ger
> platform (well, at least I had a platform) and am currently more active.
> I’m really confused, TBH.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 7:30 PM James Cook wrote:
>
> > In the ongoing election for Prime Minister, I vote [G., Aris].
> >
> > On Sun, 2
Oops, I guess that was cc-ed to BUS the first time anyway.
On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 02:21, James Cook wrote:
>
> This Time To The Public Forum:
>
> Welcome! I've added you as "Walker" to the directory; let me know if
> you prefer to be referred to some other way.
>
Welcome! I've added you as "Walker" to the directory; let me know if
you prefer to be referred to some other way.
I grant a welcome package to Walker.
On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 20:26, Charles Walker wrote:
>
> I register.
>
> --
> Walker
On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 06:15, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> I’ve just skimmed this, but it seems to accord very well with my own
> understanding of the relevant principles. Your opinion is clear, logical,
> well-organized, and generally quite spiffy. From anyone I would consider
> this a well-written
Oops, thanks, updated.
On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 04:45, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2 Jun 2019, James Cook wrote:
>
> > I believe the answers are yes, and so at the end of this message I will
> > judge CFJ 3726 TRUE. Before I say why, I'd like explain why there cou
Thanks, noted.
On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 04:08, Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> I will make no claims as to the accuracy of the drafts, but you did forget
> a "what" in the wording "D. Margaux calls is later named CFJ 3727." :)
>
> Jason Cobb
>
>
> On Sa
Comments welcome. Sorry that it's so long. I went back and forth on
3726 a couple of times.
I believe this is due on June 4 at 21:53 UTC. I plan to send it out
the next couple of days.
This is my judgement of CFJs 3726 and 3727.
CFJ 3726 was called by Aris, with the statement: "The
t; > The obvious problem with this whole interpretation is that imposing the
> > Cold Hand is a regulated action under Rule 2125; regulated actions CAN be
> > performed only by methods explicitly provided by rule; and there is no
> > *explicit* mechanism for imposing the Cold Han
> The self-ratifying statements were about the current state at the time
> they were published,
Looking at judge G.'s "BREAKING NEW EVIDENCE" at the bottom of the
judgement, it looks like there actually was a ratification of a
document explicitly talking about the past, not just about the current
> Here are the hypotheticals and my answers:
These all make sense to me, though I haven't dug too deeply.
I noticed a few things while researching whether ratification can in
some sense "change the past". I'll post separately about that,
although it looks like the CFJ won't depend on it.
>
In preparing judgements for CFJs 3726 and 3727, I realized I don't
know why the Referee CAN impose the Cold Hand of Justice.
R2478 says the investigator SHALL, but not that e CAN.
R2557 says that e CAN do so if the rules "authorize" em to, but I
don't see any rules authorizing anyone to do so.
weeks are explicitly not the default for relative durations, so it’s
> self-ratified at this point.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 6:08 PM James Cook wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 21 May 2019 at 10:20, D. Margaux wrote:
> > > The below reports are false. The reason for
When I try to load https://mailman.agoranomic.org/, I see a certificate error:
"Firefox detected an issue and did not continue to
mailman.agoranomic.org. The website is either misconfigured or your
computer clock is set to the wrong time."
Firefox won't even let me override the warning:
On Thu, 30 May 2019 at 03:39, Rance Bedwell wrote:
> I transfer 7 coins to Falsifian in recognition of eir commitment and devotion
> to performing the Ritual.
> -Rance
Thanks!
Notice of Honour:
+1 Rance, for contributing to our collective duty.
-1 D. Margaux, founder of the Church of the
> Hmm. I admit that I am not sure I follow this. But I think we are in
> agreement about the ultimate outcome?
Yes, I agree that you own no blots. I'm curious to see how H. Judge G.
rules on your original CFJ reintroduced by Aris.
> It's not related to time of week, it's related to case load. Day court
> judges get most of the cases, weekend court judges get occasional cases
> now and then. (This is all Arbitor's discretion, thus isn't precisely
> defined, and is a system set up by the Arbitor rather than an inherent
> part
A reminder that my CFJ "the Lost and Found department owns no more
than 87 Coins." is still unassigned [0]
[0]
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-May/040375.html
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 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
It's good to have you back, twg! Any time you want to be Treasuror
again, I'm happy to give that back.
