On Dec 30, 2007 8:03 PM, Josiah Worcester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From playing B Nomic, I've seen one potentially useful idea: transactions. I'm
not sure if everyone wants them, but let's see:
Proto: Transactions (power=3?)
Create a rule titled Transactions with the following text:
A
On 10/01/2008, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ah, so you believed your statement to not violate the version of the
rule you saw before. But then one could say that your belief didn't
apply to the current version.
Again, if the defendant reasonably believed that the alleged act did
not violate
I notice that a lot of rules refer to things being secured, but none
of them seem to say what that means.
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
On 22/02/2008, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(c) The sum of all legally specified Partisanship values
for all specified players is equal to 1.0.
So you can either set one player's Partisanship value to 1 or set two
players' Partisanship values to 0.5, assuming that
On 24/02/2008, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hereby assign 1890a and 1891a to the panel of Ivan Hope, Iammars,
and Pavitra.
Appellant comex's arguments consisted of See root's message in a-d,
among other things. I don't know what message this is referring to,
but the only thing I can
On 25/02/2008, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you didn't know this, judgements of FALSE, TRUE, UNDECIDABLE, and
IRRELEVANT all include at the time the inquiry case was initiated in
their R591 wording. (No offense, just in case you were unaware.)
Ah. Perhaps it would be better to
On 26/02/2008, Ankica Zilic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
what to do
Read the rules, become a player, have fun, I suppose. The rules are at
http://www.fysh.org/~zefram/agora/current_slr.txt
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
On 26/02/2008, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I judge FALSE.
I intend to appeal this with two support. It contradicts without
argument the precedents set down in CFJs 1895 and 1899.
I support this.
--Ivan Hope
Since this is Agora and not B Nomic, I will use brackets instead of
braces to mark blocks.
[The name of this contract is Agoran Twister. This is a public
contract. A party to this contract may be referred to as a Keith.
At any given time, a Keith is either In or Out (default). A Keith who
is In
On 06/03/2008, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hypothetical spot: State an opinion of NO WAY on this spot.
Good point. Change the first sentence of that paragraph to Once per
week, an Innie can post a Spot, which is a command regarding future
game actions.
On 06/03/2008, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL
On 06/03/2008, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, maybe that's why not to hardcode, just say will get points equal
to the number of points the contest can award divided by the number
of awards that need to be made in a week, with a min. of 5 and a max.
of 10 or some-such.
You mean
Well, I guess this is Agoran Twister II. If it looks all right, I'll
go ahead and officially propose it.
[The name of this contract is Agoran Twister. This is a public
contract. A party to this contract may be referred to as a Keith.
At any given time, a Keith is either In or Out (default); this
I hereby attempt to make the contract known as Agoran Twister a
contest; this must be done without 3 objections.
On 10/03/2008, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree to this. (Why Keith, though?)
I have a friend named Keith who once played a guy named Oliver in a
play. I don't know
TTPF: I hereby attempt to make the contract known as Agoran Twister a
contest; this must be done without 3 objections.
On 10/03/2008, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree to this, although I'm not sure that my agreement is effective,
since I've just noticed that the contract lacks a
On 11/03/2008, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh well. I intend to amend the Agoran Twister contract, with the
support of a majority of Keiths, by replacing the text Any Keith may
amend this contract with the consent of a majority of Keiths. with
Any Keith may amend this contract with
On 11/03/2008, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2. The Broker is responsible for maintaining the Vote Market.
Initially the Broker is BobTHJ.
I take it that doesn't include Tickets?
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
On 11/03/2008, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you referring to reporting a list of current tickets? If so that
is something I could add to my report if there was interest.
Well, as far as I can see, currently, the only way to see what tickets
there are is to search through the
On 12/03/2008, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll begin compiling a list of tickets as they are posted. I'm not
hunting back through the archives though to get past ones.
Well, you can get this one, at least:
On 05/03/2008, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I join the Vote Market. I post
On 12/03/2008, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 7:26 PM, Iammars [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll consent.
CFJ: In the quoted message, Iammars consented to something.
