course, a self-ratifying list of assets.
On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 2:33 PM, Rebecca wrote:
> This is a Notary weekly report. The following pledges exist within the
> time window
>
> PLEDGES (self-ratifying list of assets)
>
> == Trigon - Created 01
I guess the announcer can't privately email anyone before the auction
because they could clearly use such information. I would prefer a non
SHA system though for reasons of agoran technical agnosticism/i don't
know how to use technlogy.
On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 10:14 AM, Rebecca wrote:
> very g
very good call.
On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 10:11 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Oh, and on the flip side, better make it a crime for the announcer to
> reveal bids to anyone before the auction is over!
>
> On Sun, 1 Jul 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Rebecca w
and say
they MUST privately email the speaker, or prime minister, or someone
else, who can verify if the person has lied after they report.
On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 10:04 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote:
>> Also
>> add in a new paragr
I guess instead of SHA hash we could make it "reasonably verifiable
method" which could include that or eg, posting a private youtube
video of yourself bidding etc.
On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 10:20 AM, Rebecca wrote:
> Burden of proof is with the bidder to prove it is wrong but crimi
, if one of the previous
five voters voted AGAINST) but it's clear in this case that any
reasonable reader of text would evaluate this as FOR when cast.
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 9:32 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-06-25 at 09:22 +1000, Rebecca wrote:
>> Corona voted in this way
>
I also got it from OFF although I haven't been getting other messages from it.
This shit gnarly man. We can officially designate anything as a public
forum. Maybe we should start exploring options.
On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 4:06 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2018, Corona wrote:
>
>>
s Scribonius Scholasticus
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 7:40 PM, Rebecca wrote:
>> We evaluate votes at the time they are cast (iirc, unless we added
>> future conditionals back in). This vote, under the circumstances, was
>> a conditional with sufficient context within the game
FYI: this and any other message from the lists that includes links
goes right to spam.
On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 3:03 PM, Edward Murphy wrote:
> COURT GAZETTE (Arbitor's weekly report for TODO date)
>
> Disclaimer: Informational only. No actions are contained in this report.
>
Also, please take Gaelan off the list
On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 8:55 AM, Rebecca wrote:
> FYI: this and any other message from the lists that includes links
> goes right to spam.
>
> On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 3:03 PM, Edward Murphy wrote:
>> COURT GAZETTE (Arbitor's weekly re
exponential, which means a leader will multiply eir advantage.
>>
>> I think the best quick fix here is limiting land auctions in some way
>> that land ownership remains balanced by making it exponentially
>> harder for the rich to buy basic land (though this concept is basic
>
never in the interest
of the 22-bidder not to go down. So if both play optimally, the only
thing that determines the auction is time.
On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 2:44 AM, Rebecca wrote:
> The reason is probably that, because there are four lots and bids are
> retractable, it would take a ton o
You could have initiated elections for these immediately btw while you
still held the offices, then resigned them.
On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 12:19 PM, Rebecca wrote:
> Yeah, the referee CoE really needs to get resolved because Murphy must
> break the tie.
>
> The funny thing is, if Mu
Yeah, the referee CoE really needs to get resolved because Murphy must
break the tie.
The funny thing is, if Murphy doesn't resolve that election properly
and respond to the CoE, nobody can punish em because there is
no...Referee.
On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 11:43 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> If I
Cartographer's note section doesn't work to mark something disputed unless
there's some indication of disputation like a ! mark in the report's list
itself. Otherwise the report is internally inconsistent and doesn't
self-ratify.
(note I haven't actually checked whether this is the case here)
I was sloppy in these messages: I didn't explicitly state that these
were forgivable. But I think the imposition of an apology word
automatically makes it so.
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 9:03 AM, Rebecca wrote:
> I find both of these finger points valid. Because these are two
> separate
Yes. People not votes for quorum
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 3:10 PM, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> After reading Rules 2422 and 683, I think your vote still counts toward
> quorum, which is good.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 4:11 PM
last few months, but
> don't remember seeing the result (and couldn't find it in a quick Gazette
> search). Anyone remember? Boy I really really really need to get the CFJ
> database up-to-date again.
>
>
> On Fri, 27 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote:
> > I was sloppy with th
I was sloppy with these, too. Summary Judgement fines are not
forgivable by definition. Therefore I am not eligible for a Ref salary
this month.
On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 6:09 PM, Rebecca wrote:
> There is one person recently late on reports (myself) and three people
> very late on CFJ
months,
> but
> > don't remember seeing the result (and couldn't find it in a quick Gazette
> > search). Anyone remember? Boy I really really really need to get the
> CFJ
> > database up-to-date again.
