On Monday 13 October 2008 08:10:48 am Benjamin Schultz wrote:
4. Caste changes will avoid promoting / demoting a player who paid
for eir own demotion / promotion respectively within the four weeks
prior to the caste change, unless the Rules require this change and
there are no other options
On Monday 13 October 2008 11:59:46 am ais523 wrote:
On Sat, 2008-10-11 at 09:36 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
5777 O 1 1.0 ais523 Export
AGAINST x 5 (Export Bootstraping [sic] should only trigger if
the B proposal has the same text as the proposal that created
EB)
If you like
On Monday 13 October 2008 11:50:00 am ais523 wrote:
On Sun, 2008-10-12 at 12:05 -0500, Ben Caplan wrote:
I retract that proposal, and submit the following AI=1, II=1,
entitled Creative contest switching v.2:
This is an incredibly bad idea. Goethe deregistered over root's
equity contest
On Monday 13 October 2008 12:27:27 pm Taral wrote:
Isn't it a rule that anyone can join a contest and that contest
must award points fairly?
I don't think so. There might be a proposal coming up to that effect.
On Monday 13 October 2008 01:01:44 pm comex wrote:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 1:55 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
R2136 used to include the requirement that a contest be fair to
all contestants in order to be a contest
Among the problems with that was that a contest which ceased to be
On Monday 13 October 2008 01:44:46 pm ais523 wrote:
On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 15:36 -0500, Ben Caplan wrote:
I intend, without 3 Objections, to set each of the following
exchange rates:
8 crops55
Note that it's mostly me who's responsible for the bank's glut of 8
Crops; having two 8
On Monday 13 October 2008 01:59:43 pm ais523 wrote:
I won't attach the message in question as evidence, just in case I
end up getting Left in a Huff too; instead, I submit the following
URL as evidence:
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2
008-October/014528.html.
On Monday 13 October 2008 02:35:06 pm ais523 wrote:
Wooble wrote:
This message serves to initiate the Agoran Decision to choose the
holder of the Mad Scientist office. The vote collector is the
IADoP, and the eligible voters are the active players.
This looks to me very like an attempt to
On Monday 13 October 2008 06:00:30 pm Ian Kelly wrote:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 4:53 PM, Elliott Hird wrote:
20. An Comrade can transfer one instance of an Eligible Currency
to the PBA by
announcement. Upon doing so the target currency's exchange rate
goes down by 1,
then a number of
On Sunday 12 October 2008 12:05:37 am Roger Hicks wrote:
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 17:57, Ben Caplan wrote:
I withdraw 3 VP for 268 chits.
281 chits, I think, and you only have 115, so I'm considering this
to fail.
I'm pretty sure I have a bazillion chits, so this should succeed.
On Sunday 12 October 2008 02:00:39 pm Ed Murphy wrote:
1g) All communications pertaining to this contract are to be
posted to at least one forum of each nomic in which it is a
contract.
This should probably specify public forum.
Also: does are to be mean SHALL be or are ineffective unless?
On Sunday 12 October 2008 07:20:23 pm Ed Murphy wrote:
Change the title of Rule 1950 to Voting on Senate Decisions, and
amend it by replacing each instance of democratic decision with
Senate decision, and by prepending this paragraph:
Each first-class player represents a state in the
On Friday 10 October 2008 11:39:02 pm Taral wrote:
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 9:34 PM, Ben Caplan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I intend, without Objection, to amend The Note Exchange as
follows:
I object
[Allowing transfer of Markers to oneself shouldn't be horribly
abusable (as allowing
On Saturday 11 October 2008 03:38:32 pm Elliott Hird wrote:
On 11 Oct 2008, at 21:05, Ed Murphy wrote:
H. Ambassador BobTHJ, I suggest flipping recognitions as follows:
Normish - Friendly
Nomic 217 - Neutral
I agree, but with Normish - Neutral and Nomic 217 - Friendly.
On Saturday 11 October 2008 07:36:05 pm Ed Murphy wrote:
Taral wrote:
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Benjamin Schultz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I harvest 869 from these crops, the power of a recently amended
rule (mutated to power 2), for 6 random crops. Yay for high
seed ratios!
