Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

2019-07-11 Thread Jason Cobb
Well, we have some test cases right now, so someone could CFJ (if nobody else does, I will later). Jason Cobb On 7/11/19 10:18 AM, James Cook wrote: On Wed, 10 Jul 2019 at 00:56, Rebecca wrote: Does the CHoJ work now btw? It's unclear, since R2557 may not give a method for levying fines.

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

2019-07-11 Thread James Cook
On Wed, 10 Jul 2019 at 00:56, Rebecca wrote: > Does the CHoJ work now btw? It's unclear, since R2557 may not give a method for levying fines. See my proposal "Police Power" with Jason Cobb.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to Become a Player

2019-06-02 Thread Jason Cobb
Thanks :) Jason Cobb On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 10:30 AM ATMunn wrote: > Welcome to Agora, Jason Cobb! > > On 6/1/2019 10:02 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > > I declare my intent to become a Player. > > > > Jason Cobb > > >

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to Become a Player

2019-06-02 Thread ATMunn
Welcome to Agora, Jason Cobb! On 6/1/2019 10:02 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: I declare my intent to become a Player. Jason Cobb

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent Proposal

2019-05-26 Thread Aris Merchant
Maybe try “does not appear to have known”? Otherwise, the gamestate depends on someone’s actual mental state, which is impossible to determine given the limits of current technology. -Aris On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 4:24 PM D. Margaux wrote: > Crap. > > I withdraw that proposal. I resubmit it

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to clean rules

2019-03-04 Thread Ørjan Johansen
This needs to be done after the intent fixing proposal passes, anyway, since rule changes are explicitly _not_ fixed and this won't be in the ruleset that is being ratified. Greetings, Ørjan. On Tue, 5 Mar 2019, James Cook wrote: On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 at 00:59, James Cook wrote: I intend to

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent (+SPOOKY)

2019-02-18 Thread Gaelan Steele
I slightly mind, but I probably would have done the same thing so meh. Also, come to think of it, I also abused that contract to your detriment, so maybe this is just karma. Gaelan > On Feb 18, 2019, at 3:36 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > > Good point! Based on his recent hashes, he probably is.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent (+SPOOKY)

2019-02-18 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
I think you need to retract the previous ballots first (though "changing" a vote is accepted shorthand) -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Monday, February 18, 2019 11:36 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > Good point! Based on his recent hashes, he probably is. Therefore: > > If Aris’s message

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent (+SPOOKY)

2019-02-18 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
Hold on, are we sure G. isn't in on it? -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Monday, February 18, 2019 11:31 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > Like Gaelan, I do the following, and I cause ATMunn to do the following: > > - object to any intents announced in the quoted message. > - if quoted

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

2019-02-18 Thread D. Margaux
What if we approach this from the other direction—i.e., what kind of a thing could this “Protocol” action possibly be? If this Protocol action isn’t somehow authorized (directly or indirectly) by the Rules, then it cannot be used to perform regulated actions and so there’s no reason for us to

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

2019-02-18 Thread D. Margaux
> On Feb 18, 2019, at 4:18 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > ais523 mentioned something about the original definition being NttPF - we've > already checked the a-d archives, but maybe there was once something in the > IRC channel? Or does anyone know of any other discussion forums that have

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

2019-02-18 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
The closest thing I could find is this: which relates to UNDEAD, but to the best of my knowledge Aris registered well after UNDEAD was a major thing. My default assumption whenever something like this happens is that

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

2019-02-18 Thread Cuddle Beam
The Protocol seems like something that could be interacted with but it’s too obscure for uninformed people to properly react to (“if you remember” and whatnot, implying it requires some kind of past knowledge, and there’s nothing on the archives so I have no idea), I did the same lol. On Mon, 18

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

2019-02-18 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
On Monday, February 18, 2019 8:24 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > I hngah 50 coins for Aris Merchant // Title: 50 coins Adoption index: 1.0 Author: CuddleBeam Aris Merchant

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

2019-02-17 Thread ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
On Sun, 2019-02-17 at 22:36 -0800, Aris Merchant wrote: > To be honest, I can’t think of a way to block an activation of The > Protocol after an intent has been announced. That said, the fact that > I can’t think of a way to do something doesn’t mean it’s impossible. Assuming that this is a