Arguments:
E said that e *would* consent, not that e was doing so...
The message in question was not
On 15/03/2008, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Spot: Initiate at least one judicial case per week.
If someone Opined NO WAY on this, how would they Break it?
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
On 15/03/2008, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Someone should write up an amendment to the effect of if the spot
refers to a recurring type of time period, then each instance of that
type of time period is evaluated separately for violations.
Every millisecond, post a message to a public
On 16/03/2008, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think you're required to opine on your own spot...
-root
I'm not sure whether I intended to say every other Innie should
Opine or not. As it is, you are indeed not required to Opine on your
own Spot. Should this be changed to just
On 17/03/2008, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I create a Digit Ranch (land #17) with a Seed of 0 in the possession
of Ivan Hope.
Do I also get the water rights voucher, or do we have a long-standing
rivalry? :-)
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
On 17/03/2008, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm pretty sure that instead is *not* the same as ~(a ~b). Instead
is (A if not B).
So if I go to Joe's for lunch, then I'm eating at home instead of
going to Joe's for lunch? Looks to me that it's a ~b: I have to eat
at home and not go
On 22/03/2008, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I object. That change would make it too easy to get points.
How many points should a contract award in a week?
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
On 24/03/2008, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I guess I'd like to try to get a Notary report ratified, so with
Agoran Consent, I intend to make myself the Notary.
By the way, should I support my own Agoran Decisions, or is that automatic?
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
Adoption index 2, whatever interest index seems good
{Create a new rule with power 2:
{A face is a type of contract requiring at least zero parties. Every
face represents exactly one foreign nomic, and every foreign nomic is
represented by at most one face. A foreign nomic that is represented
by
On 29/03/2008, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, do we have a ruling on what any means in Goethe's spot yet?
My ruling was that it means some, but we may have to have an inquiry
case over this or something. I'm rather inclined to just toss out this
spot, but then again, I think it would
On 01/04/2008, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I request to be un-busy. That's not going to happen. Who wants my stuff?
What, you're giving it away?
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
On 01/04/2008, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 10:01 AM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I destroy 1 WRV in root's possession
Oh, yay! I had somehow missed the fact that only digit ranches require water.
Darn. I missed the fact that only digit ranches
On 01/04/2008, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 9:36 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree to the following, to become a contract as soon as one other
person agrees to it:
I was thinking of something similar, but on a more grandiose scale--
for proposals
On 02/04/2008, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/30/08, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, I'm sure overnight is long enough for anybody. Hopefully there's
nothing wrong with this.
Why a contract?
So it can define currencies and impose obligations and such things
without having
On 02/04/2008, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A contract with no obligations is not much of a contract. I suggest
that a change can take effect no less than 1 week after being
approved. That will give people time to leave if they don't like it.
Sounds good. I suppose I might get a new
On 02/04/2008, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
5488 D2 2Ivan Hope none
AGAINST. Foreign nomics that wish to be Agoran persons can do so by
forming a partnership for that purpose. I'm not comfortable granting
personhood to non-biological entities that aren't bound by
On 04/04/2008, Ankica Zilic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know that it is about creating rools but at this time the game that you
created would need to be studied,but I have to say that you are
creative..very
Indeed. I studied the Agora Nomic rules for a while before actually
doing anything. I
On 09/04/2008, Iammars [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
*cough*O Notary...*cough*
Sorry! I'll see if I can't have it done today.
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
On 10/04/2008, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 4:27 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This report is self-ratifying
It's not.
You're right. I thought all reports were self-ratifying. Oh well.
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
On 10/04/2008, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can this part be table-ified? Maybe with the members listed in the
same section.
What do you mean? Make a table with the contracts as rows and people
as columns and put an X wherever the person is a party to the
contract?
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
On 11/04/2008, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 2:12 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I join the PerlNomic Partnership.
You can't join by announcement, you need to use PerlNomic's adduser mechanism.
http://nomic.info/perlnomic
I'm already a user. When I
On 11/04/2008, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Did you not read metarules.txt?
7. Players agree to be bound by the terms of the Contracts in the Contracts
directory.
I don't think I did, no.
