Would you rather me have ratified that I had millions of coins? I could
get a win that way, too.
Jason Cobb
On 7/18/19 2:12 AM, Rebecca wrote:
it just encourages people to make completely frivolous and uninteresting
attempts for free wins without having to do actual game mechanics.
On Thu, Ju
it just encourages people to make completely frivolous and uninteresting
attempts for free wins without having to do actual game mechanics.
On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 4:11 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk <
ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-07-18 at 15:24 +1000, Rebecca wrote:
> > I create
On Thu, 2019-07-18 at 15:24 +1000, Rebecca wrote:
> I create the following proposal
>
> Name: NO MORE APATHY
> AI: 1
> Text: Repeal rule 2465 "Victory By Apathy"
Huh? This incident is evidence that the rule is working by design.
Assume for a thought experiment this case is broken. Then if we did
On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 10:41 PM Rebecca wrote:
> you absolutely can! we are not the typo police.
Not that it matters, but it probably wasn't a typo.
CFJ 1885 (called 26 Jan 2008): "AGAINT" is a variant spelling of
"AGAINST", not a customary synonym for "FOR", despite its former
private us
Sorry, still new at Assessor :), I'll fix that in my records.
Jason Cobb
On 7/18/19 1:40 AM, Rebecca wrote:
you absolutely can! we are not the typo police.
On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 2:52 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
I'm not sure that I can count this as AGAINST. You might want to
withdraw and resubmi
you absolutely can! we are not the typo police.
On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 2:52 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> I'm not sure that I can count this as AGAINST. You might want to
> withdraw and resubmit the ballot.
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 7/18/19 12:31 AM, Edward Murphy wrote:
> >> 8205 R. Lee
G. reassigned this CFJ to emself so its no longer yours to judge
On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 1:37 PM Edward Murphy wrote:
> > === CFJ 3755
> ===
> >
> >The time window of R. Lee's Oath to vote against certain proposals
> >is 60
I'm not sure that I can count this as AGAINST. You might want to
withdraw and resubmit the ballot.
Jason Cobb
On 7/18/19 12:31 AM, Edward Murphy wrote:
8205 R. Lee 1.7 Timing proposal w/ no effect
AGAINT
On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 9:18 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> I'll leave the CFJ up in hopes that it gets judged in a way that avoids
> this whole mess (although I'm not sure that there's enough space to
> bring in Rule 217 factors and get "best interests of the game").
Gratuitous:
I get from my apartment
On 7/17/19 11:00 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
My interpretation is that you publish every possible string, including
ones like "I cause Agora to murder BlogNomic.", but that it's not
EFFECTIVE unless the Rules actually state that you can do it "by
announcement" (or perhaps something like "publishing
On 7/17/19 9:37 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
Gratuitous:
If this reading were correct, any public message would automatically
take all by-announcement actions, including deregistering. I first
thought that this is probably enough to trigger Rule 1698, so if this
reading is correct, Rule 47
You're right, this reading is disastrous for the gamestate.
I'll leave the CFJ up in hopes that it gets judged in a way that avoids
this whole mess (although I'm not sure that there's enough space to
bring in Rule 217 factors and get "best interests of the game").
Jason Cobb
On 7/17/19 10:37
If it helps, the thought I had in mind was:
If the Rules associate payment of a set of assets (hereafter
the fee for the action; syns: cost, price, charge) with performing
an action, that action is a fee-based action.
The action of "destroying a coin" is certainly associated
E has announced it but e has not done it by announcement, which the
rules distinguish. It would be announced but still fail to be done.
On 7/17/19 11:00 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
My interpretation is that you publish every possible string, including
ones like "I cause Agora to murder BlogNomic.", b
My interpretation is that you publish every possible string, including
ones like "I cause Agora to murder BlogNomic.", but that it's not
EFFECTIVE unless the Rules actually state that you can do it "by
announcement" (or perhaps something like "publishing").
I do agree that some protection migh
That's not my reading. The rules define "publishing" and "announcing".
Only things that the rules then say happen "by publishing" and "by
announcing" are influenced by that definition. I would* interpret it to
mean that everything listed as "by announcement" or "by publishing" is
done by every
Assuming functional messaging rules, no, I would not argue that. The
hypothetical rule doesn't provide text for it.
I suppose that I am arguing that, by my reading, one is publishing every
single string of characters. (At least) one of those strings of
characters is going to fulfill every pos
If we passed a rule that said "every message is also an intent to
declare victory by apathy", would you argue that it follows from that
text alone that every message is also a *blue* intent to declare victory
by apathy?I don't understand how you're applying characteristics of the
message.
On
Okay.
Let's take "clear" as an example adjective. If you agree that a public
message can publish a thing without specifying it, sending a public
message is "publishing" the message "I like cats.", which is certainly
clear. By the same logic, my public message is also "publishing" the
message
I don't buy this reasoning, it invalidates the meaning of those words
and nothing in the text redefines those words. I buy the idea that you
can publish something without specifying it, but it doesn't follow that
it somehow has every quality imaginable.
On 7/17/19 10:27 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
N
No. In addition to publishing an unambiguous, conspicuous, unobfuscated,
and clear notice, I have _in addition_ published a notice (all possible
notices, in fact) that was ambiguous, inconspicuous, obfuscated, and
unclear.
