On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 at 22:52, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> On Monday, July 22, 2019 10:41 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> > On 7/22/19 6:39 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> > > On Monday, July 22, 2019 9:02 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@uw.edu wrote:
> > > > I confirm (in public here) that there is a contract
> wasn't enough to specify the proposal given that 2/3 of the attributes
I mean 1/3.
--
- Falsifian
> > 8211 G. 3.0 Law School
> PRESENT (thesis was that long hypothetical judgement, right?)
Yes.
On Thu., Jul. 18, 2019, 19:03 Jason Cobb, wrote:
>
> If Proposal 8210 has never taken effect, this proposal applies the
> effects specified in its text.
I first read "its" as referring to this new proposal, meaning this proposal
only takes effect of 8210 didn't. It doesn't make sense after
Here's a draft judgement. I'll publish it later if nobody objects.
> === CFJ 3757 ===
>
>omd has 1 Blot.
>
> ==
>
> Caller:Jason Cobb
>
On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 at 04:13, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> 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
On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 at 02:29, Rebecca wrote:
> CFJ: Rule 2157 exists.
It's 2517.
; ship might not be pilotable, but I see no reason to think 0 is a more
> (or less) likely number than 10 in the rules.
>
> On 7/14/19 8:42 PM, James Cook wrote:
> > On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 at 22:04, nch wrote:
> >> It's also not clear what the default of the
> >> arm
> Hm... my reading would be that the default is "null". And I'm not sure
> what happens if you increase "null' by 1.
>
> Jason Cobb
I think it's 0 due to R2509 (Agoran Numbers): "If 0 is in the
specified values...".
> critique it, but it strikes me that we should have a review system that
> > makes this someone's responsibility so that the document doesn't disappear
> > into limbo, and the writer either gets their reward or understands why they
> > did not.
> >
> > On 6/4/19
On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 at 22:04, nch wrote:
> It's also not clear what the default of the
> armour value is. If my spaceships armour value is less than 10, I pay 1
> coin to repair it, increasing its armour switch to 10.
Welcome!
I think armour currently defaults to zero. There was a proposal to
On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 at 16:04, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> After pondering on it I'm likely going to vote against it - the stakes are
> too high. I don't think it's reasonable to be able to steal all of
> someone's assets via minor inattention.
Oh, for some reason I thought this was just for stealing
h each other off guard. Especially because people tend to have periods
> of higher and lower attention to Agora.
>
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 11:28 AM James Cook wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 at 11:23, D. Margaux wrote:
> > > I withdraw my AFK proposal and propose thi
On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 at 11:23, D. Margaux wrote:
> I withdraw my AFK proposal and propose this in its place:
>
> Title: AFK Reform Act v1.1
What's the purpose of this proposal?
On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 at 07:47, Reuben Staley wrote:
> I earn 5 coins for the publication of the SLR for the twenty-seventh
> week of 2019.
I think it is the 28th week right now. I'm not sure whether this is
successful. Maybe try again just to be sure?
On Wed, 10 Jul 2019 at 00:56, Rebecca wrote:
> Does the CHoJ work now btw?
It's unclear, since R2557 may not give a method for levying fines. See
my proposal "Police Power" with Jason Cobb.
On Sun, 7 Jul 2019 at 10:53, Jason Cobb wrote:
> I withdraw this proposal ("Sane crime base values, please") because it
> conflicts with Falsifian's proposal, and I might want to find a way to
> allow R. Lee to vote for it.
>
> Jason Cobb
Sorry, I missed that. I haven't been closely following
On Sun, 7 Jul 2019 at 21:12, Aris Merchant
wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 3:36 PM omd wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 7:52 AM James Cook wrote:
> > > Withdraw Rule 2597 (Line-item Veto).
> >
> > Why that rule? It's only a few months
On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 at 17:20, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On 7/6/2019 6:56 AM, James Cook wrote:
> > On Fri, 5 Jul 2019 at 15:11, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >> On 7/2/2019 6:02 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >>> [Quick! While it's still current!]
> >>&
The rule says "remove (syn. retract, withdraw)".