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
On 11/04/2008, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This could lead to a lot of changes, and a difficulty in knowing the
current exchange rates. What about allowing Bankers to increment or
decrement by a fixed value and then have all those changes occur at a
set interval (say once per
On 06/04/2008, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1914 comex Ivan Hope Sun 13 Apr 22:09:11
Wait, I've been assigned to a case?
1890acomex, root, Ivan Hope, Sun 6 Apr 23:02:31
Zefram Iammars, BobTHJ
1891a
{This is a public contract and a pledge by the name of The Note Exchange.
For each pitch of Note, the corresponding Credit is a currency, and
the corresponding Marker is a fixed currency. Ivan Hope CXXVII is the
recordkeepor of Credits and Markers, and generally cannot create them
by
On 12/04/2008, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* You probably should restrict the ownership of these currencies; at
least of Markers. A marker-holder cannot be obliged to redeem unless
the Marker-holder bound by the contract.
Indeed, you're right.
* Needs an exit clause;
{When a
On 12/04/2008, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're probably going to need explicit language to allow the other
person to announce the spending on behalf of the spender.
Easy fix, I suppose:
If a person holds a set of Credits, e may by announcement redeem the
Credits, specifying a
On 14/04/2008, Ben Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is interesting to note that, had the BoA joined the AAA after the
messages in question, but before issuing its report, then upon self-
ratification a week from now the pens (but not the crops) would have
sprung into existence, creating an
Got my vote (even though it's not a proposal), though you may want to
reconsider how the contract flips switches that can only be flipped by
the Referee. Is that legal? Also, the Referee announcing what Weapons
were used would be nice.
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
On 4/16/08, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This sounds like there's potential for shady underhanded deals (like real
bankers). Will depositing a 5 crop be enough to qualify me as a Banker?
I'm sure it will be plenty. Just trade it in (the deposit rate is
126.8, giving you 126 pens;
On 4/16/08, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I intend to make the set of changes I just sent to the other Bankers
to the Bank of Agora contract. I'll tell you what the changes are when
I make them.
I consent.
I now have sufficient consent, but if OscarMeyr is willing to trade in
a 5
Unofficial mini-report:
Ivan Hope CXXVII: 563 pens (Banker)
comex: 116 pens (Banker)
The AFO: 116 pens (Banker)
Wooble: 114 pens (Banker)
BobTHJ: 0 pens (Banker)
Murphy: 0 pens (Banker)
This is a total of 909 pens, so the threshold is 91. I think BobTHJ
and Murphy still have been under it for
On 4/17/08, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ivan Hope wrote:
Murphy: 0 pens (Banker)
I should have 44 pens. (A transaction history would facilitate
getting to the bottom of issues like this.)
Indeed, a transaction history would be helpful. I'll see about coming
up with one.
--Ivan
How does an imposed position get filled?
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But now that I think about it, the proto ought to have a clause
indicating that backing documents can fill imposed positions however
they like. This currently works for the Speaker because the
installation is performed by a
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 5:45 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The AFO deposits 10 crops for 640 pens.
The AFO withdraws 10 crops for 580 pens.
Precedent is that seed must be specified even if the AFO or BoA holds
only one type of crop. Therefore, all this deposit/withdrawal stuff
fails.
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 3:49 PM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 3:41 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, if this had worked, an equity case could have been initiated
demanding that the AFO destroy all the pens created this way.
I'd hope a judge
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Iammars [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
{
* COMMUNITY SERVICE with a task (the perscribed task),
appropriate for when the ninny has failed to do something that e was
required to do or in other situations with a similar severity as FINE.
When in effect, the
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 10:27 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I made my comment in a-d-- does it count as acting? If I am not
allowed to truthfully describe the game in any forum, does that
violate my R101 right of participation in the fora?
You did agree to act as if it were a rule; I
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 5:23 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Um, wait, of course it's not, because it hasn't identified itself as such.
I retract that CFJ.
I'm the only one who agreed to IRCnomic; therefore, it's not a contract yet.
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 4:08 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Which parts of the Notary's responsibilities are too overwhelming?
