Ed Murphy wrote:
Proto-Proposal: Per-case panels
Messy. It's a lot of extra complexity and room for bugs. It doesn't
interface properly with the rest of the judicial system, as evidenced by
your need to increase the power of R911 so that it can make exceptions
to the framework rules.
The
On 01/04/2008, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I request to be un-busy. That's not going to happen. Who wants my stuff?
What, you're giving it away?
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
Wow. That was probably the worst land for me to get. I had 2 Digit Ranches
(4) and a subtraction Mill. 0 is the only number I can make!
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 11:37 AM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I create the following lands:
Digit Ranch (land #32) with a Seed of 0 in the possession
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 9:49 AM, Iammars [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wow. That was probably the worst land for me to get. I had 2 Digit Ranches
(4) and a subtraction Mill. 0 is the only number I can make!
It would take two weeks, but you could make a 0 and then subtract 4
from it to get 6.
-root
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I mill 2 '9' crops with my '*' mill to create a '1' crop.
I harvest 1919.
--Wooble
I recognize your milling action. However, your harvesting is invalid
due to the first line of section 6:
6. A Farmer CANNOT Harvest a
This is why you need g-mail custom
timehttp://mail.google.com/mail/help/customtime/index.html
.
(http://mail.google.com/mail/help/customtime/index.html)
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 12:01 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Apologies to Iammars and OscarMeyr for doing this after subsidization
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 10:01 AM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I destroy 1 WRV in root's possession
Oh, yay! I had somehow missed the fact that only digit ranches require water.
-root
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 10:39 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As for complexity, I've
already pointed out how the old system (under which the individual
significance of an individual action could be determined immediately)
is simpler than the new (in which it cannot be determined
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 12:27 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 9:49 AM, Iammars [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wow. That was probably the worst land for me to get. I had 2 Digit Ranches
(4) and a subtraction Mill. 0 is the only number I can make!
It would take two
Ed Murphy wrote:
So long as appeals are handled by sets of three, they're going to be
sui generis no matter what you call them.
What is sui generis (that I'm talking about) in your system and in
the pre-reform system is the framework governing appeals. Under the
current system, judicial panels
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 11:40 AM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There seems to be some disagreement in the literature (and apparently
in C machine-dependent differing behavior of the % operator) about how
to take the modulus of a negative number. There seem to be equally
good
root wrote:
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 10:39 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As for complexity, I've
already pointed out how the old system (under which the individual
significance of an individual action could be determined immediately)
is simpler than the new (in which it cannot be
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 12:27 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 9:49 AM, Iammars [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wow. That was probably the worst land for me to get. I had 2 Digit Ranches
(4) and a subtraction Mill. 0 is the only number I can make!
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
So long as appeals are handled by sets of three, they're going to be
sui generis no matter what you call them.
What is sui generis (that I'm talking about) in your system and in
the pre-reform system is the framework governing appeals. Under the
current
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Individual actions /are/ significant, whether or not they are entered
into the database individually or not. See CFJ 1908.
I submit that if comex and woggle had at some point indicated that
they had silently agreed to
root wrote:
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Individual actions /are/ significant, whether or not they are entered
into the database individually or not. See CFJ 1908.
I submit that if comex and woggle had at some point indicated that
they had silently
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
More confusing than having to inspect the entire case history in order
to determine what panels exist?
No, but the proposed revision would eliminate both.
I'm not sure what revision you're referring to. I've
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
already pointed out how the old system (under which the individual
significance of an individual action could be determined immediately)
is simpler than the new (in which it cannot be determined until the
panel acts);
If you want to go
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
Because there are no individual actions that are significant.
Agreement between panel members is a status, not an action.
Individual actions /are/ significant, whether or not they are entered
into the database individually or not. See CFJ 1908.
On 01/04/2008, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 10:01 AM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I destroy 1 WRV in root's possession
Oh, yay! I had somehow missed the fact that only digit ranches require water.
