Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Perfect Failure Detection
On 08/19/15 23:30, Alex Smith wrote: On Wed, 2015-08-19 at 04:34 +, woggle wrote: WHEREAS the yoyo mailing list appears to have died, and WHEREAS the only way to be sure it is dead is to kill it yourself, I intend, without objection, to change the Publicity of the Public Forum at nomic at yoyo.its.monash.edu.au to Foreign. Technically, I don't think you have to send the intent to every list; I was aware of this. You may notice I failed to send the intent to agora-business. - woggle that's only for the resolution, and only when making a forum public (not when making it non-public). This is how the ##really-a-cow scam worked (although it was obvious that the forum had become public, it had by that point become too late to object). The actual requirement is that the intent is sent via a public forum (or to each player individually), and to the forum in question. (Good thing that there's no requirement for sending the intent via the forum in question, or we could be in trouble.) That said, there's a reasonable argument for sending something as large as a forum publicity change to every list anyway.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Census
On 10/19/14 16:38, Eritivus wrote: D'oh. If I am a Player, I _DO NOT_ initiate the following CFJ: I recommend against issuing CFJs conditionally. CFJ: Ratification of the Registrar's 11 Oct report failed. Arguments: The Registrar's 11 Oct report did not include me on the player list. woggle implicitly claims that the minimal gamestate modification of ratification is my retroactive deregistration. However, The Registrar's report also includes, by R2139: For each former player for which the information is reasonably available, the dates on which e registered and deregistered. This information is not self-ratifying. The list of players registered is as a result of R2162(c). - woggle woggle's proposed gamestate modification only makes the Registrar's report more true and accurate if I deregister before the report. Thus, under this modification, I was a former player when the report was published. However, the report did not include my registration date, which was reasonably available (having been made known in a public forum almost 15 hours earlier). Another modification worth considering, then, would be to retroactively void my registration altogether, i.e. to modify the gamestate such that I had never become a player. I might agree with woggle's implicit claim that voiding my registration is less minimal, but argue that it would serve to make the Registrar's report more true and accurate. As far as I can tell, the two modifications are both on the Pareto front. Two substantially different modifications are equally appropriate, so ratification failed. Of course, the information _that I was a former player_ was not reasonably available, but this is irrelevant. I was a former player (under woggle's modification), and the Registrar is required to report each former player's registration date when the registration date is reasonably available. Registrar, CoE: your 19 Oct report claims I deregistered. Additionally, though this is too late to matter for ratification, CoE: your 11 Oct report claims I was not a Player. I suggest you publish revisions to both reports, and note that the 11 Oct report failed to ratify.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Census
On 10/19/14 16:56, Eritivus wrote: On Sun, 2014-10-19 at 16:45 +, woggle wrote: This information is not self-ratifying. The list of players registered is as a result of R2162(c). Ah, I see. I mistakenly thought that all information required to be in reports is self-ratifying. Oh well, see you next month :). You can reregister immediately. (The time limit on registration only applies if you deregister by announcement, which you certainly did not do.) - woggle
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Registrar] Corrected Registrar's Report
On 08/31/14 22:26, Luis Ressel wrote: On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 22:12:02 + woggle woggl...@gmail.com wrote: - woggle, Registrar and Clerical Error Generator I'd appreciate some clarification here. In yesterday's Registrar Report you referred to yourself as a Deputy Registrar, but in todays report and also in the above signature you didn't. Rule 2160/12 (Power=3) Deputisation [...] When a player deputises for an elected office, e becomes the holder of that office. - woggle
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Registrar] Corrected Registrar's Report
