On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:51 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, comex wrote:
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 8:12 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
So what I'm saying is: if you allow those administrative conveniences
to create legal fictions of
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, comex wrote:
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:51 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, comex wrote:
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 8:12 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu
wrote:
So what I'm saying is: if you allow those administrative
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, Kerim Aydin wrote:
it's hard to have a proposal out there in its
voting period without passing the most people should know about this
test.
In fact, for rule change proposals, R101 makes it very likely IMPOSSIBLE.
-G.
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
None of these are ideal. I think #2 is cleaner as (when one of these is
discovered) it probably involves recalculating for everyone, anyway. I
generally dislike going doing the who knew about what when path. But I
On 08/13/2010 01:49 PM, comex wrote:
I transfer all my assets to the bank and then deregister. There's
some precedents here, but unfortunately, those precedents were for when
assets were more strictly controlled and the rules came out and said you
had to be very specific. That's not in the
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/13/2010 01:49 PM, comex wrote:
I transfer all my assets to the bank and then deregister. There's
some precedents here, but unfortunately, those precedents were for when
assets were more strictly controlled and the
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, comex wrote:
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/13/2010 01:49 PM, comex wrote:
I transfer all my assets to the bank and then deregister. There's
some precedents here, but unfortunately, those precedents were for when
assets
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 13:59 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Speaking of which, returning to the matter directly at hand on the specific
proposal, I didn't think about what considering all decisions as a
conditional if a proposal is in its voting period, I vote for it might
imply.
You don't vote
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, comex wrote:
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
None of these are ideal. I think #2 is cleaner as (when one of these is
discovered) it probably involves recalculating for everyone, anyway. I
generally dislike going doing the
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, ais523 wrote:
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 13:59 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Speaking of which, returning to the matter directly at hand on the specific
proposal, I didn't think about what considering all decisions as a
conditional if a proposal is in its voting period, I
comex wrote:
Well, I disagree with that. It is unreasonable to allow X as an
administrative convenience shorthand for Y if nobody, not even the
administrators, know what Y is.
...How do fungible assets fit into this scheme?
Depends whether the rules require one to specify or merely
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
So, the Assessor's announcement was not a win announcement. Where does
that leave us? According to the voting record, comex voted for proposal
6740, and this is a clear public acknowledgment of its existence.
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, comex wrote:
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
So, the Assessor's announcement was not a win announcement. Where does
that leave us? According to the voting record, comex voted for proposal
6740, and this is a clear public
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, comex wrote:
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
So, the Assessor's announcement was not a win announcement. Where does
that leave us? According to the voting record, comex voted for
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 5:33 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Specifically, anything that is interpreted as a valid ballot must be
interpreted
as satisfying clause R683(b). And to clearly identify something you must
acknowledge it. And I'll further say, lest you use the one
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, comex wrote:
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 5:33 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Specifically, anything that is interpreted as a valid ballot must be
interpreted
as satisfying clause R683(b). And to clearly identify something you must
acknowledge it. And
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 6:10 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
If the ballot wasn't accepted, by the facts of the time of sending, as clearly
identifying the specific decision in question (among others), it shouldn't
have
been accepted as a valid ballot for that decision. R683 is
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, comex wrote:
The difference is that, while, for Agoran purposes, my message-- every
message-- is parsed platonically with perfect knowledge of the
gamestate, acknowledgement only makes sense in the context of
incomplete knowledge-- in this case, basic knowledge of
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 7:23 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
In other words, if you merely allude to something that may or may
not exist (rather than acknowledging something that does exist),
you may be referring to it, but you're not clearly identifying it,
therefore not voting.
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, comex wrote:
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 7:23 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
In other words, if you merely allude to something that may or may
not exist (rather than acknowledging something that does exist),
you may be referring to it, but you're not
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, comex wrote:
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 7:23 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
In other words, if you merely allude to something that may or may
not exist (rather than acknowledging
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, comex wrote:
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, comex wrote:
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 7:23 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu
wrote:
In other words, if you merely allude to something that may or may
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 8:12 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
So what I'm saying is: if you allow those administrative conveniences
to create legal fictions of individual cast ballots
So, you're saying, the situation is as if I said For each decision in
the list of decisions which
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, comex wrote:
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 8:12 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
So what I'm saying is: if you allow those administrative conveniences
to create legal fictions of individual cast ballots
So, you're saying, the situation is as if I said For each
24 matches
Mail list logo
