On Sun, Feb 2, 2020 at 5:11 PM comexk--- via agora-discussion
wrote:
> Nothing to see here, move along.
Now testing if Haraka can deliver to everyone.
On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 7:04 AM ATMunn wrote:
>
> I sent a message to BUS yesterday in the thread following the latest
> Promotor report. Did anyone get it? I don't seem to have gotten a copy
> myself, but that could just be my client.
FYI – my qmail logs were set to rotate way too quickly to che
(...argh, I thought the Gmail mobile app would strip the copied and pasted
formatting, but apparently not. Enjoy the huge text…)
On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 1:28 PM Alex Smith wrote:
> Serious, strong objection to this. If I have to have a Github account
> to play, I'll just deregister.
If your reason for avoiding GitHub is what I think it is, IMHO it’s
misguided…
...but no worries, that’s just my opinion. If this passes
On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 10:09 PM Gaelan Steele wrote:
> I like the idea of having separate repositories per report (like we have
> now), which also allows recordkeepors to manage their tooling (under this
> rule, I couldn't keep the rules in YAML, for example). I think we should
> keep anything o
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> H. Distributor omd,
>
> I have not received any emails from the agora mailing list since
> your note that the list was "back up" on May 30.
>
> I can't find anything changed on my end. Anything on yours that
> might explain?
@400053923df7
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 6:25 PM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> On 7 August 2013 22:57, omd wrote:
>> (The precise definition of "text" is generally left to the
>> Registrar's discretion, but should be conservative; no emoji.)
>
> Please just allow Unicode strings -- or better, stay silent on t
On Friday, June 21, 2013, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I vote AGAINST this. (This doesn't actually fix the bug, btw, and
> the second part of the bug was possible negative points).
>
IMHO, only a moron in a hurry would interpret the wording as having either
bug. I would invoke judgement on the matter,
(The cross-post spam is required by R478.)
I intend, without objection, to make the forum now located at
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org Public.
I intend, without objection, to make the forum now located at
agora-offic...@agoranomic.org Public.
I intend, without objection, to make the forum now locat
Gratuitous: Received headers show the messages arriving at the *same* second,
making it impossible to tell which came first (time-wise).
Nice job.
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 6, 2011, at 10:32 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 4:19 AM, Arkady English
> wrote:
>> I call a CFJ
On Sunday, November 7, 2010, comex wrote:
> NttPF
Also, the voting period is over because I did, in fact, successfully
rubberstamp those proposals.
NttPF
On Sunday, November 7, 2010, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On 10-10-31 01:34 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>
> This distribution of proposals 6870-6876
> initiates the Agoran Decisions on whether to adopt them. The eligible
> voters are the active players at the time of this distribution, and
> the vote
NttPF
On Sunday, November 7, 2010, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On 10-11-07 09:39 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>
> Ugh, you're right. I transfer a prop from myself (for getting
> 6864 and 6865 mixed up) to coppro (for pointing it out).
>
> 6864 still failed quorum (and would have failed even if I had
> voted FOR
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 4:09 PM, comex wrote:
> Proto:
+ this, to make "X state is IMPOSSIBLE" work:
Amend Rule 2152 by replacing:
1. CANNOT, IMPOSSIBLE, INEFFECTIVE, INVALID: Attempts to
perform the described action are unsuccessful.
with:
1. CANNO
Proto:
[I think all this ambiguity about how proposals take effect is caused
by a cosmology of instruments that has evolved from simple to complex
without ditching some assumptions that now unnecessarily increase the
complexity. Take this paragraph from Rule 106:
Preventing a proposal from
http://agora.qoid.us/current_flr.html?annotate=1
Probably broken on IE and/or in general.
Definitions source: http://agora.qoid.us/annotations.txt
Suggestions/contributions welcome.
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Amend R107 by replacing:
> Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the
> voting period for a decision with at least two options cannot be
> shorter than seven days.
> with:
> The voting period for a deci
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Aug 2010, comex wrote:
>> To avoid "spam scams", a proposal CANNOT be created except in a
>> message with exactly one Subject header, which must contain with
>> the exact text &qu
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 7:42 AM, Keba wrote:
> Sean Hunt wrote:
>> Proposal: Super Robot Powers (AI=1, II=1, Distributable via fee)
>> {{{
>> The Robot can, by announcement, cause this rule to amend any other
>> rule of equal power, provided that it does so in a message
>> of
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Warrigal wrote:
> This, this.
