Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Hear Ye, Hear Ye!
On Tue, 21 Jul 2015, Sean Hunt wrote: On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Mon, 20 Jul 2015, Sean Hunt wrote: WHEREAS, new research indicates that Rule 106 in fact set the power Proposal 7448 to 4 prior to its taking effect; When an unproven counterfactual argument goes against the dominant current records, and a CFJ on the matter has been called, any further diverging the gamestate is Bad Form, no matter how strongly you feel about your argument. Erp, I missed that a CFJ had been called. My apologies. You're right. no worries! I'll deputize to assign the CFJ if no one jumps into the Arbitor role by tomorrow. -t.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Hear Ye, Hear Ye!
On Jul 21, 2015 14:01, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: no worries! I'll deputize to assign the CFJ if no one jumps into the Arbitor role by tomorrow. -t. I'll revoke the proclamation if it turns out to be wrong. -scshunt
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Hear Ye, Hear Ye!
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: no worries! I'll deputize to assign the CFJ if no one jumps into the Arbitor role by tomorrow. -t. I'm willing to do it, but do you have a copy of the current state of your interested judge list? (t.?)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Hear Ye, Hear Ye!
On Tue, 21 Jul 2015, omd wrote: On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: no worries! I'll deputize to assign the CFJ if no one jumps into the Arbitor role by tomorrow. -t. I'm willing to do it, but do you have a copy of the current state of your interested judge list? I announced a couple months ago that I was defining interested by voted at least once in the last couple weeks of Assessor's reports, and hasn't explicitly said they *weren't* interested. In other words, being interested enough to play Agora actively means being interested enough to do judicial duty. I changed this because I had old interested people who hadn't posted for a while, so I didn't expect them to return judgements. Haven't made a list from latest Assessor's report. Only opt-out was aranea for specified vacation dates but those dates have passed (I think!) -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Hear Ye, Hear Ye!
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: I announced a couple months ago that I was defining interested by voted at least once in the last couple weeks of Assessor's reports, and hasn't explicitly said they *weren't* interested. In other words, being interested enough to play Agora actively means being interested enough to do judicial duty. I changed this because I had old interested people who hadn't posted for a while, so I didn't expect them to return judgements. Haven't made a list from latest Assessor's report. Only opt-out was aranea for specified vacation dates but those dates have passed (I think!) Ah, thanks. In that case...
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Hear Ye, Hear Ye!
On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 11:50:28 -0700 (PDT) Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: Haven't made a list from latest Assessor's report. Only opt-out was aranea for specified vacation dates but those dates have passed (I think!) Yes, those have long passed. However, I also probably won't have time for judging from 15. Aug to 15. Sep. -- aranea
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Hear Ye, Hear Ye!
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 6:14 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com 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 ago). H. Herald coppro: If woggle were inactive, who would be Speaker? (It would be nice if you included a list of who won the game most recently.)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Hear Ye, Hear Ye!
On 06/01/2010 05:01 PM, comex wrote: On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Geoffrey Speargeoffsp...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 6:14 PM, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com 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 ago). H. Herald coppro: If woggle were inactive, who would be Speaker? (It would be nice if you included a list of who won the game most recently.) Everyone who was Green and active at the time of the passing of the proposals won most recently. If woggle was inactive, Tiger would be Speaker, as e won at the same time as ais523 and was registered more recently. -coppro
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Hear Ye, Hear Ye!
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 3:02 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote: Okay, I come off hold. Maybe just until I'm out of office, but maybe longer. You weren't on hold. If you had been, you wouldn't have been eligible to be Speaker at all. However, it's fairly unlikely you're actually Speaker despite being active.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Hear Ye, Hear Ye!
On 29 May 2010 14:34, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 3:02 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote: Okay, I come off hold. Maybe just until I'm out of office, but maybe longer. You weren't on hold. If you had been, you wouldn't have been eligible to be Speaker at all. However, it's fairly unlikely you're actually Speaker despite being active. I think I was. http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2010-May/025540.html -- -Tiger
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Hear Ye, Hear Ye!
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 3:58 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote: On 29 May 2010 14:34, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 3:02 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote: Okay, I come off hold. Maybe just until I'm out of office, but maybe longer. You weren't on hold. If you had been, you wouldn't have been eligible to be Speaker at all. However, it's fairly unlikely you're actually Speaker despite being active. I think I was. http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2010-May/025540.html Ok, that got missed in my trying to catch up on 3 weeks of stuff since the previous Registrar's report. If I read R2139 correctly, the Activity reporting on the report is not self-ratifying, so you were inactive and you're neither the Speaker nor on the Succession List. I'm increasingly less certain of who the actual Speaker is, although I believe it's still fairly likely to be allispaul, until the pending intent to make em inactive is resolved. Would anyone at this point vote against making the tiebreaker for choosing the Speaker favor people who have been registered longer? Not that wins by people who aren't paying attention at all should be the norm.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Hear Ye, Hear Ye!
