Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Technically Notary] Rubberstamp Repeal

2018-06-11 Thread Aris Merchant
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 8:21 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > On Mon, 11 Jun 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > > By the way, you broke assets by dropping a conjunction. Assets are in > > badly in need of reform too. G., how's that going? > > Totally dropped it, sorry. feel free to pick it up can't

DIS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] @!#?@! -- June week 3

2018-06-11 Thread Reuben Staley
I cannot prove this in any way, but this was the first roll I asked for. Q*Bert is now at (+3, 0). On 06/11/2018 09:41 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: Forwarded Message Subject: [dicelog] @!#?@! -- June week 3 Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2018 05:39:20 +0200 (CEST) From: Dice Server

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Technically Notary] Rubberstamp Repeal

2018-06-11 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > By the way, you broke assets by dropping a conjunction. Assets are in > badly in need of reform too. G., how's that going? Totally dropped it, sorry. feel free to pick it up can't remember where I left the last draft.

Re: DIS: Draft: Minimalist Contracts v1

2018-06-11 Thread Aris Merchant
Yeah, no that's correct. It groups that and the next rule change. There's a condition (the if bit) and then a two command substrate enclosed in curly brackets. -Aris On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 7:53 PM, Ned Strange wrote: > If Rule 2166, "Assets", does not include the word "contract": { > In Rule

Re: DIS: Draft: Minimalist Contracts v1

2018-06-11 Thread Ned Strange
If Rule 2166, "Assets", does not include the word "contract": { In Rule 2166, change the sentence containing the text "(hereafter its backing document)" to read On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 12:50 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > Thanks for the spelling correction. I don't see a misplaced opening curly

Re: DIS: Draft: Minimalist Contracts v1

2018-06-11 Thread Aris Merchant
Thanks for the spelling correction. I don't see a misplaced opening curly brace? -Aris On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 7:48 PM, Ned Strange wrote: > Reenact not renact. there's a misplaced { in the middle of the > second-last change. > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 12:42 PM, Aris Merchant > wrote: >>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3639 judged TRUE

2018-06-11 Thread Aris Merchant
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 5:49 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Mon, 11 Jun 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: >> The ambiguity as to the caller is far more disturbing. However, I see nothing >> in the rules that requires this information to be clear. > > This has caused big problems in the past. If

Re: DIS: Draft: Minimalist Contracts v1

2018-06-11 Thread Ned Strange
Reenact not renact. there's a misplaced { in the middle of the second-last change. On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 12:42 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > Okay, here's a contracts system based on the model proposed by G. I > welcome any clean-up suggestions or other improvements, although I > think I've kept

DIS: Draft: Minimalist Contracts v1

2018-06-11 Thread Aris Merchant
Okay, here's a contracts system based on the model proposed by G. I welcome any clean-up suggestions or other improvements, although I think I've kept it fairly minimal, with the exception of the provisions in the assets rule, which will remain problematic until it sees its own reform. -Aris ---

DIS: Re: OFF: deputy-[Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset

2018-06-11 Thread Aris Merchant
Did we ever bring the Treasuror back into existence? -Aris

DIS: Re: OFF: [Technically Notary] Rubberstamp Repeal

2018-06-11 Thread Aris Merchant
By the way, you broke assets by dropping a conjunction. Assets are in badly in need of reform too. G., how's that going? -Aris On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 5:34 PM, Ned Strange wrote: > Will this work? No. But I hate complicated systems that nobody uses. > And this one is incomprehensible and not

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Technically Notary] Rubberstamp Repeal

2018-06-11 Thread Kerim Aydin
I'm really uncomfortable both citing CFJ#s in the Rules, and saying in the Rules that agreements are interpreted "in the same fashion" as rules because that implies all kinds of things (like they're part of the rules, they can redefine things, how power/precedence works, etc). Here's some

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Technically Notary] Rubberstamp Repeal

2018-06-11 Thread Kerim Aydin
Those only work when there's no definitions whatsoever, or a simple definition of agreements. Right now R2466 (Acting on Behalf) states that a Rule must allow it so that beats the common law (I think). On Tue, 12 Jun 2018, Ned Strange wrote: > We have a CFJ claiming that Powers of Attorney

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Technically Notary] Rubberstamp Repeal

2018-06-11 Thread Aris Merchant
The contracts infrastructure does not forclose such an arraignment. I made a ruling when the Agencies infrastructure was in place to the effect that having an explicit way to do something didn't stop people from doing things an earlier implicit way. -Aris On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 5:45 PM Ned

