I favour this CFJ, and request that I be added to the list of interested judges.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Thursday, July 11, 2019 12:11 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> If I CAN do so, I award myself a Transparent ribbon.
>
> - I earned a Red ribbon for proposals earlier this week
I thought that might be the case but had a nagging feeling that I was
forgetting something.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Saturday, July 13, 2019 8:36 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> I don't believe there are any current decisions.
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 7/13/19 3:34 PM, Ti
Ooh, I like questions about the currency system.
I favour this CFJ.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, July 1, 2019 3:29 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> I award myself the Patent Title "nouveau riche" by paying a fee of 1 Coin
> for this sole purpose.
>
> [To avoid any sort of no
On Thursday, August 1, 2019 2:52 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Please reply to this thread to indicate interest in judging.
>
> We've had people favor cases lately that are technically "uninterested" by
> my tracking, and also people technically "interested" dropping cases. So
> time for a refresh.
>
For what it's worth, since temporary deputisation is now a thing, it would be
entirely POSSIBLE to keep the Promotor duties turning over without your input,
and without even needing to remove you from office - leaving you free to take a
leave of absence if you need to. I kinda don't want to
On Saturday, August 31, 2019 1:51 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> On 8/31/19 9:42 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> > AGAINST. I believe this creates a circular definition: a Promulgator is
> > someone who has a weekly duty to publish a report of a regulation, and a
> > regulation
On Tuesday, September 3, 2019 11:22 PM, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> Luckily for everyone, this very question is settled by precedent. See CFJ 1836
> [1], which basically states that incidentally included information is
> unratified.
>
> -Aris
>
> [1]
On Tuesday, September 3, 2019 6:49 PM, Jason Cobb
wrote:
> I change my vote on Proposal 8229 to FOR (if this passes it fixes my
> report about the future, which might actually ratify that Corona and L
> are players...).
Ah blast, it didn't occur to me that that could resolve the superposition
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
> > CFJ was initiated, if that was what you were going for.
> >
> > --
> > Jason Cobb
>
>
On Monday, September 2, 2019 8:46 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> Notice of Honour:
>
> +1 twg for bringing that criminal scum officer to justice
>
> -1 Jason Cobb for trying to create chaos
>
>
> --
> Jason Cobb
Not sure if it was clear, but if all went according to plan, you are currently
in a
On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 5:38 PM, Jason Cobb
wrote:
> On 9/11/19 12:51 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> > > Blot history does not appear to have been recorded for several months,
> > > so I have restarted it from the time of the last report.
> > >
On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 10:11 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I point the finger at myself for failing to assign the below CFJ in a
> timely fashion (given the time-sensitive nature of the CFJ claim).
Oh right, I'm Referee now.
Clearly the violation occurred. I don't believe it was willful,
Gratuitous: Since spaaace was repealed before the date on the Evil Astronomor
report, this is definitely not PARADOXICAL as I originally intended it to be
(whether or not it would even been otherwise). Whether that makes TRUE or FALSE
is something I don't feel qualified to answer, though...
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 fewer will
> be issued.
Thinking about this more, I'm not sure this is a benefit at all. If
On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 7:58 AM, Reuben Staley
wrote:
> I don't know what you want to improve about the core system. The most
> change that has been enacted in the past few months to the core system
> are minor fixes that clarify things. Sure, we find a broken bit
> sometimes, but those
On Sunday, September 8, 2019 1:03 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> R. Lee found in CFJ 3638 [0] that an action that creates something that
> is not "valid" does not render the action INEFFECTIVE. This would seem
> to imply that the word "valid" doesn't have a special meaning in
> determining whether an
On Wednesday, September 18, 2019 1:56 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On 9/17/2019 7:40 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> > The requirement here is that a person must "publicly post"
> > support/objection
> > to the intent. Since a person CANNOT act-on-behalf to send a message
> > (R2466), it seems to me that it
On Saturday, September 7, 2019 6:14 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> This was meant to go to DIS but twg's addressing is still weird...