Jason Cobb
On 7/17/19 11:24 PM, nch wrote:
So your notice is also amb
I'll amend that: except that if I was claiming to publish a message with
the text "lowercase" that was all caps, then I wouldn't argue that I had
published that, but as for something being conspicuous, there is text
that would be conspicuous, so I would argue that I did publish that.
Jason Cob
So your notice is also ambiguous, inconspicuous, obfuscated, and unclear?
On 7/17/19 10:23 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
Yes, yes I would.
Jason Cobb
On 7/17/19 11:21 PM, nch wrote:
I think it's a big jump from "this means you can publish any type of
thing without specifying it" and "this means you c
Yes, yes I would.
Jason Cobb
On 7/17/19 11:21 PM, nch wrote:
I think it's a big jump from "this means you can publish any type of
thing without specifying it" and "this means you can publish any type
of thing with any qualities without it actually possessing those
qualities."
If it said tha
I think it's a big jump from "this means you can publish any type of
thing without specifying it" and "this means you can publish any type of
thing with any qualities without it actually possessing those qualities."
If it said that the notice had to be in all caps and iambic pentameter,
would
My point is that it doesn't matter if it's "conspicuous". Because the
conspicuousness requirement gets folded into the noun phrase, it gets
swept into the broken definition of to "publish". If my reading is
correct, I have published _literally everything_ by sending a public
message. By that lo
On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 11:08 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 11:05 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk <
> ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2019-07-17 at 22:58 -0400, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> > It doesn’t matter; the rules define ins
Oh I missed the "that" on first reading too. I still don't see how it is
conspicuous by your arguments. I don't think the rules vaguely implying
that it's possible, and not being noticed until now, is conspicuous.
On 7/17/19 10:04 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
Sorry, there should be a "that" in my init
On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 11:05 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk <
ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-07-17 at 22:58 -0400, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > It doesn’t matter; the rules define instances of a currency owned by
> > the same person as completely fungible.
>
> The two readings lead to d
On Wed, 2019-07-17 at 22:58 -0400, Aris Merchant wrote:
> It doesn’t matter; the rules define instances of a currency owned by
> the same person as completely fungible.
The two readings lead to different outcomes: "I pay a fee of 1 coin,
the reason to do this was so that the coin I paid would be d
Sorry, there should be a "that" in my initial quote, the noun phrase
being "an announcement of intent *that unambiguously, [...] specified
the action intended to be taken and the method(s) to be used".
If the sentence were to instead read "A person published an announcement
of intent that clea
On 7/17/19 9:50 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
Since the "unambiguously, clearly, conspicuously, and without
obfuscation" is an adjective phrase that modifies "an announcement of
intent", it, too, is brought into the scope of the placeholder (X),
and thus I have published "an announcement of intent th
It doesn’t matter; the rules define instances of a currency owned by the
same person as completely fungible.
-Aris
On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 9:45 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk <
ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-07-17 at 18:21 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > I pay a fee of one coin to de
Since the "unambiguously, clearly, conspicuously, and without
obfuscation" is an adjective phrase that modifies "an announcement of
intent", it, too, is brought into the scope of the placeholder (X), and
thus I have published "an announcement of intent that unambiguously,
clearly, conspicuously
That's a fair point in response to my first argument. I noticed a few
rules that say 'posted' instead of published, so that should probably be
cleaned up. Still, the method you published the intent isn't
"unambiguously, clearly, conspicuously, and without obfuscation". You
even admit as much by
I specifically address this: the definition of Objector in Rule 2124
does not use the broken verbiage, it says "An Objector to an intent to
perform an action is an eligible entity who has publicly posted (and not
withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of that intent." - no usage
of "publis
On Wed, 2019-07-17 at 22:19 -0400, Jason Cobb wrote:
> The key (broken) wording here is from Rule 478:
>
> A person "publishes" or "announces" something by sending a
> public message.
>
> This wording does not require that the public message actually
> contains the "so
On 7/17/19 9:19 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
Arguments
The key (broken) wording here is from Rule 478:
A person "publishes" or "announces" something by sending a
public message.
This wording does not require that the public message actually
contains the "something" that I am
On Wed, 2019-07-17 at 18:21 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I pay a fee of one coin to destroy a coin.
The coin you paid as part of the fee, or a different coin? The sentence
is ambiguous in English.
--
ais523
Oh, I missed the R991 part.
I was looking at this in R2492:
When a judge recuses emself from a CFJ, then
* the CFJ becomes unassigned;
If the R991 text didn't exist, then R2492 would define
what "recuse" means, but it's specific recusing oneself
whereas here in R591 what's used is "remov
Why so?
Rule 991 ("Calls for Judgement"):
To "remove" or "recuse" a person from a being the judge of a CFJ is to flip
that CFJ's judge from that person to unassigned.
(although it looks like there's a typo in there)
Jason Cobb
On 7/17/19 6:40 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Hmm, the term "recuse" l
Arguments for TRUE:
This phrase is the crux of the discussion, bracketing the relevant
clause: "as determined [by the voting method]."
Jason Cobb's arguments assume that [by the voting method] specifies an
agent, in the same way as one might say "The defendant is found guilty
[by the court].
42 matches
Mail list logo
