Gratuitous:
I think this is very similar/identical to CFJ 1298:
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1298
which found that the entity that the Rules at the time called the
"Distributor" was not the same as the Patent Title Distributor
that had been previously awarded - to this
So, I (and I think some others) think we need a way to enforce peer review on
proposals before they are voted on. Here are two proposals that would do that.
I lean towards the second, but not strongly.
OPTION A
Amend rule 2350 by replacing “A player CAN create a proposal by announcement”
with
I can actually speak a little Japanese: enough to understand eir action
there anyway.
On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 8:12 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Thanks :) To be clear I didn't have a problem with this one in particular
> - it seems direct and straightforward - just wanted to give warning if
>
I confess I am hopelessly confused. The contract doesn’t seem to affect anyone
besides twg and Gaelan. Is it a flaw in the proposal? But then what does that
have to do with the timing of adoption?
> On Nov 5, 2018, at 3:49 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> Actually, why am I even bothering
Thanks :) To be clear I didn't have a problem with this one in particular
- it seems direct and straightforward - just wanted to give warning if
people (not just you!) decide to get too clever on this sort of thing
again.
On Mon, 5 Nov 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> Fair enough. I pledge
Please don't. Really. It's cute once, but annoying, and we really
don't need a whole round of CFJs on whether each action in Japanese
works. The CFJs of when 天火狐 was playing pretty much ended up
requiring every single action to be CFJ'd and culminated in a
Cantus Cygneus.
On Mon, 5 Nov
Actually, why am I even bothering with trying to outmanoeuvre Gaelan on my own.
3 coins is nothing in the scheme of things.
The text of the document in question is as follows:
{If proposal 8114 is resolved before Nov 7th (UTC), Gaelan SHALL pay twg 3
coins.}
Proposal 8114, which I MUST
1. I believe this contains no actions, despite the fact that you meant the
contents of this message to be a hash of a contract.
2. There's not really a reason to submit a contract as a hash unless you
sent it privately to someone else and intend to reveal it later, in which
case you would want to
Not sure if anyone is actually using this, but I just noticed that my code for
calculating revision numbers is wrong. I’ll try and fix it today, but please
disregard those for now.
Gaelan
> On Nov 2, 2018, at 9:37 AM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>
> I just put together a new web-based ruleset
On Sun, 4 Nov 2018, Edward Murphy wrote:
> > Perhaps Rule 869 should be amended to state that any people continue to be
> > people in perpetuity even if they stop meeting the definition of a person.
>
> We've previously defined classes non-biological persons (contracts and
> such), and then
10 matches
Mail list logo