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

2019-02-05 Thread Aris Merchant
I promise, I won’t preferentially delay any proposals. If they’re late, they’ll be late for the sole reason that the entire report is late. That shouldn’t happpen though, as I have some free time over the next few days. -Aris On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 9:41 AM D. Margaux wrote: > I intend to

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

2019-02-05 Thread Ørjan Johansen
I think you technically cannot force it until just after the Week, because you need to wait until the Promotor is late (rule 2160 §3). Greetings, Ørjan. On Tue, 5 Feb 2019, D. Margaux wrote: I intend to deputise for Promotor to distribute the proposals in the proposal pool. I intend to

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

2019-02-05 Thread Kerim Aydin
Huh. YMMV, but I personally wouldn't consider it rude, especially if you explained why it was time-sensitive for you (unless you were doing it every time they were a day late or something). The whole purpose of requiring Notice is to give a fair warning. A specific purpose of deputisation,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

2019-02-05 Thread D. Margaux
In that case I won’t do the deputising then. I guess I’m just overly excited to see how the scam plays out. :-) > On Feb 5, 2019, at 4:16 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > Yikes. > > I've been told in the past that forcibly ousting (non-corrupt) officers > without their consent is considered

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

2019-02-05 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
Yikes. I've been told in the past that forcibly ousting (non-corrupt) officers without their consent is considered rude, but if you're willing to wait until the weekend I can distribute it for you as a one-off, if Aris hasn't already by then. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

2017-10-25 Thread VJ Rada
Attn ATMunn: Here's o initiating a Surveyor election, nobody has stood against em. On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 5:48 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > > On Oct 22, 2017, at 12:46 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > > > > I intend, in between 2 and 14 days, to deputize for the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

2017-10-24 Thread VJ Rada
Oh sorry you just thought you needed to pend it. Yeah, Alexis is right, they're free. On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 1:40 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > Uh...players can unilaterally initiate elections for offices they hold. > That election is initiated. > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 1:38 PM,

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

2017-10-24 Thread VJ Rada
Uh...players can unilaterally initiate elections for offices they hold. That election is initiated. On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 1:38 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > > On Oct 24, 2017, at 2:48 AM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > > > > >> On Oct 22, 2017, at 12:46 AM, VJ

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

2017-10-24 Thread VJ Rada
I won't stand for this. (this office! Not "I won't stand for this" as in "this is unacceptable") On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 5:48 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > >> On Oct 22, 2017, at 12:46 AM, VJ Rada wrote: >> >> I intend, in between 2 and 14 days, to deputize

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

2017-10-22 Thread Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
I would be willing to do secretary. On 10/22/2017 12:46 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > I intend, in between 2 and 14 days, to deputize for the positions of > Referee and Surveyor, for the purposes of publishing the weekly > reports of each of those positions. > > I encourage someone with a stronger heart

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

2017-10-04 Thread Gaelan Steele
Yeah, I just put out an intent to kill the agency. :) > On Oct 4, 2017, at 7:14 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > >> On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 at 01:13 Gaelan Steele wrote: >> Get shinies for proposing (and passing) rules that are valid markdown so >> that the HLR works

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

2017-10-04 Thread Alexis Hunt
On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 at 01:13 Gaelan Steele wrote: > Get shinies for proposing (and passing) rules that are valid markdown so > that the HLR works better. > Opposed to this.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

2017-10-03 Thread VJ Rada
"Any protest from anyone about proposing 1 weekly report that contains full agency texts? It's not all that long..." As the superintendant, nope. Go for it. On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > Get shinies for proposing (and passing) rules that are valid

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

2017-10-03 Thread Gaelan Steele
Get shinies for proposing (and passing) rules that are valid markdown so that the HLR works better. > On Oct 3, 2017, at 10:05 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote: >> I intend with 24 Hours notice to destroy the agency MKD. Nobody's

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

2017-10-03 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote: > I intend with 24 Hours notice to destroy the agency MKD. Nobody's ever > used it, and it doesn't seem worth keeping around. I think the Agency reports are out of whack. A weekly list of names carries very little useful information, and there's so long

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to deputise

2016-11-04 Thread Owen Jacobson
On Nov 4, 2016, at 1:47 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > * It’ll take me about that long to get the reports together anyways, and I’d > rather not duplicate the effort if someone else is already doing it; Apparently not. I have DRAFTS of the two rules-required reports, as well as

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to Deputise for Promotor

2014-10-24 Thread Eritivus
I didn't think to actually echo your intent. However, I am ready to distribute the proposals after ribbons; if you'd like me to do so, resign.

