comexk | 1 Jun 02:53 2012
Picon

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scroll of Agora

Actually, I believe you shouldn't, because you didn't win in connection with CFJ 2878 (since the proposal
purporting to award you a win contradicted the rules at the time), and anyway the Herald is not authorized
(merely mandated) to award Champion, so all purported Champion awards after 2010-9-10 (when the report
was ratified) are invalid. :P

Sent from my iPhone

On May 31, 2012, at 6:57 PM, John Smith <spambait3 <at> yahoo.com> wrote:

> CoE: the most recent Scroll of Agora incorrectly lists me as having a single Champion title for winning by
Paradox. (I should have one in connection with CfJ 2878 and one in connection with CfJ 3087)
> 
> -Bucky
> 

Kerim Aydin | 1 Jun 07:09 2012

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scroll of Agora


On Thu, 31 May 2012, comexk <at> gmail.com wrote:
>  anyway the Herald is not authorized (merely mandated) to award Champion, so all purported Champion
awards after 2010-9-10 (when the report was ratified) are invalid. :P

Though I am noting the methods of winning in my report, because
I SHOULD.

(It's actually ok up to 3-Mar-2011 when the previous patent 
title rule 1922 was removed).

Pavitra | 1 Jun 13:26 2012
Picon

DIS: Aerica

I seem to remember that the last time we tried to open diplomatic
relations with the Aerican Empire, we were rejected on the grounds that
we were a game rather than a nation. Their website now says: "...the
Empire welcomes contact with any and all states, whether they are
soverign states, political excercises, simulations, or games." Perhaps
it's time to try again?

P.S. I've (perfunctorily) maintained my Aerican citizenship since then,
on the off chance that it would somehow turn out to be useful.

Benjamin Schultz | 1 Jun 15:20 2012
Picon

Re: DIS: Aerica

On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 7:26 AM, Pavitra <celestialcognition <at> gmail.com> wrote:
I seem to remember that the last time we tried to open diplomatic
relations with the Aerican Empire, we were rejected on the grounds that
we were a game rather than a nation. Their website now says: "...the
Empire welcomes contact with any and all states, whether they are
soverign states, political excercises, simulations, or games." Perhaps
it's time to try again?

P.S. I've (perfunctorily) maintained my Aerican citizenship since then,
on the off chance that it would somehow turn out to be useful.


I hope *this* time we don't get rebuffed and start itching for war.

(Well, last time I was the only one itching for war.)

It seems to me that initiating contact is not as strong as seeking mutual recognition, which I think was our approach last time.
--
OscarMeyr
Elliott Hird | 1 Jun 17:23 2012

Re: DIS: Aerica

They're really boring. Can't we just invade?

Pavitra | 1 Jun 18:13 2012
Picon

Re: DIS: Aerica

On 06/01/2012 10:23 AM, Elliott Hird wrote:
> They're really boring. Can't we just invade?

Not easily. They're also really big.

comexk | 1 Jun 18:43 2012
Picon

Re: DIS: Aerica

So was I!

But I've been sitting in the aerican Yahoo group ever since then, and it's basically a random discussion forum.  Good luck invading that...

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 1, 2012, at 9:20 AM, Benjamin Schultz <ben.dov.schultz <at> gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 7:26 AM, Pavitra <celestialcognition <at> gmail.com> wrote:
I seem to remember that the last time we tried to open diplomatic
relations with the Aerican Empire, we were rejected on the grounds that
we were a game rather than a nation. Their website now says: "...the
Empire welcomes contact with any and all states, whether they are
soverign states, political excercises, simulations, or games." Perhaps
it's time to try again?

P.S. I've (perfunctorily) maintained my Aerican citizenship since then,
on the off chance that it would somehow turn out to be useful.


I hope *this* time we don't get rebuffed and start itching for war.

(Well, last time I was the only one itching for war.)

It seems to me that initiating contact is not as strong as seeking mutual recognition, which I think was our approach last time.
--
OscarMeyr
Pavitra | 1 Jun 19:13 2012
Picon

Re: DIS: Aerica

In theory, there's a governmental structure with laws and stuff. That
should be compatible-in-principle with nomic warfare.

I'm not convinced that war is the way to go, though. I'd rather try
asking nicely first.

On 06/01/2012 11:43 AM, comexk <at> gmail.com wrote:
> But I've been sitting in the aerican Yahoo group ever since then, and
> it's basically a random discussion forum.  Good luck invading
> that...

Benjamin Schultz | 1 Jun 19:43 2012
Picon

Re: DIS: Aerica

On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Pavitra <celestialcognition <at> gmail.com> wrote:
In theory, there's a governmental structure with laws and stuff. That
should be compatible-in-principle with nomic warfare.

I'm not convinced that war is the way to go, though. I'd rather try
asking nicely first.


"Dear Aerican Empire:  We of Agora humbly beg your indulgence as we wish to invade your micronation.  The favour of a reply is requested."
--
OscarMeyr
Ed Murphy | 2 Jun 18:45 2012
Picon

DIS: Re: BUS: Nomical Security Proposals

FKA441344 wrote:

> I submit a proposal with adoption index 3 and title {DEFENSE FIX} and text
> {
>   Amend Rule 2357 by replacing the sentence
>   {
>    Any Elder, with 4 Elder Support, CAN set the Adoption Index of any
>    Agoran Decision with an Adoption Index to 8.
>   }
>   with
>   {
>    Any Elder, with 4 Elder Support, CAN set the Adoption Index of any
>    Agoran Decision with an Adoption Index to 9999999999.9.
>   }.
>
>   Amend Rule by 1950 replacing the sentence
>   {
>    Adoption index is a switch possessed by Agoran decisions, whose
>    value is either "none" (default) or an integral multiple of 0.1 from
>    1.0 to 9.9.
>   }
>   with
>   {
>    Adoption index is a switch possessed by Agoran decisions, whose
>    value is either "none" (default) or an integral multiple of 0.1 from
>    1.0 to 9999999999.9.
>   }.
> }.
>
> Many potentially hostile groups outnumber us by more than 8 to 1. War
> with the Aerican Empire, which outnumbers us more than 20 to 1, has
> been openly suggested on Agora-Discussion. They may already have seen
> this and begun to prepare a pre-emptive strike. This proposal should
> therefore be adopted as a matter of urgency.

Lest ehird start routinely using AI = 3141592653.5 just because e can, I
suggest "... multiple of 0.1 from 0.1 to 9.9, or unanimity".  (Rule 2146
already defines "unanimity" for indices in general, and how math works
with it.)


Gmane