On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:41 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I still need 3 more votes on whether to lynch Pavitra.
I recommend amending the contract to require votes to be cast as soon
as possible, with severe penalties for not doing so. A 2-week voting
period is a bit ridiculous.
2008/7/15 Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:41 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I still need 3 more votes on whether to lynch Pavitra.
I recommend amending the contract to require votes to be cast as soon
as possible, with severe penalties for not doing so. A
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 5:17 AM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:41 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I still need 3 more votes on whether to lynch Pavitra.
I recommend amending the contract to require votes to be cast as soon
as possible, with severe
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
I currently disagree with the judgement in CFJ 1695, and it was my own
judgement. It has since occurred to me that if partnerships could not
perform actions via the forum, then they were not players to begin
with and therefore had no R101 right to
tusho wrote:
2008/7/15 Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:41 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I still need 3 more votes on whether to lynch Pavitra.
I recommend amending the contract to require votes to be cast as soon
as possible, with severe penalties for not
2008/7/15 Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
This makes something occur to me. Once an entity (a partnership) is
defined as a person, is it even possible, without violating R101, to make
them a non-person? At one stroke, by doing so, we've removed rights
that (the instant before the change takes
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 9:45 AM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Instead of penalties, I suggest deciding the omitted votes at random
after the voting period ends. That'll at least make people's laziness
interesting.
I'm not fond of this idea. Due to the imbalance of information, votes
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 9:36 AM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And PUBLIC VOTING, this game sucks. It misses the point entirely.
Murphy has already said that e will change it for the next game, so at
this point you're just whining needlessly.
-root
2008/7/15 Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Murphy has already said that e will change it for the next game, so at
this point you're just whining needlessly.
-root
I didn't hear that, but OK.
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 10:55 AM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I didn't hear that, but OK.
On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 10:23 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
See above. I implemented the contest based on the local F2F games,
where everyone votes simultaneously on the count of
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 10:49 AM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 9:45 AM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Instead of penalties, I suggest deciding the omitted votes at random
after the voting period ends. That'll at least make people's laziness
interesting.
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 5:23 PM, Ben Caplan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 14 July 2008 06:09:59 pm Ian Kelly wrote:
Seriously? In my experience, Default Justice is a curse, not a
bonus.
Perhaps we should have some way to abdicate prerogatives; they are
theoretically supposed to be
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 2:11 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 11:52 AM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
currency's backing document binds the ninny or the ninny has
this amount of the currency, and the backing document specifies a
Formatting?
Does it matter? Is
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 10:47 AM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/7/15 Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
This makes something occur to me. Once an entity (a partnership) is
defined as a person, is it even possible, without violating R101, to make
them a non-person? At one stroke, by
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 7:51 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I retract my previous similarly-titled proposal.
Proposal: Prerogative implies choice
(AI = 2, please)
Amend Rule 2019 (Prerogatives) by replacing section b) with this text:
b) Justiciar. Once within three days
NttPF
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 7:23 AM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
NUM FL AI SUBMITTER TITLE
5636 D0 2ais523 Defining Monsterholdors
PRESENT
5637 O1 1Quazie Agora is my conditional value
FORx4
5638 O1 1.7 Murphy Pragmatize initiation of equity cases
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 10:47 AM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 7:51 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I retract my previous similarly-titled proposal.
Proposal: Prerogative implies choice
(AI = 2, please)
Amend Rule 2019 (Prerogatives) by replacing
2008/7/15 Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The problem is that partnerships aren't people.
They are if they're public and have a basis of at least two, which are
the only ones that we've decided we want to have interacting with the
game (and with good reason). Unless Goethe is right, in which
On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 19:34 +0100, ais523 wrote:
I fill this ticket, specifying the following action: {{Transfer exactly
one of either exactly 2VP or exactly 12VP to the filler of this ticket
(i.e. ais523).}}
I think this failed because the ticket in question was retracted before
I could fill
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does it matter? Is the formatting actually preserved in the ruleset?