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 mathe
On Sat, 25 May 2019 at 21:33, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
wrote:
> On Sat, 2019-05-25 at 21:24 +0000, 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. Mayb
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 to be better. Is there any reason not to
> switch to it?
> I intend to propose the following change to rule 955, in place of the current
> definition of IRV:
>
> > The outcome of an Instant Runoff decision is:
> >
> > a. If a single option has the absolute majority of valid ballots specifying
> > it as the first entry on the list, then the outcome is
On Thu, 23 May 2019 at 02:16, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> I register myself.
>
> -o
Welcome, o! I cause you to receive a Welcome Package.
Sloth Stone (monthly, 70%): Wielding the stone fulfills all of the
wielder's monthly duties, except any duty to publish a Collection
Notice.
Stone of Obligation (weekly, 25%): Specify a player. That player MUST
perform The Ritual in the following Agoran week.
(I'm not sure if this works, since
Duplicity Stone (monthly, 50%): Specify a player and a contract they
are party to. The player ceases to be a party to the contract.
>- Reality Stone (monthly, 40%): Specify a valid value for an
> instance of any unsecured switch; that switch is flipped to that
> value.
We probably want to secure Ribbon Ownership first, so you can't win
the game just by winning the Reality Stone in the auction. Maybe
It seems unclear how long the change lasts. Does the change to voting
strength persist if the stone's power drops back to 0?
On Tue, 21 May 2019 at 05:32, Aris Merchant
wrote:
>
> 3 is currently the default, so it's only an increase of 2 actually.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 8:45 AM
On Mon, 20 May 2019 at 12:08, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I vote AGAINST 8177.
> I act on behalf of Telnaior to vote AGAINST 8177.
>
> As commented earlier, I was knocked out of space early on, as have
> others. Willing to sit out of a subgame this long, but not through
> a whole revival.
Separate
> R217 covers this via the precedent initially set in CFJ 1500, asserts
> that words go back to having their common language meaning when not
> defined by the rules. Amusingly, CFJ 1500 covered the exact word
> "politician" (and if we had to respect that ancient and entirely
> different meaning,
> [* the rules must define a switch for it to exist, and a rule with no
> force or effect includes no force or effect for its definitions - note
> R1586 is only power-2 so this "no force or effect" clause would overrule
> R1586. So if the switch doesn't exist while the rule is suspended, it is
>
> I apologize if this message comes through as a duplicate. I sent it earlier
> then received a message that my mailing list membership had been disabled.
I received the message the first time. If you're ever unsure, you can
check the mailing list archives, linked to from
On Sun, 19 May 2019 at 17:28, Bernie Brackett wrote:
> I joined Agora a month ago or so, but I got overwhelmed by not having any
> idea what was going on despite reading the ruleset. I also didn't have very
> much time to see what was going on, but now I do. What's something I could
> do to start
The history for R2138 is missing Proposal 8176. That probably means the
version number is wrong too.
On Fri., May 17, 2019, 20:54 Reuben Staley, wrote:
> THE FULL LOGICAL RULESET
>
> These rulesets are also online at http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/
>
> Date of last official ruleset of this type:
> As I understand it, you can have an election for
> imposed offices, it just can't be imposed on someone who didn't consent.
I think you at least need to use the method in R2154(a) which requires
2 support to initiate the election. 2154(b) requires the office to be
interim, and the definition of
Following up on the reply I just sent, here's a contract that's more
in line with my own goals right now. Suggestions very welcome: it's
probably buggy; I wonder if it could be simplified; and the flavour
could probably be improved.
I think it would be funny if both this contract and the Church
> I propose the following as a contract and agree to be bound by it if it is
> accepted before next Saturday. I modified it to eliminate some of the
> potentially dangerous stuff. This is not a scam.
This is a cool contract, so I feel I should say why I haven't joined:
* I like Coins (more
> I think all the R105 requirements are satisfied by publishing the rule that
> contains the change, i.e. it's if there was an SLR published in the 4-60 day
> time window beforehand.
Oh, that's interesting. Let me check my understanding...
R105 says the full text of the rule change, and the
Thanks, I'll try that. Though in this case I didn't even find it in spam.
On Sat, 11 May 2019 at 16:36, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> I also received the original message (via an enterprise gmail if it
> matters).