On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 at 15:54, Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> This may be a bit nit-picky, but I don't believe "withdraw" is defined
> for rules, only "repeal".
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 7/6/19 10:52 AM, James
On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 at 07:02, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> You're right. I was waiting for the dust to settle before trying to
> sort things out. Does the following look correct?
>
> Also, feel free to just withdraw "no power is all powerful" if you
> want to; it would simplify things a bit in some
> I bid 2 coins.
>
> On Sun, Jul 7, 2019 at 7:49 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> > I bid 35 coins.
> >
> > -twg
> >
> >
> > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> > On Saturday, July 6, 2019 2:41 PM, James Cook
> > wrote:
> >
> >
On Sat., Jul. 6, 2019, 21:15 Kerim Aydin, wrote:
>
> On 7/5/2019 9:21 PM, James Cook wrote:
> > On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 at 04:18, James Cook wrote:
> >> I judge CFJ 3751 FALSE.
> >
> > However, I think the answer to the question Murphy was trying to ask
> >
On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 23:35, Rebecca wrote:
> I also transfer tar's 20 coins to myself
Does this work?
R2466 requires that you "must, in the message in which the action is
performed, uniquely identify the principal and that the action is
being taken on behalf of that person."
Specifically, you
On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 at 04:18, James Cook wrote:
> I judge CFJ 3751 FALSE.
However, I think the answer to the question Murphy was trying to ask
is TRUE. The message in G.'s gratuitous evidence makes it very clear
that Murphy intends to place those votes. This seems to me like common
sense or ba
On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 at 15:52, Jason Cobb wrote:
> Rule 2531 ("Referee Accountability") has higher power than Rule 2479
> ("Official Justice"), so all of the former's requirements apply to
> Summary Judgment. However, the entire point of Summary Judgment is that
> it doesn't need to have a reason
On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 at 04:15, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> Your proposal numbers have some off-by-100 errors.
Whoops! Revised votes below.
> >> IDAuthor(s) AITitle
> >> ---
> >> 8196 Jason Cobb, Falsifian
On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 at 04:12, Jason Cobb wrote:
> Also, was the Ritual performed last week?
No, I don't think so.
On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 at 03:33, Edward Murphy wrote:
> There was a past rule and/or CFJ to the effect that this type of
> ambiguous ordering is still effective, provided that the choice
> doesn't make any substantive difference to the gamestate. (In this
> case, either order would lead to D. Margaux
On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 at 02:08, omd wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 6:30 PM James Cook wrote:
> > (I'm not suggesting we use Discourse, just that maybe similar options are
> > available with the current software.)
>
> It seems Mailman does support something like that:
&
Gratuitous:
I don't think I understood G.'s argument. As far as I can tell, this
is straightforward. R2579 says "To perform a fee-based action, an
entity ... must announce", and later "Upon such an announcement". I
think the first excerpt is clearly only talking about fee-based
actions, and the
In the ongoing election for ADoP, I vote [Murphy].
On Mon, 1 Jul 2019 at 02:00, Rebecca wrote:
>
> Having intended to do so days ago, I deputise for ADoP to initiate an
> agoran decision for the election of the position of ADoP. The voting method
> is instant run-off, the ADoP is the vote
I don't think so.
On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 at 06:08, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Did the below proposals ever get resolved? -G.
>
> On 6/22/2019 4:37 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > CoE: This leaves out my votes on Telnaior's behalf, which change the
> > outcome of at least one proposal I think (8184).
I'm interested. Another possibility if Rance doesn't come back with an
updated plan is the "Arcadia tournament" Trigon proposed on May 18
02:25 UTC)
On Sun, 30 Jun 2019 at 12:42, Rebecca wrote:
>
> This has to get done man
>
> On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 10:41 PM Rebecca wrote:
>
> > Very
On Sat, 29 Jun 2019 at 19:24, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
wrote:
> On Sat, 2019-06-29 at 12:19 -0700, Bernie Brackett wrote:
> > Happy Birthday Agora! It's Agora's birthday, so I get a Magenta
> > ribbon.