If so, I'll need to retract it and repropose or something :/
No, but I personally prefer proposals whose authors have gone to the
minimal trouble of formatting
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 10:57 AM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/7/15 Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The problem is that partnerships aren't people.
They are if they're public and have a basis of at least two, which are
the only ones that we've decided we want to have interacting
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:39 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For one thing, Quazie's EVLOD is 5, right? Assuming we treat this as
pseudo-C, the result differs depending on whether myevlod is an int
(5/2 = 2; FOR AGAINST FOR AGAINST PRESENT) or a float (5.0/2 = 2.5;
FOR AGAINST FOR AGAINST
On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 21:23 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
5590 AGAINST
5591 AGAINST
5593 FOR
5594 FOR
5596 FOR
5597 AGAINST
5598 PRESENT
These (and 5589 from the previous method) missed the voting period.
I suspect that Wooble caused the PNP to send
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 11:57 AM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/7/15 Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The problem is that partnerships aren't people.
They are if they're public and have a basis of at least two, which are
the only ones that we've decided we want to have interacting
2008/7/15 Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
But you can't un-people them without reducing eir rights. So even if
its wrong, its something we can't just change.
We can make it so that future partnerships are doers, but not people.
And a powerful proposal can de-person the existing ones.
2008/7/15 Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Ah. I would suggest that, in keeping with legal practice we should
instead split persons into natural persons and artificial
persons, and have R101 assign rights only to the natural variety.
-root
Yes. This is essentially what I was suggesting.
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 11:24 AM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 11:57 AM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/7/15 Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The problem is that partnerships aren't people.
They are if they're public and have a basis of at least two,
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 2:25 PM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/7/15 Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Ah. I would suggest that, in keeping with legal practice we should
instead split persons into natural persons and artificial
persons, and have R101 assign rights only to the natural
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 12:14 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suspect that Wooble caused the PNP to send these votes not because e
thought they would work, but because it was the easiest way of
uncluttering the PNP's idea of what was going on in Agora after its
server crash.
Say, this
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 12:26 PM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But the very act of doing that removes the rights of them as persons,
which is against R101, does a change to R101 have to comply with R101?
Not if a temporory Power-3.1 rule allows otherwise.
-root
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 11:57 AM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/7/15 Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The problem is that partnerships aren't people.
They are if they're public and have a basis of at least two,
There has been recent debate over whether a failing action should be illegal
or not. Here's some arguments.
First, let's take a look at how performing actions by announcement works.
You write a message stating that you perform an action, and somehow, when you
send off the message, it happens.
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It can't just add a week from the distribution date?
I believe the rationale for not doing that was to not remove proposals
that were still in their voting period due to failed quorum, but
that's been rare lately, and I'd be
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 2:55 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I submit the following proposal (AI=3,II=0,Title=Making 2125(e)
actually do something):
Replace paragraph (e) of rule 2125 with the following:
{{{
e) It would, as part of its effect, modify information which the
On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 14:59 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 2:55 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I submit the following proposal (AI=3,II=0,Title=Making 2125(e)
actually do something):
Replace paragraph (e) of rule 2125 with the following:
{{{
e) It
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
No, doer vs non-doer would not be a question of rights. Only people have
rights,
and thus partnerships wouldn't.
Do you even read the ruleset? R2145.
I suppose one could make the argument that R101 applies to natural
persons only and so supersedes
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
No, doer vs non-doer would not be a question of rights. Only people have
rights,
and thus partnerships wouldn't.
Do you even read the ruleset? R2145.
I presume ehird is
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 12:36 PM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First, let's take a look at how performing actions by announcement works.
You write a message stating that you perform an action, and somehow, when you
send off the message, it happens. (Note that this is actually ISTID,
2008/7/15 comex [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
No, doer vs non-doer would not be a question of rights. Only people have
rights,
and thus partnerships wouldn't.
Do you even read the ruleset?
