DIS: Re: BUS: [Registrar] Zombie auction resolution

2018-07-01 Thread Rebecca
tem, which, while far less fun in theory, forced all to engage with its systems and had real consequences: weeks with one proposal alternating with weeks with 30, say. Now, proposals are artificially scarce and CFJs are infinite: removing incentives to engage with either. On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 8:14 P

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Registrar] Zombie auction resolution

2018-07-01 Thread Rebecca
purchase a new one and acquire its riches. > > ~Corona > > On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 12:14 PM, Rebecca wrote: > >> The bids on zombie auctions are freakin' silly: I just bid 2 coins to >> get 22 coins for free. Meanwhile people are bidding tens of coins on >> land unit

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Registrar] Zombie auction resolution

2018-07-01 Thread Rebecca
. On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 8:40 PM, Rebecca wrote: > That's nearly always objectively correct. > > Note also that because bids can be retracted, PSS could have and > should have retracted his bid here and bid 3, giving em (even more) > free money. Zombie auctions cannot be sustained like

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Registrar] Zombie auction resolution

2018-07-01 Thread Rebecca
Not that I think blognomic is the best way of doing things. Unlike blognomic, this game's main attraction is slow development, proposals and legal interpretation: all of which are entirely equitable from the outset. On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 8:49 PM, Rebecca wrote: > (sorry for the spamm

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Notary] Weekly Report: The Re-Sinecuring

2018-07-02 Thread Rebecca
Should be untracked as they used to be, with the onus on players. On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 3:06 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 10:03 PM Edward Murphy wrote: > >> V.J. Rada wrote: >> >> > This is a Notary weekly report. >> >> Notary was repealed by Proposal 8054. >> >> And

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resolving Referee election

2018-07-01 Thread Rebecca
I intend not to recreate the finger pointing contract, which is a workaround of the Rules. Summary Judgment exists for a reason. However, I will propose (as, in fact, I did last time) reasonable reform of the position, and I do intend not to be overly harsh with the imposition of Blots. On Mon,

DIS: Re: OFF: [Notary] Weekly Report: The Re-Sinecuring

2018-07-01 Thread Rebecca
Clarification: that is not, of course, a self-ratifying list of assets. On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 2:33 PM, Rebecca wrote: > This is a Notary weekly report. The following pledges exist within the > time window > > PLEDGES (self-ratifying list of assets) > > == Trigon - Created 01

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Feasible Victory & Better Auctions

2018-07-01 Thread Rebecca
I guess the announcer can't privately email anyone before the auction because they could clearly use such information. I would prefer a non SHA system though for reasons of agoran technical agnosticism/i don't know how to use technlogy. On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 10:14 AM, Rebecca wrote: > very g

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Feasible Victory & Better Auctions

2018-07-01 Thread Rebecca
very good call. On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 10:11 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Oh, and on the flip side, better make it a crime for the announcer to > reveal bids to anyone before the auction is over! > > On Sun, 1 Jul 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Rebecca w

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Feasible Victory & Better Auctions

2018-07-01 Thread Rebecca
and say they MUST privately email the speaker, or prime minister, or someone else, who can verify if the person has lied after they report. On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 10:04 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote: >> Also >> add in a new paragr

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Feasible Victory & Better Auctions

2018-07-01 Thread Rebecca
I guess instead of SHA hash we could make it "reasonably verifiable method" which could include that or eg, posting a private youtube video of yourself bidding etc. On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 10:20 AM, Rebecca wrote: > Burden of proof is with the bidder to prove it is wrong but crimi

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Feasible Victory & Better Auctions

2018-07-01 Thread Rebecca
y votes I don't remember anything that wasn't resolved > right away as an honest mistake). > > On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote: >> yes because it's the one case where lying is perfectly doable and >> intentional lying could almost never be distinguished by anyone. class &g