On 08/31/14 22:45, Luis Ressel wrote: On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 22:33:13 + woggle woggl...@gmail.com wrote: Rule 2160/12 (Power=3) Deputisation [...] When a player deputises for an elected office, e becomes the holder of that office. - woggle I disagree. You disagree with the text of the rule?? I also initially thought so when reading that rule some days go. (And wrote down an to-do item to fix it.) But then I discovered that CFJ: [CFJ 2400 (called 6 March 2009): Deputisation is generally treated as if the deputy gained the office immediately before the action, and lost it immediately after.] In my opinion, the rule text is unclear in this aspect, the rule is therefore to be interpreted as the cited CFJ states. At the time of that CFJ, Rule 2160 did not contain the text about gaining the office. It read: Any player (a deputy) CAN perform an action as if e held a particular office (deputise for that office) if: (a) the rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of holding that office, to perform the action (or, if the office is vacant, would so require if the office were filled); and (b) a time limit by which the rules require the action to be performed has expired; and (c) the deputy announced between two and fourteen days earlier that e intended to deputise for that office for the purposes of the particular action; and (d) it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action, other than by deputisation, if e held the office. If you look up CFJ 2400 (http://cfj.qoid.us/2400 ), you'll see that the CFJ was about whether as if e held a particular office was powerful enough to make the deputy continue to pseudo-hold the office for the purpose of obligations resulting for eir deputisation. - woggle
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Speaker] CFJ 3400 assigned to woggle
On 2/22/14, 1:44 , Fool wrote: [snip] It is correct that R1698 had a chance to act before the game ended. So Alex Smith's proposed amendment would have been effective in preventing the end of the game. But in absense of that amendment, it remains to be shown that ending Agora falls under causing Agora to become ossified. Agora's not ossified, it's just done. Now, G. objects that it depends on what the meaning of the word is is... A finished game still exists, and is therefore ossified, therefore ending is prevented by R1698. I don't see in what sense this could be true. The R1698 definition of Agora is ossified does not become undefined if Agora does not exist. [1] The definition only asks whether it would be possible to pass proposals or make arbitrary gamestate changes. These questions have clear answers if Agora were to cease to exist. [1] The definition would presumably cease to be effective, but, fortunately, we're checking the definition at a time when it is clearly effective. - woggle
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Speaker] CFJ 3400 assigned to woggle
On 2/13/14, 5:06 , Fool wrote: Even if we were to interpret win the game as requiring gameplay to otherwise cease, this action would be beyond the power of the Power-1 Rule 2419. Much of Agora's gameplay is defined at Power 1 and the rules allowing such gameplay to continue would take precedence per Rule 1030. (And winning the game cannot implicitly do any rule changes, because such rule changes would be ambiguous.) The opposite, as I said! It has the power to award a win, it does not have the power to override the common-sense meanings of the words. How does it have the power to award a win? If awarding a win common-sense-meaning-implied ending the game, then R2419 would be of insufficient power to do it. - woggle
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3380 assigned to woggle
On 8/28/13 9:08 , Kerim Aydin wrote: [Doing this by hand; will set up the database when I have a few hours in the next few days]. == CFJ 3380 == G.'s votes in the recent General Election were submitted before the voting period ended. Proto-judgment: I proto-judge CFJ 3380 FALSE. Rule 478/30 specifies that actions performed by sending a message are performed at the time date-stamped on that message. Precedent provides us with two options for determining which date-stamp to use: a) the date stamp that best represents the message left its author's technical domain of control (CFJ 1646); or b) the date stamp that best represents when the message was actually sent to players via a public forum (CFJ 2058 (explicitly not adopted for determining whether rules were broken by missing deadlines)); Under interpretation (a) the timestamps appear to be (omitting day, month, hour): initiation: 57:40 attempted votes if G. does not control smtp.washington.edu: 57:00 attempted votes if G. does control *.washington.edu: 08:27 [*] Now, timestamp [*] has a problem in that the timestamps used by vps.qoid.us were clearly substantially incorrect. However, a sensible correction for this issue, taking the next timestamp that appears correct still shows G.'s message as about 3 minutes late. Under interpretation (b) the timestamps appear to be (omitting day, month, hour) -- using ais523's observed timestamps: initiation: 57:48 attempted votes: 