I've opened multiple tickets about it with the people who make my email client,
but still no luck! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ At this point, I'm honestly considering setting up
a
On Saturday, September 7, 2019 6:50 PM, Jason Cobb
wrote:
> After fixing the resolution of Prop 8232, it looks like I qualify for a
> Lime ribbon. Thanks for pointing that out, twg.
>
> I award myself a Lime ribbon for the adoption of proposals 8222, 8228,
> and 8234.
>
> --
> Jason Cobb
On Sunday, July 28, 2019 6:09 PM, Edward Murphy wrote:
> Proposal: Increased transparency
> (AI = 3)
>
> Amend Rule 2438 (Ribbons) by replacing the sections for the relevant
> types of ribbons with the following sections:
>
> Green (G): While the holder of an elected office has held it
>
...which proposal in the affixed message? :P
(I know the one you mean but I don't think it's unambiguous enough to satisfy
R478.)
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Sunday, July 28, 2019 6:18 PM, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> Oops, I sent that half typed. If I haven't submitted the proposal
: I mean, what should happen? Right now the answer is clear
> > > that the Assessor gets to deal with eir own cancellation motion, which may
> > > not be the best idea.
> > > Jason Cobb
> > > On 7/27/19 1:35 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> > >
> > >
> One thing is Agorans have a weird tendency to Overcapitalize things to
> somehow emphasize their Importance.
I always thought the point of this was to indicate that something was a term of
art. Though I'll grant you it's not at all used consistently.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On
On Monday, July 22, 2019 2:58 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On 7/21/2019 7:01 PM,ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
> > Agora used to be exclusively bottom-posted, but there was an influx of
> > new players a while back whose email clients top-posted by default and
> > it's lead to a mix of quoting
On Monday, July 22, 2019 9:02 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I confirm (in public here) that there is a contract with at least 2
> parties, known as NSC.
Can you point out in which message(s) - which, per Rule 2519, must be public -
the parties consented to the agreement, thereby causing it to become
On Monday, July 22, 2019 10:41 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> On 7/22/19 6:39 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> > On Monday, July 22, 2019 9:02 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@uw.edu wrote:
> > > I confirm (in public here) that there is a contract with at least 2
> > > parties, known as N
cedent you can do anything like that on behalf of a zombie including
> > just making a post to a public forum
> > On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 7:28 AM Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote:
> >
> > > I just noticed that, according to R2579/0:
> > >
>
On 24 Jul 2019, 08:53, Jason Cobb < jason.e.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Also, is there any way that I can get CFJ 3645?
I'm sorry, that's a typo - Alexis' scam was judged in CFJ 3465, not 3645.
-twg
On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 4:39 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> On 7/23/19 6:27 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> > Amend Rule 2591 by replacing the text "Spaceships are a class of fixed
> > asset" with "Spaceships are a class of fixed indestructible asset".
>
On Monday, September 30, 2019 2:48 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On 9/30/2019 7:12 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> > Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a player NEED NOT violate the rules
> > or
> > perform any IMPOSSIBLE action.
>
> Performing an IMPOSSIBLE acti
On Sunday, September 29, 2019 5:03 AM, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, SHALL implies MAY and SHALL NOT
> implies NEED NOT.
>
> Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, if someone CANNOT do something, e
> NEED NOT do it.
>
> The prior provisions of this rule
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
Ruleset as a whole → repealing a rule counts as amending the
osses my line from
> "useful style guide" to "overly proscriptive". (and I tend to prefer
> "which").
>
> On Wed, Sep 25, [2019](tel:2019) at 6:20 AM Timon Walshe-Grey
> wrote:
>>
>> I intend, without objection, to clean Rule 107, "In
Aww. *blows party popper mournfully*
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Sunday, June 30, 2019 7:49 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On 6/30/2019 7:52 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> > I intend, with 10 Agoran Consent, to banish Rule 2596.
>
> I object.
itiated unless the Auctioneer is able
> to give away each item in each of the Auction's lots."
