On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 at 17:34, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 at 11:17, James Cook via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> > This is a counter-proto to Alexis's "Ratification by Legal Fiction", in
> > the sense that I think it also fixes the problem of ratification
> >
On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 at 11:17, James Cook via agora-discussion
wrote:
> This is a counter-proto to Alexis's "Ratification by Legal Fiction", in
> the sense that I think it also fixes the problem of ratification
> failing due to minimal gamestate changes being ambiguous. It is a more
> radical
On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 at 19:41, omd via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 8:17 AM James Cook via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> > This is a counter-proto to Alexis's "Ratification by Legal Fiction", in
> > the sense that I think it also fixes the problem of ratification
> > failing
On Mon, Feb 3, 2020, 02:10 Aris Merchant via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 2, 2020 at 10:43 PM Tanner Swett via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> [...]
> > For what it's worth, I like this language (even though it will certainly
> > never make it into Agora,
On Sun, Feb 2, 2020 at 10:43 PM Tanner Swett via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2020, 01:05 omd via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > Hmm... Good point. It shouldn't be. The point was to clarify that
> > even if the gamestate doesn't have a list of
On Mon, Feb 3, 2020, 01:05 omd via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> Hmm... Good point. It shouldn't be. The point was to clarify that
> even if the gamestate doesn't have a list of legal fictions, legal
> fictions can still exist due to rules (which are themselves
On Sun, Feb 2, 2020 at 5:27 AM Tanner Swett via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 1, 2020, 19:41 omd via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > A rule may state or imply that 'X is treated as if it
> > were Y', but this is considered an attempt to
On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 at 01:10, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
wrote:
> This is certainly a hell of a lot simpler than the alternative. You've
> dealt pretty convincingly with my complaint about generality; it's not
> general, but it looks like the lack of generality doesn't actually
> turn out
On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 at 13:27, Tanner Swett via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 1, 2020, 19:41 omd via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > A rule may state or imply that 'X is treated as if it
> > were Y', but this is considered an attempt to
On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 at 00:41, omd via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 8:17 AM James Cook via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> > This is a counter-proto to Alexis's "Ratification by Legal Fiction", in
> > the sense that I think it also fixes the problem of ratification
> > failing due
On Sat, Feb 1, 2020, 19:41 omd via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> A rule may state or imply that 'X is treated as if it
> were Y', but this is considered an attempt to redefine X,
> subject to the usual standards for definitions.
>
What's the
(TTttDF forward.)
On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 8:17 AM James Cook via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> This is a counter-proto to Alexis's "Ratification by Legal Fiction", in
> the sense that I think it also fixes the problem of ratification
> failing due to minimal gamestate changes being ambiguous. It is
On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 8:17 AM James Cook via agora-discussion
wrote:
> This is a counter-proto to Alexis's "Ratification by Legal Fiction", in
> the sense that I think it also fixes the problem of ratification
> failing due to minimal gamestate changes being ambiguous. It is a more
> radical
On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 at 16:30, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
wrote:
> On Sat, 2020-02-01 at 16:17 +, James Cook via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> > This is a counter-proto to Alexis's "Ratification by Legal Fiction",
> > in the sense that I think it also fixes the problem of ratification
> > failing
On Sat, 2020-02-01 at 16:17 +, James Cook via agora-discussion
wrote:
> This is a counter-proto to Alexis's "Ratification by Legal Fiction",
> in the sense that I think it also fixes the problem of ratification
> failing due to minimal gamestate changes being ambiguous. It is a
> more radical
15 matches
Mail list logo