On Thursday 09 October 2008 11:36:38 pm Ian Kelly wrote:
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 9:14 PM, Ben Caplan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 09 October 2008 05:34:37 pm Ian Kelly wrote:
10. A farmer's milling queue is initially empty. A farmer (the
miller) may add milling jobs to the end
On Friday 10 October 2008 03:23:01 pm Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
On 10 Oct 2008, at 21:16, comex wrote:
snip
I initiate an equity case regarding Russian Roulette, parties:
me, AFO, Embassy.
It was clearly not envisioned that the text inside the zip
On Friday 10 October 2008 03:49:32 pm Ian Kelly wrote:
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 2:29 PM, Ben Caplan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It might be less clear to someone who knows what the encrypted
text *really* says:
Russians SHALL NOT eat cake.
In a timely fashion after joining, each Russian
On Friday 10 October 2008 04:19:52 pm Ian Kelly wrote:
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Ben Caplan wrote:
Presumably the miller is supposed to be the farmer whose mill is
milling. In a mill rental (let Alice be renting eir mill to Bob),
Alice's mill is consuming Bob's crops and giving
On Friday 10 October 2008 09:05:52 am Roger Hicks wrote:
{
Once each week for each Operator, a farmer may mill by destroying
two crops e owns. E then forms a mathematical expression using the
values of those two crops and the value of the chosen Operator
exactly once each, and e evaluates the
On Friday 10 October 2008 04:40:18 pm Ed Murphy wrote:
Only on ehird's end; it wouldn't prevent me from revealing the
password (I'm not a party, only the AFO is).
How would you find out the password unless someone (e.g., the AFO)
illegally revealed it to you?
On Thursday 09 October 2008 05:34:37 pm Ian Kelly wrote:
10. A farmer's milling queue is initially empty. A farmer (the
miller) may add milling jobs to the end of any farmer's milling
queue by announcement, with the consent of that farmer. At the
beginning of each week, after Digit Ranches
On Saturday 04 October 2008 01:07:11 pm Taral wrote:
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 5:52 AM, ehird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What comes next? o.o or O.O?
O.O of course.
Eww, little-endianness?
On Saturday 04 October 2008 10:13:57 pm Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
On behalf of The Law-abiding Partnership:
{
The Law-abiding Partnership registers.
The Law-abiding Partnership claims, to Agora, that it is the
ambassador. }
An obvious breach of the
On Friday 03 October 2008 02:24:08 pm Charles Reiss wrote:
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 12:17, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 15:45, Ben Caplan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well... flaming bobba smurf.
All right.
Let's see what I've got here.
FARMER
On Wednesday 01 October 2008 12:53:00 pm Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Hold on here. Now we get to the point where a legitimate
communication is held up. Does this violate R101 participation
rights? -Goethe
On the other hand, in a case where
On Wednesday 01 October 2008 03:20:04 pm Elliott Hird wrote:
On 1 Oct 2008, at 20:54, Ed Murphy wrote:
Make it a bit more grammar-specific and I'll support it for
Mad Scientist.
Heh, it wouldn't be able to do Monsterization atm, but I could
definitely write one - detecting nouns shouldn't
On Wednesday 01 October 2008 05:01:41 pm Elliott Hird wrote:
On 1 Oct 2008, at 22:35, Ben Caplan wrote:
I believe it was decided that the most natural Monsterization
of judgment was Monsteredict. Can you write a script to make
that kind of analysis?
Did I say it'd produce the most natural
On Wednesday 01 October 2008 05:07:01 pm Ed Murphy wrote:
Pavitra wrote:
On Wednesday 01 October 2008 02:26:17 pm Geoffrey Spear wrote:
I submit the following Proposal entitled No More Monster
Deputy:
In Rule 2193, remove:
That's boring.
[Makes fast and sudden deputisation a
On Wednesday 01 October 2008 09:18:24 pm Benjamin Schultz wrote:
On Sep 30, 2008, at 7:14 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
CHAMPION BY:
CARDS Goddess Eris, Goethe, Murphy, OscarMeyr, root
MANIAC Craig, root
PARADOX Goethe, Murphy, root, BobTHJ, ais523, ehird
On Tuesday 30 September 2008 10:53:00 pm Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008, Ben Caplan wrote:
5731 D 0 3.0 Goethe Loss of Privileges
AGAINST. Still feels rough around the edges.
How can something be rough that was part of Agora for at least 10
years? -G.