Maybe that office just needs some relief.
Nah, I'm just not feeling well at the moment and would enjoy some variety.
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 7:52 PM, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Welcome to the game, H. New Player Offhanded!
Why the H?
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 2:56 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pens Bank of Agora Ivan Hope
The recordkeepor of pens is the Bank of Agora, actually.
(Also, calling me Ivan Hope is an insult to my 126 ancestors of that same name.)
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
Bankers shall take turns publishing the text of and parties to this
contract and ownership of pens.
We really ought to figure out whose turn it is this week before the
week is over.
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
I (do not, yet) agree to the following set of Articles, with the
intention of being bound by them:
Article 1: The set of Articles this contract, agreement or other
regulation consists of is known as the Articles of Pancake. Any
regulation consisting of the Articles of Pancake is a Branch of
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 8:30 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ivan Hope wrote:
Article 4: If the Articles state that a person can perform an action,
it can be performed by sending a public message. A message to a public
forum, as the term is defined by Agora or B Nomic, is a public
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 4:55 PM, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/8/08, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I deposit one Vote Point for 39 pens. (Let's see how quickly and
eagerly that gets snatched up!)
Since I think Vote Points are more valuable than that, I change the
Vote
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 5:36 PM, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I mill 4 - 4 = 0.
Couldn't you have done the same with the Bank of Agora and had some
pens (and use of your mill) left over?
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 7:57 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I submit a Suggestion: Create an Article, with the text If an Article
does not have a number, its number becomes the lowest positive integer
Did everyone get these Suggestions, by the way? I don't think they echoed.
--Ivan Hope
On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 12:44 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I were to post to a public forum any of the following
statements, I would be a player: 1. I am a player. 2. I
declare myself to be a player.
I think the distinction here is whether the statement would
On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 7:27 AM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Proto: Increase R869's power to 2.1, and add changes to player's citizenship
are secured. No reason to leave loopholes floating around...
Why 2.1? Are there rules of power 2 you want this to take precedence
over? Being
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 1:29 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is also true. The contract itself defines what a member of the
religion is -- but does
not precisely equate it with being party to the contract,
The preamble says This religion is a private contract...I am the
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 1:36 AM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2008, ihope wrote:
A party to a contract is not the same as a member of a contract. All
members are parties, but not all parties are members.
When no definition or distinction is explicitly made
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 9:46 AM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The defendant clearly deliberately failed to act in accordance with
eir obligations under the pledge in question, and apparently did so
for the sole purpose of bringing this criminal case against emself. E
also made no
Cute. For the VLOD thing, I guess I'd suggest sticking it in the same
place as the chokey penalty. What I'd really like to see, though, is
having a King of the Hill whose VLOD is multiplied by something, but
making the King of the Hill position especially difficult to get and
lasting for a finite
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 6:25 PM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That leads to some sort of strange feedback loop when the EVLOD and
VVLOD are both set to the same value by averaging. The proto should
really make that clearer, somehow.
Quite. People would quickly end up with VLODs of
Technically, I don't think non-office recordkeepors are obligated to
keep track of their assets at all.
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
Won't this require that the alleged act actually occurred? It is fine
to have non-GUILTY options overlap.
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
I suggest judging GUILTY, since this sort of thing surely hasn't
stopped judges in the past, and EXILE for 1 second, which will clear
out (most of) eir stuff but still allow em to play.
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 5:45 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 22 May 2008, ihope wrote:
R101 protects my right to participate in the fora. Revealing private
contracts is participating in the fora. R101 takes precedence over
R2173.
If this were true, the right to free speech
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 11:01 PM, Ben Caplan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I submit the following proposal, entitled No unappealable judgements,
with AI=1.7 and II=1:
{{
Amend rule 911 by inserting the text of REMAND or REASSIGN after
a judgement in the second paragraph.
}}
That text appears
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 8:02 AM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Arguments: I suspect FALSE. The contract in question defines an
Annoucement of Chaos as something which destroys all rules and then
terminates the contract.