>
> Note a couple months ago when I migrated to gmail I had to explicitly
> whitelist
> Can you have an election for imposed offices? I thought Comptrollor was
> imposed, but not 100% sure.
Yes, Comptrollor is imposed. I sent a message about it at 04:24 UTC.
On Sat, 11 May 2019 at 03:49, James Cook wrote:
> These messages appear in the archive but I never received them.
> Pointing this out in case others haven't either:
>
> 2019-04-28
> * Transferred karma to Falsifian.* Awarded efficiency favours.
> * Published ADoP's weekly r.po
These messages appear in the archive but I never received them.
Pointing this out in case others haven't either:
2019-04-28
* Transferred karma to Falsifian.* Awarded efficiency favours.
* Published ADoP's weekly r.port.
2019-05-09:
* Initiated a bunch of elections.
* Voted FOR Proposal 8176.
*
> - "Automatic rules repeals" are a little dangerous because
> if there's uncertainty as to the conditions the ruleset may change
> automagically without visible trace. It's generally better to tie ruleset
> changes to a required statement of change that can be hunted up in
> the lists, and even
For what it's worth, I'm interested in Spaaace!, but not enough to put
time yet into assembling a new Astronomor's report when more basic
officers' duties are unfilled.
Is there much harm in just leaving the Astronomor office (effectively)
vacant until someone finds the time? Not that I feel
)
>
>
> On 5/9/2019 4:53 PM, James Cook wrote:
> > Two zombie auctions are ongoing.
> >
> >
> > First auction. Initiated 2019-05-04.
> >
> > Lots:
> > 1. Tarhalindur
> >
> > Bids:
> > 2019-05-04 15:44 UTC. Falsifian. 1 Coin
> IDAuthor(s) AITitle
> ---
> 8176 G. 2.0 Zombies take care of this now
On Proposal 8176 I vote AGAINST if a Notice of Veto has been published
specifying Proposal 8176, otherwise FOR.
Reminder: I believe the voting period ends in 29 hours.
Any thoughts on SLR ratification?
On Sun, 28 Apr 2019 at 21:19, Aris Merchant
wrote:
>
> I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
> Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
> pool. For this
On Sun, 28 Apr 2019 at 03:58, James Cook wrote:
>
> On Sun, 28 Apr 2019 at 02:39, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
> > We need to decide who will take which offices. Currently we need a new
> > ADoP, Arbitor, Assessor, Astronomor, Clork, Herald, Referee, Registrar,
> > Tailo
I wasn't sure if the date of last change or of last election are still
required (R2138) if they're "never".
On Wed., May 1, 2019, 09:12 Kerim Aydin, wrote:
>
> On 4/30/2019 9:26 PM, James Cook wrote:
> > CoE: If G.'s attempt to resolve Proposal 8170 was successful, I s
Besides the original never appearing in my inbox, all the replies,
like this one, seem to end up in my Gmail spam folder.
On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 at 18:45, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>
> I received it as well (Fastmail here).
>
> > On Apr 28, 2019, at 1:53 PM, Aris Merchant
> > wrote:
> >
> > I haven't
> If you tell us your GitHub username,
> one of us will add you to the organization.
Thanks, my GitHub username is falsifian.
I never received it.
On Sun, 28 Apr 2019 at 21:41, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
>
> I received it, so it at least got out of the server.
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.
>
> On Sun, 28 Apr 2019, Aris Merchant wrote:
>
> > I haven't gotten this email yet [1]. It shows up in the archive, but
> > not in my inbox.
I'm thinking of starting a git* repository to hold officer reports for
myself and anyone else interested, both as a way to host a copy of the
report on the web and because I like the ability to track history.
Does such a thing already exist?
*It doesn't have to be git specifically.
Starting a new thread so as not to derail the business of figuring out
who will do what.
First of all, thanks Aris for assessing our situation, and thanks
again G. for working to get things moving.
Does anyone know how often it happens that most of the important
offices are vacant or essentially
On Sun, 28 Apr 2019 at 02:39, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> We need to decide who will take which offices. Currently we need a new
> ADoP, Arbitor, Assessor, Astronomor, Clork, Herald, Referee, Registrar,
> Tailor, and Treasuror. That's 10 vacant or essentially vacant offices. Of
> those, I would
:
>
> I think this claim is correct; I furthermore stand for PM. Campaign
> statement: I'm an active player who is taking steps to coordinate a
> response to the current inactivity crisis, as will be seen shortly.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 6:30 PM James Cook wrote
e offices are vacant or
> essentially so anyway. If you can’t keep up with the office, you can always
> drop it when you want to.
