DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Weekly Report

I am pretty annoyed that nch did the exact same scam I was aiming for (I was co-conspiring with two other players for days to pull it off but it didn't get off the ground before nch's attempt at the exact same thing...). On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 8:05 AM omd via agora-business <

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Weekly Report

On 6/21/20 4:08 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > > On 6/21/2020 1:05 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> On 6/21/2020 12:45 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: >>> -5 Falsifian <= HONOURLESS WORM >> >> 1. This ain't right. > > Erm, since I just sent the above to Business for the

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Weekly Report

On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 6:45 PM Nch wrote: > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > On Sunday, October 20, 2019 8:43 PM, Nch wrote: > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > On Sunday, October 20, 2019 5:01 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@uw.edu wrote: > > > > > Herald's Weekly report > > > Date of Last

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Weekly Report

Isn’t this ISIDTID? > On Feb 18, 2019, at 11:03 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On 2/17/2019 1:34 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> Herald’s Weekly report >> Date of Last Report: 04 Feb 2018 >> Date of This Report: 17 Feb 2019 > > I state what is necessary to be Rewarded for the above-referenced report.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Weekly Report

I think R217 should say that every person CAN always call 2 CFJs free per week, no matter what. And get rid of AP. On Mon, 11 Dec 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > On Mon, 2017-12-11 at 01:07 +, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > Another argument in favour of making CFJ calls less fundamentally > >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Weekly Report

On Sun, 2017-12-10 at 20:17 -0500, ATMunn wrote: > On 12/10/2017 8:12 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > > On Mon, 2017-12-11 at 01:07 +, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > > Another argument in favour of making CFJ calls less fundamentally > > > conditional. > > > > Perhaps we should pragmatise CFJs? If you call

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Weekly Report

This is how excess cases work, presumably for this exact reason. On Sun, Dec 10, 2017, 20:13 Alex Smith, wrote: > On Mon, 2017-12-11 at 01:07 +, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > Another argument in favour of making CFJ calls less fundamentally > > conditional. > > Perhaps we

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Weekly Report

What if the Arbitor just refused all CFJs? Or none of them? On 12/10/2017 8:12 PM, Alex Smith wrote: On Mon, 2017-12-11 at 01:07 +, Alexis Hunt wrote: Another argument in favour of making CFJ calls less fundamentally conditional. Perhaps we should pragmatise CFJs? If you call them, they

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Weekly Report

On Mon, 2017-12-11 at 01:07 +, Alexis Hunt wrote: > Another argument in favour of making CFJ calls less fundamentally > conditional. Perhaps we should pragmatise CFJs? If you call them, they always go through unless explicitly refused by the Arbitor for not having payment. This would allow

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Weekly Report

On Sun, Dec 10, 2017, 19:50 Alex Smith, wrote: > On Mon, 2017-12-11 at 00:17 +, Aris Merchant wrote: > > If this proposal is not already pending, I pend it for 1 AP. > This works as intended even without the conditional, under our current > rulings; you can't pay to

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Weekly Report

On Mon, 2017-12-11 at 00:17 +, Aris Merchant wrote: > If this proposal is not already pending, I pend it for 1 AP. This works as intended even without the conditional, under our current rulings; you can't pay to pend a proposal if it's already pending. > If I have not already done so, I call

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Weekly Report

If this proposal is not already pending, I pend it for 1 AP. If I have not already done so, I call this case for 5 shinies. If Alexis has been awarded a card, I point my finger at the Referee. -Aris On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 4:13 PM ATMunn wrote: > What would be an

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Weekly Report

What would be an example of a "basic" conditional action? On 12/10/2017 7:04 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 4:00 PM Alex Smith wrote: On Mon, 2017-12-11 at 10:55 +1100, Madeline wrote: On 2017-12-11 03:54, Corona wrote: I cause ACU to transfer to

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Weekly Report

On Mon, 2017-12-11 at 10:55 +1100, Madeline wrote: > On 2017-12-11 03:54, Corona wrote: > > I cause ACU to transfer to me 5-(no. of Agora's shinies) shinies, > > destroying ten times that number of bills. > "Number of Agora's shinies" isn't something I'm expected to know. ;_; It strikes me that

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Weekly Report

On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 4:00 PM Alex Smith wrote: > On Mon, 2017-12-11 at 10:55 +1100, Madeline wrote: > > On 2017-12-11 03:54, Corona wrote: > > > I cause ACU to transfer to me 5-(no. of Agora's shinies) shinies, > > > destroying ten times that number of bills. > >

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Weekly Report

"Number of Agora's shinies" isn't something I'm expected to know. ;_; On 2017-12-11 03:54, Corona wrote: I cause ACU to transfer to me 5-(no. of Agora's shinies) shinies, destroying ten times that number of bills. Then, I spend those shinies on gaining favor with the Party holding Economy, and

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Weekly Report

On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 20:33 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: DISCLAIMER: The below is based on the interpretation that ehird was not a Rebel; CFJ 2897's judgment is ambiguous and under reconsideration. If it is determined that e was a Rebel, ehird was the 5th Rebel, Wooble was the 6th Rebel,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Weekly Report

On Tue, 23 Nov 2010, ais523 wrote: Additionally, I don't see why everyone's annoyed with me for not judging this sooner. My apologies; when you set up your subject-line trick you indicated you were pretty sure it was true, so I thought you had a judgement all thought out and set and were

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Weekly Report

I didn't modify the subject line when I replied, fwiw.