Victory by apathy, by apathy, I guess lol.
On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 at 15:54, D. Margaux wrote:
> I thought for sure people would object and that I wouldn’t be able to
> execute these intents without the aid of the contract scam... but somehow,
> no one seems to have objected to these intents?
>
>
Aaargh.
Of course, it turns out that there are probably also very many other reasons
why this fails, but that one is particularly grating. :P
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Sunday, February 10, 2019 7:17 AM, Madeline wrote:
> This fails because no intent was posted in a public
This fails because no intent was posted in a public forum. :)
On 2019-02-10 00:30, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
I act on behalf of Telnaior to retract eir objection to my intent to Declare
Apathy;
and I Declare Apathy, specifying the following set of players: {twg}.
On Sat, 9 Feb 2019, D. Margaux wrote:
I think I have found a bug in twg’s execution of the scheme!
I also see some bugs, although the rule 869 issue makes them pretty moot.
For one thing, it was argued in previous discussion that supporting cannot
be done on behalf as an accidental side
This interpretation is correct. That provision would be rather
meaningless if it didn't stop mousetraps, given that it is rather
specifically designed to stop mousetraps. I will also cite CFJs 3587 &
3588, which mentioned that the provision has such an effect
("Additionally, Agora has codified
Ahh. I somehow missed the prior discussion. Sorry about that.
-Aris
On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 3:10 PM Aris Merchant
wrote:
>
> Y'all, y'all. *Shakes head.* Has anyone given Rule 869 a read lately?
> It is read the ruleset week, so you might want to. Specifically, the
> portion stating that "A
Y'all, y'all. *Shakes head.* Has anyone given Rule 869 a read lately?
It is read the ruleset week, so you might want to. Specifically, the
portion stating that "A person, by registering, agrees to abide by the
Rules. The Rules CANNOT otherwise bind a person to abide by any
agreement without that
On Sat, 2019-02-09 at 11:09 -0500, D. Margaux wrote:
> In my view, rule 1742 doesn’t pose a problem. A person by registering
> gives willful consent to be bound by the rules, and the rules say
> that parties to a contract can modify it by adding additional players
> as parties. So by virtue of
> On Feb 9, 2019, at 11:09 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
>
> In my view, rule 1742 doesn’t pose a problem. A person by registering gives
> willful consent to be bound by the rules, and the rules say that parties to a
> contract can modify it by adding additional players as parties. So by virtue
>
In my view, rule 1742 doesn’t pose a problem. A person by registering gives
willful consent to be bound by the rules, and the rules say that parties to a
contract can modify it by adding additional players as parties. So by virtue of
willfully consenting to be bound by the rules, a player also
On Sat, 2019-02-09 at 13:30 +, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> I then, as permitted by Rule 1742/20, modify the contract by changing
> the set of parties to it to the set of all players.
I suspect this fails. Rule 1742 (power 2.5) is outpowered by rule 869
(power 3):
> The Rules CANNOT otherwise
> On Feb 9, 2019, at 9:13 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> Oh dear, I'm sorry. I did think your setup looked similar to mine but I
> couldn't see why, if you were planning the same thing but your end goal
> didn't rely on a dependent action, you wouldn't just activate it immediately.
> I
Oh dear, I'm sorry. I did think your setup looked similar to mine but I
couldn't see why, if you were planning the same thing but your end goal didn't
rely on a dependent action, you wouldn't just activate it immediately. I guess
if you were hoping to succeed via timing then that explains that.
It relies on “including by changing the set of parties”, yes? It’s not “
including changing the set of parties”, and I don’t know what the ‘by’
would do there, but that it’s there makes all of this a lot less clear to
me.
On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 at 14:43, D. Margaux wrote:
> Crud. This is the same
On Saturday, February 9, 2019 1:30 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> I act on behalf of Corona to support my intent to award myself the degree
> Associate of Nomic;
My apologies, I believe upon rereading that this one fails because Corona is my
zombie. But I believe all the others still work; the
15 matches
Mail list logo