>
> I'm not convinced that statement's clear enough to be an action-by-
> announcement. You
Thanks! I'd been itching to pull the trigger for a while.
On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 at 14:44, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> Just wanted to say well done on the Transparent Ribbon - that's my
> favorite and always like to see how people get it.
>
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 11:43 PM James Cook w
On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 at 04:33, Jason Cobb wrote:
> Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a binding entity CAN only
> require or forbid an action that it does not define; it CANNOT
> modify anything else about the action in any way.
I don't understand this part. As far as I can tell,
On Wed, 26 Jun 2019 at 00:14, Jason Cobb wrote:
> for 60 days. It is IMPOSSIBLE to commit the crime of Oathbreaking
> multiple times for a single pledge; breaking a single pledge
> multiple times constitutes a single crime.
Wouldn't lower-case "impossible" be more appropriate here?
On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 at 05:08, Jason Cobb wrote:
> for 60 days. If the Cold Hand of Justice is imposed on a Player for
> violating a certain pledge, then that pledge ceases to be a pledge.
A pledge can still be violated multiple times, even with this text,
during the window of time
> > CFJ: "There exists a proposal with the title 'It's caused enough
> > trouble already' and with a valid adoption index."
> >
> > CFJ: "There exists an Agoran Decision to adopt a proposal with the
> > title 'It's caused enough trouble already' and with a valid adoption
> > index."
Sorry! I
Oops, thanks. I'll make sure the next Registrar report accounts for
zombies being transferred. I think everyone but Rance collected their
zombies.
On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 at 20:11, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Hi folks,
>
> I thought we'd done this before, quite recently in fact (unless I'm
>
Maybe the best solution is your proposal and secure Master at power
threshold 1 instead of 2. If we want auction rules to be able to govern
zombies, it seems hacky to try to keep the power threshold above that
rule's power.
On Sun., Jun. 23, 2019, 10:41 James Cook, wrote:
> That rule is o
> the items in that lot to that winner at will, or if the
> Auctioneer is Agora, e immediately does so; otherwise, e SHALL
> do so in a timely fashion.
>
> }
>
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 6/23/19 12:17 PM, James Cook wrote:
> > I create a proposal with the following attributes
, Jason Cobb wrote:
> > At the time that I will complete the action? That's a ridiculous
> > requirement...
> >
> > Jason Cobb
> >
> > On 6/23/19 2:33 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >>
> >> On 6/22/2019 11:02 PM, James Cook wrote:
> >>> On S
On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 at 02:52, Jason Cobb wrote:
> I note that the Ritual has been performed for 5 continuous weeks.
The ruleset has in the past been Appeased for 5 continuous weeks, but
I had been assuming R2596's "has been continuously appeased at the
moment of banishment" meant it had to be
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,
On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 at 02:52, Rebecca wrote:
> Title: Spaceships
> AI: 1.1
Why 1.1?
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
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
I don't think sending a message saying you flip a switch causes the switch
to flip just because you said it and it's unregulated. I think this is the
"I say I do, therefore I do" (ISIDTID) fallacy someone told me about on
this list recently.
If I understand right, the only reason to describe
On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 at 05:26, David Seeber wrote:
> Cool.. Does that mean I committed a crime?
I'm not sure, but I think no. The phrasing "would be impossible" is a
little strange. The word "would" could indicate it's referring to some
hypothetical scenario, but I'm not sure what scenario that
I put equal weight on TRUE and DISMISS. (Sorry, this email is more of
an argument than a vote.)
It may be TRUE by R. Lee's argument about limits. (Sorry if I got
TRUE/FALSE mixed up there.) If not, it should be DISMISS.
First of all, I think this business of judges not legally being able
to
Summary: I can't find any particular reason it's phrased that way.