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 27 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote:
>
Given the 2 uncontested cfjs ruling the votes at issue invalid, the answer
is 4 clearly
On Wed., 1 Aug. 2018, 1:55 pm Aris Merchant, <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 8:50 PM Edward Murphy wrote:
>
> > (I may be overlooking any number of things here; if I
sider, if others
are also confused."
On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 2:08 PM, Rebecca wrote:
> Actually, I just noticed and (if we accept those CFJs) there should be
> three invalid votes as opposed to four. One of those CFJs invalidated "I do
> the same as the last four people in this
at 1:58 PM, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> G. contested those, with supporting logic affixed, which is why this case
> exists. It wasn't an attempt to get around an appeal, either, if you look
> at the justification.
>
> -Aris
>
>
> On Tue
yer
> requirement implicitly only applies when a player is targeted.
> - It's not a notice of honor because it doesn't "provide a reason for
> specifying that Player" (and I never can, because Agora isn't a player).
> And
> the implicit rule mentioned above doesn't
you can move to reconsider your own judgements once automatically now.
On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 5:52 PM, Corona wrote:
> I support the move for reconsideration.
>
> On Thursday, August 2, 2018, Rebecca wrote:
>
> > I move for reconsideration of my judgement in CF
I can't resolve this Finger without knowing whether or not the document was
incorrect (or indeterminate, which it clearly isn't). Unless anyone can
point to a proposal that clearly existed that your ratification claimed did
not, and within a timely fashion from the Finger, I will likely acquit.
ons.
> On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 4:09 AM Rebecca wrote:
>>
>> There is one person recently late on reports (myself) and three people
>> very late on CFJs. One of them is Gaelan, a zombie, but the other two
>> are PSS and ATMunn, who have no excuse. Those CFJs were assigned on 24
damn time limits!! this would have been more fun with higher
participation/longer time but congrats aris.
On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 11:05 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
wrote:
> Yes. That is my third strike. Now, Aris is the only remaining player,
> assuming eir argument is ruled VALID
same, it's 5.
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 8:39 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> I object. I'd be fine with the lower value though.
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 6:23 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I hereby intend to ratify the following document,
you have a CFJ to judge somewhere
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 5:02 AM, ATMunn wrote:
> cool, thanks.
>
>
> On 7/19/2018 11:30 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> You know that sort of paragraph written weekly or biweekly is the most
>> useful form of newspaper. nothing fancy.
>>
>> I'd add that the
got it
On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 1:23 AM, Edward Murphy wrote:
> twg wrote:
>
>> Well, if the resolution message actually is self-ratifying, I see no
>> reason
>> why the following shouldn't work, assuming this message actually is
>> received
>> by a "reasonable number" of people. (So please
No, the economy shouldn't be optional. The only way to encourage engagement
with it is to make it unoptional in some way, which it really isn't now.
CFJs should always be free. Proposals can and should be interacted with.
Paper is a super feels-bad unfun way to do it. Better, though, than nothing.
I vote as follows
8058* V.J. Rada 1.0 Medal of Honour Auctions V.J. Rada
FOR
8059* G. 1.0 honour is its own reward G.
AGAINST
8060* V.J. Rada 1.8 Notary-B-Gone V.J. Rada
FOR
8061+ Aris 1.0 Free Proposals
We fundamentally should not entirely repeal our current official currency
until there is a new one. The vestiges of land should go. But coins and
paydays should stay as a stopgap, at least.
On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 9:17 AM, Reuben Staley
wrote:
> On 07/05/2018 05:10 PM, Rebecca wrote:
>
&
as you can guess, no no and no
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 7:52 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1) Slightly interested.
> 2) Probably not.
> 3) No.
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 4:21 AM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> >
> > 1) Yes, it sounds interesting in
The above rule is invalid: no quirky spelling
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 1:06 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I present the following argument on the first docket to the court:
>
> Your Honor, My Fellow Counselor V.J. Rada seems to have made a
sorry
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 1:15 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "eksallance" is not a quirky spelling?
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 11:13 AM Rebecca wrote:
> >
> > The above rule is invalid: no quirky spelling
this is patently invalid. forgot everything had to include evidence.
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 11:14 AM, Rebecca wrote:
> Your honour, I submit the following argument to d0ket two:
> This court should rule that the purpose of a nomic is to develop into a
> perfect game, and nomics
holy shit dude it's taredas. i don't think you remember me but i was
Burning_Earth on MTGS lol.
On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 8:04 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Welcome, Tarhalindur! (you may want to sign your nickname in your messages
> since it's not in your email address, until we get used to who
also your messages are all getting marked as spam by me dude.
