Thanks!
On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 at 14:23, Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> 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. > > > >