G., if you're going to AFFIRM as well, can you please specify a
substantive set of arguments? In particular, it would help if you
made some reference to my arguments for appeal, especially the cited
CFJs.
Thanks.
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Also, I think the disclaimer was general enough to render the whole
> list ineffective.
If the effective statement is vague enough to be ineffective, surely
it's too vague to violate Truthiness.
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 4:05 PM, ais523 wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 15:32 -0400, comex wrote:
>> I intend, with 3 support, to start a new journey.
>
> Why is that not "3 support and notice?"
I was wondering if anyone would support and let me start a new journey
befor
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On 08/13/2010 01:49 PM, comex wrote:
>>>
>>> "I transfer all my assets to the bank and then deregister". There's
>>> some precedents here, but unfortunately, those precedents were for when
>>&
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> None of these are ideal. I think #2 is cleaner as (when one of these is
> discovered) it probably involves recalculating for everyone, anyway. I
> generally dislike going doing the "who knew about what when" path. But I
> admit this is all p
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 3:18 PM, ais523 wrote:
> something which many Agorans seem reluctant
> to do for some reason.
> Current total number of rules: 139
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Since the publishing is done by this technical (actual) act, terms like
> "I hereby announce" or "I hereby publish" or "I state" are simply handy
> delimiters/framing devices or color for focusing relevant content. In
> other words, syntactic
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 1:56 AM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 16:58, Alex Smith wrote:
>>
>> I publish the following thesis, intending to qualify for a degree
>> (perhaps D.N.Hist?):
>> {
>> A History of Agoran Wins, 2009-present
>> by ais52
>
> First, I thought comex's win
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:51 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, comex wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 8:12 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> > So what I'm saying is: if you allow those administrative conveniences
>> > to create legal fictions of in
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 8:12 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> So what I'm saying is: if you allow those administrative conveniences
> to create legal fictions of individual cast ballots
So, you're saying, the situation is as if I said "For each decision in
the list of decisions which a reasonable person
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, comex wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 7:23 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> > In other words, if you merely allude to something that may or may
>> > not exist (rather than acknowledging som
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 7:23 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> In other words, if you merely allude to something that may or may
> not exist (rather than acknowledging something that does exist),
> you may be referring to it, but you're not "clearly identifying" it,
> therefore not voting.
This implies th
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 7:22 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> comex wrote:
>
>> [I've complained repeatedly about the length of time currently
>> required to adopt proposals, which can have a significant negative
>> effect on the game. Since the current proposal volume rea
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 6:24 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Any first-class player (the controller) CAN in a public message
>> and for a fee of N ergs, clearly designate a portion of that
>> message to be a public message sent by The Robot. This is
>> INEFFECTIVE if The Robot's
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I'm really torn, here. Agora seems to veer between Sir Humphrey and
> Reasonable Observer points of view (in fact, the Town Fountain required
> some nearly identical Sir Humphrey thinking - issues of speech and
> acknowledgement are particular
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 6:10 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> If the ballot wasn't accepted, by the facts of the time of sending, as clearly
> identifying the specific decision in question (among others), it shouldn't
> have
> been accepted as a valid ballot for that decision. R683 is one of those
> pl
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 5:33 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Specifically, anything that is interpreted as a valid ballot must be
> interpreted
> as satisfying clause R683(b). And to "clearly identify" something you must
> acknowledge it. And I'll further say, lest you use the "one level of
> indirect
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> So, the Assessor's announcement was not a win announcement. Where does
> that leave us? According to the voting record, comex voted for proposal
> 6740, and this is a clear public acknowledgment of its existence.
> Therefore
Fails.
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 7:52 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> I create 3 capacitors in my possession.
>
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 6:01 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
wrote:
> I press the Turbo button.
Not quite over, since the Shuttle can't disappear!
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
wrote:
> I take it you can actually afford all those threats? I will calculate
> their costs and your initial supply of TPs, but it seems unlikely.
