Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Elections for IADoP, Tailor
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 8:45 PM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 8:30 PM, Joshua Boehme [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What, no campaign speeches anymore? Ok: inductive reasoning tells us that Warrigal will almost certainly accidentally deregister within the next 2 weeks, necessitating another election (requiring a waiting period for deputization in the case of the IADoP) if e's elected. You know, I hope not. --Warrigal
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: stuff
Wasn't that Lindrum's justification in Nomic World for why e didn't require proposals to change rules? Since a rule saying Only proposals can change rules had the word Initially?
DIS: Re: BUS: Another anti-scam CFJ
On 17 Nov 2008, at 08:54, Ed Murphy wrote: I initiate an inquiry case on the following statement, disqualifying comex: Arguments: That was just a backup. See my terrible proposal for what i have actually utilized.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: stuff
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008, Sgeo wrote: Wasn't that Lindrum's justification in Nomic World for why e didn't require proposals to change rules? Since a rule saying Only proposals can change rules had the word Initially? E made many bad (read: illegal) interpretations. Another was defining reasonable time for response as 3 minutes. The reason it all worked is that the rules made emself, as the judge, the final arbiter of eir own interpretations, with no possible appeal. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: stuff
On 17 Nov 2008, at 15:09, Kerim Aydin wrote: E made many bad (read: illegal) interpretations. Another was defining reasonable time for response as 3 minutes. The reason it all worked is that the rules made emself, as the judge, the final arbiter of eir own interpretations, with no possible appeal. -G. I thought you judged it didn't work? Anyway, iirc CFJs had no legal binding back then, so it didn't actually work. I may be misremembering.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: stuff
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008, Elliott Hird wrote: On 17 Nov 2008, at 15:09, Kerim Aydin wrote: E made many bad (read: illegal) interpretations. Another was defining reasonable time for response as 3 minutes. The reason it all worked is that the rules made emself, as the judge, the final arbiter of eir own interpretations, with no possible appeal. -G. I thought you judged it didn't work? Anyway, iirc CFJs had no legal binding back then, so it didn't actually work. I may be misremembering. It will never be resolved. It actually split the gamestate, though we didn't call it that back then. Judgements did in fact determine the truth I believe (can't remember the terminology). The judgement itself resulted in the following two sets of opinions: Axiom 1: Lindrum delivered a legal judgement making em dictator. Axiom 2: Lindrum's judgement was illegal, thus ineffective. The problem is, if you start out within either axiom, you can deliver an entirely internally-self-consistent judgement, and the completely self-referential nature of judgement at the time meant there was no way of legally deciding between the two. Since players in the game were fairly evenly split between camps and tried roundly to persuade the other side with their own ironclad logic, there was no way to resolve it. (There was a third camp a couple of us ended up in, Lindrum was illegal but ratified eir illegality, a coup which we really dislike but have to allow). The only way to resolve that was to make a meta-game agreement to work within each system to have the two gamestates converge into a new Ruleset. The internal legal mechanisms that led to that new Ruleset will never be resolved between camps. Note that this is unresolvable on many levels in any nomic, even Agora. If half of the players in Agora suddenly start playing the game as if 1=5 or using some other counterfactual position, and maintaining records as if some not-agreed to truth were true, then the game would splinter similarly (you could for example keep a complete set of records as if every scam proposed actually worked). Basically when the meta-agreement breaks that we're all playing Agora and work to keep doing so, then that's that. [Note: The above interpretation was only loosely agreed to long after the fact, in 2001 when Lindrum and Evantine, champions of opposing camps, joined Agora briefly, and Steve, Blob and myself (sorta mediators back then) were all here too, and had a general discussion with hindsight along with the benefit of Agoran insight, participation, and terminology]. -Goethe
DIS: Protoproto: Fixing contracts
(This was written in a hurry due to the recent scam, so probably is full
of bugs and mistakes atm. I just want to see what people think of the
idea. Also this doesn't include the amend/enact/repeal stuff, just gives
a flavour. This attempts to keep the current semantics of contract law
whilst fixing all the bugs I've noticed; it ends up with more than just
a few types of contract as a result.