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 3:19 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 12:15 -0700, Dice server wrote:
19
I submit the following proposal (AI=1, II=0, Title=Exilous
Monsteredicts, based on rule 2144):
Append the following to the rule entitled The Monster:
{{{
On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 13:58 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
Intentionally failing to perform an action is a form of dishonesty,
and it should be every bit as illegal as any other lie. Do you have a
specific scenario in mind where this is not the case?
Goethe and I have both posted examples of such
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 2:02 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 13:58 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
Intentionally failing to perform an action is a form of dishonesty,
and it should be every bit as illegal as any other lie. Do you have a
specific scenario in mind where this
On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 16:01 -0400, comex wrote:
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 3:19 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 12:15 -0700, Dice server wrote:
19
I submit the following proposal (AI=1, II=0, Title=Exilous
Monsteredicts, based on rule 2144):
Append the
2008/7/15 Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Neat. I create 1 billion chits in my possession.
If some people get their way I could criminal CFJ you if
you did this to a-b.
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
The statement is obviously not FALSE.
Here's where it breaks down. If this is considered to be a poorly-labeled
and communicated statement, it's not obvious. -Goethe
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 12:34 PM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Isn't that what first-class is for?
More or less. The purpose of first-class was to restrict abilities,
not rights, but there's no reason they couldn't be conflated into the
same thing.
-root
On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 14:04 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
Links? I haven't been following the full discussion.
From memory: Goethe, as an officer in the past, attempted to give
someone a fractional amount of currency because a rule forced em to do
so (and this action failed); I gave the example of the
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/7/15 Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Neat. I create 1 billion chits in my possession.
If some people get their way I could criminal CFJ you if
you did this to a-b.
Why couldn't you do it as is?
-root
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 2:02 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 13:58 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
Intentionally failing to perform an action is a form of dishonesty,
and it should be every bit as illegal as any other lie. Do you have a
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:12 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Amend Rule 1504 (Criminal Cases) by replacing this text:
* UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act was not proscribed
by the specified rule at the time it allegedly occurred
with this text:
*
2008/7/15 Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Why couldn't you do it as is?
-root
Failing actions aren't illegal yet, thank god.
On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 13:25 -0700, Taral wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:12 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Amend Rule 1504 (Criminal Cases) by replacing this text:
* UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act was not proscribed
by the specified rule at the time it
2008/7/15 Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
although (a) to be fair, I covered those attempts with various disclaimers
explaining the situation, although (b) I'm puzzled by the disclaimers issue.
If you disclaim an action (those of you who claim that action statements
can be false) wouldn't the
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, ais523 wrote:
On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 14:04 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
immediately when the voting period ends (and in general, I don't think
it should be illegal to try to vote on something after the end of the
voting period, because that would entail the voter, rather than
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 2:23 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 14:04 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
Links? I haven't been following the full discussion.
From memory: Goethe, as an officer in the past, attempted to give
someone a fractional amount of currency because a rule
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 4:28 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 13:25 -0700, Taral wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:12 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Amend Rule 1504 (Criminal Cases) by replacing this text:
* UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act
2008/7/15 Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
comex got out of being found guilty in a criminal case by alleging that
the act occurred a long time ago, even though it didn't (with
appropriate disclaimers), thus forcing an OVERLOOKED version.
Wouldn't e be guilty of lying then?
(with
appropriate
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 2:28 PM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/7/15 Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Why couldn't you do it as is?
-root
Failing actions aren't illegal yet, thank god.
In your opinion, perhaps.
-root
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 2:23 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 14:04 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
Links? I haven't been following the full discussion.
From memory: Goethe, as an officer in the past, attempted to give
someone a
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 2:25 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
although (a) to be fair, I covered those attempts with various disclaimers
explaining the situation, although (b) I'm puzzled by the disclaimers issue.
If you disclaim an action (those of you who claim that action statements
2008/7/15 Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
YOU MISS THE POINT. WHY IS IT JUST OR VALUABLE TO AGORA TO FORCE US TO
ANSWER TO CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS FOR THIS SORT OF THING IN THE FIRST PLACE
THIS PLACE HAS BEEN CRIMINALIZED ENOUGH, AND NOW YOU'RE ASKING US TO BE
PARANOID ABOUT OUR EVERY ATTEMPT
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
Perhaps our criterion of illegality should be whether the message
included intent to deceive, not absolute positive belief in the
statement's truth.