I calculated that the journey's level is 18*6=108, and the costs of
the threats (including the astero
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 11:09 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> comex wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 8:46 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>>>> Proposal 6761 (Purple, AI=2.0, Interest=None) by coppro
>>> Admitted. It's listed correctly at the top, this part was just
>&
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 8:46 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> Proposal 6761 (Purple, AI=2.0, Interest=None) by coppro
> Admitted. It's listed correctly at the top, this part was just
> copy+pasted from the Promotor's initiation message.
I was wondering if Python was used to template it. :)
On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> ENDORSEx12 the player with a valid vote with the highest number of props,
> myself excluded; in case of a tie then the first of those players
> alphabetically
i change my name to a
On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Circularity is easily resolved if you stop thinking of it that way:
>
> IF NOT (IF this is a win announcement THEN someone satisfies a winning
> condition) THEN this is not a win announcement.
The proposed rule says "causes", not "would cause [i
On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 1:11 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> c) It causes at least one Winning Condition to be satisfied, as
> defined by other rules.
For it to be a win announcement it must cause a Winning Condition to
be satisfied, but the Winning Condition can only be satisfied by a wi
On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 12:53 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Finally, comex's original "This is a win announcement:" can reasonably
> be argued as applying to the entire message (e did not specify a more
> limited scope), thus including eir parenthetical comment that "...the
> proposal also awarded a win
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> The difficulty in ALL win conditions, that 2186 specifies one set
> of conditions for calling something a win announcement, and that other
> rules say that it has to be a winning announcement with different
> (not additional) information ("a wi
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> This clearly wins by Legislation if it's taken as deferring to (being
> intercepted by?) the power-1 Rule 2188. But does it (power-3 instrument)
> override the power-2 clause in R2186: "The game CANNOT be won in any other
> way, rules to the
On Wednesday, July 28, 2010, ais523 wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-07-27 at 12:53 -0700, Kerim
> Gratuitous: Proposal 6740 is a "proposal awarding a win to one or more
> persons", so "all those persons" satisfy the Winning Condition.
Gratuitous: Would "win announcement: Proposal 6740 was adopted"
suffice?
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 2:24 AM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 01:18, Jonatan Kilhamn
> wrote:
>> Really? I'm not a native speaker
>
> You're not? You fooled me.
>
> Also, I was under the impression that Lower Deck was the one adjacent
> to the others. It's defintely ambiguous.
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 10:03 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Yally wrote:
>
>> Pilots require at least 23 props.
>>
>> Players with at least 23 props are Pilots; the Pilot with the
>> most props (if any) is the Captain. Players with less than 9
>> props are Marines.
>
> Both these number
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I think we've always been ok with "I submit the following proposal and pay a
> fee to make it distributable:" and there was some court case a long time
> ago that it was ok. Maybe not. It was the fact that your sentence no verb:
> are you say
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Proposal: More ID numbers (AI=2, Distributable via fee)
>
> Does this mean you just paid the fee? That looks like CFJ-worthy
> ambiguity there...
Yeah, by the letter of it I'm not sure it's possible to make a
proposal Distributable before su
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> 6765 P 1 3.0 comex Adoption Without Objection
> AGAINST
Why?
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 6:22 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Good catch. A rule that encourages incorrect judgements is a rather bad
>> thing.
>
> How about something like "To be appropriate, such a judgement (as long as it
> involves interpretation of contest instructions and does not conflict with
> t
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 6:02 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> Proposal: It was a good try (AI = 1, II = 1)
>
> Repeal Rules 2297-2302.
>
> End Proposal
>
> I pay a fee to make the above Distributable.
AGAINST. Please propose instead to fix the gameplay, there's nothing
intrinsically wrong with it.
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 5:52 PM, comex wrote:
> This should be pretty easy to defeat, but there are only two hours
> before the Shuttle rams into it...
Note, however, that arguably the start-of-week action happens first,
so pressing buttons won't take effect until after the Shuttle i
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 2:44 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Proto: Contests Yet Again - Very Simple, in one rule.
>
> A player CAN make a document into a Contest without 3 objections.
> The player doing so becomes the Contestmaster. The Contest SHOULD
> be a list of instructions for playing a
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Proposal: Grammar fix
> (AI = 1, II = 0, please)
>
> Amend Rule 2143 (Official Reports and Duties) by replacing "where N in
> the Interest Index" with "where N is the Interest Index".
>
> I make the above proposal distributable.
Can't you just
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 12:13, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 1:00 PM, comex wrote:
>>> I CFJ on the statement: "comex has a Leadership Token."