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in CFJ 3646

2018-06-24 Thread Rebecca
, if one of the previous five voters voted AGAINST) but it's clear in this case that any reasonable reader of text would evaluate this as FOR when cast. On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 9:32 AM, Alex Smith wrote: > On Mon, 2018-06-25 at 09:22 +1000, Rebecca wrote: >> Corona voted in this way >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Testo Testerino

2018-06-24 Thread Rebecca
I also got it from OFF although I haven't been getting other messages from it. This shit gnarly man. We can officially designate anything as a public forum. Maybe we should start exploring options. On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 4:06 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > On Sun, 24 Jun 2018, Corona wrote: > >>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in CFJ 3646

2018-06-24 Thread Rebecca
s Scribonius Scholasticus > > > On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 7:40 PM, Rebecca wrote: >> We evaluate votes at the time they are cast (iirc, unless we added >> future conditionals back in). This vote, under the circumstances, was >> a conditional with sufficient context within the game

DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

2018-07-02 Thread Rebecca
FYI: this and any other message from the lists that includes links goes right to spam. On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 3:03 PM, Edward Murphy wrote: > COURT GAZETTE (Arbitor's weekly report for TODO date) > > Disclaimer: Informational only. No actions are contained in this report. >

DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

2018-07-02 Thread Rebecca
Also, please take Gaelan off the list On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 8:55 AM, Rebecca wrote: > FYI: this and any other message from the lists that includes links > goes right to spam. > > On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 3:03 PM, Edward Murphy wrote: >> COURT GAZETTE (Arbitor's weekly re

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Registrar] Zombie auction resolution

2018-07-01 Thread Rebecca
exponential, which means a leader will multiply eir advantage. >> >> I think the best quick fix here is limiting land auctions in some way >> that land ownership remains balanced by making it exponentially >> harder for the rich to buy basic land (though this concept is basic >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Registrar] Zombie auction resolution

2018-07-01 Thread Rebecca
never in the interest of the 22-bidder not to go down. So if both play optimally, the only thing that determines the auction is time. On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 2:44 AM, Rebecca wrote: > The reason is probably that, because there are four lots and bids are > retractable, it would take a ton o

DIS: Re: BUS: July job listings

2018-06-30 Thread Rebecca
You could have initiated elections for these immediately btw while you still held the offices, then resigned them. On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 12:19 PM, Rebecca wrote: > Yeah, the referee CoE really needs to get resolved because Murphy must > break the tie. > > The funny thing is, if Mu

DIS: Re: BUS: July job listings

2018-06-30 Thread Rebecca
Yeah, the referee CoE really needs to get resolved because Murphy must break the tie. The funny thing is, if Murphy doesn't resolve that election properly and respond to the CoE, nobody can punish em because there is no...Referee. On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 11:43 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > If I

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] The Map of Arcadia -- July week 4

2018-07-29 Thread Rebecca
Cartographer's note section doesn't work to mark something disputed unless there's some indication of disputation like a ! mark in the report's list itself. Otherwise the report is internally inconsistent and doesn't self-ratify. (note I haven't actually checked whether this is the case here)

DIS: Re: BUS: missing reports

2018-07-26 Thread Rebecca
I was sloppy in these messages: I didn't explicitly state that these were forgivable. But I think the imposition of an apology word automatically makes it so. On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 9:03 AM, Rebecca wrote: > I find both of these finger points valid. Because these are two > separate

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: None of my votes have counted since July 15

2018-07-26 Thread Rebecca
Yes. People not votes for quorum On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 3:10 PM, Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > After reading Rules 2422 and 683, I think your vote still counts toward > quorum, which is good. > > -Aris > > On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 4:11 PM

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Summary Judgement

2018-07-26 Thread Rebecca
last few months, but > don't remember seeing the result (and couldn't find it in a quick Gazette > search). Anyone remember? Boy I really really really need to get the CFJ > database up-to-date again. > > > On Fri, 27 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote: > > I was sloppy with th

DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Summary Judgement

2018-07-26 Thread Rebecca
I was sloppy with these, too. Summary Judgement fines are not forgivable by definition. Therefore I am not eligible for a Ref salary this month. On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 6:09 PM, Rebecca wrote: > There is one person recently late on reports (myself) and three people > very late on CFJ

Re: (Attn: Murphy) in Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Summary Judgement

2018-07-26 Thread Rebecca
months, > but > > don't remember seeing the result (and couldn't find it in a quick Gazette > > search). Anyone remember? Boy I really really really need to get the > CFJ > > database up-to-date again. > > > > > > On Fri, 27 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote: >

Re: (Attn: Murphy) in Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Summary Judgement

2018-07-26 Thread Rebecca
, and will propose as such. On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 10:17 AM, Rebecca wrote: > ATMunn's been sitting on it for a long time. > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 9:56 AM, Kerim Aydin > wrote: > >> >> >> I called the CFJ on June 24 and argued that summary judgement DIDN'T &g

Re: DIS: Proto-judgement of CFJ 3654

2018-07-31 Thread Rebecca
Given the 2 uncontested cfjs ruling the votes at issue invalid, the answer is 4 clearly On Wed., 1 Aug. 2018, 1:55 pm Aris Merchant, < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 8:50 PM Edward Murphy wrote: > > > (I may be overlooking any number of things here; if I

Re: DIS: Proto-judgement of CFJ 3654

2018-07-31 Thread Rebecca
sider, if others are also confused." On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 2:08 PM, Rebecca wrote: > Actually, I just noticed and (if we accept those CFJs) there should be > three invalid votes as opposed to four. One of those CFJs invalidated "I do > the same as the last four people in this

Re: DIS: Proto-judgement of CFJ 3654

2018-07-31 Thread Rebecca
at 1:58 PM, Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > G. contested those, with supporting logic affixed, which is why this case > exists. It wasn't an attempt to get around an appeal, either, if you look > at the justification. > > -Aris > > > On Tue

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: 3638 Rejudgement

2018-08-04 Thread Rebecca
yer > requirement implicitly only applies when a player is targeted. > - It's not a notice of honor because it doesn't "provide a reason for > specifying that Player" (and I never can, because Agora isn't a player). > And > the implicit rule mentioned above doesn't

DIS: Re: BUS: 3638 Rejudgement

2018-08-02 Thread Rebecca
you can move to reconsider your own judgements once automatically now. On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 5:52 PM, Corona wrote: > I support the move for reconsideration. > > On Thursday, August 2, 2018, Rebecca wrote: > > > I move for reconsideration of my judgement in CF

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] [RWO] Routine Worst-Case Cleanup

2018-08-08 Thread Rebecca
I can't resolve this Finger without knowing whether or not the document was incorrect (or indeterminate, which it clearly isn't). Unless anyone can point to a proposal that clearly existed that your ratification claimed did not, and within a timely fashion from the Finger, I will likely acquit.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Summary Judgement

2018-07-15 Thread Rebecca
ons. > On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 4:09 AM Rebecca wrote: >> >> There is one person recently late on reports (myself) and three people >> very late on CFJs. One of them is Gaelan, a zombie, but the other two >> are PSS and ATMunn, who have no excuse. Those CFJs were assigned on 24

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [FRC] An Ambassadorial Consideration

2018-07-15 Thread Rebecca
damn time limits!! this would have been more fun with higher participation/longer time but congrats aris. On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 11:05 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > Yes. That is my third strike. Now, Aris is the only remaining player, > assuming eir argument is ruled VALID

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Humiliating Public Reminder

2018-07-23 Thread Rebecca
same, it's 5. On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 8:39 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > I object. I'd be fine with the lower value though. > > > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 6:23 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I hereby intend to ratify the following document,

Re: DIS: um

2018-07-20 Thread Rebecca
you have a CFJ to judge somewhere On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 5:02 AM, ATMunn wrote: > cool, thanks. > > > On 7/19/2018 11:30 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> >> >> You know that sort of paragraph written weekly or biweekly is the most >> useful form of newspaper. nothing fancy. >> >> I'd add that the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolutiion of Proposals 8058-8065, quorum-busting edition