On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 8:47 AM Rebecca wrote:
> holy shit dude it's taredas. i don't think you remember me but i was
> Burning_Earth on MTGS lol.
>
> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 8:04 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>>
>&
I would be fine deferring to legal terms of art again (tolling, say) but
I'm not so sure about mathematical. This is probably because I love legal
interpretation and couldn't add two numbers up if I tried haha.
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 9:00 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Perfect! Thanks for the
yeah but this isn't a scam just a self-own lol.
On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 9:22 AM Reuben Staley
wrote:
> You and Cuddles both have an unbelievable track record of ridiculous
> CFJs called because of your actions.
>
> On 11/01/2018 03:37 PM, Rebecca wrote:
> > I pledge that I a
f you intend to seriously get back
> into the game, you should probably flip your matter switch.
>
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 16:10 Rebecca wrote:
>
> > Votes inline
> > IDAuthor(s) AITitle
> >
> ---
The eighth point should be eir behalf, zombies are still people.
On Wed., 24 Oct. 2018, 11:22 am D. Margaux, wrote:
> I submit and pend the following proposal:
>
>
> Title: Criminal Justice Adjustments Act
> AI: 2
> Author: D Margaux
>
> [Purpose is to streamline and clarify the conditions
please remove UNAWARE from this, that basically removes interpretation of
criminal rules entirely.
On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 2:23 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Okay, here's a proto of my criminal justice reform. Again, D Margaux,
> sorry for the duplication of
sal. It’s something we’ve used
> successfully before, however. It basically says that if the rule is
> ambiguous, the ambiguity is resolved in the favor of the defendant unless
> there’s already a CFJ somewhere clearing it up. Still want it separated?
>
> -Aris
>
> On Tue, Oct 23,
I can actually speak a little Japanese: enough to understand eir action
there anyway.
On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 8:12 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Thanks :) To be clear I didn't have a problem with this one in particular
> - it seems direct and straightforward - just wanted to give warning if
>
It's not really a meme it's just the sort of joke proposal that I like but
I know won't get passed.
On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 2:08 PM Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2018, Rebecca wrote:
>
> > I create the following proposal
> > Title: I hate myself
> > AI: 3
> &
yea i intentionally used both names all the time to confuse people
On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 2:25 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Next time, just try to communicate a bit more clearly. :)
>
> Notice of Honor:
> -1 G. (unclear communication)
> +1 omd (serving as our
haha gotcha i don't know crap about anything except american law i guess
and even that interest is very casual. i flaunt my own ignorance.
On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 12:16 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Indeed. Or perhaps "All Agorans are snerds".
>
> -Aris
> On
Never mind, this was really 36_6_4.
On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 8:22 PM Rebecca wrote:
> Okay, there are two CFJ 3644s. This one and the one regarding Humiliating
> Public Reminders (which appears as an Annotation in the FLR). Was this
> resolved?
>
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 9:24
Intent needs to be voted against you fools! It has direct affect on the
possibility of levying a CHoJ and is directly opposed to our history and
traditions. The rules being absolute and punishing violations that are only
ambiguously against them is important! Otherwise what fun would there be.
On
I wonder if imminence if not defined as a term of art just bears its
ordinary meaning; i.e, nobody can change "
the state or fact of being about to happen" of a proposal if a festival
happens. Presumably that would prohibit non-festive players from removing
proposals somehow?
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019
it's to be found in rule 217.
On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 1:25 PM James Cook wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 at 05:49, Rebecca wrote:
> > I suspect that the text is
> > not clear and therefore the four-part test must be applied.
>
> What's the four-part test?
>
--
>From V.J. Rada
sounds hard so no
On Sat, Jun 8, 2019 at 10:55 AM omd wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 12:59 AM Rebecca wrote:
> >
> > This exact thing was tried in about June of 2017 or 18, soon after the
> new
> > "boom and bust" money system came into effect (written by nic
he fact that the
> > responsibility to do so falls on any player. Until we know exactly who
> > SHALL do so, punishing anyone is premature. Even assuming that the action
> > isn’t required to perform itself, that still doesn’t tell us who exactly
> > SHALL do it.
> >
>
tion, only
the Rules themselves are liable.
This clause, I suspect, should be changed in some way. SHALL NOT seems like
the wrong term.
On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 1:12 PM Rebecca wrote:
> The Ritual, however, isn't one!
>
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 12:36 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk <
> ais...
twg is 100% correct on this, i have a very clear memory of this being the
law based on a prime minister election i resolved as ADoP.