Quick feature guide:
Contracts are now documents with switches in certain positions; the
switches flip under certain conditions. All agreement and disagreement
to documents has to be explicit, and what happens as a result, and how
it is achieved, depends on the states of the switches in question.
Contracts can be Equitable, Legal, or both, which affects how they are
enforced, and have varying levels of secrecy according to the state of
their switches; loose and public equitable contracts can also be General
(anyone can equate against them) or Special (only parties can equate
against them).
Quick transition guide:
Anything Unbinding (insufficient parties)
Unbinding Secret (private agreement)
Secret Hidden (informing the Notary)
Hidden Loose (publishing text and membership)
Unbinding Loose (agreeing to a contract that's been published)
Loose Public (all parties publically agree, it specifies it's public)
Unbinding Public (public agreement, and it specifies it's public)
Unbinding Pledge (public announcement, it specifies it's a pledge)
Maybe there should be a Public Loose too, but I'm not sure.
Things not included here, because they still work the same way:
Equity cases still work much the same way, with only minor amendments
needed. Contests still work the same way.)
Enforceability (Power 2)
{{{
Enforceability is a document switch, tracked by the Notary, which has a
default value of Unbinding, and a set of possible values consisting of
Unbinding plus any values for it defined by other rules with power at
least 1.5. Notwithstanding other rules, the Notary's report need not
include the value of instances of Enforceability if the Enforceability
is set to Unbinding, Secret, Hidden or Loose, although it SHOULD include
the values of instances of Enforceability set to Loose. Enforceability
is generally automatically flipped by other rules in response to actions
by persons; it is secured at power threshold 1.5.
A contract is a document whose Enforceability is not Unbinding.
Contracts CANNOT be amended except as specified in the contract or by
the rules, and generally CAN be amended as specified in the contract,
except that other rules may place further constraints on the amendment
of contracts.
}}}
[In some cases the Notary won't know of a contract's existence; in
others e will but shouldn't report on it for various reasons. The last
paragraph is worded carefully in case a couple of people decide to agree
to the rules (which would make them a Loose Equitable contract), so that
it doesn't prevent the rules themselves being amended. Having the rules
as a contract being harmless is a better option than making it
impossible, as it improves the chances that other things can be made
into Loose contracts easily.]
Spirit (Power 2)
{{{
Spirit is an attribute of contracts, which is instantaneously
calculated. A contract's Spirit can be Legal, Equitable, or both (but
must be at least one of Legal or Equitable); other rules specify what
values of Spirit are possible for particular contracts. A contract's
Spirit can be specified by a clear, unconditional and unambiguous
statement in the contract itself that specifies a possible value for
Spirit for that contract; if it isn't, it defaults to a value specified
by other rules.
The only appropriate sentence in a question on sentencing with respect
to a non-Legal contract is DISCHARGE. Equity cases can only be initiated
with respect to Equitable contracts, or with respect to Hidden
contracts; the only appropriate judgement for an Equity case with
respect to a non-Equitable Secret contract is the null judgement.
The Notary's weekly report contains the Spirit of all Public contracts
and Pledges, and the Notary SHOULD also include the Spirit of all Loose
contracts in that report.
}}}
[Let people agree to obey the letter or spirit as they will.]
Tightness (Power 2)
{{{
Tightness is a contract switch, tracked by the Notary, with a default
value of General and possible values of General and Specific.
The Tightness of a Loose or Public contract CAN be flipped by any person
without objection, unless it clearly, unambiguously and unconditionally
specifies that it is Specific. In additionally, if a document clearly,
unambiguously and unconditionally specifies that it is Specific, then
its tightness is set to Specific whenever its Enforceability flips from
Unbinding directly to either Loose or Public.
Whenever a contract's Enforceability flips to a value other than Loose
or Public, its Tightness flips to General.
