Dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
dada
On 2/18/2019 11:58 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:
No, I disagree. The point is that quang was a definition in the Agoran
dialect, the same as if the relevant verb had been defined in standard
English (we’ve never made a specific ruling on linguistic acceptability,
beyond the comprehension of the players). Here, you’re just saying
something and expecting someone to go look it up, without providing a
specific definition. Quang worked because all or most of the players
“already” knew.
-Aris
On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 11:48 AM Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu> wrote:
This is a clear and direct application of Judge Murphy's interpretation of
the Rewards Rule. If "quang" is allowed to reference a random cultural
definition, I don't see why referencing something that is directly
contained
in the ruleset ("whatever is necessary to claim a reward") would fail when
we allow this sort of unofficial jargon to succeed.
In case your CoE denial succeded:
CoE: The latest Treasuror's Report is missing an appropriately-claimed
reward for my most recent Herald's Report.
On 2/18/2019 11:41 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
You mean this?
On Monday, February 18, 2019 7:03 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu> 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.
I did miss that, yes, but even now I see it I'm not at all clear that it
works - seems to be a case of ISIDTID.
For comparison, I state whatever is necessary to publish a revision to
the below-referenced report.
-twg
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Monday, February 18, 2019 7:17 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu> wrote:
CoE: missing my most recent claim of reward for the herald's report
(crossed in the mail?)
On 2/18/2019 11:13 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
Date of this weekly report: 2019-02-18
Date of last weekly report: 2019-01-29