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to Deputise for Promotor

2014-10-22 Thread Eritivus
I had been planning to send a similar message. Happy to give the office a shot if neither you nor aranea want it.

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

2013-08-29 Thread Benjamin Schultz
On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote: I announce that it is my intent, assuming the absence of a trio (or greater) of objectors within the defined time period, to cause the Mutability Index to have a value of 10. I will object for something

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to deputise

2013-05-23 Thread omd
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Jonathan Rouillard jonathan.rouill...@gmail.com wrote: If I haven't already voted on these, I vote PRESENT on all of them. (I sent a message to the list, but it was down so it told me that it would retry automatically. I have no idea if it actually did, so eh.

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

2011-07-31 Thread Jonatan Kilhamn
On 31 July 2011 02:18, Elliott Hird penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote: On 30 July 2011 23:21, woggle woggl...@gmail.com wrote: I intend, with Agoran Consent, to cause the President to deregister. I intend, with Agoran Consent, to cause the President to withdraw all previous support or

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

2011-07-31 Thread Charles Walker
On 31 July 2011 01:18, Elliott Hird penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote: On 30 July 2011 23:21, woggle woggl...@gmail.com wrote: I intend, with Agoran Consent, to cause the President to deregister. I intend, with Agoran Consent, to cause the President to withdraw all previous support or

DIS: Re: BUS: intent to deputize

2011-03-03 Thread omd
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote: I intend to deputize for the Registrar to publish eir weekly report. Pseudo-CoE: This is too vague. There are multiple documents that would satisfy the Registrar's requirement to publish a weekly report.

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to deregister

2009-12-16 Thread Sgeo
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 5:10 PM, Schrodinger's Cat schrodingers.kat...@gmail.com wrote: I object. On 12/16/09, Schrodinger's Cat schrodingers.kat...@gmail.com wrote: I intend, without objection, to deregister Schrodinger's Cat. -- Sent from my mobile device -- Schrodinger's Cat --

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to deregister

2009-12-16 Thread Phoenix
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 7:59 PM, Sgeo sgeos...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 5:10 PM, Schrodinger's Cat schrodingers.kat...@gmail.com wrote: I object. On 12/16/09, Schrodinger's Cat schrodingers.kat...@gmail.com wrote: I intend, without objection, to deregister Schrodinger's Cat.

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to amend FRContest

2009-10-16 Thread Geoffrey Spear
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 6:45 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: 7) If this contract is a Champion's Contest, the contestmaster CAN and    SHALL transfer a medal from the contract to any contestant who has    won 3 rounds of the Committee since the contract came to possess that    

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to ditch the Points Party

2009-09-23 Thread Alex Smith
--- On Wed, 23/9/09, Elliott Hird penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote: You're a damn immoral liar, claiming that your mousetrap would only be used for that proposal to me. Shame. I didn't; I also claimed that I would try to punish players who attempted to object by stealing/destroying

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to ditch the Points Party

2009-09-23 Thread Elliott Hird
2009/9/23 Alex Smith callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk: I didn't; I also claimed that I would try to punish players who attempted to object by stealing/destroying assets, which is what I'm doing here. I think your misquote of me is bordering on illegal. ais523 I said I'd only use the mousetrap

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to ditch the Points Party

2009-09-23 Thread comex
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Elliott Hird penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote: 2009/9/23 Alex Smith callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk: I didn't; I also claimed that I would try to punish players who attempted to object by stealing/destroying assets, which is what I'm doing here. I think

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to ditch the Points Party

2009-09-23 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009, comex wrote: On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Elliott Hird penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote: 2009/9/23 Alex Smith callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk: I didn't; I also claimed that I would try to punish players who attempted to object by stealing/destroying assets...

