I have no idea what that message is but we really ought to bring back contests.
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 10, 2010, at 5:36 PM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
On Tue, 2010-08-10 at 16:30 -0500, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
Wrong mailing list.
Right list, wrong year.
--
ais523
Yo dawg.
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 11, 2010, at 11:46 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
I call for judgement on the statement It is POSSIBLE for the CotC to
assign a judge to a CFJ, other than this one, which has exactly this
statement. Then if I have not already done so, I publish a
So, what sort of disclaimers work? The judgements of CFJs 1935, 1971,
and 2227 imply that they can come after a message without trouble, and
CFJ 1971 in particular that an excessively disclaimered message fails
to provide any substantive information and so fails to take some
actions; but here is
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Looking through all this, I think disclaimers should have no direct legal
effect other than to alert people that something might be wrong. Then, if
a truthiness case is brought, an honest disclaimer about minor
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 5:29 PM, Keba ag...@kebay.org wrote:
Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the voting period for a
decision with at least two options cannot be shorter than seven
days, except a Rule with a power of 3 or higher explicitly
states so.
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 1:21 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
BE IT HEREBY PROCLAIMED that no interpretation of Agoran law or
binding agreement may substantially limit or remove a natural
person's rights as defined by this Rule, except through the
explicit
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010, Alex Smith wrote:
--- On Mon, 23/8/10, comex com...@gmail.com wrote:
http://agora.qoid.us/current_flr.html?annotate=1
Ambiguous annotations found so far:
Fixed most of these.
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
Also, you cannot do this, as Wooble CAN legally distribute a proposal.
Not this one.
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010, Sean Hunt wrote:
I change my nickname to 'The Robot'.
-coppro
See CFJ 1520.
In this case, the entity with the name The Robot will be coppro *at
the time of the enaction of the rule*. Also:
A
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 3:47 AM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
CFJ, disqualifying omd: In the section of Rule 106 quoted in caller's
evidence, permit should be interpreted as referring to possibility
and not legality.
I never said it referred to legality. The proposal I attempted
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 9:30 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
It's 22-20 and the voting period is over.
Not yet confirmed (I need to evaluate several conditionals and add them
to the DB), but even if you're right, it's AI=2 so it would fail.
For what it's worth, I get 20-19:
omd
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 3:58 AM, Alex Smith
callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Possibly relevant here: CFJ 2775, which found that a nickname change wasn't
effective unless Agoran players as a whole went along with it. The arguments
are rather specific to nicknames in particular, though,
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
I'm not sure how the received by agoranomic date can be before you sent it,
unless someone has their clock wrong. That agoranomic date is consistent
with the time my server received it a few mins later and the time I
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Michael Norrish
michael.norr...@nicta.com.au wrote:
I think I remember something similar. I certainly wrote a judgement that
defeated such an attempt. I used the Alice Through the Looking Glass
argument that being called something, and having something as a
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 12:07 AM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
I should look this up, but note that we have in the past accepted
dictatorship rules of the form [player name] CAN do whatever by
announcement without any special explicitness, and currently have a
(non-scam) rule that
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 9:27 PM, Warrigal ihope12...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 8:34 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
wrote:
I change my nickname to 'The Robot'.
-coppro
I publish a Notice of Violation accusing coppro of violating rule 2170
(power 3) by changing eir
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 4:41 AM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Five times, I spend two ergs to destroy one of coppro's ergs.
I spend two ergs to destroy one of coppro's rests.
I spend two ergs to destroy one of coppro's rests.
I spend two ergs to destroy one of coppro's rests.
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 10:25 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
How about Labor?
No opinion.
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:10 PM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 10:05 PM, com...@gmail.com wrote:
For each active player, I intend, with support and with notice, to make em
inactive.
CoE: comex can not make players inactive with support and with notice.
On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 2:34 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 11:29 AM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2851a
AFFIRM without prejudice
I just remembered that I actually destroyed those 3 rests
On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
6826 P 0 3.1 coppro Quadruple Oops
AGAINST (unneeded, R1688 Threshold defaults to the securing Rule's
Power)
It was upmutated by a different proposal.