/* The equity rule should also be amended to allow everyone to
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2218 assigned to OscarMeyr
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 7:36 AM, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Will this work? The parties to the Russian Roulette contract shall modify the contract and obligations as necessary, and as soon as possible, to ensure that disclosing the text of the obligations to a potential new party to the contract does not violate the contract or obligations. Much better. -- Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you. -- Unknown
DIS: Re: BUS: Rejoining
On Mon, 2008-11-17 at 13:10 -0500, Schrodinger's Cat wrote: In accordance with Rule 869: I am registering as a player. I wish to be registered as a player. I request registration as a player. I request permission to be registered as a player. I'm back! ...and there's no Registrar at the moment, and installing people into offices is broken... We'll just have to remember that you're a player, until someone can get round to producing a Registrar's Report. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Shoot Them All and Sort it Out Later (AI=2)
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 7:37 PM, Warrigal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This proposal would destroy much of Agora, including the part I tend to participate in the most, and it would severely disrupt the economy if there were an economy, but I'll vote FOR it anyway. I think that's the Sort it Out Later part. -- Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you. -- Unknown
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Voting results for Proposal 5961
Taral wrote: On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 4:18 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 5961 0x44 F ais523 F BobTHJ F comexA ehirdF Pavitra F COE: This omits my vote. If the scam worked, then ehird created a rule invalidating all votes except these six. How this should be patched in the general case is not obvious. At least one Power=1 rule (2127, Conditional Votes) legitimately invalidates certain votes (indirectly, by defining a standard for clearly identified for such votes).
DIS: Re: BUS: sock puppetry
On 17 Nov 2008, at 18:38, Geoffrey Spear wrote: As ehird is not a person and has never been a first-class person, I hereby deregister em by announcement. Coulda fooled me.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Rejoining
ais523 wrote: ...and there's no Registrar at the moment, and installing people into offices is broken... How is it broken? My fix proposal was adopted recently, wasn't it? We'll just have to remember that you're a player, until someone can get round to producing a Registrar's Report. I produced an unofficial one, though I don't have a strong preference whether root or the AFO gets the job officially. Most of the Registrar's job is either stuff I had to track anyway as CotC (registration, activity) or stuff that rarely changes (fora); that leaves senatorhood, which is pretty minor. Eligibility to name a mentor would probably be better handled by the Registrar informing the Tailor when the three-month period starts, and letting the Tailor keep track of it from there.
DIS: Re: OFF: Voting results for Proposal 5958
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 3:23 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
5958
BobTHJ 8F
This is, to the best of my knowledge, an accurate resolution, although
the Assessor website lists BobTHJ as voting only 1F. I believe this
is an error, and that eir SDONATE counts as voting up to eir voting
limit:
{
In all my future communications, a vote of SDONATE(x - y) should be
evaluated to be the posting of Sell Ticket with cost x and casting all
my valid votes endorsing the filler. If the ticket is not filled, the
vote should be evaluated as a DONATE(y) vote (per the PAC contract).
}
{
4. A vote of DONATE(x) on an Agoran decision is equivalent to casting
all possible votes equal to the option specified by the winning bid on
that decision, or if there is no winning bid specified, casting all
possible votes of X.
}
Relatedly, a conditional vote of AGAINST*8 if x, otherwise FOR*1 is
is not strictly valid (you have to cast an AGAINST/FOR conditional
ballot and seven AGAINST/nil ballots), which makes the definitions in
the Vote Market very confusing. I think that SELL(X - Y) counts as
voting Y up to one's limit if the ticket is not filled (in fact, I
wouldn't have bought Murphy's vote in the first place and the original
scam would have succeeded if not for this), but it's really ambiguous:
{
13. A Sell Ticket to vote in a certain manner on an Agoran decision
also constitutes conditionally voting to endorse the filler a
number of times equal to one's voting limit on that decision (or
as otherwise directed by the filler), or PRESENT (or as otherwise
specified by the poster) if the ticket is not filled. SELL(X - Y)
is shorthand for such a Sell Ticket, with a cost of X and a vote
of Y if the ticket is not filled; SELL(X) is shorthand for
SELL(X - PRESENT).