>
> -Aris
>
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 7:05 PM James Cook wrote:
>
> > I temporarily deputise for Assessor to resolve, as described below,
For those who aren't following closely: that report is mostly G.'s
work, so credit mostly to G. I just fiddled with the numbers.
On Sun, 28 Apr 2019 at 02:05, James Cook wrote:
>
> I temporarily deputise for Assessor to resolve, as described below, whichever
> of the Agoran decisions
and I may have failed.
>
> I think the fact that this stems from yet another office's lateness
> (the ADoP) crosses my personal line of "I'm not carrying this whole goddam
> thing myself".
>
> Someone else can resolve this. Sorry.
>
> On 4/26/2019 7:51 PM, James Co
ould I try to use Ratification
Without Objection to ratify it?
On Sun, 28 Apr 2019 at 01:45, James Cook wrote:
>
> CoE: I forgot to include G's deputisation as Referee.
>
> Here's a revised version of the report I published:
>
>
>
> This is a somewhat m
On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 at 19:24, D. Margaux wrote:
> With regret I resign the offices of Arbitor and Registrar. Very sorry all,
> but life has gotten quite busy recently. Hopefully I can engage more with
> Agora again soon.
Thanks for your service, and for helping to keep the game interesting.
> For the following tallies, all voters below have a voting strength of 3,
> except for G. who has 4 (Prime Minister) and twg with 0 (9 blots).
Unofficial claims of error about voting strength, sent to the
discussion list since I don't think they affect anything but it's good
to keep track:
*
On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 at 14:47, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On 4/23/2019 7:22 PM, James Cook wrote:
> > Isn't Corona also a candidate? twg acted on eir behalf in a 2019-03-05
> > message, "Election speech: I'm not the other guy.".
>
> Erm, missed that.
>
>
Isn't Corona also a candidate? twg acted on eir behalf in a 2019-03-05
message, "Election speech: I'm not the other guy.".
On Mon, 22 Apr 2019 at 17:08, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> I declare G. the winner of the Prime Minister election.
>
> (G. was the only nominee and therefore the election was
> In a timely fashion from what? Probably from when the auction ends
> (automatically), not from the announcement. So this means you should
> have paid, and broke the SHALL by not paying, and the announcement doesn't
> affect that at all. But maybe that's wrong.
>
> And if you pay now, do you
I've just been busy, personally. When I have time I've been meaning to
figure out what the rules say about the zombie auction I bid in that
never was announced completed, so technically I'm not lacking for
something to do.
On Mon, 8 Apr 2019 at 19:00, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> ok, are we on pause
On Sat, 9 Mar 2019 at 05:30, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> It was not published, twg is simply referring jokingly to emself, as e is
> the Assessor.
Oh, that makes sense. But I'm confused by D. Margaux's CFJ that 8164's
outcome is ADOPTED, if there was no message attempting to resolve the
decision.
twg's message says the H. Assessor publish the below tally, but I
didn't receive any emails containing it, and I can't find it in the
public archives. When was that email sent, and to which list?
I don't think it has any bearing on the CFJs. I'm just trying to
figure out if I'm missing emails.
> Indeed, but I thought I'd point it out so that people were aware.
>
> In general, rule 1698 triggers should be avoided as much as possible.
> The problem is that it (intentionally) defeats Agora's existing
> mechanisms for ensuring that we know what the gamestate is; it's better
> to have an
On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 05:23, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
wrote:
> That said, there is a possible failure state: if every player has at
> least 13 Blots, and nobody has any Ribbons, the adoption of a proposal
> within four weeks would require someone with fewer Blots than that to
> register.
On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 at 04:11, Reuben Staley wrote:
> The logical rulesets are very long documents. Lots of times, the rulesets
> slip through because of that. Check the archives on agoranomic.com. When I
> get around to updating the ruleset site, it'll also be there.
I'm sure you mean
Did you mean to send that to BUS?
On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 20:42, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>
> I bid a coin.