Before voting on any decisions to change R2125's wording "The rules
SHALL NOT be interpreted so as to proscribe unregulated actions.", I
wanted to understand why it's written that way. (Versus finding some
other phrasing that
On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 at 06:40, David Seeber wrote:
> I cfj the following
>
> {Baron von Vaderham's bid of 11 coins in the most recent zombie auction of
> June 6th was UNSUCCESSFUL}
>
> Argument in favour:
>
> Baron von Vaderham possessed 0 coins at the time of the auction, since he was
> fleeced
On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 at 06:40, David Seeber wrote:
> I also cause myself to receive a Welcome pack since I have not received one
> since I returned from being a zombie.
I don't think you ever stopped being a zombie, so I think this doesn't
succeed. You probably want to take advantage of this
The history of R2517 ("Conditionals and Extricability" indicates it
was repealed in July 2018, and doesn't say anything about it being
enacted again after. Was that a mistake? (Of course it's there now
because we ratified an SLR earlier this year.)
Also, maybe related to the "Dollar Auction"
On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 at 12:06, D. Margaux wrote:
> > On Jun 14, 2019, at 2:29 AM, David Seeber wrote:
> >
> > If this is accepted, {
> >
> > { I cfj the following:
> >
> > "Trigon is the winner of the auction"
> >
> > Argument in favour :
> >
> > Trigon bid two coins, which is more than
Sorry, just saw the other thread. Seems R. Lee is now in agreement
that the CHoJ is broken.
On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 at 00:38, James Cook wrote:
>
> Wait, I'm confused. omd's revised judgement says "so it seems that
> imposing the Cold Hand of Justice is impossible after all.&q
Wait, I'm confused. omd's revised judgement says "so it seems that
imposing the Cold Hand of Justice is impossible after all.", and I
think this is because omd realized that the new "only using the
methods" clause means attempts to impose the CHoJ actually don't work.
Or did I get something
On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 at 05:56, Jason Cobb wrote:
> I point my finger at Falsifian for the Crime of Making My Eyes Bleed.
>
> [Yes this is silly, but the rule (Rule 2143) is silly.]
>
> Jason Cobb
Sorry about that! Do you mean the "Due to Flip to Agora" heading that
spills over to the next line,
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 09:17, Edward Murphy wrote:
>
> Falsifian wrote:
>
> > I publish the below report, which was originally published by Trigon
> > on June 6. I earn 5 Coins for publishing it.
> >
> > (The report fulfilled Trigon's duty to publish a weekly report, so it
> > is a
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 05:04, Jason Cobb wrote:
> (This means that Corona was not a player from ~10 June to ~13 June
> because ratification.)
I don't think the "fugitive" vs. "player" distinction in the Referee
weekly report is self-ratifying. It would be self-ratifying in a
Registrar's report
I'm interested, but I'd like a way to leave the contract, at least
after The Ritual is gone. I realize the contract doesn't really do
much after that point, but it bugs me anyway that I'll continue to be
bound by it.
On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 at 12:13, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> I consent to the
>
> > TTttPF.
> >
> >I award myself a cyan ribbon.
> >
> > Thank you for reminding me. -Rance
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sunday, June 9, 2019, 2:29:24 PM CDT, James Cook
> > wrote:
> >
> > I award myself a green ribbon and a blue ribbon.
> >
ch removed a sentence but
> I'm not sure which one.
> >
> > -twg
> >
> > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> >
> > On Saturday, June 15, 2019 5:52 AM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 10:40 PM James Cook jc...@cs.berk
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 at 02:36, Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> [As with most things, I have no idea if this has been tried or suggested
> before.]
>
> Seeing the recent issue with the Ritual and how no individual person
> could be assigned blame for the failure got me wondering if it would be
> a viable to
On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 at 23:01, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> Also, CFJ: "Rule 2571 is guilty of violating Rule 105." This is not really
> relevant in the scheme of things, I just want it to show up in G.'s CFJ
> history to bewilder future historians.
Did this ever get judged? I can't find any more
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 at 03:26, omd wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 7:44 PM James Cook wrote:
> > Could you elabourate? Even if we should pretend zombies are assets, it's
> > not always true that an asset's owner CAN transfer it. E.g. if I had blots
> > and auctioned th
.