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to ditch the Points Party

2009-09-23 Thread comex
Sent from my iPhone On Sep 23, 2009, at 1:54 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: (and as an aside, maybe such a far-reaching win should close off the era of complex contracts in Agora). Only if it works!

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to ditch the Points Party

2009-09-21 Thread Roger Hicks
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 16:57, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 07:04 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: I retract my proposal Kill it with fire. I submit the following proposal, and intend (without objection) to make it distributable: Proposal:  Kill it with fire (AI

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to ditch the Points Party

2009-09-21 Thread Pavitra
Roger Hicks wrote: Proto: Criminalize Ambiguity { Create a new rule with the text: {{ Knowingly compounding an ambiguous gamestate is the class 4 crime of Muddying the Waters. }} } Criminality dependent on intent is almost, but not quite, as bad as gamestate ambiguity, and for not

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to ditch the Points Party

2009-09-20 Thread Pavitra
ais523 wrote: On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 07:04 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: I retract my proposal Kill it with fire. I submit the following proposal, and intend (without objection) to make it distributable: Proposal: Kill it with fire (AI = 2, II = 0, please) Terminate the contract that was

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: intent, NoV

2009-07-31 Thread Ed Murphy
coppro wrote: I spend an Absolve-o-matic (sp) to destroy a Rest in my own possession. TTttPF As a few of us have recently found out, Absolv-o-Matic is ineffective because its rule has too low Power to satisfy securing of Rest changes.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: intent, NoV

2009-07-31 Thread Sean Hunt
Ed Murphy wrote: coppro wrote: I spend an Absolve-o-matic (sp) to destroy a Rest in my own possession. TTttPF As a few of us have recently found out, Absolv-o-Matic is ineffective because its rule has too low Power to satisfy securing of Rest changes. Oh, wonderful :/

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: intent, NoV

2009-07-31 Thread ais523
On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 23:55 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote: Geoffrey Spear wrote: I intend to deputize for the IADoP to initiate an election for Rulekeepor. I publish an NoV alleging that coppro violated R2217, a Power 1 rule, by failing to initiate an election for Rulekeepor within 1 week of

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: intent, NoV

2009-07-31 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, ais523 wrote: Fails, Absolve-o-matics are broken atm. -- ais523 I think quorum is such that you could fix it personally by voting FOR 6409 right now (and if you feel like it, 6407-6408 are also straightforward fixes). -G.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: intent, NoV

2009-07-31 Thread Geoffrey Spear
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, ais523 wrote: Fails, Absolve-o-matics are broken atm. -- ais523 I think quorum is such that you could fix it personally by voting FOR 6409 right now (and if you feel like it, 6407-6408 are also

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: intent, NoV

2009-07-31 Thread Ed Murphy
Wooble wrote: On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, ais523 wrote: Fails, Absolve-o-matics are broken atm. -- ais523 I think quorum is such that you could fix it personally by voting FOR 6409 right now (and if you feel like it,

DIS: Re: BUS: intent, NoV

2009-07-30 Thread Sean Hunt
Geoffrey Spear wrote: I intend to deputize for the IADoP to initiate an election for Rulekeepor. I publish an NoV alleging that coppro violated R2217, a Power 1 rule, by failing to initiate an election for Rulekeepor within 1 week of the office ceasing to have an active holder. I cause this

DIS: Re: BUS: intent

2009-07-13 Thread Roger Hicks
On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 09:02, Geoffrey Speargeoffsp...@gmail.com wrote: I intend to deputise for the Insulator to make initial deals from the Deck of Justice. That's what I get for not re-reading the adopted proposal. I forgot this was my job. Deals coming up. BobTHJ

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: intent to deputise

2009-05-31 Thread Benjamin Schultz
On May 30, 2009, at 1:48 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: Geoffrey Spear wrote: I intend to deputise for the Herald to announce that OscarMeyr became Speaker on 20 May 2009. Oscar, or anyone deputizing if Oscar fails to do so: I believe the Respectfully, my nickname is OscarMeyr, not Oscar. Take a