>>
>> I disfavor this case.
>
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 2:31 AM, ais523 wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-07-17 at 00:21 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> LEFT IN A HUFF
>> Waggie, Gecko, Kelly (x3!), Swann, KoJen, Zefram,
>> Vlad, Andre, G., BobTHJ, P1-P100
>> Warriga
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Aaron Goldfein
wrote:
> Oops. I withdraw my proposal entitled "One-to-one Cancellation" and
> submit an identical proposal with the exception that its adoption
> index is 2. I pay a fee to make that proposal distributable.
CFJ: In the above-quoted message, Yally
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 6:42 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> I submit the following proposal and pay a fee to make it distributable:
>
> Proposal: One-to-one Cancellation
Needs AI=2
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Yally wrote:
>
>> Perhaps we should have a contest. Each player can submit a new player's
>> guide. Thereafter, Agora votes on which guide is the best and that
>> player is awarded a win. Then we can combine the best parts of each
>> guide to cre
Agora badly needs more players, but the current barrier to entry is
much higher than it should be. Not only do you have to sign up for
three mailing lists (if you don't, you can't even look at the archives
to get a sense of how the game is played), you have to understand a
long ruleset without any
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 7:30 AM, ais523 wrote:
> I CFJ on the statement "In the above-quoted message, coppro purported a
> document to be part of an official report."
> Arguments: This is ISIDTID again. Saying that you purport something does
> not actually mean that you necessarily purport it. In
There is plenty of precedent (see: pigs are delicious) that this is not a valid
Cantus Cygneus and Warrigal is not deregistered.
Just sayin'.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 14, 2010, at 4:15 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> I hereby publish the following Cantus Cygneus submitted by Warrigal
> via the
Sent from my iPad
On Jul 5, 2010, at 11:18 PM, ais523 wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-07-05 at 23:11 +0200, comex wrote:
>> On Jul 5, 2010, at 10:32 PM, ais523 wrote:
>>>> Allegiance is a player switch, tracked by the Referee, whose values are
>>>> "none" a
On Jul 5, 2010, at 10:32 PM, ais523 wrote:
>> Allegiance is a player switch, tracked by the Referee, whose values are
>> "none" and all Teams, defaulting to "none". Players whose Allegiance is
>> "none" are said to be Independent; otherwise, players are said to be
>> "in" the team, and a "member
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 11:47 PM, Aaron Goldfein
wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 16:27, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>
>> Happy 17th birthday, Agora!
>
> I wonder if Agora is older than any of its players.
ehird, apparently.
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 2:17 PM, ais523 wrote:
> Silly complex
> energy rules...
Just as long as you don't allow imaginary ergs...
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> CFJ 2805a entered its four-day overtime period about two hours
> ago. See Rule 911 for details; H. Justiciar Yally, take note.
>
> I opine REMAND, requesting that H. Judge coppro explicitly address the
> pros/cons of accepting or rejecting impli
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 9:35 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> If there is ever simultaneously one or more empty Teams, and one or more
>> Independent players, then the any player CAN by announcement, and the
>> Referee SHALL as soon as possible unless someone else does first,
>> distribute all Independent
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 9:33 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> I assume the office of IADoP.
You know what happens when you assume?
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 3:59 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> twist to avoid that. Maybe the metaphor can be the Federation of
> International Federated Associations with leagues, trades, captains, etc.
The Association of Federated Organizations?
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> ID: 6738
> TITLE: Fix proposal amendment
> If Proposal 6728 passed, amend Rule 106 by replacing:
It didn't, so no amendment is made.
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 5:51 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn
wrote:
> You're right about the biggest danger being the Enemy winning too
> easy, I believe any setup example could be circumvented provided the
> crew has time to react, so the danger here is that the journey starts
> immediately and not at the st
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
wrote:
> On 14 June 2010 19:35, comex wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 6:02 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn
>> wrote:
>>> I submit the following proposal:
>>>
>>> Space Alert
>>> II: 3
>>> AI:
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 2:30 PM, ais523 wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-06-13 at 15:54 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Judge coppro's Arguments:
>>
>> Tiger's message clearly and unambiguously specifying that he was
>> submitting a fragment with "the following text", immediately followed by
>> three lines of tex
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 6:02 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn
wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> Space Alert
> II: 3
> AI: 1
General comment: The wording is not very precise, which makes the
proposal more wordy and confusing than it needs to be. It seems like
some good simple gameplay though.
