Or a proposal resolution, for that matter.
On 6/22/19 9:32 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On 6/21/2019 7:40 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
I refuse to use it to help in scams, even when people offer bribes.
It's true - I've tried.
Speaking of which, I'm hoping to see a proposal distribution this week -
Looking at this again, if the Rules state that doing something is a
crime (such as lying in a public message), then that arguably alters the
Rules-defined "state" of whether or not they are guilty of a crime. Is
this a valid reading, and is this intended?
Jason Cobb
On 6/22/19 1:50 AM, omd
Clarification: performing the action arguably alters the Rules-defined
"state"...
Jason Cobb
On 6/22/19 12:58 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
Looking at this again, if the Rules state that doing something is a
crime (such as lying in a public message), then that arguably alters
the Rules-defined
I have to agree with Aris here. It doesn't create any rule conflicts at
all. Besides, is it really that bad if the method has to be approved? I
don't understand why you want to change this part of the rule.
On 6/22/19 1:37 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 12:16 AM omd wrote:
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 9:58 AM Jason Cobb wrote:
> Looking at this again, if the Rules state that doing something is a
> crime (such as lying in a public message), then that arguably alters the
> Rules-defined "state" of whether or not they are guilty of a crime. Is
> this a valid reading, and
On Fri, 2019-06-21 at 22:57 -0700, omd wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 10:53 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> > In my view, "inherent meaning" is a bit vague. I certainly could write
> > up a document that suggests a change to the laws of my country, print a
> > bunch of copies, and then start handing
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 10:57 PM omd wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 10:53 PM Jason Cobb
> wrote:
> > In my view, "inherent meaning" is a bit vague. I certainly could write
> > up a document that suggests a change to the laws of my country, print a
> > bunch of copies, and then start handing
Well, one of the many such precedents stretching back forever.
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 4:00 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk <
ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-06-21 at 22:57 -0700, omd wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 10:53 PM Jason Cobb
> wrote:
> > > In my view, "inherent
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 11:12 PM Aris Merchant
wrote:
> I think you’re making it worse rather than better. I’d drop the “with no
> inherent meaning” bit; a judge could easily interpret it to forbid
> "distribute" being a term of art, since distributing something has meaning.
The point of that
Does any language have inherent meaning? :thinking:
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 5:07 PM omd wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 11:12 PM Aris Merchant
> wrote:
> > I think you’re making it worse rather than better. I’d drop the “with no
> > inherent meaning” bit; a judge could easily interpret it to
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 11:12 PM Aris Merchant
wrote:
> Also, the bit in Mother May I should still go in the regulated actions
> rule. Let's keep all the regulated action stuff in one place. I really like
> the current phrasing; it's extremely elegant (honestly, more so than the
> one here), and
(That's why I've made a proposal to create spaceships, yeah)
Can you find the message where we ratified out the space ru
On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 12:42 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On 6/22/2019 7:19 PM, Rebecca wrote:
> > Does the previous state of spce carry over or does it all reset? Are
>
Or i mean i could do that it does seem like my job
On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 12:45 PM Rebecca wrote:
> Sorry, I meant the space rules? That would enable me to recall the CFJ I
> filed.
>
> On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 12:44 PM Rebecca wrote:
>
>> (That's why I've made a proposal to create spaceships,
Sorry, I meant the space rules? That would enable me to recall the CFJ I
filed.
On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 12:44 PM Rebecca wrote:
> (That's why I've made a proposal to create spaceships, yeah)
>
> Can you find the message where we ratified out the space ru
>
> On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 12:42 PM
Sorry! Will do.
Jason Cobb
On 6/22/19 9:24 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
Note from the Office of the Promotor:
Please don't use the > style quote formatting again. It makes text
formatting a nightmare, and stops me from wrapping lines.
-Aris
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 5:01 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
I'm happy to give up Treasuror if anyone is interested, or maybe
Registrar if someone really wants it.