00:14 -- using the forum software's timestamps for forwarding: initiation: 05:03 attempted votes: 08:27 Both interpretation (a) and (b) have a serious issues of verifiability. It is difficult to determine where a person's technical domain of control ends. No single player has full on information about when a message was effectively sent to players. Interpretation (b) tends to use timestamps from a consistent source, which I believe is substantially less surprising. It also matches the game state better with how players observe the game and should make uncertainty caused by skewed remote clocks less common. G. argues that interpretation (a) is required by R101's right of participation of the forum since G. would be less capable of timing eir own messages. However, interpretation (a) would also just as easily yield cases where players were _more_ capable of manipulating the timing of their own messages; for example, if the server just out of the technical domain of their control was always a few minutes behind in time. [1] Since players can probably adjust their mail setup to have only very nominal delays (even though G. did not have the foresight to do so in this case), I believe interpretation (b) generally does not leave players at a disadvantage in their right to participate in the fora by sending messages. Additionally, the right to participation in the fora includes not only a sending messages but also receiving them. G's ability to have messages considered sent before they are generally available must be counterbalanced with other player's ability to receive messages that are considered sent. Judge's evidence: Rule 478/30 [excerpt] [...] Any action performed by sending a message is performed at the time date-stamped on that message. Actions in messages (including sub-messages) are performed in the order they appear in the message, unless otherwise specified. [1] It would be reasonable to disregard such a server's timestamps, but we would have no way of reliably detecting when to do so. - woggle Caller: ais523 Judge: woggle Judgement: History: Called by ais523: 16 Jul 2013 20:32:46 GMT Assigned to Murphy: 23 Jul 2013 17:06:10 GMT Murphy recused: 05 Aug 2013 13:20:04 GMT Assigned to lindar: 05 Aug 2013 13:24:49 GMT lindar recused: 27 Aug 2013 18:53:51 GMT Assigned to woggle: [As of this message] Caller's Arguments: More recent precedents (e.g. CFJ 2058) hinge on when the forum actually distributes the messages, to determine relative timing. It's hard to determine the moment at which the server actually sends, but comparing the last timestamp of vps.qoid.us (which apparently hosts the mailing lists) seems to make the most sense, as it's going to be closest to the time at which the messages are sent and probably have a reasonably consistent delay. That gives 9 Jul 2013 20:05:03 - for the sending of the initiation, and 16 Jul 2013 20:08:27 - for the sending of the votes, meaning that the votes are late. (Note
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Horton] Promise Report
On 8/15/13 14:49 , Ørjan Johansen wrote: On Sat, 10 Aug 2013, woggle wrote: HORTON'S WEEKLY REPORT Date of this report: 2013-08-10 Date of last report: 2013-08-03 ### Quantity: 1 (disputed; under CFJ) Text: As punishment, I transfer 10 Yaks to the casher of this promise. Cashing condition: This promise has been in existence for 10 seconds or more, and G. has published a message at any time after this promise was submitted. Author: G. Owner: Tree COE: (Or has this been self-ratified already? Has anything.) (1) Hasn't the CFJ been resolved yet? Admitted (CFJ 3375-6). (2) I thought I cashed this at some point... Yes. - woggle
Re: DIS: Proto: Players' Guide
On 8/6/13 14:14 , Charles Walker wrote: I'd really appreciate some feedback on the following, in particular whether the ###-delimited section should be removed or not, but also generally. --- A PLAYERS' GUIDE TO THE GAME OF AGORA --- [snip] Just about everything you can do in the game is done by announcement or by publishing something. You do both of these things by sending a message to a public forum (all of the mailing lists are public apart from agora-discussion, which is for discussion only), usually agora-business. To do something by announcement, you simply send a message stating that you do that thing, e.g. you register by sending a message saying I register. You should mention that we are not picky about the form of the announcement. Ideally, we'd get across enough so new players know they can guess the wording and it'll probably be okay; and aren't confused to learn that a synonym like I CFJ on: X satisfies initiat[ing] an inquiry case by announcement, specifying a block of text. [snip] IV. Registering Now you're on the mailing lists, messages should start coming in. Most of them won't make any sense to you, which is fine. You can either register straight away by sending a