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jun 2010, ais523 wrote:
>> On Thu, 2010-06-10 at 22:10 +0200, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
>>> I create a Fragment with the following text:
>>> [[[
>>> @->---@
>>> ]]]
>>
>> CFJ: Tiger created a Fragment in the above-quoted message.
>
> G
On Monday, June 7, 2010, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> coppro violated R2201 by not responding to a "claim of error" concerning
> a proposal being distributed with an incorrect chamber.
Grat: It is not a claim of error because it does not explain the scope
(but only the nature) of the perceived error.
On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 6:00 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> You had "the the" in there. (Are you using a proportional font? The
> ^^^ generally wouldn't have lined up properly, if so.)
Oh, heh. Of course: my brain skipped that step, possibly because your
^^^s seem (on my proportional font) exactly
On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> Doubling up.
>>
>> Not a mistake.
>
> Intentional irony?
What?
Spelling is inconsequential in all forms of communication, such as
taking game actions, except for quoting legal documents etc., because
that's a mess.
On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> comex wrote:
>
>> (1) A difference in spelling, grammar, capitalization, or
>> dialect, or the use of a synonym or abbreviation in place of
>> a word or phrase is inconse
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 7:12 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Sam Benner wrote:
>> I object to my own inactivation.
>
> Too late; the dependent action was already resolved.
However, you can become active again by announcement.
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Do you (that is, you Agorans) want the quick fix (just make the timing tied
> to the Herald making champion awards again so it's pragmatic and therefore
> not simultaneous) or the complicated fix (make List of Succession dynamics
> more like a
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 6:14 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> The Speaker is now woggle! All hail Speaker woggle!
>
> I hail Speaker woggle.
>
> I intend, without objection, to make Speaker woggle inactive (eir last
> message to a forum was a month ag
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 2:30 AM, Sgeo wrote:
> Fragment: "Filomusks are a currency. Filomusks will become unused
> (extinct) in 3008 days"
n.b. if you want to submit a fragment, you'll need to use the Public Forum.
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 6:46 AM, ais523 wrote:
> So proposals can take effect before people start voting on them, if a
> low-power rule says they can?
That would violate Power Controls Mutability.
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I've been waiting for this one to come up. Regardless of the judgement
> this is prime place for a legislative clarification. -G.
Rule 2127 only applies to the option selected by a particular ballot,
so to allow for an indefinite increase in
On Friday, May 21, 2010, ais523
> I retract my votes on distributed proposals 6724-6727, and vote FOR
> (times my voting limit) on them.
Me too.
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 7:51 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Mon, 17 May 2010, comex wrote:
>> On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> To publish something it must be part of the
>>> message.
>>
>> Says who?
>
> Er, Rule 478
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> To publish something it must be part of the
> message.
Says who?
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Yes, I'll admit to be purposefully vague on publishing translation
> technology details (not required to be tracked!) versus content to
> question how far the very long tradition of relying on text-only should
> be pushed.
More gratuitous: Com
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Arguments:
>
> comex "submitted a fragment" indicating, in words and by envelope
> information, that it should be translated as an image (a .png image). But
> it appeared in the archives as a body of text.
Gra
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I interpreted it 'null-amend' as 'an amendment with no substantiative
> change', which would still be prohibited if it could exist.
Ah, I disagree with you on this point. Power Controls Mutability
explicitly does not prohibit an unsubstantive
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 2:02 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> === CFJ 2797 (Interest Index = 0)
>>
>> If the proposal entitled "Reassign the name" passed, it would
>> successfully null-amend a Rule with Power> 1.7.
>>
>> ==
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:18 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Hrm, I totally don't know here. I personally saw the message when it
> was first sent, didn't catch the typo at all, and assumed it worked,
> so there's evidence it was clear enough to someone, and the typo was
> trivial, and that's how it wa
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 12:36 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> COE: the comma in Rule 2275 last sentence is incorrect in the latest SLR
> and FLR:
> A Minister is any member of the Government,
>
> vs Proposal 6714:
>
> Amend Rule 2275 (Government) by appending "A Minister is any member of
> the
1 - 100 of 2130 matches
Mail list logo