On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 at 04:08, Reuben Staley wrote:
> Is anyone else interested in Rulekeepor right now? If you are, I'm good
> with letting an election play out, though I really do enjoy the
No, you're getting the formula wrong. Rule 879 says that "If no other
rule defines the quorum of an Agoran Decision, the quorum for that
decision is equal to 2/3 of the number of voters on the Agoran
Decision to adopt a proposal that had been most recently resolved at
the time of that decision's
"ha who reads things when they can just complain instead" - me
On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 12:13 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I thought Proposal 8181 did that?
>
> -Aris
>
> On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 7:11 PM Rebecca wrote:
> >
> > uh nobody's fixed the Cold Hand of
Does the previous state of spce carry over or does it all reset? Are
you planning to battle your spces? discuss today
--
>From R. Lee
On 6/22/2019 7:19 PM, Rebecca wrote:
Does the previous state of spce carry over or does it all reset? Are
you planning to battle your spces? discuss today
I believe all of the space assets were eliminated via ratification? There's
no provisions in the rules for creating new
Same comment as to Jason Cobb: I don't think this worked.
On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 at 20:33, D. Margaux wrote:
>
> I earn (8-1)*1.7 = 12 coins for this proposal
>
> > On Jun 22, 2019, at 2:43 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
> >
> > PROPOSAL 8181 (Referee CAN Impose Fines (v1.1))
> > FOR: R. Lee#, D. Margaux,
Ah sorry. I promise that I can read!
Jason Cobb
On 6/22/19 10:20 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
No, you're getting the formula wrong. Rule 879 says that "If no other
rule defines the quorum of an Agoran Decision, the quorum for that
decision is equal to 2/3 of the number of voters on the Agoran
IANAAL ("I am not an Agora Lawyer").
I would argue that this is the key section from Rule 1586 ("Definition
and Continuity of Entities"):
If the entity that defines another entity is amended such that it
no longer defines the second entity, then the second entity and
its
Nitpick: I believe the ratification you quote failed, but D. Margaux's
earlier Astronomor report did self-ratify, which is just as good.
See the section "D. Margaux's attempt to ratify without objection
failed." in my judgement of CFJ 3726 at
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3726
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 7:02 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> Quorum might be wrong, given this CoE on the Assessor report by G (in a
> reply to the thread):
Thanks for pointing that out; you're right that I didn't notice. On
this occasion, quorum is unchanged due to the way the rounding works
out.
> >
On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 at 02:52, Rebecca wrote:
> Title: Spaceships
> AI: 1.1
Why 1.1?
Note from the Office of the Promotor:
Please don't use the > style quote formatting again. It makes text
formatting a nightmare, and stops me from wrapping lines.
-Aris
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 5:01 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> Oh, I meant to make it say "player" instead of "person who plays the
>
Why wouldn't the quorum change? The highest numbered proposal in the
purported resolution had 10 voters. With Telnaior, it would go to 11.
By Rule 879, quorum is ceil(2/3*(# voters on last resolved decision to
adopt a proposal)). 10*2/3=6.666..., which goes to 7. With Telnaior,
I thought Proposal 8181 did that?
-Aris
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 7:11 PM Rebecca wrote:
>
> uh nobody's fixed the Cold Hand of Justice?
>
> On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 12:07 PM Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 7:02 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> > >
Quorum might be wrong, given this CoE on the Assessor report by G (in a
reply to the thread):
CoE: This leaves out my votes on Telnaior's behalf, which change the
outcome of at least one proposal I think (8184).
Also, what exactly is your "standard reward policy"?
Jason Cobb
On 6/22/19
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 12:16 AM omd wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 11:12 PM Aris Merchant
> wrote:
> > Also, the bit in Mother May I should still go in the regulated actions
> > rule. Let's keep all the regulated action stuff in one place. I really like
> > the current phrasing; it's
31 matches
Mail list logo