I liked a version that included intent to deceive, Zefram didn't care
for it so it disappeared from
2008/7/15 Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I liked a version that included intent to deceive, Zefram didn't care
for it so it disappeared from Murphy's draft. Intent to deceive is a
good way to cover, say, making true statements but sending them from
an imposter email account. -Goethe
And
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
2008/7/15 Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I dance. I dance a dance of being free to say I do so.
A dance of freedom. A free-from-dumb dance. I dance.
I kill Goethe.
Nyaaah, my coffee cup is +5 vs. ISID.
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 2:36 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
YOU MISS THE POINT. WHY IS IT JUST OR VALUABLE TO AGORA TO FORCE US TO
ANSWER TO CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS FOR THIS SORT OF THING IN THE FIRST PLACE
THIS PLACE HAS BEEN CRIMINALIZED ENOUGH, AND NOW YOU'RE ASKING US TO BE
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
I support this. The precedent from CFJ 1738 is that speech acts do
carry truth values. Additionally, I know of no precedent stating what
Taral claims.
The action having received two support, I hereby appeal CFJ 2048.
Um, did you just attempt to act
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 3:38 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
I support this. The precedent from CFJ 1738 is that speech acts do
carry truth values. Additionally, I know of no precedent stating what
Taral claims.
The action having received two
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
R1728 allows that. We voted that in after comex deliberately
prevented an appeal by announcing eir intent to do it and then never
actually doing it, remember?
Nope! Now I know tho. :)
2008/7/15 Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
R1728 allows that. We voted that in after comex deliberately
prevented an appeal by announcing eir intent to do it and then never
actually doing it, remember?
I remember that in #ircnomic. :)
On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 13:25 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
If you disclaim an action (those of you who claim that action statements
can be false) wouldn't the disclaimer always cause it to fail? You can't
have it both ways!
CFJ 1971. Maybe that'll have to be revisited in the light of this
On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 13:38 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I dance. I dance a dance of being free to say I do so.
A dance of freedom. A free-from-dumb dance. I dance.
Is that a Powerful Dance?
--
ais523
2008/7/15 ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 13:38 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I dance. I dance a dance of being free to say I do so.
A dance of freedom. A free-from-dumb dance. I dance.
Is that a Powerful Dance?
Powerful Dances are worth a lot, I don't see why e'd dance
away so
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 2:38 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree with that. A disclaimed assertion is no longer an assertion.
I argued as much when comex made eir OVERLOOKED allegation, but nobody
seemed to agree with me at the time.
Although apparently I supported the panel's
2008/7/15 comex [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi!
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 6:11 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I support.
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
ais523 wrote:
Say, this is another argument for allowing attempts to perform actions
which will certainly fail; the PNP often votes late on Agoran Decisions
due to the players of PerlNomic not deciding fast enough, and it's much
easier for it to simply perform the failed actions than it would
Goethe wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 2:02 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 13:58 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
Intentionally failing to perform an action is a form of dishonesty,
and it should be every bit as illegal as any other lie.
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, ais523 wrote:
On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 13:25 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
If you disclaim an action (those of you who claim that action statements
can be false) wouldn't the disclaimer always cause it to fail? You can't
have it both ways!
CFJ 1971. Maybe that'll have to be
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
I think the intended interpretation is that I do X (disclaimer: maybe
not) is ineffective, while I do X (disclaimer: not if Y) is effective
provided that Y is false at the time (IOW, it's equivalent to if not Y
then I do X).
Trivial to turn maybe not
Goethe wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
Perhaps our criterion of illegality should be whether the message
included intent to deceive, not absolute positive belief in the
statement's truth.