If the fitted
On Sunday 28 September 2008 08:40:45 am ihope wrote:
Rule 36 states that Rule 4E83 is a synonym for Rule 83. Since we
don't have a Rule 83, we're still safe.
I'm pretty sure Rule 36 states that It Could Always Be Worse.
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Rules_Of_The_Internet
(Not Safe
On Saturday 27 September 2008 01:07:26 am Ed Murphy wrote:
Proposal: Judicial Declarations
A judicial declaration published by a judge as required by
the rules in conjunction with a judgement is self-ratifying,
provided that that judgement remains in effect. Such a
On Saturday 27 September 2008 11:04:50 am ais523 wrote:
I intend, with 2 support, to appeal my own judgement of CFJ 2166,
suggesting REMAND; that way I can judge all 3 CFJs together as an
effectively linked assignment, rather than having to try to
synchronise all the individual CFJs one appeal
On Thursday 25 September 2008 04:37:45 pm Kerim Aydin wrote:
Overall I think it's up to the officer (or contestmaster) recording
the transactions to decide if it's straightforward and if it is,
assume the conditional works as intended and if it's not
straightforward, the officer should reject
On Saturday 27 September 2008 06:20:41 pm comex wrote:
We have no Rule
400
0, so I think we're safe.
Interesting. I read 4E83 to mean 0x4E83, which would be R20099. So
we're safe either way.
Pavitra
On Friday 26 September 2008 03:43:20 pm Ian Kelly wrote:
I think you'd have a hard time justifying that a partnership
without human intervention is a partnership.
Didn't we discuss recently whether you can have a partnership that
requires but not enables its members to ensure that it follows
On Thursday 25 September 2008 01:03:46 pm Kerim Aydin wrote:
1. I do 1.
2. I do 2.
3. If 2 failed, I didn't do 1.
It's very arguable if #3 actually, legally works. The
simultaneous but sequential is no longer in the rules but is also
kept by (recent) CFJ and a controversial series of
On Thursday 25 September 2008 03:04:51 pm Elliott Hird wrote:
On 25 Sep 2008, at 20:55, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
I believe R2200 was created in direct response to the original
judgment in that case, almost specifically to allow us to
consider Canada a nomic.
Point: IRCNomic was renamed to
On Wednesday 24 September 2008 03:41:50 pm Ian Kelly wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
In Section 7 remove:
{{
The owner of a Land MAY change its name by announcement.
}}
Perhaps someone will volunteer to keep an informal record of Land
On Thursday 25 September 2008 12:29:59 am I wrote:
redundant
Whoops, BobTHJ got to it first.
On Thursday 25 September 2008 12:31:43 am you wrote:
On Thursday 25 September 2008 12:29:59 am I wrote:
redundant
Whoops, BobTHJ got to it first.
Nope, it was Wooble. I AM A COMPLETE IDIOT
On Wednesday 24 September 2008 08:20:35 am Geoffrey Spear wrote:
I recommend a sentence of
EXILE with a tariff of 180 days.
R1504 prescribes the middle of the tariff range... for severe rule
breaches amounting to a breach of trust. The middle of the tariff
range in this case is 90 days. Is
On Tuesday 23 September 2008 11:51:34 am Ian Kelly wrote:
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 10:47 AM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 12:43 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I call for judgement on the statement If a non-pledge contract
has no parties, it can be amended by
On Saturday 20 September 2008 07:24:47 pm Ben Caplan wrote:
I (do not, yet) agree to the following, become a cartographer, and
become Cartographer-General :
Comments? Anyone?
On Tuesday 23 September 2008 03:31:51 pm Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 4:27 PM, Ben Caplan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 20 September 2008 07:24:47 pm Ben Caplan wrote:
I (do not, yet) agree to the following, become a cartographer,
and become Cartographer-General
On Tuesday 23 September 2008 04:07:12 pm Ian Kelly wrote:
Will this be a contest? Otherwise, I don't see any purpose.
Looks like it, yeah. Adding score code now.
On Tuesday 23 September 2008 04:25:18 pm Ian Kelly wrote:
It seems like it would be difficult starting out.
In summary: capitols need to be defensible.
You're right, of course. Do you think it would be helpful to start
with more compasses -- say, twenty?
On Saturday 20 September 2008 10:21:09 pm Ben Caplan wrote:
This is a test message.
Check the headers.
