On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 8:33 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On 09/13/2010 07:15 PM, Taral wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 1:23 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>>
>>> == Criminal Case 2853 (Interest Index = 0) ===
>>>
>>> ais523 committed the Class-1 Crime of Tardiness by breaking
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 8:31 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> I intend with 2 Support to appeal this judgement. To postulate an
> office doesn't make any sense as taking over the office. In any
> event, ais523 held the office and was able to make it postulated by
> announcement; it was only Assumed b
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 10:11 PM, Ed Murphy 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 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 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
> really catch on; what normally
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 12:34 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>
>
> Appellant G.'s Arguments:
>
> I intent to appeal this case with 2 support. This will hopefully
> find the declaration inappropriate and cause the judgement, and
> ther
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 3:16 PM, Sean Hunt 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 the List of Successio
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Taral 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 wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 5:35 PM, omd wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Taral wrote:
>>> 9. omd is the Pariah, and Rule 2312 applies to all players, including
>>> judges.
>>
>> No I'm not.
>
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Ed Murphy 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 ballots
>
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
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 can.
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 5:19 PM, ais523 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 ...", which is what the judgeme
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 5:52 PM, Kerim Aydin 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
> veto proposals or s
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 4:04 PM, Taral wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Warrigal 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 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 a legal document" has bee
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 4:22 PM, omd wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 4:05 PM, ais523 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 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 available are Website
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Ed Murphy 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 Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 8:42 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> No they aren't, the report is "as of the last PSM's report" which
> pre-dated omd's attempts.
E's still required to publish an up-to-date list of Allegiances, just
not Fan holdings.
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 5:15 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> The original judgement suggests that the pre-"substantial" version of
> Rule 101 implicitly blocked both Proposal 5086 (imposing the two-week
> limit on appeals, adopted 5F 0A 2P) and Proposal 5769 (which amended
> Rule 101 to include "substantial
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Ed Murphy 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 statement that is i
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 5:10 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
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 play it, one of you'l
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Geoffrey Spear 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 intend to registe
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 2:44 PM, Warrigal 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 ergs in my posses
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Actually, they all fail, by the precedent of CFJ 1774.
>
> Counterargument: the disparity of effort between Tanner announcing
> "I perform $BIGNUM times" and the relevant
> officer recording that e did so is much less than in CFJ 1774, which
>
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 11:49 PM, Ed Murphy 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? Zefram and you att
On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 4:31 PM, ais523 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 a Win Announcement about
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 11:26 PM, scshunt 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 contradicts it either.
>
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 6:22 PM, Kerim Aydin 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 fee. Didn't, th
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 10:52 PM, Zac Sipes 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 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 that other judges do likewis
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:08 AM, Ed Murphy 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 to make an unqua
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 4:42 PM, Alex Smith 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 wrote:
> AI=Mutable
Hmm...
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> I announce my intent
>
> I announce my object
I announce my subject
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 7:00 PM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> On 5 November 2010 22:50, Kerim Aydin 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 3:25 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> I believe omd's announcement of shelling the palace had no effect,
> as e was no longer Crown Prince at the time due to my becoming
> Speaker a few days earlier. omd then moved the player above em
> (Yally) down one position, th
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 1:34 PM, ais523 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 attempting to use
Mutable as
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 2:39 PM, John Smith 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: it is, effectively,
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> On 9 November 2010 03:56, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> You acknowledged yourself that you didn't quote the message, and
>> message headers are generally ineffective, so I assumed it was
>> uncontroversial that you weren't a rebel.
>>
>> But at le
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 11:05 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On 10-11-09 11:02 PM, omd wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 10:38 PM, Flameshadowxeroshin
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I, a first-class citizen named Flameshadowxeroshin, indicate my intent to
>>> be
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 11:29 PM, Kerim Aydin 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, assuming that citiz
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> I intend, without objection, to make Ienpew III inactive.
I object.
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 2:01 PM, Kerim Aydin 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 essentially required
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> The important point is that the clause "reasonably" is in that rule
> for a purpose. What if deregistering was the only way out of such a
> conundrum, is that reasonable? If not, why is deregistering
> unreasonable but resigning an elected po
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 4:42 PM, omd 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 fail
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 8:45 PM, John Smith 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 transfer it to
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 11:53 PM, Flameshadowxeroshin
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 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.
>>
>
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 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 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 wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 8:50 PM, omd 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, it does not
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 12:23 AM, Kerim Aydin 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 tokens).
Thus making
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 8:12 PM, John Smith 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 contract sufficient
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> omd wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 12:28 PM, omd 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.
>>
>> A
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 4:36 PM, Ed Murphy 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 constitutes failure to h
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 5:25 PM, ais523 wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-11-14 at 16:17 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2897
>>
>> === CFJ 2897 (Interest Index = 0)
>>
>> ehird was a Rebel in the most recent Rebel
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 11:00 PM, Sean Hunt 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 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 context.
Any message
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Kerim Aydin 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
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 1:45 PM, ais523 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 one, especially when
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 3:37 PM, Alex Smith 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 knowing whether the
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 3:37 PM, Alex Smith 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, I think this
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Sean Hunt 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 is, tell me and I'll re
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Ed Murphy 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 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 definition (an annou
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 11:48 PM, Kerim Aydin 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, total
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 8:34 PM, Kerim Aydin 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 20
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 9:53 PM, Sean Hunt 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 designation of intent to
>
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 10:53 PM, Sean Hunt 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 make for a quite str
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 12:31 AM, Warrigal 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 followed by an
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 2:25 PM, Geoffrey Spear 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 this case to
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 3:16 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 3:10 PM, omd wrote:
>> Gratuitous: The report includes "Wooble possibly deregisters" in the
>> "Recent events" section, although I don't think this affects anything.
