On 1/16/2020 6:42 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 21:39, Alexis Hunt wrote:
>
> maybe argue that
> we should eliminate actions done other than by announcement
I would like to keep (and in fact use more of) the "Notice" mechanism - I
think it's convenient in
ais523 wrote:
> This strikes me as an almost identical situation to a rule stating that
> a player CAN perform a given action, but not specifying a mechanism to
> do so. I'm not up to date with our existing precedents on that,
> though.
I'm not altogether sure that it is, actually. R2545 says:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 7:18 PM AIS523--- via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2020-01-16 at 19:07 -0800, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> > You're half right. Regulated actions have been around forever, but
> > after I ruled in my manifestly terrible opinion (TBH, a frustratingly
On Thu, 2020-01-16 at 19:07 -0800, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
wrote:
> You're half right. Regulated actions have been around forever, but
> after I ruled in my manifestly terrible opinion (TBH, a frustratingly
> large portion of my opinions have been manifestly terrible) in CFJ
> 3557 that
On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 6:45 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> On 1/16/20 9:39 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 19:38, AIS523--- via agora-discussion <
> > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 2020-01-16 at 15:05 -0800, Kerim
On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 21:45, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I think I remember hearing that the concept of regulated actions was
> created because a judge ruled the other way - the Rules say that someone
> "CAN" do it (even if not providing a method),
On 1/16/20 9:39 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 19:38, AIS523--- via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2020-01-16 at 15:05 -0800, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
>> wrote:
>>> Now here we are a third time. Whatever we
On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 21:39, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 19:38, AIS523--- via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2020-01-16 at 15:05 -0800, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
>> wrote:
>> > Now here we are a third time. Whatever we can say
On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 19:38, AIS523--- via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 2020-01-16 at 15:05 -0800, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> > Now here we are a third time. Whatever we can say about CFJ 3694,
> > the judgement is suitably unintuitive
On Thu, 2020-01-16 at 15:05 -0800, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
wrote:
> Now here we are a third time. Whatever we can say about CFJ 3694,
> the judgement is suitably unintuitive such that almost no one reading
> the rules without this precedent/context thinks that zombie auctions
> actually
Heh. Deja vu all over again.
So this whole issue was brought up in Jan 2019, and resulted in CFJs
3693-3694. The Judge's full arguments (below) appeared only in
discussion, and there was a big thread (referenced below). The judge
of CFJ 3694 found that zombie auctions worked, but it was quite,
11 matches
Mail list logo