>
> On Sat, 15 Jun 2019, 12:09 PM James Cook wrote:
>
> > Warning: I don't think paying Agora for one's prize will cause that
> > zombie's Master switch to be flipped to the payer, and I plan to call a
> > CFJ about it once someone tries to claim their zombie (easier to p
Your message to the discussion list said 8, but on agora-business I see
"Anyway I bid 7 coins on the ongoing zombie auction".
On Fri., Jun. 14, 2019, 22:13 Rebecca, wrote:
> Coe I bid eight coins so I should win the third zombie
>
> On Sat, 15 Jun 2019, 12:09 P
Warning: I don't think paying Agora for one's prize will cause that
zombie's Master switch to be flipped to the payer, and I plan to call a
CFJ about it once someone tries to claim their zombie (easier to phrase
the CFJ after that's happened).
(I think the winners are still obligated to pay for
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 at 01:13, omd wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 5:58 PM James Cook wrote:
> > Requiring notice and comment would make it a bit more complicated and
> > time-consuming to judge a CFJ, which might not make sense for simple
> > ones.
>
> Well, most simp
Proto-judgement:
This message contains my judgement of CFJ 3735, called by Baron von
Vaderham, with the stament: "There was only one valid bid, namely for 1
coin by CuddleBeam."
Caller's arguments
==
> Trigon bid 2 Mexican pesos.
> Mexican pesos are coins.
> Valid currency for
Requiring notice and comment would make it a bit more complicated and
time-consuming to judge a CFJ, which might not make sense for simple
ones. How about this:
* The judge assigned to a CFJ CAN publish a draft judgement, and is
ENCOURAGED to do so for difficult cases.
* Publishing a draft
The below report is also missing D. Margaux's 2019-06-03 reward, but
it won't self-ratify because it's already CoE-ed. The "fresh" report
at [0] already includes the update.
[0] https://agoranomic.org/Treasuror/reports/weekly/fresh.txt
On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 at 01:59, James Cook wr
:40 AM
> To: Agora Nomic discussions (DF)
> Subject: DIS: Re: BUS: Zombie auction status (unofficial report)
>
> i bid 8 coins
>
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 12:06 PM James Cook wrote:
>
> > There is one ongoing zombie auction.
> >
> > Lots:
> > 1. Pu
On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 at 02:06, James Cook wrote:
> 2019-06-07T17:01Z. Rance. 7 Coins.
Oops, I forgot to reformat that. That notation means it was at 17:01
UTC on June 7.
It's hard to tell that the rest of your message is quoted. I suspect
Yahoo mail interacts badly with the mailing list somehow. Maybe it
doesn't format the text version of the email very well.
On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 at 03:36, Rance Bedwell wrote:
>
> I withdraw the below CFJ. omd has shown me the
> Replace all instances of the text "Agora's official currency" with
> the text "the official currency of Agora".
How about removing the quotation marks too? They might be taken to
imply it should be phrased exactly that way, which might lead us back
to the same situation next time the
I enjoyed both essays, and not having much experience with nomics, I
found them informative. The beginner's strategy guide seems pretty
straightforward, its individual parts obvious in retrospect, but I
think there's a lot of value in seeing everything in one place --- I
think if you ask me what
On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 at 14:50, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2019-06-07 at 14:44 +, James Cook wrote:
> > On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 at 13:48, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > > I light a candle.
> >
> > Does this actually work?
> >
> > As far as
On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 at 13:48, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I light a candle.
>
> [
> 2. Any player CAN "light a candle" by announcement. Lighting a
> candle has the effect of the player announcing the following in order:
> - "I consent to join the Reformed Church of the Ritual if I haven't
>
On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 at 02:08, omd wrote:
> ...Okay, I've gone ahead and set dmarc_moderation_action to "Munge
> From" on all three lists. Changing the From address is annoying
> (sorry Murphy), but it only applies to messages from domains with
> p=reject DMARC entries, and the alternative is for
On Wed., Jun. 5, 2019, 21:03 James Cook, wrote:
> > Sure, it would fix the DMARC issue, but it would also make it very hard
> to
> > tell at a glance who sent which message. Modern mailers have a lot of
> > features for that, but they’re all based around the from line.