>
> If Agora was unable to transfer the zombie ownership at the time the auction
> was initiated, does that mean the initiation failed in the first place?
>
> On Saturday, June 15, 2019,
23:01, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote:
>
> > Also, CFJ: "Rule 2571 is guilty of violating Rule 105." This is not really
> > relevant in the scheme of things, I just want it to show up in G.'s CFJ
> > history to bewilder future historians.
>
> Did t
Merchant
wrote:
> I don't really see how that could be exploitable. Anyway, whenever a
> rule says "If X occurs, Y occurs", that rule is pretty clearly the
> agent for Y.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 8:22 AM Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote:
>
>
On Sunday, November 10, 2019 3:16 PM, Nch via agora-business
wrote:
> (I cut the Turnips out for now because I think they need to be more carefully
> considered to be balanced and interesting.)
>
> I submit the following proposal, stylized according to the Promotor
> style-guide draft (unless
On Monday, November 11, 2019 1:54 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> On Thursday, November 7, 2019 12:52 AM, James Cook
> wrote:
>
> > I initiate a zombie auction, with the following single lot:
> >
> > 1. Jacob Arduino
>
> I bid 1 coin.
...dammit, I'm a few hours past the deadline.
-twg
On Monday, November 11, 2019 1:36 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> Did we increase the base? The most recent SLR still says the default is
> 3, and I found no proposals since then that increased it, but I could be
> missing something.
Until just before you registered, the default voting strength was 1
On Thursday, October 24, 2019 3:07 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> The below CFJ is 3776. I assign it to twg.
Sorry, I know I'm slightly behind on this - was planning to get it done
yesterday but didn't get time. Will publish a judgement on Saturday at the
latest (if I haven't been recused yet)
-twg
On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 11:05 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> ... I judge this CFJ FALSE.
Oops, meant to sent that to BUS. Oh well, it's still intelligible.
-twg
On Thursday, November 7, 2019 4:16 AM, Jason Cobb
wrote:
> Transferring D. Margaux's Coins is an action defined by the Rules that
> 'CAN be performed "by announcement"' (even if the intent is only that it
> CAN be performed by announcement by a single person), satisfying the
> first criterion
On Sunday, October 20, 2019 9:15 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
wrote:
> I object. Can't you CFJ this, like people normally do with ambiguous
> registrations, rather than simply trying to disregard the issue
> entirely?
Oh, I wasn't even thinking of your "proposal" as a potentially ambiguous
On Sunday, October 20, 2019 7:04 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
wrote:
> Right now, I submit the following proposal, "Undo This Proposal", AI 1:
>
> Create a new Power-0.5 rule, "Repeal This Rule":
> {{{
> When this rule is repealed by a proposal, the author of that proposal
> wins the game.
On Sunday, October 20, 2019 10:07 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Votes so far from: Falsifian, Jason Cobb.
I voted [Fruits of Persistence and Patience, Hot Potato, Clairvoyant Roshambo,
The
Watch]. You even replied to it. :P
-twg
On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 2:02 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> On 10/15/19 6:53 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> > Further philosophising: if all the rules_were_ combined into one rule,
> > would
> > there be any meaningful semantic difference from the current "ruleset"
On Monday, October 14, 2019 2:16 PM, James Cook wrote:
> Sorry, this is wrong. The auction has ended but I missed some bids. Will
> send an update later.
Yeah I was going to say, I think Murphy outbid me. Grr.
I point my
On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 5:44 AM, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 10:00 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > Putting untracked things like this is the Crime of Invisibilitating,
> > which is a crime that is defined in an untracked thing like this.
>
> I was under the impression that
On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 5:01 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On 10/14/2019 7:56 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> > However, I would still argue that the rules should, at least ideally, avoid
> > circular dependencies, even if only as a matter of idealism. I've attached
> > to this email an svg file that I
On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 3:11 AM, James Cook wrote:
> I've wondered before whether people have planted some snag like this
> in Agora's history that new players like me have no practical way to
> know about.
