Yally wrote:
> I support and appeal this case.
I'm interpreting this intent/support/appeal as reasonable
shorthand for doing so for each of CFJs 2821 and 2822.
On 07/29/2010 02:42 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Hmm, I'm suddenly unconvinced that Win Announcements work at all for
most defined win conditions.
A win announcement must be factually correct in announcing that
someone wins the game (R2186).
But most win conditions are not triggered until a win ann
G. wrote:
> The problem now is (if we accept that it's circular to say that
> one or more people won in order to cause those one or more people
> to win) that:
Rule 2215 (Truthiness) suggests (albeit weakly) that such
bootstrapping is allowed.
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010, comex wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > The difficulty in ALL win conditions, that 2186 specifies one set
> > of conditions for calling something a win announcement, and that other
> > rules say that it has to be a winning announcement with di
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010, ais523 wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 14:05 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 29 Jul 2010, ais523 wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 13:42 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hmm, I'm suddenly unconvinced that Win Announcements work at all for
> > > > most def
On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 14:05 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010, ais523 wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 13:42 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > >
> > > Hmm, I'm suddenly unconvinced that Win Announcements work at all for
> > > most defined win conditions.
> > >
> > > A win announcemen
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010, ais523 wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 13:42 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > Hmm, I'm suddenly unconvinced that Win Announcements work at all for
> > most defined win conditions.
> >
> > A win announcement must be factually correct in announcing that
> > someone wins the g
On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 17:03 -0400, comex wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > The difficulty in ALL win conditions, that 2186 specifies one set
> > of conditions for calling something a win announcement, and that other
> > rules say that it has to be a winning announcem
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> The difficulty in ALL win conditions, that 2186 specifies one set
> of conditions for calling something a win announcement, and that other
> rules say that it has to be a winning announcement with different
> (not additional) information ("a wi
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010, ais523 wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 13:42 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > Hmm, I'm suddenly unconvinced that Win Announcements work at all for
> > most defined win conditions.
> >
> > A win announcement must be factually correct in announcing that
> > someone wins the
On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 13:42 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> Hmm, I'm suddenly unconvinced that Win Announcements work at all for
> most defined win conditions.
>
> A win announcement must be factually correct in announcing that
> someone wins the game (R2186).
A win announcment need not state that
Hmm, I'm suddenly unconvinced that Win Announcements work at all for
most defined win conditions.
A win announcement must be factually correct in announcing that
someone wins the game (R2186).
But most win conditions are not triggered until a win announcement
is made (are triggered "upon" a win
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010, comex wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > This clearly wins by Legislation if it's taken as deferring to (being
> > intercepted by?) the power-1 Rule 2188. But does it (power-3 instrument)
> > override the power-2 clause in R2186: "The game CA
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> This clearly wins by Legislation if it's taken as deferring to (being
> intercepted by?) the power-1 Rule 2188. But does it (power-3 instrument)
> override the power-2 clause in R2186: "The game CANNOT be won in any other
> way, rules to the
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010, Sean Hunt wrote:
> > I intend, with 2 support, to appeal this judgment, as it implies that the
> > win
> > announcement is in fact the adoption of the proposal, but does not fully
> > address whether a posting the text of a proposal
On Wed, 28 Jul 2010, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Gratuitous Arguments by comex:
>
> Would "win announcement: Proposal 6740 was adopted"
> suffice? If not (as I read it), "awarding a win to one or more
> persons" is part of the format of the announcement, so whatever is
> specified in place of 'one or mo
16 matches
Mail list logo