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: intent to deputise

2009-05-31 Thread Sean Hunt
Benjamin Schultz wrote: On May 30, 2009, at 1:48 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: Geoffrey Spear wrote: I intend to deputise for the Herald to announce that OscarMeyr became Speaker on 20 May 2009. Oscar, or anyone deputizing if Oscar fails to do so: I believe the Respectfully, my nickname is

DIS: Re: BUS: intent to deputise

2009-05-30 Thread Sean Hunt
Geoffrey Spear wrote: I intend to deputise for the Herald to announce that OscarMeyr became Speaker on 20 May 2009. Oscar, or anyone deputizing if Oscar fails to do so: I believe the current MWoPs are myself, ais523, root, yourself, and Wooble. Note that Canada being awarded MWoP will not change

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: intent to deputise

2009-05-30 Thread Sean Hunt
Sean Hunt wrote: Geoffrey Spear wrote: I intend to deputise for the Herald to announce that OscarMeyr became Speaker on 20 May 2009. Oscar, or anyone deputizing if Oscar fails to do so: I believe the current MWoPs are myself, ais523, root, yourself, and Wooble. Note that Canada being awarded

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: intent to deputise

2009-05-30 Thread Aaron Goldfein
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: at OscarMeyr became Speaker on 20 May 2009. Canada is a player, and an active one at that.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: intent to deputise

2009-05-30 Thread comex
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: at OscarMeyr became Speaker on 20 May 2009. Canada is a player, and an active one at that. It is a person; I'm not aware of it ever becoming

DIS: Re: BUS: intent to deputise

2009-05-30 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Sat, 30 May 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote: I intend to deputise for the Herald to announce that OscarMeyr became Speaker on 20 May 2009. Oh sorry is that a duty now? Missed that. I'll announce it tomorrow when I catch up with records. -G.

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to award patent titles

2009-05-22 Thread Ed Murphy
Wooble wrote: I award myself the patent title Champion for my win by Championship. I award myself the patent title Champion for my win by High Score. In the interest of maintaining the Hall of Fame's historical records (and my not having to hunt through the archives again), what was the nature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to award patent titles

2009-05-22 Thread Alex Smith
On Fri, 2009-05-22 at 12:25 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: Wooble wrote: I award myself the patent title Champion for my win by Championship. I award myself the patent title Champion for my win by High Score. In the interest of maintaining the Hall of Fame's historical records (and my not

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to award patent titles

2009-05-21 Thread Alex Smith
On Wed, 2009-05-20 at 21:52 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 9:50 PM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote: I award myself the patent title Champion for my win by Championship. I award myself the patent title Champion for my win by High Score. I award myself the

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to clean up contracts from November and early December

2008-12-09 Thread Ed Murphy
Sgeo wrote: On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 9:12 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wrote: Wed 5 Nov 00:58:13 P1 and P2 amended; P3 through P100 come and go In case the previous message was ineffective: [snip the murders of partnerships P1-P100] I CFJ on the statement: P17 has the Patent

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to clean up contracts from November and early December

2008-12-09 Thread Sgeo
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 1:42 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sgeo wrote: On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 9:12 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wrote: Wed 5 Nov 00:58:13 P1 and P2 amended; P3 through P100 come and go In case the previous message was ineffective: [snip the murders of

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to clean up contracts from November and early December

2008-12-08 Thread Elliott Hird
On 8 Dec 2008, at 02:09, Ed Murphy wrote: Sun 16 Nov 00:52:20 Unnamed pledge created by ehird I pledge not to redeem USD Vouchers specifying warrigal. Having received no objection, I terminate this contract. This pledge did not exist. It did not identify itself as public.

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to clean up contracts from November and early December

2008-12-07 Thread Warrigal
Tue 2 Dec 23:27:07 Unnamed pledge created by Warrigal I publicly pledge that if I get elected, I'll sort this out so that harblcat, Siege and Charles get an equal chance. Having received no objection, I terminate this contract. This is also a Grand Poobah pledge, isn't it? --Warrigal

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to clean up contracts from November and early December

2008-12-03 Thread Taral
Wed 3 Dec 00:20:47 Unnamed pledge created by Taral Players may add or remove an email address as a send-only address to a specific Public Forum Without Objection. The Distributor SHALL take what actions are necessary to permit (or prevent, as appropriate) that address to send messages to