On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 8:00 PM, Keba ag...@kebay.org wrote:
comex wrote (in the section of the Prop rule):
At the beginning of each Agoran Week, two props are destroyed in
the possession of each player who did not transfer one of their
props to another player in the previous
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Keba ag...@kebay.org wrote:
Proposal White Renaissance (AI=1, II=1, distributable via fee)
{{{
Amend Rule 2199 Ribbons by removing:
(except for White Ribbons, which can be awarded at any time
within a month after they are earned)
[So, no one
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 4:42 PM, Keba ag...@kebay.org wrote:
Why were White Ribbons removed in the first place?
See CfJ 2836. White Ribbons only exist because of that phrase, if this
phrase is deleted, all white ribbons are deleted as well.
Yeah, why did their regular definition get removed?
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 11:54 PM, Warrigal ihope12...@gmail.com wrote:
The asset defined is not white ribbon; it is ribbon. Every ribbon
then has a color. A white ribbon is a ribbon whose color is white;
even though the rules stop using the term white ribbon, white does
not cease to be a color.
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 9:26 PM, Warrigal ihope12...@gmail.com wrote:
Note that class isn't actually defined by the rules. It could just
as easily be type, or even set. If the rules state that something
is a class of asset, that doesn't really tell us anything we didn't
already know.
Here's a
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 10:44 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
Here's a question.
An asset is an entity defined as such by a rule or contest
(hereafter its backing document), and existing solely because
its backing document defines its existence.
If oblique references from
On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 2:18 AM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
If we continue wording proposals like we normally do, each of them will
take effect continuously.
Oops, I had text to address there but must have accidentally removed it.
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Warrigal ihope12...@gmail.com wrote:
I contest this. Isn't it possible to question an obvious truth? Don't
philosophers do it all the time?
There's great precedent for the law punishing philosophers. ;)
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
I support. In any event, the judge did not consider every possible
reason Tiger could be a pope (including the gratuitous arguments
regarding Discordian Popeiness), so a judgment of UNDETERMINED should
be considered.
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 8:33 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
On 09/13/2010 07:15 PM, Taral wrote:
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 1:23 AM, Ed Murphyemurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
== Criminal Case 2853 (Interest Index = 0) ===
ais523 committed the
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 10:11 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Having also received support from Wooble, I make each of these
proposals (well, the decisions on whether to adopt them, which
should have been reasonably clear) democratic.
(There is precedent that this is clear.)
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 6:36 PM, Keba ag...@kebay.org wrote:
So we should either add some rewards or make ergs more useful. Perhaps
the main problem is we don't have a real goal to aim for. Any ideas for
adding some sub-game again?
How about making Fans only increase based on unused ergs?
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 4:21 PM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Part of my motivation for introducing Teams was to try to make ergs more
useful, but nobody seems to care about them. Perhaps we should just
repeal them again? That should be the fate for all mechanics that don't
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 3:16 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
On 09/17/2010 01:05 PM, com...@gmail.com wrote:
Gratuitous: The interpretation suggested by the caller is absurd.
Would you prefer the interpretation that the list published in the message
was rearranged to match
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Taral tar...@gmail.com wrote:
9. omd is the Pariah, and Rule 2312 applies to all players, including judges.
No I'm not.
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 8:57 PM, Taral tar...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 5:35 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Taral tar...@gmail.com wrote:
9. omd is the Pariah, and Rule 2312 applies to all players, including
judges.
No I'm not.
Oh? I
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
and appending this paragraph:
Casting ballots without explicitly specifying the number of
ballots to be cast (e.g. FOR instead of FOR*1 or FOR*3)
is equivalent to conditionally casting a number of such
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote:
Woulsn't it remove the Assessor's ability to influence timing scams,
by making eir choice of when to resolve the decision meaningless for
this prupose?