}
}
Does this mean conditionally voting (to endorse the filler or as
directed or PRESENT or as otherwise specified) a number of times equal
to one's voting limit, or conditionally voting (to endorse the filler
or as directed, a number of times equal to one's voting limit) or
(PRESENT*1, or as otherwise specified)? The former interpretation is
grammatically iffy, but the latter interpretation is less literal and
probably makes less sense, considering that most SELL votes even on
AI=1 proposals have been cast singly, but don't get me into root's 15
VP vote.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Voting results for Proposals 5956, 5962 redux
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 2:11 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since proposals have adoption indices in their own right (and it is reasonable to extrapolate ordinary/democratic-ness of a proposal from AI), That's a completely unreasonable extrapolation. There is sufficiently strong custom and contextual usage here that the prior democratizing refers to the decisions. Otherwise all the multitude of weaker extrapolations (e.g. currently contract-related conditional votes is an example that springs to mind) would be equally suspect. -Goethe
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Voting results for Proposals 5956, 5962 redux
comex wrote: On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 4:08 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 2:06 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And just in case: (with quorum 8) The AFO publishes the following. CoE on this purported resolution as well: the proposals were made democratic. Denied. It is not possible to make a proposal democratic (only the decision to adopt a proposal). Since proposals have adoption indices in their own right (and it is reasonable to extrapolate ordinary/democratic-ness of a proposal from AI), this is not a reasonable synonym because the difference creates an ambiguity in meaning. Counterargument: The literal reading is impossible, so interpreting it as a gloss for make the decisions on these proposals democratic is reasonably unambiguous.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Voting results for Proposals 5956, 5962 redux
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 4:26 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 2:11 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since proposals have adoption indices in their own right (and it is reasonable to extrapolate ordinary/democratic-ness of a proposal from AI), That's a completely unreasonable extrapolation. There is sufficiently strong custom and contextual usage here that the prior democratizing refers to the decisions. Otherwise all the multitude of weaker extrapolations (e.g. currently contract-related conditional votes is an example that springs to mind) would be equally suspect. -Goethe As recently as February this year, Democratic-ness was defined relative to a proposal, not a decision. At that time, making a proposal Democratic would have clearly referred to changing the proposal's adoption index: in fact, that's exactly what Support Democracy did until February. Changing a proposal's adoption index and changing a decision's adoption index were two separate actions then and now: has it been so long since that text explicitly describing one action refers unambiguously to another?
DIS: ais523 Long Service
H. IADoP, I believe ais523 gets the Three Months Long Service Award for eir services as Registrar?
Re: DIS: ais523 Long Service
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 6:52 PM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: H. IADoP, I believe ais523 gets the Three Months Long Service Award for eir services as Registrar? Disregard, I didn't look for CoE's, now I am. Sorry
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Voting results for Proposals 5956, 5962 redux
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 4:40 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As recently as February this year, Democratic-ness was defined relative to a proposal, not a decision. At that time, making a proposal Democratic would have clearly referred to changing the proposal's adoption index: in fact, that's exactly what Support Democracy did until February. Changing a proposal's adoption index and changing a decision's adoption index were two separate actions then and now: has it been so long since that text explicitly describing one action refers unambiguously to another? Making a proposal democratic did not affect its adoption index prior to the February proposal; it only flipped its chamber switch to democratic. The flawed version you're thinking of was only in effect May-September 2007. Prior to that, the process was known as sanitization, and it did not change the proposal's AI. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Voting results for Proposals 5956, 5962 redux
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 4:40 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As recently as February this year, Democratic-ness was defined relative to a proposal, not a decision. At that time, making a proposal Democratic would have clearly referred to changing the proposal's adoption index: in fact, that's exactly what Support Democracy did until February. Changing a proposal's adoption index and changing a decision's adoption index were two separate actions then and now: has it been so long since that text explicitly describing one action refers unambiguously to another? Making a proposal democratic did not affect its adoption index prior to the February proposal; it only flipped its chamber switch to democratic. The flawed version you're thinking of was only in effect May-September 2007. Prior to that, the process was known as sanitization, and it did not change the proposal's AI. Actually, I recall now that it was broken between September and February, since the proposal to make chambers a switch was rejected. But if it had worked, it would not have done so by changing AI. -root
DIS: Proto: Allow Changes to Voting Limits on Ordinary Decisions (AI=2)
