> On Oct 25, 2018, at 8:57 PM, ATMunn wrote:
>
> However, no matter what I seem to do, I can't get the hashes to line up. I
> tried it with and without the header and footer, with and without line
> wrapping. Did I miss a hash? Am I missing how it is supposed to be put into a
> hash
I'm attempting to judge CFJs 3665 and 3666, which both deal with the
"First Bank of Agora" contract between G. and D. Margaux. The contract's
text was originally exchanged secretly between the two, and only its
SHA256 hash was published. Its text was published in a later message.
However, no
I might be willing to take up Registrar. Don't really want to do ADoP, I
did that a long time ago and don't really feel like going back to it.
On 10/25/2018 2:21 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I intend to deputise for the ADoP to publish the ADoP's weekly Report.
[Assuming Murphy doesn't return
I would be fine deferring to legal terms of art again (tolling, say) but
I'm not so sure about mathematical. This is probably because I love legal
interpretation and couldn't add two numbers up if I tried haha.
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 9:00 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Perfect! Thanks for the
Perfect! Thanks for the vocabulary lesson. I think if it has a clear legal
usage citation we should use it - if you know the definition it's a concise
way to say it.
Fun fact: we used to explicitly defer to legal/mathematical definitions over
common language. From R754/7:
(2) A
Here’s an example from a US Supreme Court case, Northern Pipeline Construction
Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50 (1982).
Final sentence of this paragraph:
> Having concluded that the broad grant of jurisdiction to the bankruptcy
> courts contained in 28 U. S. C. § 1471 (1976 ed.,
If it "appears to do something", and doesn't do that something, then it's lying,
right? If the thing it appears to do would *otherwise* be unregulated (i.e.
without the No Faking rule), lying about doing it makes it regulated (because
lying is regulated by No Faking).
An example: sending a
Can you point me to a legal usage online somewhere? All the examples I found
used it as meaning "sometime unspecified in the future" rather than "from this
point onward".(of course not important if you change the word!)
On Thu, 25 Oct 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Prospectively is the
Prospectively is the legal opposite of retroactively. I will try to
come up with another way of explaining it for the rule text, but
that's what it generally means.
-Aris
On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 2:10 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> The first time I read it I assumed the exact opposite, so it's
The first time I read it I assumed the exact opposite, so it's definitely
ambiguous.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Thursday, October 25, 2018 7:31 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
> I would read it to mean that the change in verdict does not operate
> retroactively to affect any game
But, AFIAK, unregulated actions aren’t INEFFECTIVE, they’re just meaningless.
No Faking only cares about things that are INEFFECTIVE. Therefore, No Faking
doesn’t prohibit unregulated actions.
Now that I think about it, No Faking says “believed…not to be effective”
lowercase. Is that
I would read it to mean that the change in verdict does not operate
retroactively to affect any game actions that have already taken place. So, for
example, if a player’s vote is worth 0 because e has 3 blots, and it is later
determined that the verdict imposing those 3 blots was inappropriate
Minor comment: I know the dictionary definition of the word, but I don't know
what "prospectively" means in a practical sense in this rule (is there a legal
term-of-art use of the word that I'm missing?)
On Thu, 25 Oct 2018, D. Margaux wrote:
> > The Adjudicator CAN assign any verdict, SHALL
> On Oct 24, 2018, at 11:32 PM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>
> Okay. Revised plan:
>
> The Adjudicator CAN assign any verdict, SHALL assign an appropriate
> verdict, and SHOULD assign the correct veridicr and list all other
> appropriate verdicts. If a verdict is believed to be incorrect, any
No Faking prohibits lying, for a specific definition of "lying" that
includes "not doing something that appears to do something" if you're
doing that to mislead.
Since lying is prohibited, the rules "limit" its performance, so it is
regulated under R2125:
An action is regulated if: (1)
I had a proposal at some point (that got voted down, I don’t remember why off
hand) that would allow a proposal to be resolved more quickly if >AI players
had already voted FOR.
Gaelan
On Oct 24, 2018, at 9:31 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> Especially when pending is free, I think we have
16 matches
Mail list logo