message to agora-business saying I register, or watch the game for a while and try to get the hang of things before you join. It's up to you. You can even ask to be listed on the Registrar's report as a Watcher, either by sending a message to the lists or by contacting the Registrar directly. Once you've sent that message - I register - you're a player. It's as simple as that really. New players have no particular obligation to do anything, but this guide will tell you about some of the things you can take part in: proposals, voting, CFJs, offices and the economy. See Rule 869 (How to Join and Leave Agora) for more information on registering. V. The Rules But first, a brief interlude about the rules. Newly registered players should recieve copies of the rules from the Rulekeepor. receive. Point to the current web location for the rules (presently https://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~charles/agora/current_flr.txt)? [snip] The proposal uses three magic words enact, amend and repeal. These refer to creating, changing and deleting a rule, respectively. When you refer to rules, use the ID number as well as the title to make it easy for everyone to refer to the rules you are talking about and know what your proposal does. You should point out that the formatting and phrasing of the proposal is a convention not a requirement. [So players don't need to worry that their proposal won't work because it says Create instead of Enact or Change instead of Amend, etc.] [snip] If you want to start judging cases yourself, send a message saying I sit. Soon enough a message will start come through assigning a case to you. Once assigned, you have a week to make your judgement. See Rule 1871 (The Standing Court) for more information on becoming a judge. Did you forgot about Initial Posture? You should point out that you can undo this for free with I become supine. You should point out that you can recuse yourself from any case for free. [snip] Most officers have a weekly or monthly report which they publish to and/or? agora-official so that everyone knows what is going on in their part of the gamestate. [snip] If the holder of an office becomes inactive or deregisters, anyone can assume the office and start performing its duties. Suggest citing Rule 2276 here. [snip] - woggle
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3339 assigned to woggle. Good luck.
On 6/23/13 16:25 , Tanner Swett wrote: On Jun 23, 2013, at 2:29 PM, woggle wrote: I judge CFJ 3339 FALSE. ... It has been generally uncontroverisal to resolve conflicts in rules and similar documents not handled using the usual precedences as UNDECIDABLE, even though the judgment of UNDECIDABLE is not appropriate when true or false is. All right, let me make sure I understand this judgement. Under the conditions described in the statement of CFJ 3339, if a CFJ were called on the statement It is LEGAL to shout 'CREAMPUFF' if and only if it is ILLEGAL to shout 'CREAMPUFF' (call this statement LIFF!L), then FALSE would be an inappropriate judgement, meaning that from Agora's point of view, LIFF!L would be false, despite its presence in the rules. Although the self-contradictory statement in the rules is considered false, there is nonetheless considered to be a paradox here, meaning that if a CFJ were called on the statement It is LEGAL to shout 'CREAMPUFF' (call this statement L), TRUE and FALSE would be inappropriate and UNDECIDABLE would be appropriate. Do you agree with the above paragraph? I find this judgement surprising, since I expected that if Agora considered statement L to be undecidable, it would consider statement LIFF!L to be true. (You're sure you didn't mean to judge CFJ 3339 TRUE?) I do not believe the truth value of undecidable iff not undecidable is well-defined -- especially in the presence of the implicit Liar's Paradox issue here -- so it would be most appropriate to interpret LIFF!L as also UNDECIDABLE. - woggle
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Horton] Promise Report
On 6/23/13 19:00 , Fool wrote: ### Quantity: 1 Title: !!! Text: !!! Destruction by author condition: I [omd] CANNOT destroy this promise. Cashing condition: This promise has existed for at least two months. Author: omd Owner: Tree ### So .. how does this work? By CFJ 3334, is the existence of this promise undecided? Well, due to my sloppiness in noticing/annotating the doubt w.r.t. that judgement, the promise has since self-ratified into existence. I imagine it can be settled by having Horton just destroy the promise without objection, if it exists. (Also there's a bunch of promises that seem to be one-off stunts, or refer to things like Berks which I take it are obsolete.) Yes; we are due for some more Promise cleanup. As for Berks, Berks are the title of that promise. - woggle
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3333 assigned to G.