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to register

2008-11-28 Thread Benjamin Schultz
On Nov 28, 2008, at 4:50 AM, Chris Blair wrote: I, harblcat, hereby announce my registration. --- I hope to have fun. Welcome to the game, harblcat! - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr {{welcome-tiny}}

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to appeal

2008-11-28 Thread Elliott Hird
On 28 Nov 2008, at 19:31, comex wrote: On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I intend, with 2 support, to appeal the judgement on sentencing in CFJ 2273. CHOKEY is far too lenient. Support. I support and appeal it. If comex gets EXILED, cantus

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to deputise

2008-10-24 Thread Taral
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I accept this nomination. I also predict that Taral will decline (or at least not accept) eirs, as IIRC e ran away screaming the last time e was so nominated. Eh, if Murphy wants it, e can have it. Murphy? -- Taral [EMAIL

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to deputise

2008-10-24 Thread Ed Murphy
Taral wrote: On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I accept this nomination. I also predict that Taral will decline (or at least not accept) eirs, as IIRC e ran away screaming the last time e was so nominated. Eh, if Murphy wants it, e can have it. Murphy?

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to deputise

2008-10-22 Thread Ian Kelly
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 8:09 AM, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I intend to deputise for the CotC to: * Recuse the appeals panel on CFJ 2213a * Recuse the appeals panel on CFJ 2203a * Recuse the appeals panel on CFJ 2172a I note that the CotC is very nearly overdue on one

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to deputise

2008-10-22 Thread Alex Smith
On Wed, 2008-10-22 at 10:47 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote: On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 8:09 AM, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I intend to deputise for the CotC to: * Recuse the appeals panel on CFJ 2213a * Recuse the appeals panel on CFJ 2203a * Recuse the appeals panel on CFJ

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to make Werewolves a cross-nomic game

2008-10-12 Thread Ben Caplan
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?

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to ratify

2008-09-18 Thread ais523
On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 14:28 -0400, comex wrote: I intend, without objection, to ratify the Short Logical Ruleset I most recently published. Generally speaking, I look with skeptical eyes whenever comex tries to ratify anything, but that report looks correct to me. -- ais523

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to deputize for Assessor for last 6 batches

2008-07-26 Thread Ed Murphy
I wrote: I intend to deputize for the Assessor to resolve the Agoran decisions to adopt proposals 5585-5650. I believe the results are as follows. Proofreading is suggested, at least for proposals where the results are close enough that an error could conceivably affect the overall

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent on CFJ 1932a (fwd)

2008-05-19 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Sat, 17 May 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: While I agree with you that double jeopardy is a serious issue, what would then prevent a person from breaking a rule, initiating a specious criminal case alleging that the action broke some other rule, then go on to assert that any further prosecution

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent on CFJ 1932a (fwd)

2008-05-19 Thread comex
On 5/19/08, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Naw, you're right. After thinking about things over the weekend, I realized my annoyance at double-jeopardy is a symptom, the disease (what's leading me to step back from the game right now) is: 1. Compulsion of judges via threat of

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent on CFJ 1932a (fwd)

2008-05-19 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Mon, 19 May 2008, comex wrote: Personally I think the most pressing concern is the lack of any meaningful Agoran currency. Previously, even a judge who didn't egregiously abuse the system was compelled to judge accurately and on time so that e might gain the Blue VC. Judges don't get

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent on CFJ 1932a (fwd)

2008-05-19 Thread comex
On 5/19/08, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judges don't get salaries of some kind anymore? I haven't been keeping track personally, I just assumed we still got notes or something. I agree (also to your point on tardiness) that salaries would be motivating to many. In fact, I was

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent on CFJ 1932a (fwd)

2008-05-19 Thread Ed Murphy
comex wrote: Personally I think the most pressing concern is the lack of any meaningful Agoran currency. Previously, even a judge who didn't egregiously abuse the system was compelled to judge accurately and on time so that e might gain the Blue VC. I've been trying to tweak Notes into a

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent on CFJ 1932a (fwd)

