Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Making an Oath

Actually, no it doesn't since, at the time of initiation of the CFJ you still COULD impose the Cold hand of Justice. Jason Cobb On 7/24/19 2:48 AM, Jason Cobb wrote: Hmm... well that breaks things. Jason Cobb On 7/24/19 2:45 AM, Rebecca wrote: I find this finger pointing SHENANIGANS

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Making an Oath

Hmm... well that breaks things. Jason Cobb On 7/24/19 2:45 AM, Rebecca wrote: I find this finger pointing SHENANIGANS because whatever the result, I don't think I can impose a fine of acctual blots here On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 4:34 PM Jason Cobb wrote: I pledge, under penalty of a Class 0

DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3760 assigned to omd

On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 9:48 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > The answer may depend on whether "response to a CoE" is an official duty > > (R2143): > >An official duty for an office is any duty that the Rules > >specifically assign to that office's holder in particular > >

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3760 assigned to omd

On 7/23/2019 11:19 PM, omd wrote: On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 9:48 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: The answer may depend on whether "response to a CoE" is an official duty (R2143): An official duty for an office is any duty that the Rules specifically assign to that office's holder in

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3760 assigned to omd

On 7/24/2019 1:57 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: On 7/23/2019 11:19 PM, omd wrote: On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 9:48 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: The answer may depend on whether "response to a CoE" is an official duty (R2143):     An official duty for an office is any duty that the Rules    

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: conducting some business

On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 at 22:52, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > On Monday, July 22, 2019 10:41 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > > On 7/22/19 6:39 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > On Monday, July 22, 2019 9:02 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@uw.edu wrote: > > > > I confirm (in public here) that there is a contract

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: conducting some business

> Yes, "agreement" includes both consent and agreement specified by contract. I'm confused by the wording. Does that mean both consent and contract-specified agreement are (possibly different) ways to agree, or that one doesn't agree unless both conditions (consent and contract-specified

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: conducting some business

On Wed, 24 Jul 2019 at 14:23, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Remembering that the standard is preponderance of the evidence ("more likely > than not"), reasonable possibilities that aren't No Faking: > > - if e was in the know, one or more transfer messages were genuine but > simple mistakes. E.g. if e

DIS: Re: BUS: Phantom Strike

I am completely lost.. What is going on here?? :0 Get Outlook for Android From: agora-business on behalf of James Cook Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2019 3:48:23 PM To: Agora Business Subject: Re: BUS: Phantom Strike > I destroy my ship

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Phantom Strike

nch discovered a loophole in the Spaaace! rules where e might win a space battle automatically if e doesn't have a spaceship when it comes time to resolve the battle. I haven't been following closely enough to know if the current opinion is that that works. However, it's fairly clear that we can

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: conducting some business

Shouldn't these arguments apply just as well to R. Lee and Trigon? Jason Cobb On 7/24/19 9:58 AM, James Cook wrote: Just in case, for future reference, here's my record of purported actions related to NSC: 2019-07-22 20:22: 10 Coins G. -> NSC 2019-07-22 20:39: 10 Coins NSC -> Trigon

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Astronomor] Sector Creation

The last registrar's report listed 25 but nch also registered.. Unless someone also derregistered? On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 1:30 AM James Cook wrote: > On Tue, 23 Jul 2019 at 02:03, Rebecca wrote: > > So we're lacking a registrar's report for quite a while but I think there > > are 26 players

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Draft Tournament Regulations

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 3:03 PM Aris Merchant wrote: > > While I'm at it, I've made myself "Eir Supreme Eminence, The Pontifex > Maximus and Grand Inquisitor". The inquisitor bit might give > contestants some ideas on a possible direction they can take this... > (Incidentally, I've had the idea

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Draft Tournament Regulations

On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 3:33 PM Aris Merchant wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 3:03 PM Aris Merchant > wrote: > > > > While I'm at it, I've made myself "Eir Supreme Eminence, The Pontifex > > Maximus and Grand Inquisitor". The inquisitor bit might give > > contestants some ideas on a possible

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: conducting some business

Trigon - no, because maybe the contract says e can withdraw its 10 Coins. R. Lee - no, because maybe e knows that the contract actually doesn't allow em to withdraw Coins anyway. (Slightly less plausible, since eir message gave me the impression e didn't actually know what's in the contract.) I