If I remember the punctuation correctly, it was an Announcement
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 9:41 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
R101 item i. reads: i. The map being obviously the most
important rule, every person has the right to move it back up to
the top of the ruleset if the Rulekeepor put it down near the
bottom again.
Well, i.
On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 9:43 PM, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Accountor's Report
Date of last report: never
Date of this report: now
Trumpets:
The letter I: 1
That's the type of report I'd be happy with doing on a regular basis.
I suggest that we stop making ourselves recordkeepors and
On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 9:17 PM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 9:07 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, there is no evidence that I've seen that anybody has agreed to
anything that happens to be a current subset of the rules
The fact that we're all
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 11:05 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ivan Hope wrote:
Implicit consent is not explicit consent. I judge the same thing as
before, which is TRUE.
Rule 1742 does not require explicit consent. I intend (with 2 support)
to appeal this case, and I recommend that
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 3:37 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Treasurer shall publish a report including the text and parties of
this contract and the ownership of pens.
What, only once? You need to specify that e shall do it more than once
if e shall do it more than once.
--Ivan
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 5:28 PM, Ben Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suggest you submit some arguments to the effect that this case should
not just be summarily judged IRRELEVANT. It would be appropriate if
this got dragged out in the courts indefinitely.
We all know that it's quite possible
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 8:14 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What might be better is to refactor rounding rules, e.g.
banker's rounding = breaking ties toward even integers
anti-banker's rounding = breaking ties toward odd integers
Break ties by flipping a coin. Even better, do all
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 1:56 AM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I intend to send the following message on behalf of the panel, with
the support of BobTHJ and Ivan Hope:
Prior Judge Murphy's interpretation of Rule 2169 is a reasonable one
in the face of real inclarity in the rule in
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 1:12 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1995
My defense: if you do not judge UNIMPUGNED, I will hit you with a
spoon. I end the pre-trial phase.
http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2004
My defense:
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 2:22 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ivan Hope, Pavitra, Zefram: Why did you vote against Proposal 5520?
I don't know. I'd probably vote FOR it if it were proposed again.
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It doesn't need to use the word MAY specifically. The definition of
MAY from R2152 is, Performing the described action does not violate
the rule in question. So if performing the action in question does
not violate R101 --
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For example, compare the sentence Horses with no broken legs can
race to Horses can race if no horse has broken legs. Both are
conditional upon the same criterion -- existence of broken legs -- but
the first depends only on
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 3:07 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just because R2193 does not use the word recordkeepor does not mean
that the CotC is not a recordkeepor of monsters.
I think it does, recordkeepor being a rule-defined term that the
rules define only for assets.
--Ivan Hope
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 3:20 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But what the hey, let's have some fun with this. I throw Ivan Hope
CXXVII into the chokey.
No entity is in the chokey except as required by this rule. This IS fun.
--Ivan Hope Colonhyphenrightparenthesis
On 6/14/08, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 7:01 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In either case, the contestmaster SHALL (in the same announcement
causing it to occur) award floor(P/N) points to each townsperson,
where P is the maximum number of
Proposal 5554 (Democratic, AI=3, Interest=1) by Ivan Hope
Isn't that just silly?
In rule 101, remove ii. Every player has the right to perform an
action which is not regulated. and subtract 1 from the number of each
following element of the list. Replace the text of rule 2125 with It
is
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 4:31 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I intend, with Agoran Consent, to make Jeremy a zombie with myself as
zombiemaster.
I support.
--Ivan Hope NTTPF
Just to say so, when I wrote the Bank of Agora contract, I intended
the announcements for depositing and withdrawing to include both
what's deposited and withdrawn and the number of pens.
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 7:28 PM, Ben Caplan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about making statements to the DF that I haven't taken the time to
carefully evaluate for truthfulness? Or, for that matter, making jokes
to the DF (see CFJ 1849 and
[EMAIL PROTECTED])?
The rules can't stop you from
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 8:53 PM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then I ask the kind Bankers of the BOA to consider an exchange rate for
Points.
Points are a fixed currency, so they can't be transferred (and that
includes depositing or withdrawing them at the Bank of Agora).
--Ivan Hope
1 - 100 of 235 matches
Mail list logo