Better that the Assessor can pull timing scams than everyone
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 5:19 PM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Further gratuitous arguments: This is a case of if X, then ... where X
is impossible being trivially true. It's different from if the rules
were somehow modified such that X could come about, then most
likely ...,
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 5:52 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Locking it at the end of the voting period as now is similar to locking it
at the beginning of the week, except that if someone pulls a last-minute
spend, there's no time for others to respond (by for example trying to
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 4:04 PM, Taral tar...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Warrigal ihope12...@gmail.com wrote:
AI II Proposer Date Num Title
2.0 1 omd 2010-09-07 6842 Capa
AGAINST
Too late.
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 4:05 PM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
As far as I can tell, rule 754 allows the Rulekeepor to do this
unilaterally anyway, or even to revert the change immediately after it's
made.
Not now that except for the purpose of reporting on or quoting the
text of
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 4:22 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 4:05 PM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
As far as I can tell, rule 754 allows the Rulekeepor to do this
unilaterally anyway, or even to revert the change immediately after it's
made.
Not now
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 6:35 PM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 22:43 +0100, ais523 wrote:
On Sun, 2010-09-12 at 20:03 +0100, Alex Smith wrote:
I deputise for the Sysadmin to initiate an Agoran Decision as to which
Website Submission to select. The options
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
The de-shifted message is
Denuntio consilium meum ut in tabulas ludi referam.
I give notice of my plan that I should bring back into the records of
the game.
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2878
=== CFJ 2878 (Interest Index = 0)
Due to Rule 2215, it would be illegal for me to make an
unqualified public
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 5:10 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote:
I intend, with 3 support, to cause Space Alert to cease to be a
contest. Or has someone succeeded with this yet? Because last time I
didn't even get the support. If that's to be taken as people actually
wanting to
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
Trivially true. You CAN register by publishing any message indicating
that you intend to register; an explicit announcement that you do so
is a published message that indicates just that.
I hereby register.*
I do not
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 2:44 PM, Warrigal ihope12...@gmail.com wrote:
I resign from all offices and become supine. I describe my becoming
supine just now as earning me 2*3^35,000 farads; for this action, I
award myself 3^35,000 ergs. I pay fees to destroy all my rests, then
pay fees to destroy
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Actually, they all fail, by the precedent of CFJ 1774.
Counterargument: the disparity of effort between Tanner announcing
I perform asset-related action $BIGNUM times and the relevant
officer recording that e did so is
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 11:49 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Alternatively, they could have been given chaotic numbers like 1401
through 1401, so that the orderly numbers would still roughly
reflect the number of distinct statements.
That's roughly what you tried, isn't it?
On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 4:31 PM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
I pay a fee to move on the list to Grand Vizier (thus moving coppro out
of that position).
With Notice, I win the game.
Gratuitous: In this case, winning the game is not an action, but the
result of an action (making
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 11:26 PM, scshunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
I CFJ {Declaring one's intent to perform a dependent action is, in itself,
an action.}
Arguments:
I don't really see anything that directly supports this interpretation,
but I do not see anything that directly
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 6:22 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Side note: When I proposed this, I thought for a while about sneaking
an only between CAN and perform for the final draft and hoping
no-one noticed it would shut off all other ways of doing things
associated with a
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 10:52 PM, Zac Sipes zac0...@gmail.com wrote:
zac0...@gmail.com
Do you want to register as a player? If so, you should say so--
sorry, I think this is a bit too unclear.
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:18 AM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
The caller has provided no argument why the verdict in question is
necessarily incorrect, so AFFIRM seems appropriate here. Thinking about
it, I'm going to violate a SHOULD and opine AFFIRM WITH PREJUDICE, and
hope
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:08 AM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2892
=== CFJ 2892 (Interest Index = 2)
Due to Rule 2215, it is illegal for any current player who has
read Rule 2215
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 4:42 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
Believing the statement in question is obviously completely unreasonable
[...] therefore the statement is true.
what
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 12:09 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
AI=Mutable
Hmm...
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
I announce my intent
I announce my object
I announce my subject
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 7:00 PM, Elliott Hird
penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 5 November 2010 22:50, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
did someone attach a simplfied Bayes to ehird's mail?
as if bayes could quote properly
it actually could, remember?