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: space

Could you maybe shorten that title? It's really, really long. -The Office of the Promotor On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 3:27 AM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 10:22 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 5:17 AM, Jason Cobb > > wrote: > > > Actually, I

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contracts

If there's a proposal resolved immediately before this one, with a rule change in it, the full text will not have been published at that moment. (it may be inferred from public info, but it won't have actually have been published). On 7/24/2019 4:52 PM, Rebecca wrote: I don't think so

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Astronomor] Sector Creation

Between the July 9 and July 15 reports, I deregistered Tarhalindur and nch registered. - Falsifian On Wed., Jul. 24, 2019, 17:17 Rebecca, wrote: > The last registrar's report listed 25 but nch also registered.. Unless > someone also derregistered? > > On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 1:30 AM James Cook

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contracts

Although actually, I think the "put it back exactly the same" clause means that even the momentary destruction of Agora wouldn't fall afoul of the higher power rules On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 9:55 AM Rebecca wrote: > I retract that proposal and substitute this one. > > Title: No secret contracts

DIS: Re: BUS: Space Rebel Uprising

On 7/24/2019 6:25 PM, nch wrote: I deregister. I register. Um, how are you getting around this CANNOT in R869: A player, acting as emself, CAN deregister (cease being a player) by announcement. If e does so, e CANNOT register or be

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Space stuff

That's fine, I think everyone needs a break from this :). Jason Cobb On 7/24/19 10:21 PM, Rebecca wrote: Ill do this but i have to see my psychologist and go home first lol, i am sorry! On Thursday, July 25, 2019, Jason Cobb wrote: Okay, let's recreate this: Beginning: - No Space Battle

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Space Rebel Uprising

On 7/24/19 8:28 PM, James Cook wrote: On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 at 01:25, nch wrote: I deregister. I register. Sorry, you can't be registered for 30 days after deregistering yourself by announcement. R869 Oops, oh well. Guess I'm sitting out for a month.

DIS: Re: BUS: Space Rebel Uprising

On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 at 01:25, nch wrote: > I deregister. I register. Sorry, you can't be registered for 30 days after deregistering yourself by announcement. R869 -- - Falsifian

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Space stuff

>From now on i will publicly state 0 energy. I think youre at -2 but we can maybe go to -12 each to make us cfj proof On Thursday, July 25, 2019, Rebecca wrote: > Its fine, i privately communicated to myself acting on behalf of halian > that i spent 0 energy > > On Thursday, July 25, 2019,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Space stuff

So yeah just submit 1 for the next one On Thursday, July 25, 2019, Rebecca wrote: > From now on i will publicly state 0 energy. I think youre at -2 but we can > maybe go to -12 each to make us cfj proof > > On Thursday, July 25, 2019, Rebecca wrote: > >> Its fine, i privately communicated to

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Space stuff

Alright, sure. Jason Cobb On 7/24/19 9:47 PM, Rebecca wrote: Its fine, i privately communicated to myself acting on behalf of halian that i spent 0 energy On Thursday, July 25, 2019, Jason Cobb wrote: NttPF. Jason Cobb On 7/24/19 9:42 PM, Rebecca wrote: On behalf of halian i resolve

DIS: Re: BUS: no zombie deputies

Should this apply to all acting-on-behalf, rather than just zombies? Jason Cobb On 7/24/19 9:45 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: I submit the following proposal, "Active Officers", AI=3: Amend Rule 2160 (Deputisation) by

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Space stuff

I pfed the second resolution though didnt i On Thursday, July 25, 2019, Jason Cobb wrote: > Wait I was right the first time. Do the stuff here: > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora > -business/2019-July/041077.html > > Jason Cobb > > On 7/24/19 10:02 PM, Jason Cobb

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Space stuff

Ill do this but i have to see my psychologist and go home first lol, i am sorry! On Thursday, July 25, 2019, Jason Cobb wrote: > Okay, let's recreate this: > > > Beginning: > > - No Space Battle btw. you and me. Fames are 0 > > > After

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contracts

I don't think so because the full text of the Agoran ruleset has been posted in public, and it's the ruleset we all agree to. On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 9:43 AM Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > This doesn't work. It possibly tries to destroy Agora, which is > impossible