>
> This is a quite elegantly simple way to implement my fear, with
> probably no bad
On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 10:30 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 5:01 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On 10/14/2019 7:56 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> > > However, I would still argue that the rules should, at least ideally,
> > > avoid
> &
On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 5:51 AM, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 8:11 PM James Cook wrote:
> > I've wondered before whether people have planted some snag like this
> > in Agora's history that new players like me have no practical way to
> > know about.
> > This is a quite
On Wednesday, October 23, 2019 9:54 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On 10/22/2019 11:37 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> Are you semi-favoring the case, or trying to avoid it? Asking for a friend.
Neither in particular! Just noting that (I believe) I'm the interested judge
who's least recentl
On Wednesday, October 23, 2019 11:37 PM, Ørjan Johansen
wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Oct 2019, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> >* players SHALL NOT clearly identify this rule - doing so is the
> > Class 1 Crime of Uttering the Forbidden Name.
> >
> > Any
On Thursday, October 24, 2019 3:06 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I don't assign CFJs in strict order - I generally pick from the 2-3 of
> the "least recently assigned" on the judicial list (and make sure no one
> lingers too long in the top 2-3) but within that top 2-3 I scramble it or
> use some
I feel the same way. Thank you, Trigon, for your diligent efforts as Rulekeepor
and Cartographor over the past few years.
Whatever's happening, please know that you will be missed and that, I'm sure,
you'll be gladly welcomed back whenever and if ever you decide to return.
-twg
‐‐‐
On Friday, October 18, 2019 8:11 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> Title: R2478 Fix
>
> AI: 1.7
>
> Text:
>
> {
>
> Amend Rule 2478 ("Vigilante Justice") by replacing the text "a person
> (the perp) who plays the game" with the text "a player (the perp)".
>
> }
>
> --
>
On Friday, October 18, 2019 8:11 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> On 10/18/19 3:24 PM, Nch wrote:
> > I register. I pledge not to foolishly deregister.
> >
> > ---
> > Nch
>
> I cause nch to receive a Welcome Package.
>
> --
> Jason Cobb
Point of order: I didn't receive nch's message.
-twg
On Friday, October 18, 2019 8:41 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> Sounds fun (only half sarcasm).
It's ok, we're all snerds here. :P
-twg
On Friday, October 18, 2019 8:25 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> On 10/18/19 4:23 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> > Point of order: I didn't receive nch's message.
> >
> > -twg
>
>
> It appears to have made it to the forum, as it's in the archive:
> https://mailman.agora
On Sunday, October 20, 2019 6:09 AM, Aris Merchant
wrote:
A draft follows. I'm aware my ordering is... unconventional. It's for
the befuddlement of future generations, and is all part of the fun.
-Aris
Jason Cobb is a co-author to 8256 as well. I don't see any other errors.
-twg
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 for
> > the befuddlement of future generation
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
On Saturday, October 26, 2019 1:39 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> [of course what we really need is a rulekeepor :) ]
I would be happy to take it on if I can get Trigon's code working. Referee has
been a bit dull recently because everyone is being boring and obeying the rules.
(also, ftr, I'm still
On Saturday, October 26, 2019 3:22 PM, Nch wrote:
> I'm ccing you here, so let me know if you get this one. I suspect your spam
> filter doesn't like *@protonmail and you need to add an exception. (Someone
> might want to quote this back on AD for em in case it doesn't make it
> through.)
On Saturday, October 26, 2019 11:36 PM, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> 8654 nch 1.0 [2]
I think you typoed the ID here - the full list gives it as 8264.
> 8265 twg, Murphy, Aris3.0 [3]
Jason Cobb is a co-author to 8265 as well.
Also I find your obfuscation far
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 probably going to get assigned to me, isn't it.
Quick straw poll: did anyone
On Wednesday, October 9, 2019 1:59 PM, James Cook wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 at 12:08, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 12:21 AM, James Cook jc...@cs.berkeley.edu
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I intend, with notice, to flip Jacob
On Wednesday, October 9, 2019 6:38 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Unofficial CONTEST: Subgame in a Rule.