I liked a version that included intent to deceive, Zefram didn't care
for it so it
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
I think that (a) you're discussing intent to mislead in general, and
(b) Zefram and I objected to what used to be called recklessness wrt
the truth (i.e. publishing a statement without bothering to consider
whether it was true or not). Would you be happy
Taral wrote:
Well, the problem is that there's two ways to phrase the CFJ:
Back when we started doing criminal CFJs this issue came up. CFJ 1720
decided that by default the rule violated was not part of the action
being tried. That was before we required explicit specification of the
rule
ais523 wrote:
Say, this is another argument for allowing attempts to perform actions
which will certainly fail;
This is a reason for the PNP's message to include a phrase such as
if the proposal is in its voting period.
Zefram does not update it instantaneously when
the
Ian Kelly wrote:
I CFJ on this statement.
Patently TRUE. By stating it you do in fact initiate the described CFJ,
via the rules on acting by announcement. This makes the statement true.
And it's obviously relevant.
-zefram
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 5:27 PM, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ian Kelly wrote:
I CFJ on this statement.
Patently TRUE. By stating it you do in fact initiate the described CFJ,
via the rules on acting by announcement. This makes the statement true.
And it's obviously relevant.
That's
comex wrote:
- action: claiming to dance in eir message with message-id
The term dance has a specialised meaning in the context of Agora,
referring to a verbal (rather than kinaesthetic) activity. By that
meaning, Goethe did in fact dance in that message.
- action: claiming to kill Goethe in
What about the fact that while doing something is regulated, attempting to
do something (and failing) is not regulated, and therefore a privilege?
-Goethe
comex wrote:
- rule: 2149
- action: eating cake.
R2149 does not regulate gustatory activity.
- rule: 2149
- action: claiming that eating cake is a violation of Rule 2149
Ah, finally, a non-trivial issue. We haven't actually established whether
the initiation of a criminal CFJ constitutes an
Elliott Hird wrote:
If the above statement is false,
This condition cannot be evaluated by any reasonable effort, so the
attempted action is invalid due to unclarity.
-zefram
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What about the fact that while doing something is regulated, attempting to
do something (and failing) is not regulated, and therefore a privilege?
Isn't it regulated by R2149?
-root
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Zefram wrote:
comex wrote:
- action: claiming to dance in eir message with message-id
The term dance has a specialised meaning in the context of Agora,
referring to a verbal (rather than kinaesthetic) activity. By that
meaning, Goethe did in fact dance in that message.
2008/7/16 Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Elliott Hird wrote:
If the above statement is false,
This condition cannot be evaluated by any reasonable effort, so the
attempted action is invalid due to unclarity.
-zefram
It can be evaluated trivially - ask me.
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What about the fact that while doing something is regulated, attempting to
do something (and failing) is not regulated, and therefore a privilege?
Isn't it regulated by R2149?
An
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 7:46 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What about the fact that while doing something is regulated, attempting to
do something (and failing) is not regulated, and therefore a privilege?
You mean a right. It's your privilege to do what you wilt, regardless
of
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
An announcement, in general, does not fit any of the R2125 definitions
of regulated. If an overly broad interpretation of R2149 infringes
on R101, we have a clearly specified method of determining precedence.
An
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 4:46 PM, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
comex wrote:
- rule: 2149
- action: eating cake.
R2149 does not regulate gustatory activity.
- rule: 2149
- action: claiming that eating cake is a violation of Rule 2149
E actually violated a contract instead. ##nomic was a
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 4:50 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Zefram wrote:
comex wrote:
- action: claiming to dance in eir message with message-id
The term dance has a specialised meaning in the context of Agora,
referring to a verbal (rather than kinaesthetic)
2008/7/16 Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
E actually violated a contract instead. ##nomic was a contract
forbidding the eating of cake at the time (if i have my timing
correct).
That was after.
2008/7/16 Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
WIth 2 supporters I make teh aboce proposal Democratic.
Can you do that?
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
I support, let's do this thang.
Thanks. uh, have you fixed that player think yet? -G.
1 - 100 of 119 matches
Mail list logo
