On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 2:25 AM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
I submit the following proposal and pay the Distributability Fee to increase
the Distributability of this proposal by one.
Dislike. Adds a lot of complexity for little value.
-scshunt
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 7:53 AM, Chuck Carroll games...@chuckcarroll.orgwrote:
After less than two weeks of playing Nomic, when I was thinking this
morning that I needed to look up some details about a product, my internal
monologue told me that I needed to “check the Ruleset” for that.
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 2:38 AM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 2:25 AM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com
wrote:
I submit the following proposal and pay the Distributability Fee to increase
the Distributability of this proposal by one.
Dislike. Adds
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Max Schutz maxschutz...@gmail.com wrote:
I cast my vote for scshunt for the office of harold
Counting as succesful due to only being a spelling error.
-scshunt
On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, Steven Gardner wrote:
Class-3 Hazing, Roujo?
A trend/tradition of the second half of Agora's life actually.
The phrase '[x] is a player' has 80+ hits in the CFJ statement
database.
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, Steven Gardner wrote:
Class-3 Hazing, Roujo?
A trend/tradition of the second half of Agora's life actually.
The phrase '[x] is a player' has 80+ hits in the CFJ statement
database.
And the Class-3
On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, omd wrote:
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, Steven Gardner wrote:
Class-3 Hazing, Roujo?
A trend/tradition of the second half of Agora's life actually.
The phrase '[x] is a player' has 80+ hits in the
Let the order of votes be known as a rank, such as the first person to
have voted on a proposal be the Rank 1 voter, and so forth.
For every vote I've made that I can change, I change it to ENDORSE X,
where X is the player whose rank is the closest prime number to my
own, picking the lowest rank
On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, Jonathan Rouillard wrote:
Let the order of votes be known as a rank, such as the first person to
have voted on a proposal be the Rank 1 voter, and so forth.
For every vote I've made that I can change, I change it to ENDORSE X,
where X is the player whose rank is the
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 2:44 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Jonathan Rouillard
jonathan.rouill...@gmail.com wrote:
Let the order of votes be known as a rank, such as the first person to
have voted on a proposal be the Rank 1 voter, and so forth.
For every
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Jonathan Rouillard
jonathan.rouill...@gmail.com wrote:
Let the order of votes be known as a rank, such as the first person to
have voted on a proposal be the Rank 1 voter, and so forth.
For every vote I've made that I can change, I change it to ENDORSE X,
where
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 2:44 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Jonathan Rouillard
jonathan.rouill...@gmail.com wrote:
Let the order of votes be known as a rank, such as the first person to
have voted on a proposal be the Rank 1 voter, and so forth.
For every
I'm not going to get around to proposing infractions or
ribbon changes anytime soon, if interested parties want
to move ahead with that. -g.
On Jul 8, 2013, at 3:27 PM, omd wrote:
FOR: UNSUPPORTEDNESS
For a proposal outside the Star Chamber, this vote presumably would have had
the opposite effect.
—Machiavelli
On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 2:31 AM, woggle woggl...@gmail.com wrote:
###
Quantity: 10
Title: Hats
Text:
I change my vote on proposal X to Y, where X and Y are specified
by the casher when cashing this promise.
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 2:31 AM, woggle woggl...@gmail.com wrote:
###
Quantity: 10
Title: Hats
Text:
I change my vote on proposal X to Y,
Yes, I believe that was the original intent of the rule, though not how it
is written. Would support amendment.
Also, this may apply to me. Is there a chronological record of
registrations/deregistrations/holds?
- arkestra
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 12:21 AM, Ørjan Johansen oer...@nvg.ntnu.no
On Mon, 2013-07-08 at 16:27 -0400, Matt Berlin wrote:
Yes, I believe that was the original intent of the rule, though not how it
is written. Would support amendment.
Also, this may apply to me. Is there a chronological record of
registrations/deregistrations/holds?
It's in the Registrar's
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
Apparently, you were registered contiguously from 2 Mar 06 to 31 May 07,
easily long enough to satisfy the buggy requirement.
Gratuitous: I have been interpreting it as non-buggy. If I say I've
been here for two hours, it
On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, omd wrote:
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
Apparently, you were registered contiguously from 2 Mar 06 to 31 May 07,
easily long enough to satisfy the buggy requirement.
Gratuitous: I have been interpreting it as non-buggy. If I say
On Mon, 2013-07-08 at 13:41 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, omd wrote:
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
Apparently, you were registered contiguously from 2 Mar 06 to 31 May 07,
easily long enough to satisfy the buggy requirement.
An Elder is a first-class player who has been registered continuously for
at least 32 days
Future Perfect Progressive Tense ( ie, happened in the past, is still going
on, and may continue in the future) requires the present participle of the
verb. I don't think registered would work for this (
On Mon, 2013-07-08 at 17:01 -0400, Matt Berlin wrote:
An Elder is a first-class player who has been registered continuously for
at least 32 days
Future Perfect Progressive Tense ( ie, happened in the past, is still going
on, and may continue in the future) requires the present participle of
Good thing I'm supine, then. =P
~ Roujo
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 5:07 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
On Mon, 2013-07-08 at 12:50 -0400, Jonathan Rouillard wrote:
Detail: http://cotc.psychose.ca/viewcase.php?cfj=3358
== CFJ 3358
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Matt Berlin arkes...@gmail.com wrote:
An Elder is a first-class player who has been registered continuously for
at least 32 days
Future Perfect Progressive Tense ( ie, happened in the past, is still going
on, and may continue in the future) requires the present
On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, Alex Smith wrote:
On Mon, 2013-07-08 at 14:16 -0700, Lindar Greenwood wrote:
I initiate a CFJ on the following:
The common vernacular for someone who does something is Xor, where a Xor
Xes.
