On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> Are the case statements available somewhere so that I can easily look over
> them for annotations?
Links pasted in below (from Murphy's earlier Gazette):
3614:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2017-December/012154.html
Judge's Arguments by G.
> > > > I judge TRUE. But only in a very limited sense - for example, if two
> > > > contracts perform a "handshake" that one contract authorizes starting
> > > > an auction in another contract that permits such authorization. However,
> > > > rules-auctions (for example) are restricted and so couldn't be so
> > > > authorized without the rule defining the auction explicitly permitting
> > > > it.
3615:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2017-December/012154.html
Judge's Arguments by G.
> > > > I judge this FALSE. Zombie Auctions are the counterexample (higher
> > > > power overrules this clause) and there aren't other types of auctions
> > > > to consider.
3616:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2017-December/012156.html
Judge's Arguments by G.
> > > > I judge it IRRELEVANT. Too much work for now-gone gamestate
> > > > reconstruction.
3618:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2017-December/012157.html
Judge's Arguments by G.
> > > > I judge this case TRUE. R2034 is weird by
> > > > ratifying information not actually contained in the document that
> > > > ratifies (when adoption and taking effect are uncoupled). Causes weird
> > > > effects.