2018-07-20 Thread Rebecca
got it On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 1:23 AM, Edward Murphy wrote: > twg wrote: > >> Well, if the resolution message actually is self-ratifying, I see no >> reason >> why the following shouldn't work, assuming this message actually is >> received >> by a "reasonable number" of people. (So please

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Free Proposals

2018-07-05 Thread Rebecca
No, the economy shouldn't be optional. The only way to encourage engagement with it is to make it unoptional in some way, which it really isn't now. CFJs should always be free. Proposals can and should be interacted with. Paper is a super feels-bad unfun way to do it. Better, though, than nothing.

DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8058-8065

2018-07-05 Thread Rebecca
I vote as follows 8058* V.J. Rada 1.0 Medal of Honour Auctions V.J. Rada FOR 8059* G. 1.0 honour is its own reward G. AGAINST 8060* V.J. Rada 1.8 Notary-B-Gone V.J. Rada FOR 8061+ Aris 1.0 Free Proposals

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8058-8065

2018-07-05 Thread Rebecca
We fundamentally should not entirely repeal our current official currency until there is a new one. The vestiges of land should go. But coins and paydays should stay as a stopgap, at least. On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 9:17 AM, Reuben Staley wrote: > On 07/05/2018 05:10 PM, Rebecca wrote: > &

Re: DIS: Poll: Agoran MU*

2018-07-10 Thread Rebecca
as you can guess, no no and no On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 7:52 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: > 1) Slightly interested. > 2) Probably not. > 3) No. > On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 4:21 AM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > > 1) Yes, it sounds interesting in

DIS: Re: BUS: [FRC] An Argument

2018-07-11 Thread Rebecca
The above rule is invalid: no quirky spelling On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 1:06 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: > I present the following argument on the first docket to the court: > > Your Honor, My Fellow Counselor V.J. Rada seems to have made a

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [FRC] An Argument

2018-07-11 Thread Rebecca
sorry On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 1:15 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: > "eksallance" is not a quirky spelling? > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 11:13 AM Rebecca wrote: > > > > The above rule is invalid: no quirky spelling

DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8058-8065

2018-07-06 Thread Rebecca
Those last two votes still aren't valid On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 12:43 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: > I vote as follows: > > 8058: AGAINST > 8059: FOR > 8060: FOR > 8061: FOR > 8062: FOR > 8063: FOR > 8064: AGAINST, unless 8062 was REJECTED, in

DIS: Re: BUS: [FRC] Docket 2

2018-07-11 Thread Rebecca
this is patently invalid. forgot everything had to include evidence. On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 11:14 AM, Rebecca wrote: > Your honour, I submit the following argument to d0ket two: > This court should rule that the purpose of a nomic is to develop into a > perfect game, and nomics

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I register.

2018-10-31 Thread Rebecca
holy shit dude it's taredas. i don't think you remember me but i was Burning_Earth on MTGS lol. On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 8:04 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Welcome, Tarhalindur! (you may want to sign your nickname in your messages > since it's not in your email address, until we get used to who

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I register.

2018-10-31 Thread Rebecca
also your messages are all getting marked as spam by me dude. On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 8:47 AM Rebecca wrote: > holy shit dude it's taredas. i don't think you remember me but i was > Burning_Earth on MTGS lol. > > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 8:04 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> >&

Re: DIS: [Proto] Criminal Justice Reform Act

2018-10-25 Thread Rebecca
I would be fine deferring to legal terms of art again (tolling, say) but I'm not so sure about mathematical. This is probably because I love legal interpretation and couldn't add two numbers up if I tried haha. On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 9:00 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Perfect! Thanks for the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deputisation

2018-11-01 Thread Rebecca
yeah but this isn't a scam just a self-own lol. On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 9:22 AM Reuben Staley wrote: > You and Cuddles both have an unbelievable track record of ridiculous > CFJs called because of your actions. > > On 11/01/2018 03:37 PM, Rebecca wrote: > > I pledge that I a