Darn. I missed the fact that only digit ranches
root wrote:
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
More confusing than having to inspect the entire case history in order
to determine what panels exist?
No, but the proposed revision would eliminate both.
I'm not sure what revision you're
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 4:21 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 01/04/2008, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 10:01 AM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I destroy 1 WRV in root's possession
Oh, yay! I had somehow missed the fact that only digit
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
I submit that if comex and woggle had at some point indicated that
they had silently agreed to Wooble's attempted judgement in that case,
then the appropriate judgement in CFJ 1908 would have been TRUE, not
FALSE.
This is where the epistemology comes in,
Goethe wrote:
I agree with Zefram in that I greatly prefer the collective-decision model,
but notwithstanding what the CotC is supposed to track, as a panelist I (and
others) have had trouble knowing what was consented to (e.g. if a panelist
consents to a judgement I propose, but I mildly
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 2:26 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let's see, inspect the entire case history presumably means that, if
the history is presented like so:
A in, B in, C in, B out, D in
Ah, we're talking about different things. I was referring to the
problem that to
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 2:28 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(To forestall discussion on another detail, I assume that type of agreement
referred to in R101 is the same as agreements made by judicial panels, as
there is no qualifying text to the contrary).
The use of the word
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 4:28 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(To forestall discussion on another detail, I assume that type of agreement
referred to in R101 is the same as agreements made by judicial panels, as
there is no qualifying text to the contrary).
R101 (v) is patently
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 2:47 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 2:28 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(To forestall discussion on another detail, I assume that type of
agreement
referred to in R101 is the same as agreements made by judicial panels,
as
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 2:54 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If, in an appeal panel in which I was a member,
a) one of the members consented
b) I privately consented to the CotC to the same judgement
c) the CotC announced that e was judging with majority consent
(without saying who had
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 5:07 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
R2157 refers to an agreement to deliver a legal opinion. In the absence of
further definition of binding, it is quite likely that agreeing to consent
to the posting of such an opinion is binding.
I preemptively consent to
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, comex wrote:
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 5:21 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And you'd better believe I expect R101 protections (e.g. silence=refusal).
Perhaps you'd have to give evidence that you agree to the panelist
who's performing the action. But not
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
From my point of view, what is required is the state of agreement
itself, not the evidence that such a state exists (so I would hold the
strict approach to be unnecessary). The game does not purport to
regulate me changing my mind.
Verrry slippery. Take
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 4:28 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Verrry slippery. Take it from the other side, then. What is to prevent
you from saying hey! In between my posting consent and you posting the
message, I (quietly to myself) changed my mind!
Nothing. What's the problem?
On 4/1/08, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mill (land #31) with an Operator of + (Addition) in the possession of Eris
I have a Mill!
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 4:28 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Verrry slippery. Take it from the other side, then. What is to prevent
you from saying hey! In between my posting consent and you posting the
message, I (quietly to myself) changed
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 12:27 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 9:49 AM, Iammars [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wow. That was probably the worst land for me to get. I had 2
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 9:36 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree to the following, to become a contract as soon as one other
person agrees to it:
I was thinking of something similar, but on a more grandiose scale--
for proposals. But I'll join the C party-- once you dispatch with
this
Ian Kelly wrote:
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 11:40 AM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There seems to be some disagreement in the literature (and apparently
in C machine-dependent differing behavior of the % operator) about how
to take the modulus of a negative number. There seem to be
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 10:37 PM, Michael Norrish
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only problem with defining -4 % 10 as equal to 6 is that you then
have to have -4 / 10 as -1 which strikes many people as a bit odd. (You
have to satisfy (a / b) * b + a % b = a if there's to be any sense to
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 11:09 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 10:37 PM, Michael Norrish
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only problem with defining -4 % 10 as equal to 6 is that you then
have to have -4 / 10 as -1 which strikes many people as a bit odd. (You
40 matches
Mail list logo
