DIS: Re: BUS: Take 6

Oops, I guess that was cc-ed to BUS the first time anyway. On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 02:21, James Cook wrote: > > This Time To The Public Forum: > > Welcome! I've added you as "Walker" to the directory; let me know if > you prefer to be referred to some other way. > > I grant a welcome package to

Re: DIS: Rule 2481: "Imminence"?

One issue with that interpretation might be that "to flip" is a term of art. Jason Cobb On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 9:19 PM Rebecca wrote: > I wonder if imminence if not defined as a term of art just bears its > ordinary meaning; i.e, nobody can change " > the state or fact of being about to

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

> R1551 reads as if it is trying to avoid amending the past, by amending > the present gamestate with reference to a hypothetical past. I have > tried to think of a couple of reasons, but neither feels particularly > compelling in the face of your arguments in (7): I'm guessing R1551's complex

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 23:24, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: > On Mon, 2019-06-03 at 00:11 +0100, Charles Walker wrote: > > R1551 reads as if it is trying to avoid amending the past, by amending > > the present gamestate with reference to a hypothetical past. I have > > tried to think of a couple

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

I'm very new, so please take this with a massive pile of salt. You write: "In both cases, if the gamestate did not include information about the past, or the Rules did not refer to that information when referring to the past, then these parts of the Rules wouldn't make sense." This seems to run

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8178-8179

Intent needs to be voted against you fools! It has direct affect on the possibility of levying a CHoJ and is directly opposed to our history and traditions. The rules being absolute and punishing violations that are only ambiguously against them is important! Otherwise what fun would there be. On

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 06:15, Aris Merchant wrote: > I’ve just skimmed this, but it seems to accord very well with my own > understanding of the relevant principles. Your opinion is clear, logical, > well-organized, and generally quite spiffy. From anyone I would consider > this a well-written

DIS: Re: BUS: Whoops

Well, this should be fun :) On 6/2/19 10:38 PM, James Cook wrote: I Point my Finger at every player, in the following order: omd, Aris, Gaelan, G., Cuddle Beam, Trigon, Murphy, ATMunn, twg, D. Margaux, Jacob Arduino, Falsifian, Bernie, Rance, o, Jason Cobb, Walker, PSS, Corona, V.J. Rada,

DIS: Re: BUS: Referee Fix

I believe this needs to be "and CAN, and in a timely fashion SHALL, conclude the investigation". Otherwise, the "in a timely fashion" would also apply to the CAN, so that the Referee COULD NOT conclude an investigation if it were overdue. I think. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On

DIS: Re: BUS: Take 6

Welcome! I've added you as "Walker" to the directory; let me know if you prefer to be referred to some other way. I grant a welcome package to Walker. On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 20:26, Charles Walker wrote: > > I register. > > -- > Walker

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

Thanks. What if I replace the first paragraph of 7A with this: > To understand the meaning of the term "gamestate", the first place to > look is the Rules. The term is never directly defined, so we must > satisfy ourselves by inferring meaning from context. > > Rule 217 forbids us from applying

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

After further thought, I think it might be a problem that the replacement text I sent in my previous message is still applying prescriptions in the rules using reasoning that is not direct and forward. Hopefully the following new text for 7A avoids the problem entirely: > To understand the

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

You have persuaded me at least.  Also, in this case I chose to send the second email.  But if the duplicate email resulted from a technical glitch with no conscious decision involved, it certainly wouldn't seem right or a common sense interpretation to penalize the person.   In addition to the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Temporary Deputy-ADoP] Initiation of Election for Prime Minister

I don't feel strongly either way. I think both you and G. are good choices as PM, having a strong understanding of the game and willingness to step up and help keep things moving. I think you've done more recently, but I'm not sure how much recency should count, if G.'s still fairly active. For

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

[Repeating from accidental response to sub-thread] I'm very new, so please take this with a massive pile of salt. You write in 7A: "In both cases, if the gamestate did not include information about the past, or the Rules did not refer to that information when referring to the past, then these

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

The criticism appears valid, but I’m sure there’s another way of showing this, even if it’s just an appeal to common sense. -Aris On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 7:48 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > [Repeating from accidental response to sub-thread] > > I'm very new, so please take this with a massive pile of

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 04:59, James Cook wrote: > Comments welcome. Sorry that it's so long. I went back and forth on > 3726 a couple of times. Thanks for an interesting judgement--a good way for me to get back into the game. My instinct was that 3726 is TRUE, along the line of argument that you

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 20:48, Rance Bedwell wrote: > If you want me to, I will attempt to withdraw the COE. That might make things more interesting, since I don't see a way for you to do it. I might still be able to deny it under Rule 2201; I'm not sure. I don't think it's causing much harm. I'm

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Temporary Deputy-ADoP] Initiation of Election for Prime Minister

My vote is still up for grabs, if I'm eligible (which I think I am). Sorry again, but I am too new to know everything you would wish to include in your platform. Could you give me a short summary so that I don't have to trawl through lots of messages? On 6/2/19 10:35 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

Ah, sorry, this should have been a direct reply to the main message, not a reply to Charles Walker. On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 7:20 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > I'm very new, so please take this with a massive pile of salt. > > You write: > "In both cases, if the gamestate did not include information

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

On Mon, 2019-06-03 at 00:11 +0100, Charles Walker wrote: > R1551 reads as if it is trying to avoid amending the past, by amending > the present gamestate with reference to a hypothetical past. I have > tried to think of a couple of reasons, but neither feels particularly > compelling in the face

Re: DIS: Rule 2481: "Imminence"?