On 6/11/13 12:35 , Sean Hunt wrote: On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 3:25 PM, woggle woggl...@gmail.com wrote: On 6/10/13 11:01 , Kerim Aydin wrote: On Sun, 9 Jun 2013, Ed Murphy wrote: == CFJ == Rule 649 contains the phrase As soon as possible after a patent title is awarded or revoked. Judgement: The Proposal in question is Proposal 7420, and the clause is: Amend the following rules, in the specified order, by replacing as soon as possible with in a timely fashion: [...] 649 The phrase in R649 is capitalized while it is not in the proposal. I intend, with 2 support, to file a motion for reconsideration in this case. Rule 649 also contained the phrase A person specifically authorized by the rules to award (revoke) a Patent Title SHALL do so *as soon as possible* after the conditions authorizing em to do so are announced (emphasis added) in addition to the instance of capitalized As soon as possible (at the time Proposal 7420 was adopted). It is not clear from the judgment that H. Judge G. considered this issue. - woggle I object, applying the effects of Proposal 7420 as you describe would not result in the phrase in the statement of the CFJ. I was not aware that I was describing any technique of applying the effects of Proposal 7420. - woggle
DIS: Re: BUS: A New Precedence
On 5/27/13 20:10 , Sean Hunt wrote:
Proposal: New Precedents (AI=3)
{{{
[snip]
* If the provisions are part of different rules, both of which
have ID numbers, the provision in the rule with the lower ID
number prevails; otherwise
* If the provisions are part of different rules, both of which
^
have ID numbers, the provision in the rule enacted earliest
^^^
prevails; otherwise
Presumably you didn't mean to used earliest precedence on two numbered rules.
- woggle
DIS: Re: BUS: How to possibly win by paradox without really trying
On 5/25/13 13:31 , omd wrote: On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 5:12 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: In case someone points out that I can destroy !!! with notice by cashing it, I hereby cash !!!, retract the CFJ, make a new promise with title !!!, text !!!, conditions for cashing this promise has existed for at least two months, and conditions for author destruction I CANNOT destroy this promise, and submit an identical CFJ. Oops, I also intend to destroy the new !!! with notice. I think R2166 permits you to destroy this promise (since you are its owner) by announcement. Incidentally, this would also simplify that CFJ. - woggle
Re: DIS: Re: BAK: [Rulekeepor] Short Logical Ruleset
On 5/7/13 10:59 , Charles Walker wrote: On 5 May 2013, at 15:44, woggle woggl...@gmail.com wrote: Rule 2141/6 (Power=3) Role and Attributes of Rules [...] Every rule has power between one and four inclusive. It is not possible for a rule to have a power outside this range. [...] Rule 2388/2 (Power=0.5) The Dictionary ? CFJ 3289 said that the rule had power 0.5, due (in part) to R105 taking precedence over R2141. - woggle
DIS: Re: BUS: Playing with fire
On 4/14/13 16:44 , Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Sat, 13 Apr 2013, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I submit the following proposal, Power to the People:
I retract my proposal, Power to the People.
I submit the following proposal, AI-1, Low Power Games:
--
Create the following Rule, Low-level Rules, power 0.5:
A first-class Player CAN, without 3 objections, cause
this Rule to make a Rule Change to a Rule with a Power
less than 0.5. However, any announcements of intent
to do so is null, void, and wholly without effect if
the player has previously made such an announcement
of intent in the current Agoran week.
