DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3559 assigned to o
Certainly. The most recent draft is here: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2017-September/045121.html -Aris On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 6:31 PM, Kerim Aydinwrote: > > > This was previously assigned to o, but copy/paste messup gave it the wrong > subject line. This is to make sure there's a clear subject line with the > assignment. > > On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> The below CFJ is #3559. I assign it to o. >> >> Aris, if you could provide a message link to the proposal in question, it >> would be appreciated. >> >> On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: >> >> > I AP-CFJ on the following: >> > >> > The statement "Lines beginning with hashmarks ('#') and comments in >> > square brackets ('[]') have no effect on the behavior of this >> > proposal. They are not part of any rules >> > created or amended herein, and may be considered for all game purposes to >> > have been removed before its resolution.", as it appears near the >> > beginning of the contracts proposal I sent to agora-discussion, has >> > the clearly intended effect. >> > >> > Arguments: >> > >> > The last paragraph of Rule 106 implies that this works. Also, >> > proposals are interpreted as human readable text, so it makes sense >> > that portions could be commented out. >> > >> > -Aris >> > >> >> >> >> >
DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3559 assigned to o
> On Sep 14, 2017, at 9:31 PM, Kerim Aydinwrote: > > > > This was previously assigned to o, but copy/paste messup gave it the wrong > subject line. This is to make sure there's a clear subject line with the > assignment. > > On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> The below CFJ is #3559. I assign it to o. >> >> Aris, if you could provide a message link to the proposal in question, it >> would be appreciated. >> >> On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: >> >>> I AP-CFJ on the following: >>> >>> The statement "Lines beginning with hashmarks ('#') and comments in >>> square brackets ('[]') have no effect on the behavior of this >>> proposal. They are not part of any rules >>> created or amended herein, and may be considered for all game purposes to >>> have been removed before its resolution.", as it appears near the >>> beginning of the contracts proposal I sent to agora-discussion, has >>> the clearly intended effect. >>> >>> Arguments: >>> >>> The last paragraph of Rule 106 implies that this works. Also, >>> proposals are interpreted as human readable text, so it makes sense >>> that portions could be commented out. I’m not convinced r. 106 is the right angle for this. Instead, I’m tempted to look at game tradition. We’ve got a long history of commentary and non-normative guidance in proposals, and I see no obvious reason in the rules that that commentary cannot be set off with punctuation for clarity’s sake. I’m initially inclined to judge it TRUE. However, I’ll leave this up for a few days and do some more research before rendering judgement. -o signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3559 assigned to o
I'm sure that there have been other Arbitors before and I'm very happy to have G as it now, but it just feels weird to me to have not-ais do it lol. I dunno why. Habit? Oh well. On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 3:31 AM, Kerim Aydinwrote: > > > This was previously assigned to o, but copy/paste messup gave it the wrong > subject line. This is to make sure there's a clear subject line with the > assignment. > > On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > The below CFJ is #3559. I assign it to o. > > > > Aris, if you could provide a message link to the proposal in question, it > > would be appreciated. > > > > On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: > > > > > I AP-CFJ on the following: > > > > > > The statement "Lines beginning with hashmarks ('#') and comments in > > > square brackets ('[]') have no effect on the behavior of this > > > proposal. They are not part of any rules > > > created or amended herein, and may be considered for all game purposes > to > > > have been removed before its resolution.", as it appears near the > > > beginning of the contracts proposal I sent to agora-discussion, has > > > the clearly intended effect. > > > > > > Arguments: > > > > > > The last paragraph of Rule 106 implies that this works. Also, > > > proposals are interpreted as human readable text, so it makes sense > > > that portions could be commented out. > > > > > > -Aris > > > > > > > > > > > > >