On Mon, 27 May 2019 at 00:38, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> Falsifian, would you by any chance be interested in joining a court and/or
> judging this case? It’s one of the Arbitor’s unofficial responsibilities to
> make sure newer players have an opportunity to judge cases, since it’s a
> good way to
> When a CFJ about past effectiveness is called, in reality, the player
> who's being the judge presumably sits down and tries to work out:
> R(now, [at the time the CFJ was called, action A was EFFECTIVE]). We
> have to wrap that in R(...) because "EFFECTIVE" doesn't really mean
> anything
> I think G.’s judgement in that CFJ is correct (if I understand it right).
>
> G.’s decision says that when a report self-ratifies, it does not change
> anything about the gamestate immediately prior to the publication of the
> report. That makes sense to me. However, self-ratification CAN
> On May 26, 2019, at 8:51 PM, omd wrote:
>
> I searched the archives a bit, and the situation seems to be more
> complex than I remembered.
>
> In CFJ 3337, G. ruled that statements about the past *could* be
> ratified, but that it wasn't in that particular case because the scope
> of what
I think the statement in the proposal is paradoxical, and therefore the CFJ
is perhaps FALSE (because the statement in the proposal is not necessarily
false?).
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 9:30 PM omd wrote:
> I pledge not to create any proposals containing false statements for
> the next week.
>
>
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 5:49 PM D. Margaux wrote:
> and, therefore, any attempt to impose a fine was retroactively INEFFECTIVE.
...wow, that's strange. Why the heck is rule 2531 designed to make
the gamestate (whether fines are EFFECTIVE, and thus indirectly
people's voting power) depend on so
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 4:41 PM James Cook wrote:
> For (a): I think it depends what "gamestate" means. It's never really
> defined. But personally I was assuming the gamestate covers all the
> facts invented by the rules, and not realities, e.g. what happened in
> the past. But I'm not sure
Falsifian, would you by any chance be interested in joining a court and/or
judging this case? It’s one of the Arbitor’s unofficial responsibilities to
make sure newer players have an opportunity to judge cases, since it’s a
good way to get more involved in gameplay.
-Aris
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 3:19 PM Reuben Staley wrote:
> Having looked into the matter further, I can safely say that mistakes
> were indeed made. The following is my analysis.
Thanks for looking into it :)
I... never realized that Alexis (aka alercah) was the same person as
scshunt, despite
On Sun, 26 May 2019 at 22:26, D. Margaux wrote:
> > On May 26, 2019, at 5:37 PM, omd wrote:
> >
> > Ratification changes the gamestate to what it would be if the report
> > had been accurate... but it doesn't *literally* make it retroactively
> > accurate, so it doesn't change whether there was
Maybe try “does not appear to have known”? Otherwise, the gamestate depends
on someone’s actual mental state, which is impossible to determine given
the limits of current technology.
-Aris
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 4:24 PM D. Margaux wrote:
> Crap.
>
> I withdraw that proposal. I resubmit it
It's good to have you back, twg! Any time you want to be Treasuror
again, I'm happy to give that back.
If everyone votes strategically, then it's still an okay voting system. The
source for proof that it's the best is this image:
Which I found is from this:
https://www.electionscience.org/library/tactical-voting-basics/ despite me
first finding it here: https://ncase.me/ballot/
On Sun, May 26,
> On May 26, 2019, at 5:37 PM, omd wrote:
>
> Ratification changes the gamestate to what it would be if the report
> had been accurate... but it doesn't *literally* make it retroactively
> accurate, so it doesn't change whether there was a rule violation.
Why not?
Part of the gamestate is
Having looked into the matter further, I can safely say that mistakes
were indeed made. The following is my analysis.
On 5/25/19 3:52 PM, omd wrote:
Just a quick note -
The FLR credits Proposal 7778 (in various places) as:
Amended(21) by P7778 'Instant Runoff Improved' (Alexis), 14 Aug 2014
On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 3:20 PM Bernie Brackett wrote:
> it feels like there's a discussion going on involving what exactly single
> transferable vote means, so I feel like I should bring up that Score Voting
> has mathematically been proven to be better. Is there any reason not to
> switch to
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 2:09 PM D. Margaux wrote:
> It may be worthwhile to wait a couple days. If the reports self-ratify
> without any claim of error, then the information therein will be
> retroactively accurate... I think?
Ratification changes the gamestate to what it would be if the
I was concerned that ratification without objection might inadvertently
break something outside of those subgames. In contrast, issuing blank Clork
and Astronomor reports would not risk causing something to break outside
those games. It would be self-contained.
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 5:12 PM
I don’t know what the implication of that is for the sentencing, but I
don’t think I’m going to wait. I’d prefer to resolve it now and avoid the
ambiguity.
Why did you use self-ratification, rather than something else like
ratification without objection?
-Aris
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 2:09 PM D.
It may be worthwhile to wait a couple days. If the reports self-ratify without
any claim of error, then the information therein will be retroactively
accurate... I think?
> On May 25, 2019, at 9:31 PM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>
> I accept. I'll have to read up on the relevant rules, and I
On Sun, 26 May 2019 at 01:20, James Cook wrote:
> On Sat, 25 May 2019 at 22:20, Bernie Brackett wrote:
> > it feels like there's a discussion going on involving what exactly single
> > transferable vote means, so I feel like I should bring up that Score Voting
> > has mathematically been proven
On Sat, 25 May 2019 at 21:33, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
wrote:
> On Sat, 2019-05-25 at 21:24 +, James Cook wrote:
> > I couldn't resist making my own attempt. It's a lot wordier than
> > yours, unfortunately, but it addresses these points and omd's first
> > point. Maybe there's some middle
22 matches
Mail list logo
