Well, e probably succeeded in solving the past power problem. E doesn’t
seem to have succeeded with preventing retroaction though.
-Aris
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 10:50 PM omd wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 7:57 PM James Cook wrote:
> > > R1551 reads as if it is trying to avoid amending the
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 7:57 PM James Cook wrote:
> > R1551 reads as if it is trying to avoid amending the past, by amending
> > the present gamestate with reference to a hypothetical past. I have
> > tried to think of a couple of reasons, but neither feels particularly
> > compelling in the face
Hm, maybe in the hypothetical timeline the act of publishing can be thought
of as performative, so it's by definition correct. At least, that's how I
think of messages that successfully cause actions to be performed.
Still thinking about CFJ retroactivity though.
On Mon., Jun. 3, 2019, 20:36
In the new timeline, it was accurate from the time it was published, but
inaccurate until the time it was published. R2143 says you shall not
publish inaccurate information in an official report, but doesn't comment
on exactly when it should not be inaccurate. If it means at the exact
instant if
Ahh, yes, that is embarrassing. The accuracy of the report is rather the
entire point of the case. I got so caught up in the question of how the
retroactivity worked out that I forgot the actual object of the case. My
apologies.
-Aris
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 5:22 PM James Cook wrote:
> Wasn't
I think the self ratification makes it retroactively accurate though...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 8:22 PM James Cook wrote:
> Wasn't omd's finger-pointing about publishing inaccurate information in the
> reports?
>
> On Mon., Jun. 3, 2019, 20:18 Aris Merchant, <
>
Wasn't omd's finger-pointing about publishing inaccurate information in the
reports?
On Mon., Jun. 3, 2019, 20:18 Aris Merchant, <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why would the legality of publishing the report matter?
>
> -Aris
>
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 5:16 PM James Cook wrote:
Why would the legality of publishing the report matter?
-Aris
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 5:16 PM James Cook wrote:
> In R1551's hypothetical timeline the gamete was minimally modified when the
> report was published... it seems tricky to determine whether it was false
> at that exact time.
>
>
In R1551's hypothetical timeline the gamete was minimally modified when the
report was published... it seems tricky to determine whether it was false
at that exact time.
Even if we assume the self-ratification made it retroactively legal to
publish, I'm not sure CFJ 3726 is about the revised
Hmm. If the intent didn’t work, the report self-ratification did. So I
think we are in the same place anyway.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 8:03 PM James Cook wrote:
> I think I might have found a problem with my proto-judgements: D.
> Margaux may not have properly announced intent to ratify eir
I think I might have found a problem with my proto-judgements: D.
Margaux may not have properly announced intent to ratify eir document.
E said:
> I intend without objection to ratify the following document as true at the
> time 00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019:
But there is no mechanism for em to do
After further thought, I think it might be a problem that the
replacement text I sent in my previous message is still applying
prescriptions in the rules using reasoning that is not direct and
forward.
Hopefully the following new text for 7A avoids the problem entirely:
> To understand the
On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 23:24, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-06-03 at 00:11 +0100, Charles Walker wrote:
> > R1551 reads as if it is trying to avoid amending the past, by amending
> > the present gamestate with reference to a hypothetical past. I have
> > tried to think of a couple
Thanks. What if I replace the first paragraph of 7A with this:
> To understand the meaning of the term "gamestate", the first place to
> look is the Rules. The term is never directly defined, so we must
> satisfy ourselves by inferring meaning from context.
>
> Rule 217 forbids us from applying
The criticism appears valid, but I’m sure there’s another way of showing
this, even if it’s just an appeal to common sense.
-Aris
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 7:48 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> [Repeating from accidental response to sub-thread]
>
> I'm very new, so please take this with a massive pile of
> R1551 reads as if it is trying to avoid amending the past, by amending
> the present gamestate with reference to a hypothetical past. I have
> tried to think of a couple of reasons, but neither feels particularly
> compelling in the face of your arguments in (7):
I'm guessing R1551's complex
[Repeating from accidental response to sub-thread]
I'm very new, so please take this with a massive pile of salt.
You write in 7A:
"In both cases, if the gamestate did not include information about the
past, or the Rules did not refer to that information when referring to
the past, then these
On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 06:15, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> I’ve just skimmed this, but it seems to accord very well with my own
> understanding of the relevant principles. Your opinion is clear, logical,
> well-organized, and generally quite spiffy. From anyone I would consider
> this a well-written
On Mon, 2019-06-03 at 00:11 +0100, Charles Walker wrote:
> R1551 reads as if it is trying to avoid amending the past, by amending
> the present gamestate with reference to a hypothetical past. I have
> tried to think of a couple of reasons, but neither feels particularly
> compelling in the face
Ah, sorry, this should have been a direct reply to the main message, not a
reply to Charles Walker.
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 7:20 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> I'm very new, so please take this with a massive pile of salt.
>
> You write:
> "In both cases, if the gamestate did not include information
I'm very new, so please take this with a massive pile of salt.
You write:
"In both cases, if the gamestate did not include information about the
past, or the Rules did not refer to that information when referring to
the past, then these parts of the Rules wouldn't make sense."
This seems to run
On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 04:59, James Cook wrote:
> Comments welcome. Sorry that it's so long. I went back and forth on
> 3726 a couple of times.
Thanks for an interesting judgement--a good way for me to get back
into the game. My instinct was that 3726 is TRUE, along the line of
argument that you
I’ve just skimmed this, but it seems to accord very well with my own
understanding of the relevant principles. Your opinion is clear, logical,
well-organized, and generally quite spiffy. From anyone I would consider
this a well-written opinion; under the circumstances, it’s honestly
amazing. I’m
Oops, thanks, updated.
On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 04:45, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2 Jun 2019, James Cook wrote:
>
> > I believe the answers are yes, and so at the end of this message I will
> > judge CFJ 3726 TRUE. Before I say why, I'd like explain why there could
> > be doubt about this.
>
Thanks, noted.
On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 04:08, Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> I will make no claims as to the accuracy of the drafts, but you did forget
> a "what" in the wording "D. Margaux calls is later named CFJ 3727." :)
>
> Jason Cobb
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 11:59 PM James Cook wrote:
>
> >
On Sun, 2 Jun 2019, James Cook wrote:
I believe the answers are yes, and so at the end of this message I will
judge CFJ 3726 TRUE. Before I say why, I'd like explain why there could
be doubt about this.
6. An interpretation causing CFJ 3726 to be FALSE
I will make no claims as to the accuracy of the drafts, but you did forget
a "what" in the wording "D. Margaux calls is later named CFJ 3727." :)
Jason Cobb
On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 11:59 PM James Cook wrote:
> Comments welcome. Sorry that it's so long. I went back and forth on
> 3726 a couple
Comments welcome. Sorry that it's so long. I went back and forth on
3726 a couple of times.
I believe this is due on June 4 at 21:53 UTC. I plan to send it out
the next couple of days.
This is my judgement of CFJs 3726 and 3727.
CFJ 3726 was called by Aris, with the statement: "The
28 matches
Mail list logo