I wonder if imminence if not defined as a term of art just bears its ordinary meaning; i.e, nobody can change " the state or fact of being about to happen" of a proposal if a festival happens. Presumably that would prohibit non-festive players from removing proposals somehow? On Mon, Jun 3, 2019

Re: DIS: Rule 2481: "Imminence"?

CFJ 1500 finds that a term of art reverts to its English meaning when the rule defining the term is repealed: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1500 On 6/2/19 9:19 PM, Rebecca wrote: I wonder if imminence if not defined

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Temporary Deputy-ADoP] Initiation of Election for Prime Minister

I vote [Aris, G.]. Why is no one voting for me? As far as I can tell, I have a stronger platform (well, at least I had a platform) and am currently more active. I’m really confused, TBH. -Aris On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 7:30 PM James Cook wrote: > In the ongoing election for Prime Minister, I

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

I’ve just skimmed this, but it seems to accord very well with my own understanding of the relevant principles. Your opinion is clear, logical, well-organized, and generally quite spiffy. From anyone I would consider this a well-written opinion; under the circumstances, it’s honestly amazing. I’m

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to Become a Player

Thanks :) Jason Cobb On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 10:30 AM ATMunn wrote: > Welcome to Agora, Jason Cobb! > > On 6/1/2019 10:02 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > > I declare my intent to become a Player. > > > > Jason Cobb > > >

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Prime Minister] there's no confidence in the economy, so...

If e didn’t, then the election announcement did not have a clear list of the valid options and is therefore invalid per CFJ No Number! On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 10:59 AM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > I vote for Corona in the ongoing Prime Minister election. > > CFJ: "In the message quoted below,

Re: DIS: Rule 2481: "Imminence"?

That makes sense. Thank you. Sorry for all the questions, I obviously haven't been interpreting these rules for as long as you :) Jason Cobb On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 12:49 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk < ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > On Sun, 2019-06-02 at 12:40 -0400, Jason Cobb wrote: > > So

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] a minor fix I think is important

I think this could be ambiguous — it could provide a reward for the first decision resolved in a week, or for the first time that any particular decision is resolved in a week (so only one reward for a decision resolved FAILED QUORUM and then REJECTED within a single week). What about:

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to Become a Player

Welcome to Agora, Jason Cobb! On 6/1/2019 10:02 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: I declare my intent to become a Player. Jason Cobb

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Prime Minister] there's no confidence in the economy, so...

I was under the impression that e can still be included in an election and voted for without eir consent, just not installed into the office if e wins. I thought that there was a recent CFJ about this but I can't find it. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Sunday, June 2, 2019 3:01 PM,

DIS: Rule 2481: "Imminence"?

Hey, another newbie question for you all. Rule 2481, point 3 reads: "Non-Festive players cannot flip the Imminence of any proposal;". However, a simple text search does not find the word "Imminence" mentioned anywhere else in the SLR (nor does the string "immi"). Are my text-searching skills

Re: DIS: Rule 2481: "Imminence"?

Correction, Rule 2481, point 2, not point 3. Jason Cobb On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 11:57 AM Jason Cobb wrote: > Hey, another newbie question for you all. > > Rule 2481, point 3 reads: "Non-Festive players cannot flip the Imminence of > any proposal;". However, a simple text search does not find

Re: DIS: Rule 2481: "Imminence"?

On Sun, 2019-06-02 at 11:57 -0400, Jason Cobb wrote: > Hey, another newbie question for you all. > > Rule 2481, point 3 reads: "Non-Festive players cannot flip the > Imminence of any proposal;". However, a simple text search does not > find the word "Imminence" mentioned anywhere else in the SLR

Re: DIS: Rule 2481: "Imminence"?

Thanks, that's an interesting history. I suppose this would be an issue easy to fix (by just striking the bullet point), right? Jason Cobb On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 12:05 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk < ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > On Sun, 2019-06-02 at 11:57 -0400, Jason Cobb wrote: > > Hey,

Re: DIS: Rule 2481: "Imminence"?

On Sun, 2019-06-02 at 12:10 -0400, Jason Cobb wrote: > Thanks, that's an interesting history. > I suppose this would be an issue easy to fix (by just striking the > bullet point), right? Well, it's not doing anything negative at the moment, and might do something positive if Imminence ever gets

Re: DIS: Rule 2481: "Imminence"?

So I gather that if a Rule refers to an Entity that was previously defined by the rules, but no longer is, that section of the Rule just has no effect? Is that correct? Jason Cobb On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 12:16 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk < ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > On Sun, 2019-06-02

Re: DIS: Rule 2481: "Imminence"?

On Sun, 2019-06-02 at 12:40 -0400, Jason Cobb wrote: > So I gather that if a Rule refers to an Entity that was previously > defined by the rules, but no longer is, that section of the Rule just > has no effect? Is that correct? Not necessarily, but you have to look at the wording of the rule. It