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 1:34 PM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Surely the common-sense interpretation is that e reserves the right to
change the AI later, e.g. via veto?
I wouldn't say so; A=Y is only equivalent to A is Y in very
awkward speech, and game custom suggests e was
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 2:39 PM, John Smith spamba...@yahoo.com wrote:
This is a Win Announcement. CfJ 2878 has continuously been a tortoise for no
greater than four and no less than two weeks.
I claim that this is not a win announcement, because CFJ 2878 is not
on the legality of an action:
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Elliott Hird
penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 9 November 2010 03:56, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
You acknowledged yourself that you didn't quote the message, and
message headers are generally ineffective, so I assumed it was
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 11:05 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
On 10-11-09 11:02 PM, omd wrote:
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 10:38 PM, Flameshadowxeroshin
flameshadowxeros...@gmail.com wrote:
I, a first-class citizen named Flameshadowxeroshin, indicate my intent to
become a player
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 11:29 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Nope. Citizen is not a synonym for registered player. Citizenship is
an entity switch with values Unregistered (default)...
I had forgotten about that, but that seems to demonstrate that it /is/
a synonym for player,
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
I intend, without objection, to make Ienpew III inactive.
I object.
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 2:01 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
I appeal this verdict as it sets a bad precedent: in cases where an
Officer has contradictory duties, it is reasonable for em to choose
the lesser rules breakage, and not reasonable, in terms of the game,
for em to be
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 4:42 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
I am initiating an auction for one lot of one Ultraviolet Ribbon. The
currency is Leadership Tokens. The Starting Bid is one Token, which
is presumably also that currency's Minimum Unit Quantity.
This probably fails, because
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 8:45 PM, John Smith spamba...@yahoo.com wrote:
CfJ(inquiry, barred:the author of the message quoted above):Hillary Rodham
Clinton has a prop.
Argument:The prop transfer rule (2287) requires that the player performing
the transfer explain why e chose the *player* to
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 11:53 PM, Flameshadowxeroshin
flameshadowxeros...@gmail.com wrote:
I retract my proposal, #6893.
Sorry, but you can't: it's not in the Proposal Pool anymore.
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 5:59 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Mon, 8 Nov 2010, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Mon, 8 Nov 2010, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
Murphy gets a Leadership Token; omd gets 2 Rests, and G. coppro,
ais523, coppro, and Wooble each get 1 Rest.
Will destroy a rest
proto: Marks (yay nostalgia)
Create a new Rule (Power=2) entitled Marks:
Marks are a currency restricted to players. After a person
registers, e gains 6 Marks. Marks in the possession of a player
CANNOT be destroyed.
The Banker is an office; its holder is responsible
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 8:50 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
If the owner of a Mark CAN transfer it to another player, or to the
Lost and Found Department, by informing the Banker e does so.
s/If //
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 8:50 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
proto: Marks (yay nostalgia)
I just noticed that this entire proto is completely broken. I really
should not write proposals when I have a cold...
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 9:44 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 8:50 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
proto: Marks (yay nostalgia)
I just noticed that this entire proto is completely broken. I really
should not write proposals when I have a cold...
Specifically
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 12:23 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
I think you should just scrap ergs entirely and turn marks into
an accumulatable currency that you earn X a month, were X is
~100 for granularity, and actions cost 20-50 marks (or marks
can be used to bid on action
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 8:12 PM, John Smith spamba...@yahoo.com wrote:
Gratuitous: Assuming that ais523 can legitimately act on behalf of pikhg to
attempt to register, the attempt should fail because it does not clearly
indicate that it is pikhg's intent to become a player.
Nice. Is the
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
omd wrote:
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 12:28 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
I pay a fee to destroy one of scshunt's Rests.
CFJ: This week, I paid a fee to destroy one of scshunt's rests.
Arguments: Although this message
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 4:36 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Gratuitous: Failure to consider a non-obvious potential interpretation
of a rule before someone else points it out does not constitute failure
to know that rule, and thus does constitute a reasonable defense.