By rule 2408 the 'recordkeepor' is the title for one who keeps records
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 5:40 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Lindar Greenwood
lindartheb...@gmail.com wrote:
I initiate a CFJ on the following:
The common vernacular for someone who does something is Xor, where a Xor Xes.
By rule 2408 the 'recordkeepor' is
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 5:32 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Matt Berlin arkes...@gmail.com wrote:
An Elder is a first-class player who has been registered continuously for
at least 32 days
Future Perfect Progressive Tense ( ie, happened in the past, is still
On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, omd wrote:
Proposal: Consistent inconsistency (AI=2)
Amend Rule 2410 (Parties) and Rule 2413 (General Elections) by
replacing Returning Officer with Returning Officor.
At some point, a cute convention becomes hideously off-putting.
I think it's about here.
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 5:43 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
By the way, that rule is quite broken as it prohibits discussing votes
even after the end of the voting period.
:D
On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, Sean Hunt wrote:
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 5:43 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
By the way, that rule is quite broken as it prohibits discussing votes
even after the end of the voting period.
I think the rule is wholly unenforceable anyway. Back in the Insane
days, we
I object. (However, I'm definitely not treating Agora right good
currently, much less forever.)
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Wes Contreras w...@antitribu.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 1:51 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
I intend, without objection, to make each of the following
On 9 July 2013 04:16, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Don't think CFJ about a registration attempt to discussion list is
frivolous though :P
According to the OED, 'frivolous' has a special legal sense meaning
'manifestly insufficient or futile'. Since it is well established in law
Let me stress that I'm talking hypothetically. Roujo never actually called
for Judgement (wrong forum, hehe), and so did not actually commit the
Crime. But I am interested to know what the Courts would consider a
frivolous CFJ in the sense of the last paragraph of R869.
On 9 July 2013 09:26,
On Tue, 9 Jul 2013, Steven Gardner wrote:
Let me stress that I'm talking hypothetically. Roujo never actually called
for Judgement (wrong forum, hehe), and so
did not actually commit the Crime. But I am interested to know what the
Courts would consider a frivolous CFJ in the
sense of the
Level confusion, Goethe. The Statement Roujo committed the Class-3 Crime
of Hazing. is not frivolous; it alleges that Roujo frivolously CFJed on
the success of a player's attempt to register.
On 9 July 2013 10:10, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Tue, 9 Jul 2013, Steven Gardner
On Tue, 9 Jul 2013, Steven Gardner wrote:
Level confusion, Goethe. The Statement Roujo committed the Class-3 Crime of
Hazing. is not frivolous; it alleges that Roujo
frivolously CFJed on the success of a player's attempt to register.
No, I meant if I personally (independent of Roujo) CFJ'd
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 7:44 AM, Jonathan Rouillard
jonathan.rouill...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 2:38 AM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
wrote:
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 2:25 AM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com
wrote:
I submit the following proposal and pay the
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
CFJ #2
CoE
em-dash Machiavelli
On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, Fool wrote:
R2410 allows a party constitution to amend itself arbitrarily. The fact that
these amendments are mediated via R2410 and player announcement does not make
it not a Nomic.
The point is, the Party cannot *choose its own method of mediation*, while a
nomic can.
On 08/07/2013 9:21 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
And when you think about it, no Nomic compels its own rule following. All
Nomics are implicitly mediated by something, and this is not subject to
amendment. Usually this is by its players directly, but there are other
possibilities.
But they *are*
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 10:08 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
(dunno why I'm bothering for 50 yaks, I think that reward should be at
least twice as high.)
It is for normal people.
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 10:01 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Sure, a party can do this. And then splinter off and be a nomic.
BUT IN DOING SO, IT IS NO LONGER THE PARTY that the officer
Is tracking.
fwiw, I agree that splintering off doesn't count, but I think that a
system of
On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, Fool wrote:
I had a look. The situation looks to me like this: the question was whether
Agora would recognise it as a Contest, and when it broke a certain Agoran
rule, it ceased to be a Contest. There wasn't a divergent version of
Claustronomic that still existed in
On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, omd wrote:
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 10:01 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Sure, a party can do this. And then splinter off and be a nomic.
BUT IN DOING SO, IT IS NO LONGER THE PARTY that the officer
Is tracking.
fwiw, I agree that splintering off
On 04/07/2013 8:12 PM, Charles Walker wrote:
On 5 July 2013 01:09, Jonathan Rouillardjonathan.rouill...@gmail.com wrote:
I support, although I'd rather use Over/Finished, whichever was passed
by proposal.
Neither has passed yet; ask me again when one has.
-- Walker
Just passed. I prefer
On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Mainly, the sticking point is in the broadness of R2368's arbitrary,
coupled with the fact that the mechanism CAN be changed within Agora,
but CAN'T be changed by the Party, so from the point of view of Agora,
there is at least one thing thing that CAN
On 08/07/2013 8:41 PM, omd wrote:
x7493 10 O D FoolComplete Rubbish
And it's fair that this rejected. It was:
{{
Fool CAN satisfy the Victory Condition of Complete Rubbish by
announcement, if he has not already done so.
Fool CAN cause this rule to repeal itself by announcement.
On 08/07/2013 4:06 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
I submit the following promise:
Text { I taunt the Police, specifying 5. }
Conditions for cashing {
- I previously voted on an Agoran Decision as a direct result of a
promise being cashed.
- The voting period ended and my vote was not the same (after
49 matches
Mail list logo