On Tuesday 23 September 2008 06:21:38 pm Ian Kelly wrote:
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 9:21 PM, Ben Caplan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a test message.
We have precedent that the content of the Subject header has no
bearing on the effect of the message. I doubt that the
X-Agora-Game
On Tuesday 23 September 2008 07:46:51 pm Dvorak Herring wrote:
I vote as follows:
NttPF
{{{
A person is an entity that has the general capacity to be
the subject of rights and obligations under the rules. }}}
I read the sentence as A
person is hereby defined to be an entity that has the general
capacity to be the subject of rights and obligations under the
rules.
On Sunday 21 September 2008 10:06:10 am Benjamin Schultz wrote:
On Sep 21, 2008, at 10:59 AM, Elliott Hird wrote:
DISCHARGE. He could not have assigned them.
Please elaborate on how the technical issue makes Discharge
appropriate. E had *some* way of communicating with the Agoran
On Saturday 20 September 2008 05:52:52 pm Sgeo wrote:
I remember that things seemed like they were occuring live when
Olipro joined and I was trying for the Win by Extortion. What other
events in Agoran history have had these sort of live-action events?
I don't know about historical precedent,
On Sunday 21 September 2008 12:59:19 pm Ed Murphy wrote:
Pavitra wrote:
I don't know about historical precedent, but I think it might be
fun to create a fast-paced subgame to play at conventions,
something like legislators meeting in session. (This might also
be a good way to attract new
On Sunday 21 September 2008 12:53:38 pm Kerim Aydin wrote:
Now looking back, I think the committee never got around to
actually awarding (or denying for that matter) the degree (that was
when degree- awarding mechanisms were pretty cumbersome). -Goethe.
Perhaps you should resubmit?
On Saturday 20 September 2008 08:19:44 pm Kerim Aydin wrote:
Nice example, since the creation of the fountain was due to such a
scam. It's called a ladder scam. This was the subject of my
thesis, and I believe Andre's as well. IIRC I think I recommended
at the time a tweak to R754 but I
On Saturday 20 September 2008 08:13:45 pm Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2008, comex wrote:
Is this the line to be drawn for such a strong term as
explicit?
Already very well and directly (almost identically) covered in CFJ
1290. -Goethe
Reading the arguments on 1290, it seems that the
On Saturday 20 September 2008 08:51:14 pm Kerim Aydin wrote:
making that broader adjustment was, for some reasons I don't quite
recall, the subject of some interesting discussion which never came
around to an agreed-upon fix.
-Goethe.
Proto-proto: Make power ordinal rather than cardinal, and
On Saturday 20 September 2008 08:54:26 pm Kerim Aydin wrote:
http://www.nomic.net/~nomicwiki/index.php/AgoraTheses doesn't
list any thesis of yours. Where can it be found?
Hrm, I don't know. It was about three computers ago on my end, the
only other place it ended up was on the mailing
On Saturday 20 September 2008 08:05:42 pm comex wrote:
Really, the Agoran power system is completely broken. Any
high-power Rule that uses a term defined in a low-power Rule is
potentially a conduit for a power escalation by a scamster, and
often is.
On Thursday 09 January 2003 05:49:54 pm
On Saturday 20 September 2008 09:35:06 pm ihope wrote:
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 9:59 PM, Ben Caplan wrote:
Proto-proto: Make power ordinal rather than cardinal, and
organize the ruleset by power. Occasionally we would have rules
like rules below this one can be changed with AI = 2. Early
On Tuesday 16 September 2008 02:08:10 pm Charles Reiss wrote:
They say that they happen at the time date-stamped on the message.
This is not the same thing as simultaneously, since in the magical
universe of the rules we can order actions that occur at the same
instant.
Incidentally, this is
On Tuesday 16 September 2008 03:55:31 pm Ian Kelly wrote:
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 2:16 PM, invalid invalid [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I call for judgement on the following issue:
{
I submitted a proposal in my recent post
}
-- Anonymous
UNDETERMINED. Who is to say that this
On Tuesday 16 September 2008 04:06:15 pm Roger Hicks wrote:
Nomic Preferred forum URI
---
B Nomic mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
BlogNomic http://www.blognomic.com/
FRC mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nomicapolis
On Wednesday 03 September 2008 03:36:00 pm comex wrote:
I initiate an equity case with respect to the AAA. The state of
affairs by which events have not proceeded as envisioned by the
contract is that tusho has violated section 15 of the AAA agreement:
15. Creating proposals or CFJs for the
== CFJ 2077
Ivan Hope is a player
Is there anyone who thinks this should not be judged FALSE?
hmm... would not judging it FALSE make it TRUE? I think it ought not
to be judged FALSE, but on moral grounds not Agoran-rules grounds.
ihope hadn't really
On Wednesday 13 August 2008 12:03:46 am Quazie wrote:
I stand.