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8112-8122

2018-11-01 Thread Rebecca
f you intend to seriously get back > into the game, you should probably flip your matter switch. > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 16:10 Rebecca wrote: > > > Votes inline > > IDAuthor(s) AITitle > > > ---

DIS: Re: BUS: Blotting Proposal

2018-10-23 Thread Rebecca
The eighth point should be eir behalf, zombies are still people. On Wed., 24 Oct. 2018, 11:22 am D. Margaux, wrote: > I submit and pend the following proposal: > > > Title: Criminal Justice Adjustments Act > AI: 2 > Author: D Margaux > > [Purpose is to streamline and clarify the conditions

Re: DIS: [Proto] Criminal Justice Reform Act

2018-10-23 Thread Rebecca
please remove UNAWARE from this, that basically removes interpretation of criminal rules entirely. On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 2:23 PM Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Okay, here's a proto of my criminal justice reform. Again, D Margaux, > sorry for the duplication of

Re: DIS: [Proto] Criminal Justice Reform Act

2018-10-23 Thread Rebecca
sal. It’s something we’ve used > successfully before, however. It basically says that if the rule is > ambiguous, the ambiguity is resolved in the favor of the defendant unless > there’s already a CFJ somewhere clearing it up. Still want it separated? > > -Aris > > On Tue, Oct 23,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: BOOOO! (zombie auction - Halloween edition)

2018-11-05 Thread Rebecca
I can actually speak a little Japanese: enough to understand eir action there anyway. On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 8:12 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Thanks :) To be clear I didn't have a problem with this one in particular > - it seems direct and straightforward - just wanted to give warning if >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Memes

2018-11-13 Thread Rebecca
It's not really a meme it's just the sort of joke proposal that I like but I know won't get passed. On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 2:08 PM Ørjan Johansen wrote: > On Mon, 12 Nov 2018, Rebecca wrote: > > > I create the following proposal > > Title: I hate myself > > AI: 3 > &

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

2018-09-23 Thread Rebecca
yea i intentionally used both names all the time to confuse people On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 2:25 PM Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Next time, just try to communicate a bit more clearly. :) > > Notice of Honor: > -1 G. (unclear communication) > +1 omd (serving as our

Re: DIS: [Meta] Linguistic Experimentation

2018-11-25 Thread Rebecca
haha gotcha i don't know crap about anything except american law i guess and even that interest is very casual. i flaunt my own ignorance. On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 12:16 PM Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Indeed. Or perhaps "All Agorans are snerds". > > -Aris > On

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3644 judged TRUE

2019-06-04 Thread Rebecca
Never mind, this was really 36_6_4. On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 8:22 PM Rebecca wrote: > Okay, there are two CFJ 3644s. This one and the one regarding Humiliating > Public Reminders (which appears as an Annotation in the FLR). Was this > resolved? > > On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 9:24

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8178-8179

2019-06-02 Thread Rebecca
Intent needs to be voted against you fools! It has direct affect on the possibility of levying a CHoJ and is directly opposed to our history and traditions. The rules being absolute and punishing violations that are only ambiguously against them is important! Otherwise what fun would there be. On

Re: DIS: Rule 2481: "Imminence"?

2019-06-02 Thread Rebecca
I wonder if imminence if not defined as a term of art just bears its ordinary meaning; i.e, nobody can change " the state or fact of being about to happen" of a proposal if a festival happens. Presumably that would prohibit non-festive players from removing proposals somehow? On Mon, Jun 3, 2019

Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision

2019-06-04 Thread Rebecca
it's to be found in rule 217. On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 1:25 PM James Cook wrote: > On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 at 05:49, Rebecca wrote: > > I suspect that the text is > > not clear and therefore the four-part test must be applied. > > What's the four-part test? > -- >From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: BUS: Income