>
> Ranked-choice voting (ballot should be a list), options are (full
> submissions below):
>
> - ais523 (Fruits of Persistence and Patience)
> - Falsifian (Clairvoyant Roshambo)
> - Jason
On Saturday, October 12, 2019 7:56 PM, Jason Cobb
wrote:
> I'm working on a writing up a thesis for this. I'll publish my code
> concurrently (not a pledge), at which point you could play with it all
> you want. Some other analyses I've considered:
>
> - Number of dependents by rule
>
> - Number
Jason wrote:
> Because there hasn't been an ADoP report in over a month (I hope
> Murphy's okay), I'd just like to confirm office holdings because the
> assessments depend on it:
>
> The latest report is at [0]. As far as I know, the changes from then are:
>
> * Herald is held by Alexis.
> *
G. wrote:
> The below CFJ is 3806. I assign it to Gaelan.
>
> status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3806
>
> === CFJ 3806 ===
>
> In the attached message, I submitted a public petition to the
> ADoP, as
I wrote:
> Jason:
>5Reward (assessing proposals, w/c 27 Jan)
> 20Indigo Glitter (Baccalaureate of Nomic) [disputed by CFJ]
>5Reward (CFJ 3788)
> 14Blue Glitter (CFJ 3788)
>5Reward (Rulekeepor weekly, w/c 10 Feb)
>-
> 49
CoE:
sukil wrote:
> Me too!
Hi sukil, welcome to Agora! You sent this to the main Discussion Forum
(agora-discussion@agoranomic.org), whereas you probably meant to send it
to the main Public Forum (agora-busin...@agoranomic.org). Messages sent
to a discussion forum have no in-game effect, because it's
Jason wrote:
> On 2/13/20 12:00 AM, 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.
>
>
> It's alright! I have no complaints
Jason wrote:
> Perhaps relevant: CFJ 3762 [0], which concluded both that a person CAN
> perform a certain action and that that action is IMPOSSIBLE.
Warrigal wrote:
> My interpretation of the Honorable twg's ruling is that since the
> rules say that the action CAN be taken, but the criteria for
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> twg deputised for the Prime Minister and it was not noted as a
> temporary deputisation, therefore e became Prime Minister. However, e
> also made emself Speaker. One of these was not possible, according to
> R2472, which states, "Rules to the contrary
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> I thought about that possibility, because R2160 includes this
> provision, which seems to prevent any deputisation where other rules
> of any power prohibit the same action from the officeholder:
> 2. it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the
G. wrote:
> It means that someone tried it (I wasn't the first I don't think) and
> there was some discussion and everyone involved agreed it worked and
> no-one offered any counterarguments worthy of a CFJ. And it was tried a
> time or two after that before CFJ 3688 with same results. I'll see
I wrote:
> Ah ok, gotcha. (I wasn't particularly invested in this to be clear, just
> saw an opportunity and took it. Mostly in this for Cuddles' voting
> strength)
And also the opportunity to send a message with the subject line "OFF:
[Prime Minister] humble agoran farmer distributes proposal
CuddleBeam wrote:
> But "a player" is just one player, no? At least that's my understanding of it.
Compare, for example:
> A player whose master is not emself is a zombie (syn. inactive);
> all other players are active.
I don't think any reasonable interpretation of the rules would
On Sunday, March 1, 2020 10:46 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On Sun., Mar. 1, 2020, 17:05 Tanner Swett via agora-business, <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > I submit a proposal with AI = 1, titled "Somebody gets a coin":
> > {
> > Enact a power-1 rule titled "A
CuddleBeam wrote:
> If I tell you "you can take a cupcake", that doesn't mean you can take
> ALL the cookies. It means you can take one.
>
> And if I say "a cupcake is a pastry", that doesn't mean that only ONE
> cupcake is a pastry. It means that all cupcakes are pastries.