2008-05-19 Thread Ed Murphy
comex wrote: Not really. Even the contracts that define dependent actions aren't really allowed to (Rule 1728: the Rules explicitly authorize...). I think this is covered by the first paragraph of Rule 2198: If a contract specifies a mechanism by which Contract Changes to it can

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent on CFJ 1932a

2008-05-15 Thread Ed Murphy
Goethe wrote: I call for judgement on the following statement. I bar root and ais523: The second of these is ineffective (R591/26, paragraph 2). I'll do a full catchup later tonight.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent on CFJ 1932a (fwd)

2008-05-15 Thread comex
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 8:33 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: comex wrote: By the way, the above is another reason why R101 should not be interpreted such that I am guilty. If I wanted to break a rule and get away with it, with this interpretation, I need only break the rule then

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent on CFJ 1932a (fwd)

2008-05-15 Thread comex
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 10:05 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Exactly! ALREADY TRIED, the explicit mechanism for dealing with dupe trials, requires it to be the same rule or it doesn't count. But with Goethe's interpretation that R101 implicitly forbids such double penalization (of being

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent on CFJ 1932a (fwd)

2008-05-15 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Thu, 15 May 2008, comex wrote: Exactly! ALREADY TRIED, the explicit mechanism for dealing with dupe trials, requires it to be the same rule or it doesn't count. But with Goethe's interpretation that R101 implicitly forbids such double penalization (of being called to court twice for

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent on CFJ 1932a (fwd)

2008-05-15 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Thu, 15 May 2008, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Thu, 15 May 2008, comex wrote: Exactly! ALREADY TRIED, the explicit mechanism for dealing with dupe trials, requires it to be the same rule or it doesn't count. That doesn't change my argument. R101 would have precedence and prevent the trial

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent on CFJ 1932a (fwd)

2008-05-15 Thread Ed Murphy
comex wrote: On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 10:05 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Exactly! ALREADY TRIED, the explicit mechanism for dealing with dupe trials, requires it to be the same rule or it doesn't count. But with Goethe's interpretation that R101 implicitly forbids such double

RE: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent on CFJ 1932a

2008-05-14 Thread Alexander Smith
: what's to stop the new judge pulling the same scam? It seems not unlikely that root would agree. -- ais523 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Ed Murphy Sent: Tue 13/05/2008 05:03 To: Agora Business Subject: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent on CFJ 1932a root wrote

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent on CFJ 1932a (fwd)

2008-05-13 Thread Iammars
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 12:53 AM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 12 May 2008, Ed Murphy wrote: Goethe wrote: on the matter of the appeal (CFJ 1932a), This Board moves to REASSIGN. Bah, my attempt was a few minutes too late, but hopefully it will give the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent on CFJ 1932a (fwd)

2008-05-13 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Tue, 13 May 2008, Iammars wrote: CFJ 1488 says that we can't get root for anything here. But I do plan on hitting the judge here, probably with APOLOGY. I hate scams that use the judicial system, and would usually assign CHOKEY, but because he's a new player, I'll be a little lenient.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent on CFJ 1932a

2008-05-13 Thread comex
On 5/13/08, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Otherwise, if we were going by common definitions you cite, we'd have to conclude that equity with oneself on any level must be considered either tautology or nonsense and cases thrown out accordingly. Rule 2191 says that, in a pledge, the

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent on CFJ 1932a (fwd)

2008-05-13 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Tue, 13 May 2008, comex wrote: On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 12:19 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I initiate a criminal case against comex, alleging that e violated Rule 101(vii) and Goethe's defined rights by initiating a criminal case against Goethe, when Goethe is already being

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent on CFJ 1932a (fwd)

2008-05-13 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Tue, 13 May 2008, comex wrote: (In fact, I somehow managed to not see root's message despite it being located (in GMail) directly above my reply. By the way, I didn't think you'd seen root's message. I'd rather R101 actually stopped the CFJ from being called or allowed the judge to dismiss

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent on CFJ 1932a (fwd)

2008-05-13 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Tue, 13 May 2008, comex wrote: (In fact, I somehow managed to not see root's message despite it being located (in GMail) directly above my reply. Oh an offer comex: I'll withdraw my criminal CFJ if you withdraw yours (and feel free to add your arguments to the criminal case that root

  1   2   >