Thanks!

On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 at 14:23, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:

>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>

Reply via email to