Sure, I'm with you
G. wrote:
> Well, we purposefully error-trapped switches, which suggests that we allow
> that sort of thing if the rules are explicit about it happening:
>
> > If a type of switch is not explicitly designated as
> > possibly-indeterminate by the rule that defines it, and if an action
> >
CuddleBeam wrote:
> So, twg was cool to not weasel out when they had the chance to, so I will
> as well. I don’t know how to best do this aside from a Pledge, and I dont
> want to make the N too high in case he wants to use the blot availability I
> have during rental for something and this Pledge
G. wrote:
> On 3/2/2020 12:54 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote:
> >> On Mar 2, 2020, at 12:46 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Please, put some effort in though. After a request/discussion a couple
> >> months ago people stopped doing it and threads became
sukil wrote:
> Let's see if I get this straight now. Proposals and elections (except
> for first condition in election initiation) are not dependent actions,
> because they are not governed (by definition) by these restrictions
> (consent, support, etc.). Things such as impeaching a player are
>
Falsifian wrote:
> I pay Agora a fee of 11 Coins to satisfy my auction debt.
>
> (If the auction didn't happen, I vaguely remember some discussion
> concluding this announcement doesn't do anything. I guess it depends
> whether I triggered the "Upon such an announcement" in R2579. Maybe
> not,
G. wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 12:01 PM Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 14:40, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 11:26 AM Jason Cobb wrote:
> > > > Rule 478/37 states that 'To "publish" or "announce" something is to send
> > > > a public message whose body
Alexis wrote:
> Two questions:
>
> First, twg, are you satisfied with the draft as it is? There do not seem to
> have been any substantive comments from peer review so I believe we could
> proceed with the award soon.
Yes, a few days ago I mentioned I was thinking of making some minor
additions,
Alexis wrote:
> Blatant attempt to sneak something Gaelan missed: I CFJ on "Gaelan
> CAN, by announcement, award emself the patent title of 'The
> Powerless'.", requesting linked assignment with the CFJ upthread.
your thought being that the award can be made repeatedly?
-twg
Alexis wrote:
> I'm not sold on this, or on the precedent.
>
> R2125 is clear that actions can only be performed by the methods
> *explicitly* specified. It seems to me that it closes the door to methods
> of performing actions being specified by implication, even by necessary
> implication. I
Aris wrote:
> For the record, I strongly disagree. I think Spivak is part of Agoran
> culture at this point, like the “or” suffixes at the end of offices. It’s
> part of what makes Agora different and unique. In short, it’s a dialectal
> variation, and I think Agora having its own dialect, not
Jason Cobb wrote:
> RESOLUTION OF PROPOSALS 8287-8307
> =
>
> I hereby resolve the Agoran decisions to adopt the below proposals.
NB: The F/A ratios on several of Proposals 8292-8307, and on the second
attempt at 8290, are incorrect because they do not take into
Aleixs wrote:
> I think that Warrigal's concerns are valid. The only reason that the asset
> rules work so well is because they've been well-tested and worked out.
> Changing the base away from them to something else is entirely viable; it
> would require care and likely plenty of time while
Jason wrote:
> I know this is probably unnecessarily pedantic
You are talking to a group of people who spend an appreciable fraction
of their free time arguing about the proper interpretation of a
twenty-seven-year-old set of rules governing the allowable use of a
mailing list.
-twg
G. wrote:
> awww - i'd seen that and my birthday is Feb 4th
Same, though it sounds like it wouldn't have gone unnoticed until May
anyway...
You can still use it, though! No chance of the proposal passing before
then, barring shenanigans.
-twg
Jason wrote:
> CoE: this leaves out he Payday coins.
Sorry. I even remembered it, just confused it with the broken things.
Roll on Friday morning.
-twg
Alexis wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 at 19:22, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> >
> > On 2/1/20 7:20 PM, James Cook wrote:
> > > I submit a proposal as follows:
> > >
> > > Title: Unrepetition
> > > AI: 3
> > > Chamber: Efficiency
> >
> >
> > Perhaps the H. Promotor should order this
301 - 400 of 453 matches
Mail list logo