On 05/29/2010 02:19 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 3:58 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote: On 29 May 2010 14:34, Geoffrey Speargeoffsp...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 3:02 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote: Okay, I come off hold. Maybe just until I'm out of office, but maybe longer. You weren't on hold. If you had been, you wouldn't have been eligible to be Speaker at all. However, it's fairly unlikely you're actually Speaker despite being active. I think I was. http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2010-May/025540.html Ok, that got missed in my trying to catch up on 3 weeks of stuff since the previous Registrar's report. If I read R2139 correctly, the Activity reporting on the report is not self-ratifying, so you were inactive and you're neither the Speaker nor on the Succession List. I'm increasingly less certain of who the actual Speaker is, although I believe it's still fairly likely to be allispaul, until the pending intent to make em inactive is resolved. Would anyone at this point vote against making the tiebreaker for choosing the Speaker favor people who have been registered longer? Not that wins by people who aren't paying attention at all should be the norm. No, I thought it was a mistake. I'll sort out the Speakership properly once you publish a fully accurate Registrar's report. -coppro
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Hear Ye, Hear Ye!
On Sun, 2010-04-25 at 15:39 -0400, comex wrote: On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: Each player who satisfied the Winning Condition of Dictatorship on or before 15 Mar 2010 00:00:00 UTC thereby won the game at most once, at the first moment at which e satisfied that Winning Condition and did not satisfy any Losing Conditions. Are you sure that each player has satisfied this Winning Condition at most once? I seem to remember there was a legitimate duplicate win by ais523/coppro though not which method it was. There was, it was exploiting a bug in the cleanup condition for Solitude. (Nothing to do with dictatorships.) -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Hear Ye, Hear Ye!
On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 11:26 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: coppro wrote: On 04/16/2010 03:31 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: As Herald of this grand and mighty Nomic, Iy do hearby proclame that Murphy haft won the Game by Renaissance, as was Todaye declared by Judge Comex inne the Nayme of owr Courts. Accordinnely, Iy aword im the Patent Title of Champion, cawsing im to assend to the Post of Speaker. Glory to Speaker Murphy! -coppro I Do Hearbye Correct Myself; Murphy dos nawt assend to the Post of Speaker as ee did nawt win the Game recently, ownly be awarded Champion. CoE: The first above-quoted message is correct (it counts as a win announcement, and I was active and Rest-free at the time); the second is incorrect (I did win and become Speaker, and I believe a player can bear multiple instances of the same Patent Title). You do get Champion but you do not become Speaker (because Speakership is based on the most recent win). -coppro
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Hear Ye, Hear Ye!
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: It destroys the ribbons, but it doesn't explicitly turn off the Winning Condition. R2186(b) does /now/, but only since it was fixed last month. But, hmm, there was another proposal that deactivated Winning Conditions as a one-off; can someone find a pointer to that, please? ID: 6680 Title: Stop Winning! Author: Yally AI: 1.0 II: 1 Chamber: Purple At the moment of the adoption of this proposal, all players cease to satisfy all Winning Conditions.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Hear Ye, Hear Ye!
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: Each player who satisfied the Winning Condition of Dictatorship on or before 15 Mar 2010 00:00:00 UTC thereby won the game at most once, at the first moment at which e satisfied that Winning Condition and did not satisfy any Losing Conditions. Are you sure that each player has satisfied this Winning Condition at most once? I seem to remember there was a legitimate duplicate win by ais523/coppro though not which method it was.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Hear Ye, Hear Ye!
On 04/25/2010 11:40 AM, Ed Murphy wrote: Each player who satisfied the Winning Condition of Clout on or before 15 Mar 2010 00:00:00 UTC thereby won the game at most once, at the first moment at which e satisfied that Winning Condition and did not satisfy any Losing Conditions. [i.e. ais523 on/about 1 Mar 09, coppro on/about 15 Sep 09, comex on/about 23 Feb 10] comex's win here failed. -coppro
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Hear Ye, Hear Ye!
On 04/25/2010 01:39 PM, comex wrote: On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Ed Murphyemurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: Each player who satisfied the Winning Condition of Dictatorship on or before 15 Mar 2010 00:00:00 UTC thereby won the game at most once, at the first moment at which e satisfied that Winning Condition and did not satisfy any Losing Conditions. Are you sure that each player has satisfied this Winning Condition at most once? I seem to remember there was a legitimate duplicate win by ais523/coppro though not which method it was. I never won by Junta, and as far as I know ais523 only did so once. -coppro
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Hear Ye, Hear Ye!
coppro wrote: On 04/25/2010 11:40 AM, Ed Murphy wrote: Each player who satisfied the Winning Condition of Clout on or before 15 Mar 2010 00:00:00 UTC thereby won the game at most once, at the first moment at which e satisfied that Winning Condition and did not satisfy any Losing Conditions. [i.e. ais523 on/about 1 Mar 09, coppro on/about 15 Sep 09, comex on/about 23 Feb 10] comex's win here failed. Wasn't there one or more unsuccessful attempts followed by a successful attempt?