Ineffective, you cannot generally flip your own posture to standing.
I register.
Ineffective, you are already a player.
I support. i object.
Ineffective, it's not clear what you're supporting/objecting to.
I I I lean. I sit.
On Wednesday 13 August 2008 12:38:12 pm Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Quazie wrote:
[snip]
TIATEOISIRIEIJIDISISISIRITILISIRITIPICIRICISIOIWIIILISICIEIIIFIR
IVILIDIBISIEIUILILILISIMITIEISIRIBIHIHIHISIPIP-PIMIDIDIWINIAIWICIJIP
On Wednesday 13 August 2008 11:03:13 pm Ed Murphy wrote:
define some useful label for X's role in the matter.
Executor
On Tuesday 12 August 2008 11:19:26 am ais523 wrote:
I think R101 is here to stay; it's also possible to claim that any
change to the ruleset that makes it possible to repeal rule 101 is
an indirect method of removing rights. (If there's a rule that
allows repealing rule 101, that rule itself
On Tuesday 12 August 2008 11:50:46 am you wrote:
On Tuesday 12 August 2008 08:54:45 am Elliott Hird wrote:
Repeal rule 101.
I come off hold, as I want to be able to vote against this.
Pavitra
In particular, I think we should keep rights ii, iii, and viii, and
probably also v, vii, and
On Tuesday 12 August 2008 07:14:59 am Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
Proposal: Repeal Rule 101!
Adoption index: 3.
Word of advice: If you want this to work, make this power 3.1,
enact a Rule (power 3.1) that says Rule 101 CAN be repealed by a
Proposal of
On Tuesday 12 August 2008 04:56:10 pm Elliott Hird wrote:
2008/8/12 comex [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 5:26 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I nominate Quazie and Zefram.
I second Zefram.
And how. (I second/third Zefram.)
tusho
Note that one more false lynching
On Tuesday 12 August 2008 07:04:01 pm Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 6:53 PM, Ben Caplan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Note that one more false lynching will end the game in favor of
the werewolves. Please only vote to lynch Zefram if you genuinely
believe e is a werewolf
On Tuesday 12 August 2008 09:40:39 pm Ed Murphy wrote:
}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
}{
Proposal 5670 (Democratic, AI=2, Interest=1) by Murphy, Zefram,
Michael But what is truth?
Zefram and Michael are co-authors of this proposal. Goethe is a
On Monday 28 July 2008 03:06:35 pm Elliott Hird wrote:
2008/7/28 Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Logged or not, your IRC channel isn't a Public Forum.
And you don't have to agree to contracts in a Public Forum.
Resolving this probably will require a close reading of rule 2178.
There would
On Monday 28 July 2008 03:14:11 pm I wrote:
Resolving this probably will require a close reading of rule 2178.
There would superficially appear to be a conflict in this case
between its second-to-last and last paragraphs.
For reference:
If the text of a potential contract is published
On Wednesday 23 July 2008 06:01:27 pm comex wrote:
Hmm... it would be nice if you could release some sort of periodic
database dump for us to play with.
Seconded.
On Thursday 24 July 2008 09:25:08 pm ihope wrote:
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 6:56 PM, Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 6:23 PM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote: I try one more time, and then give up if i fail
Without 3 objections I intend to chagne the RBOA
On Saturday 19 July 2008 09:20:41 pm comex wrote:
On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 10:07 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I submit the following proposal in reference to
http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/suspects.php:
Department of Corrections
AI: 1
II: 1
{
Upon the adoption of
H. Distributor Taral, how would you feel about establishing a separate
agora-judicial list?
