On 3/2/2020 2:25 PM, Tanner Swett wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020, 11:34 Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>> Well, we purposefully error-trapped switches, which suggests that we allow
>> that sort of thing if the rules are explicit about it happening:
>>
>
> But an indeterminate value is merely one that
On Mon, Mar 2, 2020, 11:34 Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> Well, we purposefully error-trapped switches, which suggests that we allow
> that sort of thing if the rules are explicit about it happening:
>
But an indeterminate value is merely one that
On Monday, March 2, 2020, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> G. wrote:
> > Well, we purposefully error-trapped switches, which suggests that we
> allow
> > that sort of thing if the rules are explicit about it happening:
> >
> > > If a type of
G. wrote:
> Well, we purposefully error-trapped switches, which suggests that we allow
> that sort of thing if the rules are explicit about it happening:
>
> > If a type of switch is not explicitly designated as
> > possibly-indeterminate by the rule that defines it, and if an action
> >
CuddleBeam wrote:
> If I tell you "you can take a cupcake", that doesn't mean you can take
> ALL the cookies. It means you can take one.
>
> And if I say "a cupcake is a pastry", that doesn't mean that only ONE
> cupcake is a pastry. It means that all cupcakes are pastries.
Sure, I'm with you
On 3/2/2020 8:11 AM, Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Monday, March 2, 2020, Tanner Swett via agora-discussion wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020, 08:23 Cuddle Beam wrote:
>>
>>> But yeah, even if it is tradition, I'm not against just going contrary to
>>> it since all we need to do that
I mean, I’m inclined to agree with G.’s interpretation there. It would do
something, but it’s IMPOSSIBLE to determine the result, making the whole
thing ambiguous.
But anyways, the sword of “the majority” doesn’t really matter to me. My
opinion is my own.
On Monday, March 2, 2020, Tanner Swett
On Mon, Mar 2, 2020, 08:23 Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> But yeah, even if it is tradition, I'm not against just going contrary to
> it since all we need to do that is enough people agreeing to do so, and I'd
> agree to it (although, probably not
On 3/2/2020 3:45 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 12:39 PM Tanner Swett wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020, 04:41 Cuddle Beam wrote:
>>
>>> I think this would cause:
>>> - A big and spreading fog of war of CfJ DISMISS, because its
>> "undecidable"
>>> and "insufficient information
Ah, alright. I wasn't familiar with that. I've been here for so long and I
still don't know that stuff lmao.
But yeah, even if it is tradition, I'm not against just going contrary to
it since all we need to do that is enough people agreeing to do so, and I'd
agree to it (although, probably not
On Mon, Mar 2, 2020, 06:45 Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> > My proposal would just create an ambiguity in the rules, and we never
> judge DISMISS due to an ambiguity in the rules; we pick an interpretation
> instead.
>
> Why is this? (Is it just
> My proposal would just create an ambiguity in the rules, and we never
judge DISMISS due to an ambiguity in the rules; we pick an interpretation
instead.
Why is this? (Is it just culture? A CfJ-rule? A rule?)
On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 12:39 PM Tanner Swett via agora-discussion <
On Mon, Mar 2, 2020, 04:41 Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I think this would cause:
> - A big and spreading fog of war of CfJ DISMISS, because its "undecidable"
> and "insufficient information exists" to know what's going on with coins
>
My proposal
Yes but I believe there is a difference, it's the same word "a", but with
different meaning. And what matters is the meaning of the word, not just
the word used. You see, that's what matters, in this matter. Also,
unrelated, liquids are a state of matter.
If I tell you "you can take a cupcake",
CuddleBeam wrote:
> But "a player" is just one player, no? At least that's my understanding of it.
Compare, for example:
> A player whose master is not emself is a zombie (syn. inactive);
> all other players are active.
I don't think any reasonable interpretation of the rules would
But "a player" is just one player, no? At least that's my understanding of
it.
On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 10:50 AM Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Sunday, March 1, 2020 10:46 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion <
>
On Sunday, March 1, 2020 10:46 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On Sun., Mar. 1, 2020, 17:05 Tanner Swett via agora-business, <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > I submit a proposal with AI = 1, titled "Somebody gets a coin":
> > {
> > Enact a power-1 rule titled "A
...or
- Some CfJ-rule already exists to let us ignore its effects.
On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 10:41 AM Cuddle Beam wrote:
> I think this would cause:
> - A big and spreading fog of war of CfJ DISMISS, because its "undecidable"
> and "insufficient information exists" to know what's going on with
I think this would cause:
- A big and spreading fog of war of CfJ DISMISS, because its "undecidable"
and "insufficient information exists" to know what's going on with coins
- Or the Judge would make a new CfJ-rule that would allow us to ignore its
effects altogether because it can't be
19 matches
Mail list logo