HOWEVER, this CFJ regards the ability of Corona to be installed as Prime
Minister, not to be a candidate in the election, by the plain text of the
actual CFJ, and
The Ritual, however, isn't one!
On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 12:36 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk <
ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 2019-06-04 at 12:16 +1000, Rebecca wrote:
> > I think if there was a provision that said "the ADoP CAN publish an
> Officer
> > re
This is an interesting case. Although I believe that the best reading of
the rule holds all players liable, I call for judgement on the following
question, barring Aris
{If no player activates Rule 2596 'The Ritual' in a certain week, all
players playing the game that week have violated the rule,
s situation would be incorrect.
> On Monday, June 3, 2019, 9:36:19 PM CDT, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk <
> ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2019-06-04 at 12:16 +1000, Rebecca wrote:
> > I think if there was a provision that said "the ADoP CAN publish an
> Officer
:
> What if we kept the existing language but changed SHALL NOT to
> CANNOT--"the rules CANNOT be interpreted..."?
>
> > On Jun 13, 2019, at 1:50 AM, Rebecca wrote:
> >
> > It wouldn't gut contracts because anything specified by a Contract _is_
> > re
Coe I bid eight coins so I should win the third zombie
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019, 12:09 PM James Cook wrote:
> The zombie auction I initiated 2019-06-06 has ended.
>
> Lots:
> 1. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> 2. Corona
> 3. Hālian
> 4. Tarhalindur
>
> Bids (all times UTC):
> 2019-06-07 17:01:
Yes, I am convinced that you are absolutely right. I guess nobody has any
zombies then.
On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 12:51 PM Rebecca wrote:
> Oh sorry, I missed the key "if" in there
>
> On Sat, 15 Jun 2019, 12:44 PM James Cook wrote:
>
>> Could you elabourate? Even
hink anything would allow me to transfer
> them to the winner of the auction.
>
> On Fri., Jun. 14, 2019, 22:17 Rebecca, wrote:
>
> > Unlike the argument about blogs, this argument stretches annoying textual
> > ism beyond its breaking point. To transfer in this context mean
Unlike the argument about blogs, this argument stretches annoying textual
ism beyond its breaking point. To transfer in this context means to change
from the ownership of one entity to anothwr. So the auctioneer CAN transfer
the switch: from agora to the auction winners.
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019,
Anyone dumb enough to consent to a contract forbidding breathing deserves
any blots that may be imposed, in my view. No such protections are needed,
and if somehow somebody scams someone into such a contract, the referee can
use eir discretion to not punish. I stand by my original stance/
On Mon,
But it's a truism that the rules only regulate what they regulate, we don't
need a special rule to say what is already implicit.
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 9:49 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On 6/16/2019 4:28 PM, Rebecca wrote:
> > G., I strongly suspect, very strongly, that the
The regulated action would be breaching a contract you consented to, which
is unlawful under the rules. It wouldn't matter what was in the contract. I
think any reasonable human judge would rule as such.
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 12:40 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On 6/16/2019 6:10 PM, Rebecca
i bid 8 coins
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 12:06 PM James Cook wrote:
> There is one ongoing zombie auction.
>
> Lots:
> 1. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> 2. Corona
> 3. Hālian
> 4. Tarhalindur
>
> Bids:
> 2019-06-07T17:01Z. Rance. 7 Coins.
> 2019-06-08T00:59Z. omd. 10 Coins.
> 2019-06-10T08:17Z.
i favor this one
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 10:28 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On general principle - yep! The Rules can delegate to other documents like
> that. A good example is Tournaments (R2464) where winning is delegated -
> at times we've allowed tournaments to hold/award Coins and change
; Jason Cobb
>
> On 6/10/19 8:53 PM, Rebecca wrote:
> > i favor this one
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 10:28 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> >> On general principle - yep! The Rules can delegate to other documents
> like
> >> that. A good example is T
CoE: there is no astronomor or clork post te sidegame suspension act
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 7:18 PM Edward Murphy wrote:
> =Metareport=
> You can find an up-to-date version of this report at
> http://zenith.homelinux.net/adop/report.php
>
> Date of last report: 2019-05-19
> Date of
Oh sorry! You're right, go ahead.
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 11:52 PM D. Margaux wrote:
> R. Lee-- Is this not the operative decision on Cfj 3736? Seems to hold that
> CHOJ is broken.
>
> -- Forwarded message -
> From: omd
> Date: Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 12:43 AM
> Subject: Re: BUS:
There is a directly on point CFJ in re pledges and that "no prohibition"
clause, that being 3538. To quote it
"I agree that the pledge, if effective, would be a severe enough
restriction on V.J. Rada's participation in the Fora as to run afoul
of Rule 478 (as even though e is not strictly
It wasn't a claim of error, so don't claim money for this!