Pavitra
Add the following to the end of section 8:
An upgraded Digit Ranch produces 2 crops a week
A downgraded Digit Ranch produces 1 crop every 2 weeks
These may stack, i.e., an upgraded Digit Ranch actually produces 3
crops per week (1 for being a Digit Ranch, and 2 for being upgraded),
and a
On Monday 14 July 2008 08:40:02 am Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:34 AM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
5637 O1 1Quazie Agora is my conditional value
I change my vote to ENDORSE Agora x4
I don't think this works; under no circumstances can a rule take
effect
On Monday 14 July 2008 04:12:48 am Taral wrote:
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 9:43 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
c) A public statement that one performs an action is true
if and only if one succeeds in performing that action by making
that public statement, but violates this rule
On Monday 14 July 2008 10:30:52 am Roger Hicks wrote:
I create a Digit Ranch (land #113) with a Seed of 5 and a WRV in the
possession of Pavitra.
I rename land #113 to Aphrodite's Grove.
On Monday 14 July 2008 11:02:04 am Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Ben Caplan wrote:
On Sunday 13 July 2008 11:43:28 pm Ed Murphy wrote:
A public claim intended to mislead others (whether directly
or indirectly) regarding one's identity constitutes a false
statement
On Monday 14 July 2008 02:29:45 pm comex wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 3:27 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's not really that much of a stretch to let contracts do that
stuff, especially considering the analogy with partnerships.
In fact, if I'm blind, preventing me from delegating
On Monday 14 July 2008 05:51:06 pm Ian Kelly wrote:
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 9:55 PM, Ben Caplan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 13 July 2008 10:45:42 pm ihope wrote:
Either the sky is always red or, if I do not hereby initiate an
inquiry case on this sentence, then the sky is always
On Monday 14 July 2008 06:09:59 pm Ian Kelly wrote:
Seriously? In my experience, Default Justice is a curse, not a
bonus.
Perhaps we should have some way to abdicate prerogatives; they are
theoretically supposed to be rewards, I think.
On Monday 14 July 2008 06:22:28 pm ihope wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 7:06 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
As an aside, your statement could also be parsed as (I = (R ^
~G)) ^ (~I = (~R ^ G)), which is false for any assignment of I.
Assuming ^ is XOR and R and G are both false,
On Monday 14 July 2008 06:45:00 pm Quazie wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 4:39 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Proposal: Prerogatives imply choice
(AI = 2, please)
Amend Rule 2019 (Prerogatives) by replacing section b) with this
text:
b) Justiciar. Within three days
On Monday 14 July 2008 06:57:43 pm ihope wrote:
Unless the CotC did something stupid, like act on behalf of the
Justiciar to say both.
Which, in the Spirit of the Game, is not at all implausible.
On Monday 14 July 2008 08:41:47 pm Ed Murphy wrote:
I still need 3 more votes on whether to lynch Pavitra.
May I suggest no. (I posted what I think are fairly reasonable
arguments why to do so some time back.)
On Sunday 13 July 2008 10:00:48 am Benjamin Schultz wrote:
The Airstrip One contract is giving contract-defined props to
players who are not parties to the contract. Is this a good idea?
Is this permissible?
I don't see that it's fundamentally different from pens or chits.
Might be a good idea for the RBoA to set an exchange rate for pesos.
On Sunday 13 July 2008 10:22:27 am comex wrote:
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 11:16 AM, Ben Caplan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 12 July 2008 10:05:36 pm Ben Caplan wrote:
[More rotation.]
Comments?
Seems like a lot of work for the Disc Jockey.
Probably.
Note, though, that the only
On Sunday 13 July 2008 10:35:47 am Benjamin Schultz wrote:
I'm having trouble finding the original message from ehird / tusho
that initiated CFJ 2053, wherein e said I register; the agoranomic
archive doesn't want to cooperate with me today, and my scroll-fu is
coming up short. Could someone
On Sunday 13 July 2008 03:26:01 pm ais523 wrote:
Clearly, I would only initiate a criminal CFJ against myself if I
had in fact committed the crime in question; therefore, I intended
to initiate the criminal CFJ if and only if my attempt to initiate
the CFJ did not fail, like I claimed, i.e. I
On Sunday 13 July 2008 06:29:26 pm Kerim Aydin wrote:
That being said, even
taking on a more conservative role, the fact that something like
this particular rule is pretty darn important to the tone of play
but at power-1 means a veto is particularly apt. If something of
this importance
1 - 100 of 276 matches
Mail list logo