>
> Sure, it would fix the DMARC issue, but it would also make it very hard to
> tell at a glance who sent which message. Modern mailers have a lot of
> features for that, but they’re all based around the from line.
I just checked the way Discourse does it (or did it in October 2018).
I see for
On Wed, 15 May 2019 at 20:22, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
wrote:
> Translated to English, this states that the email should not be
> considered valid if the Subject fail was modified in transit. Of
> course, the Subject of the email actually was modified (by the list
> software, inserting the BAK:),
On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 at 06:06, omd wrote:
> Sorry about this! Despite the "Attn omd" in the subject, my eyes saw
> the "DIS:" and jumped over the rest; I was putting off reading Agora
> list messages so I didn't see it until now. (Even though you also
> added me directly as a recipient, Gmail
On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 at 05:49, Rebecca wrote:
> I suspect that the text is
> not clear and therefore the four-part test must be applied.
What's the four-part test?
Also, I wrote some text arguing that D. Margaux is correct about the
document self-ratifying itself into being legal. It didn't end up
being relevant to my judgement, but I've already written it, so I
might as well publish it. (It's similar to the first draft of this
section, but I added two
Based on the recent discussion, here are my revised judgements. This
are due fairly soon; I'll probably publish it tomorrow morning in the
UTC-4 time zone (so, maybe around 13:00-ish) even though that feels a
bit rushed.
In case it's not clear, I'm pretty sure D. Margaux has 0 blots now,
and
James Cook, wrote:
> In the new timeline, it was accurate from the time it was published, but
> inaccurate until the time it was published. R2143 says you shall not
> publish inaccurate information in an official report, but doesn't comment
> on exactly when it should not be inaccurate.
to be
about the legal situation at the time.
On Mon., Jun. 3, 2019, 20:23 D. Margaux, wrote:
> I think the self ratification makes it retroactively accurate though...
>
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 8:22 PM James Cook wrote:
>
> > Wasn't omd's finger-pointing about publishing inac
Wasn't omd's finger-pointing about publishing inaccurate information in the
reports?
On Mon., Jun. 3, 2019, 20:18 Aris Merchant, <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why would the legality of publishing the report matter?
>
> -Aris
>
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 5:16
9 at 8:03 PM James Cook wrote:
>
> > I think I might have found a problem with my proto-judgements: D.
> > Margaux may not have properly announced intent to ratify eir document.
> > E said:
> >
> > > I intend without objection to ratify the following document
t; but the document itself, clearly
delineated with {...}, does not contain that past date.
So, I'm currently of the opinion that the ratification didn't work
after all, and so the fine was EFFECTIVE and D. Margaux still has
blots. Or is there some reason to think the intent worked?
On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 a
r the ratification is intended to
> include these facts about the past, which is another way to arrive at
> the same clarification.
On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 03:24, James Cook wrote:
>
> Thanks. What if I replace the first paragraph of 7A with this:
>
> > To understand the meani
On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 23:24, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-06-03 at 00:11 +0100, Charles Walker wrote:
> > R1551 reads as if it is trying to avoid amending the past, by amending
> > the present gamestate with reference to a hypothetical past. I have
> > tried to think of a couple
ed using
> > direct, forward reasoning; in particular, an absurdity that can be
> > concluded from the assumption that a statement about rule-defined
> > concepts is false does not constitute proof that it is true."
> >
> > Jason Cobb
> > On 6/1/19 11:59 PM, James
> R1551 reads as if it is trying to avoid amending the past, by amending
> the present gamestate with reference to a hypothetical past. I have
> tried to think of a couple of reasons, but neither feels particularly
> compelling in the face of your arguments in (7):
I'm guessing R1551's complex
On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 20:48, Rance Bedwell wrote:
> If you want me to, I will attempt to withdraw the COE.
That might make things more interesting, since I don't see a way for
you to do it. I might still be able to deny it under Rule 2201; I'm
not sure. I don't think it's causing much harm.
I'm
501 - 600 of 718 matches
Mail list logo