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contracts

Okay, you may be right, but it would be a lot safer to use "each", so why don't you? -Aris On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 4:52 PM Rebecca wrote: > > I don't think so because the full text of the Agoran ruleset has been > posted in public, and it's the ruleset we all agree to. > > On Thu, Jul 25, 2019

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: space

I propose we make it better by repealing it. (Half joke.) Okay, seriously though, spaceships are a bad idea. It doesn't make any sense at all for them to be assets. Just make their switches player switches and have done with it. -Aris On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 9:45 PM Rebecca wrote: > that's

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: space

The history of spaceship switches: ATMunn's original proto had spaceships as fixed assets. Several players suggested replacing them with player switches because it would be easier that way. Later versions had spaceship switches as player switches. This was the system we'd decided on until twg

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Space stuff

On behalf of halian i resolve this battle. R lees ship has 20 energy and 9 armour. Jasons has 19 energy and 10 armour. Jason wins and goes to -2 fame On behalf of jason i destroy eir spaceship and create a new one. I destroy my ship and create a new one. I challenge jason to a space battle. The

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Space stuff

Okay, let's recreate this: Beginning: - No Space Battle btw. you and me. Fames are 0 After https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-July/041060.html : - 0 space battles, because that didn't work - 2 spaceships After

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: conducting some business

No Faking charges have been done in the past on things like R. Lee's with the result "that was clearly sarcastic and not meant to fool anyone". On 7/24/2019 4:34 PM, James Cook wrote: Trigon - no, because maybe the contract says e can withdraw its 10 Coins. R. Lee - no, because maybe e knows

DIS: Re: BUS: Contracts

This doesn't work. It possibly tries to destroy Agora, which is impossible due to power constraints. Since you said "all contracts", if you can't destroy one, you fail to destroy all of them. Try "destroy each contract..." -Aris On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 7:11 PM Rebecca wrote: > > I create the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contracts

On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 4:59 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On 7/24/2019 4:56 PM, Rebecca wrote: > > Although actually, I think the "put it back exactly the same" clause means > > that even the momentary destruction of Agora wouldn't fall afoul of the > > higher power rules > > I wholly disagree,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contracts

On 7/24/2019 4:56 PM, Rebecca wrote: Although actually, I think the "put it back exactly the same" clause means that even the momentary destruction of Agora wouldn't fall afoul of the higher power rules I wholly disagree, and for historical reasons would vote against any discontinuities

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: space

On 7/24/2019 5:22 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: To decide if we want to turn spaceships into a set of player switches again, we have to decide if we want modules and if we care about elegance if and when they are implemented. But we need to focus on fixing what we already have first. I mean

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: space

On 7/24/19 7:31 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: On 7/24/2019 5:22 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: To decide if we want to turn spaceships into a set of player switches again, we have to decide if we want modules and if we care about elegance if and when they are implemented. But we need to focus on

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Space stuff

Ttttpf On Thursday, July 25, 2019, Rebecca wrote: > On behalf of halian i resolve this battle. R lees ship has 20 energy and 9 > armour. Jasons has 19 energy and 20 armour. Jason wins and goes to -1 fame. > > On behalf of jason i destroy eir spaceship and create a new one. I destroy > my ship

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Space stuff

On behalf of halian i resolve this battle. R lees ship has 20 energy and 9 armour. Jasons has 19 energy and 20 armour. Jason wins and goes to -1 fame. On behalf of jason i destroy eir spaceship and create a new one. I destroy my ship and create a new one. I challenge jason to a space battle. The

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Space stuff

NttPF. Jason Cobb On 7/24/19 9:42 PM, Rebecca wrote: On behalf of halian i resolve this battle. R lees ship has 20 energy and 9 armour. Jasons has 19 energy and 10 armour. Jason wins and goes to -2 fame On behalf of jason i destroy eir spaceship and create a new one. I destroy my ship and

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Space stuff

Its fine, i privately communicated to myself acting on behalf of halian that i spent 0 energy On Thursday, July 25, 2019, Jason Cobb wrote: > NttPF. > > Jason Cobb > > On 7/24/19 9:42 PM, Rebecca wrote: > >> On behalf of halian i resolve this battle. R lees ship has 20 energy and 9 >> armour.