Note that R1728 doesn't appear to prohibit resolving the same intent twice
[though I wouldn't be shocked if there's some old CFJ on this issue I'm
forgetting...]
Also, you probably want it to be clearer how to count announcements of intent.
E.g. how many of these would be legal? How many would be legal to resolve twice?
- I intend, without 3 objections, to cause rule to amend rule by
appending {{}} and setting its power to 0.2.
- I intend, without 3 objections, to cause rule to amend rule by:
inserting before ; and
if the rule contains , inserting before ;
- I intend, without 3 objections, to cause rule to amend rule by
replacing its text with the text of the promise titled that I created
at least four and not more than five days before resolving this intent.
- I intend, without 3 objections, to cause rule to repeal the rule with
lowest ID number among rules with power less than 0.5
- woggle
[Note: w/o 3 objections is the same threshold as contests.
Yup, it's a risk... let's see what happens].
--
I submit the following proposal, AI-1, Player Power:
--
Create the following rule, Player Power, power 0.5:
An active first-class player who holds a postulated
office has a power of 0.2. All other active first-
class players have a power of 0.1.
--
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Playing with fire
On 4/15/13 8:46 , Kerim Aydin wrote: [snip] Also, you probably want it to be clearer how to count announcements of intent. E.g. how many of these would be legal? How many would be legal to resolve twice? The intent of limiting to one/week is not to stop someone from making a lot of changes with one intent announcement, but rather to prevent spamming of lots of intent announcements that are not used (or possibly red herrings). So listing several changes in one announcement should be fine. Note that mutation and amendment are always separate rule changes under R105, so, under your proposed rule, an intent to do both to a single rule w3o is either an illegal announcement of intent or a compound intent each part of which can be objected to separately. I also think the case law about being absolutely specific about both announcements of intent (unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and method) and rule changes (Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that change to be void) would protect against text substitution via promises or other indirection tricks. R101(iv) protects against insufficient notice, quite likely including tricks where an indirected-to thing is changed suddenly. But if you care about indirection, referencing text from an unambigiously specified promise is probably neither unclear nor unambigiuous. I'm pretty sure that there have been proposals that have copied text from rules into other rules; it's hard to see how copying text from promises is substantially different. - woggle
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Of potatoes and boats
On 4/9/13 10:04 , Kerim Aydin wrote: On Tue, 9 Apr 2013, Tanner Swett wrote: I submit a proposal with AI 3, titled This suddenly isn't fun any more: Repeal Rule 2380. Ah, come on. scshunt can just create a new rule (jump this text). It also looks like renumbering a rule can be done (can't find a prohibition against that). R105 provides no mechanism to change rule ID numbers and prohibits modifications to rules by other mechanisms. R2141 defines ID number as a substantive aspect of a rule and also explicitly takes precedence over R105 to allow the Rulekeepor to set the ID number (but not to allow the ID number to be set in other ways). Probably needs 'with notice' due to R101 but still. What's more of a challenge is coming up with a proposal that can nix any jump (e.g. replace any occurrence of scshunt in the ruleset with...) while not violating R105's any unambiguity clause, but then maybe e'd change eir nickname (and the nickname in the rule)... and so it goes. Perhaps secure rule changes at power 1.1? - woggle
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Liquid!
