Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

2019-07-05 Thread Rebecca
On behalf of tar I transfer 20 coins to R. Lee On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 2:24 PM James Cook wrote: > On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 23:35, Rebecca wrote: > > I also transfer tar's 20 coins to myself > > Does this work? > > R2466 requires that you "must, in the message in which the action is > performed,

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

2019-07-05 Thread James Cook
On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 23:35, Rebecca wrote: > I also transfer tar's 20 coins to myself Does this work? R2466 requires that you "must, in the message in which the action is performed, uniquely identify the principal and that the action is being taken on behalf of that person." Specifically, you

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

2019-06-02 Thread James Cook
On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 20:48, Rance Bedwell wrote: > If you want me to, I will attempt to withdraw the COE. That might make things more interesting, since I don't see a way for you to do it. I might still be able to deny it under Rule 2201; I'm not sure. I don't think it's causing much harm. I'm

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

2019-06-02 Thread Rance Bedwell
You have persuaded me at least.  Also, in this case I chose to send the second email.  But if the duplicate email resulted from a technical glitch with no conscious decision involved, it certainly wouldn't seem right or a common sense interpretation to penalize the person.   In addition to the

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

2019-06-01 Thread Ørjan Johansen
I vaguely seem to recall that there is precedent that payments for something fail entirely if it's impossible for them to achieve that something. Greetings, Ørjan. On Thu, 30 May 2019, James Cook wrote: On Thu, 30 May 2019 at 03:34, Rance Bedwell wrote: I make a COE for this Treasuror's

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

2019-03-05 Thread Kerim Aydin
On 3/5/2019 6:14 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: On Tue, 5 Mar 2019, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: I respond to the CoE by citing the CFJ. (I swear I remember there being a proto floating around at some point to change it so that just the existence of a relevant open CFJ would block

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

2019-03-05 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Tue, 5 Mar 2019, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: I respond to the CoE by citing the CFJ. (I swear I remember there being a proto floating around at some point to change it so that just the existence of a relevant open CFJ would block self-ratification, instead of having to go through this

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

2019-03-05 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
Oh don't worry about me, it's the only vaguely controversial thing that's happened so far this week so it's pretty easy to keep track of in my head. If it was actually too confusing I'd be docking karma from you myself. :P -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Tuesday, March 5, 2019 9:06

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

2019-03-05 Thread Gaelan Steele
Seems like the solution here is to define (in a rule) “by announcement, stating…” as requiring the “stating” bit to be part of the public message. Gaelan > On Mar 5, 2019, at 12:48 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > CFJ, barring twg: G. has earned 5 coins for the Herald's Report of > 17-Feb-2019. >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

2019-03-05 Thread D. Margaux
> On Mar 5, 2019, at 1:03 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > Yes, I don't see how this is any different from "stating it to yourself". > Your publication of the hash (if it even is a hash - I see no evidence that > it's not just a random string of hexadecimal digits) didn't meaningfully >

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

2019-03-05 Thread D. Margaux
In that message, you didn’t state a number of coins; you stated a hash. Stating a hash is different from stating that-which-was-hashed, I think, at least when the hash cannot readily be decrypted by those to whom the statement is directed. If you said the hash out loud to yourself, or

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

2019-02-18 Thread Cuddle Beam
I was starting to be concerned tbh lol. On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 9:32 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On 2/18/2019 12:05 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada > dada > > dada... > > (that dada thing was meant to be silly, not angry - i

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

2019-02-18 Thread Cuddle Beam
Kinky. On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 9:33 PM D. Margaux wrote: > I point my toes at G. and cuddle beam for Faking. > > > On Feb 18, 2019, at 3:31 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > > > > maah uyntz asee as myself and sunt Dictatorship, also, the game is now > > Ossified and nobody can perform any game

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

2019-02-18 Thread Kerim Aydin
> On 2/18/2019 11:41 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: >> I did miss that, yes, but even now I see it I'm not at all clear that it >> works - seems to be a case of ISIDTID. >> >> For comparison, I state whatever is necessary to publish a revision to >> the below-referenced report. Here's a a more

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

2019-02-18 Thread Aris Merchant
No, I disagree. The point is that quang was a definition in the Agoran dialect, the same as if the relevant verb had been defined in standard English (we’ve never made a specific ruling on linguistic acceptability, beyond the comprehension of the players). Here, you’re just saying something and

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

2018-05-09 Thread Corona
Oh ok, will fix ~Corona On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 7:18 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > CoE: Still off I'm afraid. Zombies should get the May salary (that > includes > 3 Incs) but not the initial 5. (then some people transferred the Incs from > their zombies to themselves

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

2018-05-04 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Fri, 4 May 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: > CoE: This report misses that 3 incense were added to Paydays before the May 1 > payday (Proposal 8040). (also, 天火狐 was a zombie when that proposal passed so shouldn't have gotten the 5).