(This is NOT a proposal, as there is a pending CFJ on this matter. Comments on the wording would be welcome.) Allow Changes to Voting Limits on Ordinary Decisions (AI=2) Amend rule 2156 (Voting on Ordinary Decisions) by appending the following paragraph: Other rules may specify methods to increase or decrease an eligible voter's voting limit on an ordinary decision. Unless otherwise specified by the rules, any such increases or decreases remain effective for that decision until the decision is resolved. -- Elysion
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Cantus Cygneus Only If You Mean It (AI=2)
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Joshua Boehme [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A player who has deregistered in a Writ of FAGE may not register within thirty days of eir deregistration, other rules to the contrary notwithstanding. Make it ninety. -- Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you. -- Unknown
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Voting results for Proposals 5956, 5962 redux
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 7:45 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, I recall now that it was broken between September and February, since the proposal to make chambers a switch was rejected. But if it had worked, it would not have done so by changing AI. My mistake. Still, making a proposal Democratic was a single, defined action, even if there were multiple ways to perform it (i.e. multiple values to which the AI could be raised; or Support Democracy could have been upmutated).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Cantus Cygneus Only If You Mean It (AI=2)
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 8:51 PM, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Joshua Boehme [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A player who has deregistered in a Writ of FAGE may not register within thirty days of eir deregistration, other rules to the contrary notwithstanding. Make it ninety. I'd vote for ninety, although arguably it is not possible to deregister in a Writ of FAGE unless one is the Registrar.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Cantus Cygneus Only If You Mean It (AI=2)
On Monday 17 November 2008 07:55:00 pm comex wrote: On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 8:51 PM, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Joshua Boehme [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A player who has deregistered in a Writ of FAGE may not register within thirty days of eir deregistration, other rules to the contrary notwithstanding. Make it ninety. I'd vote for ninety, although arguably it is not possible to deregister in a Writ of FAGE unless one is the Registrar. who has been deregistered in a Writ of FAGE.
Re: DIS: Protoproto: Fixing contracts
ais523 wrote:
Quick transition guide:
Anything Unbinding (insufficient parties)
Unbinding Secret (private agreement)
Secret Hidden (informing the Notary)
Hidden Loose (publishing text and membership)
Unbinding Loose (agreeing to a contract that's been published)
Loose Public (all parties publically agree, it specifies it's public)
Unbinding Public (public agreement, and it specifies it's public)
Unbinding Pledge (public announcement, it specifies it's a pledge)
Maybe there should be a Public Loose too, but I'm not sure.
Unbinding - Secret - Hidden
||
|v
| Loose - Public Pledge
|^^ ^
||| |
+++--+
Much of this is confusing. I strongly recommend looking for simpler
means to the same ends.
Agreement (Power 2)
{{{
At any given time, for each document, each person is either not agreeing
to that document (the default), privately agreeing to that document, or
publically agreeing to that document; this is a persistent status that
can change only as described by rules with power at least 1.5. A person
who is publically agreeing to a Public contract or Pledge contract, or
agreeing (publically or privately) to a non-Public non-Pledge contract,
is a defined to be a party to that contract; otherwise, that person is
not a party to that contract. Member of is synonymous with Party to
for the purposes of contracts.
Proto-proto: Allow switches to be attached to sets of objects.
Agreement is a {contract, person} switch with values null (default),
Private, and Public. Changes to agreement are secured with a power
threshold of 1.5. A person is a party to (syn. member of) a contract
if and only if (etc.)
If a person announces that they agree to something without specifying
publically or privately, it is considered to be an announcement that
they publically agree. If a person states that they agree to something
without specifying publically or privately, and the message that states
that is not an announcement, it is considered to be a statement that
they privately agree.
To agree to a contract is to flip one's agreement for it from null to
another value; if the value is not otherwise specified, then it is
Public if the message is an announcement, Private otherwise. To cease
to agree to (syn. leave) a contract is to flip one's agreement for it
to null.
Notwithstanding other rules, a person is never publically agreeing to a
document unless they have announced that they agree to it (but might not
be even if they have done), and a person is never privately agreeing to
a document unless they have explicitly specified to at least one other
person that they do so, in a context that makes it clear that agreement
is meant in the sense defined by this ruleset in particular; the only
exceptions to this paragraph are that if a person was party to a
document before this rule was created, their agreement status with
respect to that document can alternatively have been set by the proposal
that created this rule, and that if a document is amended persons who
were agreeing to the document before it was amendment can sometimes be
agreeing to it afterwards, as described in the next paragraph.
Additionally, it is impossible to publically agree to a document that
has never been published. This paragraph takes precedence over all other
rules.
