Yes, I'm planning to switch to my gmail account soon for Agora. Sorry for the
hard to read posts. I've tried several things, but I still can't tell how a
message will look after after been sent through the mailing list.
On Monday, June 10, 2019, 08:36:08 PM CDT, James Cook
wrote:
That is quite scary, but I think we're OK - R2577 says "CANNOT be destroyed
except by a proposal or rule", not "CAN be destroyed by a proposal or rule", so
although it's not _preventing_ unadopted proposals from defining how to destroy
assets, it's not creating a _mechanism_ by which they might
I bid 11 coins
From: agora-discussion on behalf of
Rebecca
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2019 5:31:40 AM
To: Agora Nomic discussions (DF)
Subject: DIS: Re: BUS: Zombie auction status (unofficial report)
i bid 8 coins
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 12:06 PM James Cook
I bid 11 coins.. Bleh
From: agora-business on behalf of
Rebecca
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2019 2:43:03 PM
To: agora-busin...@agoranomic.org
Subject: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Zombie auction status (unofficial report)
God I hate that there's public and non-public forums.
I believe that the problem is that Yahoo does not cooperate with mailman.
Each of Rance's emails has gone directly to my spam folder. When I tried to
join Agora on my Yahoo account, I received similar reports from other
players. It was easier to for me to switch to Gmail that figure out what
was
V.J. Rada and Baron von Vaderham, you may wish to send those bids to a
public forum.
On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 at 10:08, David Seeber wrote:
>
> I bid 11 coins
>
> From: agora-discussion on behalf of
> Rebecca
> Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2019 5:31:40 AM
> To: Agora
On 6/11/2019 6:43 AM, Rebecca wrote:
God I hate that there's public and non-public forums. Why do we need them?
It should just be OFF and BUS.
Because we want to discuss things without accidentally doing things.
I was suggesting a problem with G.'s suggested wording: "except as
described by a proposal or rule". I think with the current wording,
you're right, although it does prevent players from destroying eir own
blots, which is what the CFJ is about.
Jason Cobb
On 6/11/19 4:41 AM, Timon
On Tue, 2019-06-11 at 12:13 -0400, Jason Cobb wrote:
> I was suggesting a problem with G.'s suggested wording: "except as
> described by a proposal or rule". I think with the current wording,
> you're right, although it does prevent players from destroying eir
> own blots, which is what the CFJ
I'm happy to take on Arbitor now. Unless someone else jumps in, I'll
do a search and deputize to get the current pending batch assigned in
the next 24 hours.
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 9:59 AM Aris Merchant
wrote:
>
> I plead guilty. I was extremely busy all of last week IRL, and I’ve still
> got
I was thinking something more like "except as explicitly specified by
the asset's backing document", since restricting it to Instruments would
prevent a contract from destroying its own indestructible assets.
Jason Cobb
On 6/11/19 12:42 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
On Tue, 2019-06-11
That works nicely, because "the Rules" as a backing document already
specifies how Proposals change things, so that's covered.
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 9:52 AM Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> I was thinking something more like "except as explicitly specified by
> the asset's backing document", since
So that leaves us with something like
{
Amend paragraph one of Rule 2577 as follows:
Replace the text "An indestructible asset is one defined as such by it
backing document, and CANNOT be destroyed except by a proposal or rule,
other than this one, specifically addressing the destruction of
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:43 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:17 PM Aris Merchant
> wrote:
> > Note that (probably) only the Referee can assign an ID number to this
> > case. Under Rule 2246, "Submitting a CFJ to the Referee", "the Referee
> > receives all obligations and
On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 12:56 PM D. Margaux wrote:
> It's really interesting to me, because within my discipline (law), those
> sorts of hyperliteralist interpretations simply wouldn't work. Lawyers would
> just intuitively know somehow that this kind of interpretive move would be
> out of
Sorry - I should add! I see no reason not to assign the
currently-favored cases as indicated within the next 24 hours (to D.
Margaux, G., and V.J. Rada) - was just giving it a little longer
before performing substantive actions (especially with ID numbering),
in case I missed something.
On Tue,
What is the '"weekend court" distinction'?
Jason Cobb
On 6/11/19 4:28 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
The judicial list (interested judges) I'm working from is:
D. Margaux, G., Murphy, Trigon, Falsifian, V.J. Rada
Any changes/additions, or did I miss anyone?
Thinking of doing away with the "weekend
Judicial assignments in R991 give a lot of latitude to the Arbitor, as
long as people who are "interested" in judging have reasonably equal
opportunities to judge in the long term. Sometimes it's been hard to
find enough people willing to say they're "interested" in judging, so
we had an informal
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 12:53 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> Please review if you have an interest in a pending case - did I miss anything?
>
> Cases listed open in the Court Gazette May 27
> - CFJ 3726, later judged by Falsifian, no action needed
> - CFJ 3727, later judged by Falsifian,
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:16 AM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 12:53 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > Please review if you have an interest in a pending case - did I miss
> anything?
> >
> > Cases listed open in the Court Gazette May 27
> >
ID numbers are entirely informal so anyone can assign them if they like.
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:31 AM Rebecca wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:16 AM Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 12:53 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> >
>> > Please
You... may actually be right about that. I would have sworn that it
was somewhere that the Arbitor assigned numbers, but I can't seem to
find that provision. That's odd, since that's not the case for
proposals or rules.
-Aris
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:32 PM Rebecca wrote:
>
> ID numbers are
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:51 PM Aris Merchant
wrote:
> In either case, I'm officializing them in my proposal. Still, you're
> right that this is interesting, and I could see the precedent being
> potentially relevant in the future. I don't want to add to your
> overload right after you've taken
Given how long it's been, and how many proposals there are, I'd like
to send out a draft rather than just getting everything wrong. Here's
that draft. There will be a small reward (plus my appreciation) for
any corrections!
-Aris
---
I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
I am the author of "Not so indestructible now, eh?". This is correct in
the table but not correct in the text of the proposal.
Jason Cobb
On 6/11/19 7:31 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
Given how long it's been, and how many proposals there are, I'd like
to send out a draft rather than just getting
25 matches
Mail list logo