On 4/2/13 13:40 , Jonathan Rouillard wrote: On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Tue, 2 Apr 2013, Aaron Goldfein wrote: These acronyms are all in the rules. VC stands for voting credit. VVLOP doesn't officially stand for anything. VVLOP is defined in Rules 2389-2390. Well, yeah. However, what does VVLOP *mean*? VCs are Voting Credits, but what are VVLOPs? I think that's what was meant by VVLOP doesn't officially stand for anything. It used to abbreviate volatile voting limit on ordinary proposals. - woggle
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Return of Wes
On 1/29/13 2:45 PM, Alex Smith wrote: On Tue, 2013-01-29 at 10:28 -0800, Wes Contreras wrote: I hereby become a Player. Again. I also contest the accuracy of the Herald's report issued on Jan 22, 2013, where a list of Fugitives is provided as the last section of the report. These persons are not, in fact, Fugitives, as that term is defined in Rule 1504 as a decidedly bad thing, and one which has never applied to me. Assuming said rule still exists, of course, given the lack of a recent Rulekeepor's report... There's a recent FLR (January 23). The online versions of the ruleset are out of date, but the email version is within the expected time limit. Re: the online versions, comex's are out of date (AFAIK), but see https://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~charles/agora/ . - woggle
DIS: Re: BUS: Golem cleanup
On 1/20/13 2:33 PM, John Smith wrote: I cause BuckyBot to ask all the first class players to object to its destruction. BuckyBot is eligible to object to this intent directly per R2360. - woggle -- *From:* woggle woggl...@gmail.com *To:* Agora Business agora-busin...@agoranomic.org *Sent:* Sunday, January 20, 2013 3:18 PM *Subject:* BUS: Golem cleanup For each of the following Golems, I intend without objection to destroy it: a person announcing support or intent to do so BuckyBot Eileen Our Lady of Perpetual Responsibility the Cayman Islands Ur - woggle
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Census
On 8/7/11 9:12 AM, Charles Walker wrote: On 6 August 2011 16:49, Charles Reiss woggl...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 06:59, Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote: Registrar's Census Date of last report: Tue 26 Jul 2011 Date of this report: Fri 05 Aug 2011 [snip] SECOND-CLASS PLAYERS (2) PlayerContact Since --- President c/o the Speaker03 Mar 11 or Sun 31 Jul Agora agora-busin...@agoranomic.org 23 Jul 11 CoE: The name of this agreement is this sentence. is a player. It is? Well, it's probably dependent on the resolution of a CFJ omd made, but it at least deserves some mention in your report. - woggle signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
DIS: Re: BUS: Agreement
On 7/30/11 8:20 PM, omd wrote: On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 11:00 PM, woggle woggl...@gmail.com wrote: I create a Promise in my own possession with the following text and no conditions and immediately cash it: This is a message sent on behalf of The name of this agreement is this sentence.. I intend, with Agoran Consent, to register. I weakly object, because I don't see how this differs from past agreements that were rejected. (Unless this is a scam, in which case I don't get it.) scshunt already caused the intent to be resolved. Agoran Consent doesn't require waiting a couple days (even though objections/notice do); see also my recent fix proposal. - woggle signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: DIS: Proto: Abercrombie and Fitch
On 6/5/11 4:14 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: [Crossing the AAA with some ideas from the board game Puerto Rico. Thoughts?] [snip] d) Producer is a role. While it is in play, each Ranch produces (and the privileged Farmer CAN once cause one of eir specifie Ranches typo specified. to produce again). e) Writer is a role. While it is in play, each Farmer CAN harvest the ID number of a proposal in its voting period to gain 1 Flax per digit (the privileged Farmer gains 1 more from eir first harvest). specify that this first harvest only applies to proposal harvests. Same for Lawyer, Surveyor, etc. Also 1 more per digit or 1 more total? [snip] - woggle signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: hrm
[This time from my subscribed e-mail.] On 6/3/11 11:10 AM, Sean Hunt wrote: On 06/03/11 10:47, Charles Walker wrote: What else does a proposal do when it takes effect? Turn into a monkey? It does whatever the rules say which, presently, is nothing. In the absence of a rule defining take effect, per R754, we are to use the mathematical, legal, or ordinary-language definition of the term. Although this certainly should be more explicit in the rules, I think the ordinary-language or legal definition of take effect does not break the game. - woggle signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registration
On 5/30/11 2:59 PM, Elliott Hird wrote: --040006000107010606030609 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Oops. Not sure how compose messages in HTML format got checked in my email preferences. - woggle signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
