Whoa. I missed the last part, where you actually judged FALSE. Sorry
about that! 'was tired yesterday. =P
~ Roujo
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 8:57 PM, Jonathan Rouillard
jonathan.rouill...@gmail.com wrote:
Uuhhh...
Gratuitous arguments:
A. Any /person/ identified by the author as a co-author is
On 23 March 2011 13:26, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
There's no compelling reason to consider the actions in the message as not
occurring simultaneously at the instant it was published (as there might be
if, for example, it was IMPOSSIBLE for a non-Player to submit a CFJ)
Does
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Elliott Hird
penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 23 March 2011 13:26, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
There's no compelling reason to consider the actions in the message as not
occurring simultaneously at the instant it was published (as there
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
It would be useful it it could be generalized to some amount of context;
e.g. rather than a precise text message, the rule might allow a promise
to be I vote X on Y where X and Y could be specified by the spender.
Well,
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011, Ed Murphy wrote:
Inaction is not action. And if this was triggered by an Agoran
Consent success, then I'd argue that only the player completing
the process would be on the hook.
Here's the
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011, Tanner Swett wrote:
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
It would be useful it it could be generalized to some amount of context;
e.g. rather than a precise text message, the rule might allow a promise
to be I vote X on Y where X
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I intend to call for appeal of CFJ 2979 with 2 support.
Arguments:
On timing, this is a pretty strong tradition the judge is bucking here,
without reasonable justification. The tradition is that doing the
following in one message:
I set up
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Alex Smith
callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
--- On Wed, 23/3/11, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 12:13 AM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
== CFJ 2980 ==
ais523 is
[ais523: still consider your role to be primary author if you want
to take it from here. Just such a good idea wanted to help get it out].
Promises v0.2
[A fleshed-out version of ais523's idea. The Tree is a method of
making pledges to all Agorans.]
[Note: Does this have to be power-3 to
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Create a rule (power -2 or -3):
A Promise is an asset created as described by this rule.
Promises are a class of assets.
A Player (the promise's author) CAN create a promise by publishing the
text of the
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011, omd wrote:
Notwithstanding other rules or other provisions of this rule,
nested or circular promises, wherin the promise's text purports to
create, destroy, or cash another promise, CANNOT be cashed.
I don't see a reason to ban nested cashing (as opposed to
11 matches
Mail list logo