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3639 judged TRUE

2018-06-11 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > First off, I judge this CFJ TRUE. Iff the CFJ exists, it must be true, so > that seems like a pretty safe action. Now for the interesting bit. This has come up from time-to-time and the logic has always been overturned (if it's the sole logic used

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Technically Notary] Rubberstamp Repeal

2018-06-11 Thread Ned Strange
We have a CFJ claiming that Powers of Attorney agreements are valid as a matter of common law. Obviously all the Contracts infrastructure forecloses such an agreement because of all the specifications in it. But they would presumably work afterwards. See CFJs 3474 and 2397 (judged by you) and 1719

DIS: Re: OFF: [Technically Notary] Rubberstamp Repeal

2018-06-11 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018, Ned Strange wrote: > Will this work? No. But I hate complicated systems that nobody uses. > And this one is incomprehensible and not what the game is really about > anymore. So I'm making the following point. I wholly agree with you. But can we add in a very simple stub

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: deputy-[Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset

2018-06-11 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018, Ned Strange wrote: > Could this be placed on the website? Once I get my FLR2SLR converter working again (later this week I hope!) I'll put em both up.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport

2018-06-11 Thread Alex Smith
On Mon, 2018-06-11 at 08:22 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Which means, YIKES - a person who wins an election, but was the > interim officeholder before the election, STAYS INTERIM, because e > didn't "become its holder by winning an election". Even if e > nominated emself/consented/etc. You could

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport

2018-06-11 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018, Alex Smith wrote: > On Mon, 2018-06-11 at 08:22 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Which means, YIKES - a person who wins an election, but was the > > interim officeholder before the election, STAYS INTERIM, because e > > didn't "become its holder by winning an election". Even

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport

2018-06-11 Thread Kerim Aydin
Hmm... maybe. So I can stop myself from being installed into office by removing consent, in R1006: A person CANNOT be made the holder of an elected office without eir explicit or reasonably implied consent. This depends on consent at the

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport

2018-06-11 Thread Corona
Can you actually do that? I can't find anything that would allow withdrawing nominations. ~Corona On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 4:35 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Mon, 11 Jun 2018, Ned Strange wrote: > > I become a candidate for Referee > > I withdraw my nomination for Referee. -G. > > > >

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald][Medal of Honour]

2018-06-11 Thread Kerim Aydin
FUN CONTINUATION: The rule also reads: After a player is awarded a Medal of Honour, all players who were previously eligible for a Medal of Honour become no longer eligible. Since a "player" was not awarded the Medal, the previously-eligible players are STILL

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald][Medal of Honour]

2018-06-11 Thread ATMunn
This what happens when you let new players (i.e. me) make proposals without checking them that much. lol. On 6/11/2018 1:19 AM, Corona wrote: Sure. I award FAILED QUORUM a Medal of Honour for May 2018. Wear it proudly, FAILED QUORUM! ~Corona On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 11:10 PM, Kerim Aydin

Re: Fwd: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Agora and G. accumulate more wealth; zombies & public facilities bankrupt, as always

2018-06-11 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
I suppose there's rule 2143/27, which says: A person SHALL NOT publish information that is inaccurate or misleading while performing an official duty, or within a document purporting to be part of any person or office's weekly or monthly report. But the statement "Corona intends to win by Apathy

Fwd: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Agora and G. accumulate more wealth; zombies & public facilities bankrupt, as always

2018-06-11 Thread Corona
CFJs can only interpret rules, and I don't know any rules that could be reasonably construed to mean that what I did was illegal. -- Forwarded message -- From: *Ned Strange* Date: Monday, June 11, 2018 Subject: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Agora and G. accumulate more

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Agora and G. accumulate more wealth; zombies & public facilities bankrupt, as always

2018-06-11 Thread Ned Strange
It's a really badly written paragraph (I wrote it) and unreadable, so my apologies for that. I couldn't be bothered to make a numbered list that made sense On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 8:19 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Ah, I misread a conjunction in that rule. apologies. > > On Sun, 10 Jun 2018,

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Agora and G. accumulate more wealth; zombies & public facilities bankrupt, as always

2018-06-11 Thread Ned Strange
Don't we have a CFJ ruling that trying to insert apathy wins in a report was an abuse? Or it might have been the opposite. But I vividly remember such a CFJ. On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 7:52 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > y'know, that was a silly reaction. I give 2 incense to Corona. > > On Sun, 10

DIS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Agora and G. accumulate more wealth; zombies & public facilities bankrupt, as always

2018-06-11 Thread Ned Strange
holy shit i have 19 paper and 80 coins i'm a rich boi maybe i should actually pay attention to this land system On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 6:12 AM, Corona wrote: > (This report is also a revision of the last report) > > > +-++++---+++ >