On Sun, 9 Jul 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Jul 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> > On Sun, 2017-07-09 at 13:58 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > > On Sun, 9 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > > > Proto CFJ "After Proposal 5111 got enacted, there have been no
> > > > Officeholders."
> > >
> > > Just a
On Sun, 9 Jul 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Sun, 2017-07-09 at 13:58 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On Sun, 9 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > > Proto CFJ "After Proposal 5111 got enacted, there have been no
> > > Officeholders."
> >
> > Just as a factual note, Proposal 5111 re-introduced switche
On Sun, 2017-07-09 at 13:58 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > Proto CFJ "After Proposal 5111 got enacted, there have been no
> > Officeholders."
>
> Just as a factual note, Proposal 5111 re-introduced switches, but
> didn't put switches in the Officer rule.
>
On Sun, 9 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Proto CFJ "After Proposal 5111 got enacted, there have been no Officeholders."
Just as a factual note, Proposal 5111 re-introduced switches, but
didn't put switches in the Officer rule.
Switches weren't introduced into the Officer rule until Proposal 75
On Sun, 2017-07-09 at 09:54 +0200, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> I checked the proposal history. There has been a time where Switches had
> higher Power than Offices, making its switch not a switch, ergo, there have
> been no Officeholders since (Possibly?).
Why would Switches having a higher power than Of
Assuming that its implicit isn't to "specify" it though.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/specify:"Identify clearly
and definitely."
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/specify: "to name or state
explicitly or in detail"
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/specify: "to mention o
On Sun, 9 Jul 2017, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>
> > Additionally, such a Ratification would've attempted to Ratify the Ruleset
> > (as in, the whole Ruleset), at once. But it wouldn't have been able to
> > happen, because, " The number of the new rule cannot
On Sun, 9 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
Additionally, such a Ratification would've attempted to Ratify the Ruleset
(as in, the whole Ruleset), at once. But it wouldn't have been able to
happen, because, " The number of the new rule cannot be specified by the
enacting instrument; any attempt to so
Well, OK. We might we going in circles now lol. I'll compile this up and
make a CFJ then. Thank you very much PSS, I appreciate the insight a lot.
It helped me find quite a lot of more interesting stuff for the case.
On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 2:37 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.sc
Ratification doesn’t modify anything, it just makes something true without the
need for any process to occur.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Jul 9, 2017, at 7:56 AM, CuddleBeam wrote:
>
>
> Yes, however the action of Ratifying itself wouldn't ha
>
> " That or the Ratification actually didn't add Rules, but that would
> contradict "When a document is ratified, the gamestate is modified so that
> the ratified document was completely true and accurate at the time it was
> published. Nevertheless, the ratification of a document does not
> inva
Yes, however the action of Ratifying itself wouldn't have been able to
happen because it would've attempted to change the rules, with are
preconditions in the rules that already existed for the ratification itself
to take place.
Imagine we added that:
"Ratification can't be performed by anyone.",
However, ratification would make it true and overrides the Rule Changes rule
because with ratification it never changes anything, it makes things true
instantaneously.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Jul 9, 2017, at 7:22 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>
From:
http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg00165.html ,
it contains Proposal 5101, which passed and amended the whole rule on
August 1st and there was no other change until September - right at the
timeframe of the vulnerability.
So I got the Ratification rules of back then
The ruleset has probably been ratified since Proposal 5111 resolving that
problem.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Jul 9, 2017, at 3:54 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>
> I checked the proposal history. There has been a time where Switches had
> higher P
In that case, there would have been no officers while it had a higher power,
but afterwards officers would return.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Jul 9, 2017, at 3:54 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>
> I checked the proposal history. There has been a tim
I checked the proposal history. There has been a time where Switches had
higher Power than Offices, making its switch not a switch, ergo, there have
been no Officeholders since (Possibly?).
Of course this would screw over a lot of things, would it be so, but
everything we're doing wouldn't actuall
It uses an implied default of empty and given that it takes precedence per Rule
1030, I believe that is fine.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Jun 29, 2017, at 12:59 PM, CuddleBeam wrote:
>
> R2162 states that:
>
> "A type of switch is a property
R2162 states that:
"A type of switch is a property that the rules define as a switch, and
specify the following:
(...)
2. One or more possible values for instances of that switch, exactly one of
which is designated as the default. "
So stating a default is required for a Switch to be a Switch.
R
19 matches
Mail list logo