2019-06-07 Thread Rebecca
This exact thing was tried in about June of 2017 or 18, soon after the new "boom and bust" money system came into effect (written by nichdel). I think it was agreed by all that a duty was a duty imposed by the rules or something of that nature. On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 12:20 PM omd wrote: > I

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Income

2019-06-07 Thread Rebecca
sounds hard so no On Sat, Jun 8, 2019 at 10:55 AM omd wrote: > On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 12:59 AM Rebecca wrote: > > > > This exact thing was tried in about June of 2017 or 18, soon after the > new > > "boom and bust" money system came into effect (written by nic

Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision

2019-06-03 Thread Rebecca
he fact that the > > responsibility to do so falls on any player. Until we know exactly who > > SHALL do so, punishing anyone is premature. Even assuming that the action > > isn’t required to perform itself, that still doesn’t tell us who exactly > > SHALL do it. > > >

Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision

2019-06-03 Thread Rebecca
I think that this decision is corrrect as a matter of text. The rules should be amended to give one player the responsibility, and each player the ability for the ritual. But as the rules stand, "failing to perform [the ritual] violates" the rules and "any player CAN perform the ritual". I think

Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision

2019-06-03 Thread Rebecca
tion, only the Rules themselves are liable. This clause, I suspect, should be changed in some way. SHALL NOT seems like the wrong term. On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 1:12 PM Rebecca wrote: > The Ritual, however, isn't one! > > On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 12:36 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk < > ais...

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Prime Minister] there's no confidence in the economy, so...

2019-06-03 Thread Rebecca
twg is 100% correct on this, i have a very clear memory of this being the law based on a prime minister election i resolved as ADoP. HOWEVER, this CFJ regards the ability of Corona to be installed as Prime Minister, not to be a candidate in the election, by the plain text of the actual CFJ, and

Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision

2019-06-03 Thread Rebecca
The Ritual, however, isn't one! On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 12:36 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk < ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > On Tue, 2019-06-04 at 12:16 +1000, Rebecca wrote: > > I think if there was a provision that said "the ADoP CAN publish an > Officer > > re

Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision

2019-06-03 Thread Rebecca
This is an interesting case. Although I believe that the best reading of the rule holds all players liable, I call for judgement on the following question, barring Aris {If no player activates Rule 2596 'The Ritual' in a certain week, all players playing the game that week have violated the rule,

Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision

2019-06-03 Thread Rebecca
s situation would be incorrect. > On Monday, June 3, 2019, 9:36:19 PM CDT, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk < > ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > > On Tue, 2019-06-04 at 12:16 +1000, Rebecca wrote: > > I think if there was a provision that said "the ADoP CAN publish an > Officer

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8180-8187

2019-06-13 Thread Rebecca
: > What if we kept the existing language but changed SHALL NOT to > CANNOT--"the rules CANNOT be interpreted..."? > > > On Jun 13, 2019, at 1:50 AM, Rebecca wrote: > > > > It wouldn't gut contracts because anything specified by a Contract _is_ > > re

DIS: Re: OFF: End of June Zombie Auction

2019-06-14 Thread Rebecca
Coe I bid eight coins so I should win the third zombie On Sat, 15 Jun 2019, 12:09 PM James Cook wrote: > The zombie auction I initiated 2019-06-06 has ended. > > Lots: > 1. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > 2. Corona > 3. Hālian > 4. Tarhalindur > > Bids (all times UTC): > 2019-06-07 17:01:

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: End of June Zombie Auction

2019-06-14 Thread Rebecca
Yes, I am convinced that you are absolutely right. I guess nobody has any zombies then. On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 12:51 PM Rebecca wrote: > Oh sorry, I missed the key "if" in there > > On Sat, 15 Jun 2019, 12:44 PM James Cook wrote: > >> Could you elabourate? Even

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: End of June Zombie Auction

2019-06-14 Thread Rebecca
hink anything would allow me to transfer > them to the winner of the auction. > > On Fri., Jun. 14, 2019, 22:17 Rebecca, wrote: > > > Unlike the argument about blogs, this argument stretches annoying textual > > ism beyond its breaking point. To transfer in this context mean