>
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 4:04 PM, Aaron Goldfein 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 self-ratify.
I
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 7:29 PM, Kerim Aydin 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 for it. :o
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:57 PM, Ed Murphy 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 amend, which might decr
Proto: Achievement Unlocked
Enact a new Rule titled "Achievements":
Achievements are a class of Patent Titles. Each Achievement
includes a condition, traditionally expressed as an imperative.
When a person who does not have a particular Achievement
satisfies its condition
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 16:53, omd wrote:
>> Proto: Achievement Unlocked
>
> I don't like the idea of the achievements requiring persons to be
> deregistered... it seems bad for the game. Also, the Maverick
> ach
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 5:15 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> even publish. It's clearly mpossible for both of these things to be
> true. Therefore, e MUST have known that at least one of these NoVs
> contained incorrect information.
Nonsense, failing to know that does NOT violate the rule in question!
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 4:14 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> Proto: Ergs no longer reset each week, make a certain erg total result in a
> win, and give large erg rewards for certain small investments (like
> authoring a passing proposal). Then ergs, like teams used to sort of do,
> would be more about
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 7:46 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> I contest this. My opinion on CFJ 2908 strongly implies that I don't
> believe I was a player at the time it was purportedly assigned to me.
> This assignment was purportedly made after I deregistered and before
> the self-ratification of th
e Referee).
> Repeal Rule 2305 (Fans).
> Repeal Rule 2306 (Team Tactics).
All but 2305 fail.
> Proposal 6901 (Ordinary, AI=1.0, Interest=1) by omd
> muk
>
> Amend Rule 2166 by appending to the final paragraph:
>
> The Minimum Unit Quantity (MUQ) of each currency is on
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 3:42 PM, ais523 wrote:
> I rather like the Support Democracy rule. Because players generally
> don't invoke it except when they notice an obvious scam, it means that
> scamming is more interesting as you need to put effort into flying under
> the radar, rather than just forc
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Dec 2010, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
>> You could bribe the Assessor (or be the Assessor), and buy just before
>> the voting period ends, assessing just after. I seem to remember I was
>> part of a scam that dodged democratisation like that
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Flameshadowxeroshin
wrote:
>> 6908 O 1 2.0 G Pay To Sit
> AGAINST
NttPF.
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 5:15 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I support and do so. -G.
Bah, it was so close to just passing without any voting limit increases at all.
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 5:52 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Dec 2010, omd wrote:
>> On the other hand, submitting a proposal with an intentional loophole
>> is bordering on dishonesty and violation of trust, and, indeed, can be
>> illegal unless the title is sufficiently v
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 9:09 PM, John Smith wrote:
> Specifically, my opinion is that it would be inherently inappropriate to
> expect non-player defendants of criminal cases to 'understand and carefully
> weigh' the consequences of properly labeling the components of their defense.
I'll update
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:00 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 7 Dec 2010, ais523 wrote:
>> 6913 is a dictatorship for someone who isn't you.
>
> Ah yes, I retract vote FOR 6913 and vote AGAINST 6913. -G.
That's a bit transparent. :p
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I think part of it for me is balance. From my hazy memory, in 2001-2002 there
> happened to be (because of personalities, really) 2-3 fairly long-term blocs
> of opposed players, so a lot of what happened could be described as vying for
> power
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> 117 selects Rule 2321/0 (Power=1) to repeal or amend.
Please make this one the amendment. :D
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I CFJ on the following:
> Upon publication of a valid notice of papal succession, the
> current Speaker ceases to be Speaker, the pope becomes the new
> Speaker, and the pope ceases to be a pope.
I think the pope just stays on
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 6:14 PM, ais523 wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-12-09 at 18:09 -0500, omd wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 9:36 PM, omd wrote:
>> > On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 7:45 PM, omd wrote:
>> >> Proposal: This gets on my nerves (AI=3, II=0, Distributable)
>>
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 5:25 PM, ais523 wrote:
> Subject: Re: BUS: I deregister.
CFJ: ais523 deregistered.
(intentionally nttpf)
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> gamestate thus isn't affected. Thus, I submit the following proposal
> "Fix ratification" at AI 3, II 1, and pay a fee of 1 erg to make it
> distributable:
Can you please resubmit this at II-0 and make it distributable for
free? At the time "m
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 11:34 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> There's no possible gamestate where the document was true at the time
> it was published and I'm not a player, unless I deregistered since the
> publication.
There is the gamestate where you deregistered since the publication.
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 6:27 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> == Criminal Case 2918 (Interest Index = 0) ===
>
> scshunt violated Rule 2283, committing the Class-2 Crime of
> Assaulting the Batteries, by publishing the above quoted
> message.
>
> ==
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 12:13 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> > To be considered libel and illegal, you must know the information is
>> > false. Since the statement creates a paradox/undecidable loop, you
>> > can't know that the statement is false. FALSE.
>>
>> I transfer a prop from G. to ais523, be
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 8:21 PM, omd wrote:
> - game custom: Mixed. An argument could be made that, in the same
> vein as subject lines being assumed not to work just because someone
> said that, ratification has been assumed to work, and the word
> "minimally" to apply
201 - 300 of 1475 matches
Mail list logo