But it
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 11:00 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
When it is convenient for H. CotC Murphy, could e please update eir DB to
allow for proper description of motions to reconsider?
I don't know, why don't you ask him?
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 4:55 AM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Oh, this judgement definitely failed, by the way-- it's almost exactly
parallel to CFJ 1631.
Not really; CFJ 1361 had a blank body so there was not obviously an
action taking place, my message clearly was indicating a
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Mon, 22 Nov 2010, omd wrote:
... It's unfortunate, but I don't think this rule actually does
anything, other than make some confusing definitions, and potentially
make a contest and/or the Ruleset dissolve if either
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 1:45 PM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Any message sent to the business forum pretty strongly indicates an
action (evidence: the pseudo-tradition of objecting to empty
messages), but I wouldn't say a message with a quote does so more than
an entirely blank
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 3:37 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
Rule 2230 makes it illegal to knowingly issue an NoV with incorrect
information. (This is not quite the same thing as issuing an NoV with
knowingly incorrect information; you can know you've issued the NoV even
without
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 3:37 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
Clearly, in the hypothetical inside the CFJ, the statement ais523
violated/is currently violating the power-2 rule 2230, committing the
Class-4 Crime of Libel, by publishing this NoV. is messy, thus
incorrect.
First of all,
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
I object to both and favor this CFJ.
Why do you object? I am not trying to raise the II for personal gain.
Because I honestly don't think it's a very complicated case. But if
there's a reason that I'm missing why it
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Proposal 6884 (Ordinary, AI=1.0, Interest=1) by omd
This is basically common sense anyway
Repeal Rule 2161 (ID Numbers).
Amendment fails, that rule was already repealed.
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 12:07 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
When a player becomes speaker due to rebellion [R2270(b)(ii)], it is
considered a Crowning.
Arguments:
R2270(b)(ii) doesn't match the R402 definition of a Coronation, but
it could be said it matches most of the
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 11:48 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
I Bestow Favors as follows:
Taral K.S Supervisor
Tiger Chief Justice
Ienpw III Grand Vizier
Keba Head Gardener
Oh, that's boring. :(
- omd, totally not just
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 8:34 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Tue, 23 Nov 2010, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
Speaker Murphy* 31 Oct 10 (imposed) 1 N/A
* = Disputed; if the most recent Rebellion succeeded, omd became
Speaker on 8 Nov 2010
CoE: Yally's crowning
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 9:53 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
Proposal: Carrot Juice (AI=3, II=1, Distributable via fee)
{{{
Amend Rule 478 (Fora) by replacing
A public message is a message sent via a public forum, or sent
to all players and containing a clear
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 10:53 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
I don't see how this custom can be described as weak-- you are just
about to cite four different CFJs where it was decided (and gameplay
proceeded assuming) that subject lines aren't effective. Such
repeated tests
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 12:31 AM, Warrigal ihope12...@gmail.com wrote:
I submit a proposal, titled Spelling reform begins with Agora, with
AI = 1.0 and II = 1, and make it distributable by fee:
{In all rules, replace all instances of the string judge (and the
string judg where it is not
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 2:25 PM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
I assume the office of IADoP.
I assume the office of Herald.
I assume the office of Registrar.
I sit up. I flip my judicial rank to 3.
I call for judgement on Wooble is the judge of CFJ 2908., and set
the II of
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 3:16 PM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 3:10 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
Gratuitous: The report includes Wooble possibly deregisters in the
Recent events section, although I don't think this affects anything.
Indeed, only
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 4:04 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, and the report also lists you as a Senator, which is a statement
that is impossible to make correct by any modification of the
gamestate; this may make it impossible to ratify the document.
Senator-ness doesn't
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 7:29 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
I make myself Inactive.
I crown omd (highest-ranked active player).
I make myself Active.
Thanks... although there's a good chance this fails, because none of
the attempted players I attempted to make popes were ready
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:57 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
1) Select a rule at random, and submit a proposal whose effect
is limited to repealing that rule (and, if necessary,
This removes eir choice of which of the two selected rules to repeal,
and which to
1 - 100 of 1373 matches
Mail list logo