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 4:06 PM James Cook wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 at 01:16, Jason Cobb wrote:
> > This is wrong, but I don't know if it counts because it is in a purely
> > informational section:
> >
> > > Jason Cobb + 2c.
This CFJ shouldn't be a CFJ, just find the messages where this happened or
self-ratifying reports making Baron have 0 coins at the time e bid, and
then draw that to the attention of the auctioneer and treasuror. Making the
judge do that wastes their time.
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 4:40 PM David
> >
> > That would require rewriting the tournaments wording, and it's kind of
> > close to the Birthday tournament to be doing that.
> >
> > Jason Cobb
> >
> > On 6/19/19 11:38 PM, Rebecca wrote:
> > > what if you repeal regulations and change
what if you repeal regulations and change regulations to mean this
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 1:38 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> I would suggest "regulating", but I feel like that could easily get
> confused with regulations.
>
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 6/19/19 11:24 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > I'd
Basically I like this proposal, which is good (although Oaths should also
be binding, right?) but I can't vote for it unless it slashes and burns
rules mwa ha ha.
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 1:49 PM Rebecca wrote:
> If they've never been useful in the past... I don't see a future use for
>
for regulations to exist, but I'd like
> them to be used. If there's something that can be done to make it so
> people actually start using them more widely (where appropriate, of
> course), I'd like to do it.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 8:49 PM Rebecca wrote:
> >
&
A CFJ did hold that blots can't be expunged, yes.
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 2:26 PM Edward Murphy wrote:
> I earn 5 coins for publishing the latest ADoP report.
>
> I expunge my Blot (if I can, which I suspect I can't).
>
> Notice of Honour:
> -1 Murphy (dragging heels on Prime Minister election)
I hope we actually have a birthday tournament that works this year though
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 1:43 PM Rebecca wrote:
> tournaments should just be contracts with special powers anyway.
>
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 1:40 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
>
>> That would require rewriti
tournaments should just be contracts with special powers anyway.
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 1:40 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> That would require rewriting the tournaments wording, and it's kind of
> close to the Birthday tournament to be doing that.
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 6/19/19 11:38
(I argue that although this conditional appears to rest on a future CFJ's
interpretation, making it inextricable, there is objectively only one "law"
which judges in the Agoran system merely discover, so this conditional
should work)
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 7:31 AM Rebecca wrote:
just hold that to limit encompasses SHALL NOT, that's clearly what it means
and it fits well within the confines of "limit" and doesn't break the game.
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 9:58 PM D. Margaux wrote:
> I offer this proto for comment.
>
> ***
>
> Judge Trigon recused emself believing that no
s to this case, where the rule takes two methods
of "limiting" actions, impossibility and illegality. Limit, not being a
term of art, easily encompasses both.
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 10:53 PM Rebecca wrote:
> just hold that to limit encompasses SHALL NOT, that's clearly what it
&
omd found th
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 3:27 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> Nice find - thanks!
>
> On 6/20/2019 10:19 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> > omd pointed out this CFJ [0] that decided that "interpeting the rules"
> means
> > to do it in a formal setting rather than just reading them and thinking,
>
Whoops sorry, that was non sens
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 7:16 AM Rebecca wrote:
> omd found th
>
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 3:27 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>>
>> Nice find - thanks!
>>
>> On 6/20/2019 10:19 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
>> > omd pointed ou
I can find more reputable dictionaries but "limit" is certainly capacious
enough to include a prohibition by law. For example if Congress "limits"
campaign finance donations, it doesn't physically stops them, it prohibits
them.
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 12:30 PM Rebecca wrot
12:31 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I maintain that a SHALL NOT limits the permissibility of an action, not its
> performance. If the rule referred to a limit on an action, rather than the
> performance of an action, I might agree with you.
>
>
I mean it's totally informal, so I hereby decree instant run-off and vote
TRUE, IRRELEVANT
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 2:38 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If we’re doing this, it should be instant runoff.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 9
wrote:
> > I’m for this solution. Moots are kinda lousy at consensus building, due
> to
> > the limited number of voting options.
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 8:39 PM Rebecca
> wrote:
> >
> >> why don't we just judge this cfj
eans to do.
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 12:18 PM Reuben Staley
wrote:
> Using your interpretation of "limit" would certainly get us out of this
> specific case, but it would set some ugly precendent about the word that
> I'm not sure I'm comfortable with.
>
> On 6/20/19
1 - 100 of 462 matches
Mail list logo