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: End of June Zombie Auction

2019-06-14 Thread Rebecca
Unlike the argument about blogs, this argument stretches annoying textual ism beyond its breaking point. To transfer in this context means to change from the ownership of one entity to anothwr. So the auctioneer CAN transfer the switch: from agora to the auction winners. On Sat, 15 Jun 2019,

Re: DIS: unregulation

2019-06-16 Thread Rebecca
Anyone dumb enough to consent to a contract forbidding breathing deserves any blots that may be imposed, in my view. No such protections are needed, and if somehow somebody scams someone into such a contract, the referee can use eir discretion to not punish. I stand by my original stance/ On Mon,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737

2019-06-16 Thread Rebecca
But it's a truism that the rules only regulate what they regulate, we don't need a special rule to say what is already implicit. On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 9:49 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On 6/16/2019 4:28 PM, Rebecca wrote: > > G., I strongly suspect, very strongly, that the

Re: DIS: unregulation

2019-06-16 Thread Rebecca
The regulated action would be breaching a contract you consented to, which is unlawful under the rules. It wouldn't matter what was in the contract. I think any reasonable human judge would rule as such. On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 12:40 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On 6/16/2019 6:10 PM, Rebecca

DIS: Re: BUS: Zombie auction status (unofficial report)

2019-06-10 Thread Rebecca
i bid 8 coins On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 12:06 PM James Cook wrote: > There is one ongoing zombie auction. > > Lots: > 1. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > 2. Corona > 3. Hālian > 4. Tarhalindur > > Bids: > 2019-06-07T17:01Z. Rance. 7 Coins. > 2019-06-08T00:59Z. omd. 10 Coins. > 2019-06-10T08:17Z.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Blots

2019-06-10 Thread Rebecca
i favor this one On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 10:28 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On general principle - yep! The Rules can delegate to other documents like > that. A good example is Tournaments (R2464) where winning is delegated - > at times we've allowed tournaments to hold/award Coins and change

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Blots

2019-06-10 Thread Rebecca
; Jason Cobb > > On 6/10/19 8:53 PM, Rebecca wrote: > > i favor this one > > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 10:28 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > >> On general principle - yep! The Rules can delegate to other documents > like > >> that. A good example is T

DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport

2019-06-17 Thread Rebecca
CoE: there is no astronomor or clork post te sidegame suspension act On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 7:18 PM Edward Murphy wrote: > =Metareport= > You can find an up-to-date version of this report at > http://zenith.homelinux.net/adop/report.php > > Date of last report: 2019-05-19 > Date of

Re: DIS: Fwd: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3736 assigned to omd

2019-06-18 Thread Rebecca
Oh sorry! You're right, go ahead. On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 11:52 PM D. Margaux wrote: > R. Lee-- Is this not the operative decision on Cfj 3736? Seems to hold that > CHOJ is broken. > > -- Forwarded message - > From: omd > Date: Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 12:43 AM > Subject: Re: BUS:

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Making an Oath

2019-06-18 Thread Rebecca
There is a directly on point CFJ in re pledges and that "no prohibition" clause, that being 3538. To quote it "I agree that the pledge, if effective, would be a severe enough restriction on V.J. Rada's participation in the Fora as to run afoul of Rule 478 (as even though e is not strictly

DIS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500 (revised)

2019-06-20 Thread Rebecca
It wasn't a claim of error, so don't claim money for this! On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 4:06 PM James Cook wrote: > On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 at 01:16, Jason Cobb wrote: > > This is wrong, but I don't know if it counts because it is in a purely > > informational section: > > > > > Jason Cobb + 2c.

DIS: Re: OFF: I'm broke!