Rules to the contrary notwithstanding:
a) A person's agreement to a contract CANNOT be flipped to Public
unless e has announced that e agrees to it, and the contract has
been published.
b) A person's agreement to a contract CANNOT be flipped to Private
unless e has clearly specified to at least one other person that
e agrees to it (in the sense of agreement defined by this nomic).
Continuity should be imposed by a rule that takes precedence over the
above, then repeals itself.
If a document is amended, each person agreeing to that document
immediately ceases to agree to it, unless at least one of the following
conditions hold (in which case the person agrees to the amended document
the same way they agreed to the original document):
* The person explicitly consented to the amendment, or supported
an attempt or intent to make the amendment, or attempted or
intended to make that amendment
* There was a period lasting at least 4 days during which the
person could have opposed an attempt or intent to make the
amendment, was aware or could have easily found out that such
opposition to that particular amendment was possible, was aware
of or could easily have been able to found out that there was an
attempt or intent to make that particular amendment, such
opposition required no effort beyond sending a message with no
side-effects
Re: DIS: Protoproto: Fixing contracts
Pavitra wrote: * There was a period lasting at least 4 days during which the person was aware of or could easily have found out that an attempt or intent to make that amendment was being made, and could have ceased to agree to the document in question during that time, with such ceasing to agree requiring no effort beyond sending a message with no side-effects other than the ceasing to agree itself. This would horribly break contracts that define assets whose ownership is restricted to parties. No, it would just transfer their assets to the Lost and Found Department (assuming that that clause was retained).
Re: DIS: Protoproto: Fixing contracts
On Tuesday 18 November 2008 12:26:25 am Ed Murphy wrote: Pavitra wrote: * There was a period lasting at least 4 days during which the person was aware of or could easily have found out that an attempt or intent to make that amendment was being made, and could have ceased to agree to the document in question during that time, with such ceasing to agree requiring no effort beyond sending a message with no side-effects other than the ceasing to agree itself. This would horribly break contracts that define assets whose ownership is restricted to parties. No, it would just transfer their assets to the Lost and Found Department (assuming that that clause was retained). with no side-effects other than the ceasing to agree itself. You would need the explicit consent of each party that owned any such assets, because they would have to pay the contract-asset fee (in effect) in order to leave.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Voting results for Proposal 5958
comex wrote: On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 3:23 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 5958 BobTHJ 8F This is, to the best of my knowledge, an accurate resolution, although the Assessor website lists BobTHJ as voting only 1F. I believe this is an error, and that eir SDONATE counts as voting up to eir voting limit: I've corrected the Assessor DB accordingly. (I already made a similar correction for eir votes on at least one of the scam proposals.)
DIS: Re: BUS: [Enigma] Last week's results
On Monday 17 November 2008 01:39:53 pm Alex Smith wrote: First, the awards for authors: I award 4 points to Pavitra, the author of a puzzle. Then, the awards for correct answers: I award Wooble 8 points for the first correct answer to Prediction. I award Murphy 4 points for a correct answer to Prediction. I award woggle 4 points for a correct answer to Prediction. I award Sgeo 4 points for a correct answer to Prediction. I award as many points as possible to Pavitra (allowing for the fact that most of Enigma's points supply has been spent). I think I get more PV from this than you think I do. For reference: 10) The answer submission period for a list of puzzles ends one week after it begins. As soon as possible after the end of a list's answer submission period, for each puzzle published by the contestmaster and having at least one eligible answer during that period, the contestmaster SHALL award points in this order, up to a maximum of P points per puzzle (where P is the maximum number of points that a contest CAN award per week per contestant). For the purpose of this clause, contestanthood is measured at the end of the period. a) 4 points to its author. b) 8 points to the submitter of that puzzle's first eligible answer. c) 4 points each to the submitters of all other eligible answers for that puzzle, in order of submission. d) As many points as possible to its author. Note specifically the following: - P is the maximum number of points that a contest CAN award per week per contestant - for each puzzle ... the contestmaster SHALL award points ... up to a maximum of P point per puzzle As many points as possible in d) is most naturally interpreted as as many as remain before the maximum of P is reached, and this maximum is for each puzzle, not for each week. ZOMG POINTvoucherZ FOAR ME Pavitra