2019-06-20 Thread Rebecca
This CFJ shouldn't be a CFJ, just find the messages where this happened or self-ratifying reports making Baron have 0 coins at the time e bid, and then draw that to the attention of the auctioneer and treasuror. Making the judge do that wastes their time. On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 4:40 PM David

Re: DIS: [proto] Regulated actions reform

2019-06-19 Thread Rebecca
> > > > That would require rewriting the tournaments wording, and it's kind of > > close to the Birthday tournament to be doing that. > > > > Jason Cobb > > > > On 6/19/19 11:38 PM, Rebecca wrote: > > > what if you repeal regulations and change

Re: DIS: [proto] Regulated actions reform

2019-06-19 Thread Rebecca
what if you repeal regulations and change regulations to mean this On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 1:38 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > I would suggest "regulating", but I feel like that could easily get > confused with regulations. > > > Jason Cobb > > On 6/19/19 11:24 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > > I'd

Re: DIS: [proto] Regulated actions reform

2019-06-19 Thread Rebecca
Basically I like this proposal, which is good (although Oaths should also be binding, right?) but I can't vote for it unless it slashes and burns rules mwa ha ha. On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 1:49 PM Rebecca wrote: > If they've never been useful in the past... I don't see a future use for >

Re: DIS: Future of Regulations (was [proto] regulated actions reform)

2019-06-19 Thread Rebecca
for regulations to exist, but I'd like > them to be used. If there's something that can be done to make it so > people actually start using them more widely (where appropriate, of > course), I'd like to do it. > > -Aris > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 8:49 PM Rebecca wrote: > > &

DIS: Re: BUS: Some catch-up actions

2019-06-19 Thread Rebecca
A CFJ did hold that blots can't be expunged, yes. On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 2:26 PM Edward Murphy wrote: > I earn 5 coins for publishing the latest ADoP report. > > I expunge my Blot (if I can, which I suspect I can't). > > Notice of Honour: > -1 Murphy (dragging heels on Prime Minister election)

Re: DIS: [proto] Regulated actions reform

2019-06-19 Thread Rebecca
I hope we actually have a birthday tournament that works this year though On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 1:43 PM Rebecca wrote: > tournaments should just be contracts with special powers anyway. > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 1:40 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > >> That would require rewriti

Re: DIS: [proto] Regulated actions reform

2019-06-19 Thread Rebecca
tournaments should just be contracts with special powers anyway. On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 1:40 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > That would require rewriting the tournaments wording, and it's kind of > close to the Birthday tournament to be doing that. > > Jason Cobb > > On 6/19/19 11:38

DIS: Re: BUS: Auction bids due! Attn Baron von Vaderham, omd, Rance, R. Lee

2019-06-19 Thread Rebecca
(I argue that although this conditional appears to rest on a future CFJ's interpretation, making it inextricable, there is objectively only one "law" which judges in the Agoran system merely discover, so this conditional should work) On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 7:31 AM Rebecca wrote:

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737

2019-06-20 Thread Rebecca
just hold that to limit encompasses SHALL NOT, that's clearly what it means and it fits well within the confines of "limit" and doesn't break the game. On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 9:58 PM D. Margaux wrote: > I offer this proto for comment. > > *** > > Judge Trigon recused emself believing that no

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737

2019-06-20 Thread Rebecca
s to this case, where the rule takes two methods of "limiting" actions, impossibility and illegality. Limit, not being a term of art, easily encompasses both. On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 10:53 PM Rebecca wrote: > just hold that to limit encompasses SHALL NOT, that's clearly what it &

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737

2019-06-20 Thread Rebecca
omd found th On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 3:27 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Nice find - thanks! > > On 6/20/2019 10:19 AM, Jason Cobb wrote: > > omd pointed out this CFJ [0] that decided that "interpeting the rules" > means > > to do it in a formal setting rather than just reading them and thinking, >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737

2019-06-20 Thread Rebecca
Whoops sorry, that was non sens On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 7:16 AM Rebecca wrote: > omd found th > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 3:27 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> >> Nice find - thanks! >> >> On 6/20/2019 10:19 AM, Jason Cobb wrote: >> > omd pointed ou

  1   2   3   >