>
> Gaelan
>
> > On Mar 1, 2019, at 12:06 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
> >
> > I initiate a zombie auction, with the following lots (each zombie a
> > separate lot) ordered as follows (highest-bid
dment itself?
>
> --
> Trigon
>
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 21:29 James Cook
> > It does say "Rule 2124 is amended...". Why wouldn't that happen? I
> > don't think the first paragraph referring to it as "the following
> > amendment" stops it from being an effective part of the proposal on
> > its own.
> >
It does say "Rule 2124 is amended...". Why wouldn't that happen? I
don't think the first paragraph referring to it as "the following
amendment" stops it from being an effective part of the proposal on
its own.
> Enact a Rule, "Line-item Veto", with the following text:
>
>The Comptrollor is an imposed office. When the office is vacant,
>the ADoP CAN, by announcement, set the Comptrollor to a player
>chosen at random from the set of current Officers, excepting any
>player
I don't see this message in the public archive at
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/maillist.html
or at https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/maillist.html
. Same for Trigon's FLR publication around the same time. Does anyone
know why?
On Sat, 23 Feb 2019 at 03:50, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2019, James Cook wrote:
>
> > 5. Rule 2465 says: "Upon doing so, the specified players win the game."
> > When we talk about "Doing X" for any X, we almost always take X to refer
> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2149
> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2150
>
> These two judgements distinguish speech acts as being treated
> differently than other types of terms-of-art.
That landing-on-the-moon judgement was about landing on the moon
hanges that it specifies.
>
> -twg
>
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> On Thursday, February 21, 2019 2:47 AM, James Cook
> wrote:
>
> > > I'd prefer to just repeat the cleanings. Mass changes to the ruleset
> >
> > > are one of the riskiest th
I'm not sure I'm completely following. Does CFJ 1104 support the
conclusion that players must hop on one foot? Is the idea that Rule A
fails to defer to Rule B because Rule 1030 overrules that attempt at
deference?
On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 18:32, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> This one's been in the FLR
On Fri, 22 Feb 2019 at 02:47, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-02-22 at 02:40 +0000, James Cook wrote:
> > That seems to change the meaning of R1698 so that it's no longer
> > talking about actual changes to the rules. Is there any precedent
> > about wheth
On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 08:56, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>
> Maybe you’re right. Either way, you could do any number of
> not-quite-ossification things (for instance, proposals authored by anyone
> other than you can only amend if the author published the full text of the
> proposal 3.5+ weeks ago).
Hm, that's a good point about capitalization. I'm not really familiar
enough with game custom to say.
Your idea about raising a real-life banner has got me thinking...
Raising a banner is a regulated action (R2125), so even if we assume
capitalization doesn't matter, and that you did raise a
> Here are my initial proto-judgement, but I am definitely open to being
> persuaded otherwise:
>
> * * *
>
> Caller's arguement depends on the idea that to "Declare Apathy" means
> the same thing as to "announce" or "publish apathy." I don't
> necessarily agree with that, and so I would judge
On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 09:50, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> For a good while now I've wanted to figure out a way to have little
> machine-learning bots play nomic and learn and improve at the game to see
> what kind of emergent strategies they develop. Problem is, real nomic is
> real fucking complicated
> I'd prefer to just repeat the cleanings. Mass changes to the ruleset
> are one of the riskiest things you can do in Agora (which is why there
> are so many protections preventing them being done by accident).
My proposal says "The gamestate is changed...". I assumed that
includes the rules,
On Tue., Feb. 19, 2019, 23:12 ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk <
ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-02-20 at 03:56 +, James Cook wrote:
> > Apathy. I specify Falsifian and G.
> >
> > I initiate a Call for Judgement, specifying the statement: "Fal
> Thank you for all this work you've put in to fixing this! I would give you
> some karma, but I've already used my Notice of Honour for the week, and it's
> only Monday so I want to save Corona's in case something truly astonishing
> happens later on.
It's my pleasure. I'm certainly getting
I vote {Gaelan, Telnaior, twg, CuddleBeam}. (Following twg's logic,
except bumping twg's up since it would have been pretty grave had it
worked. All four are interesting finds.)
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 21:35, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> My vote is {Gaelan, Telnaior, CuddleBeam, twg} - ordered
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 23:15, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> On Monday, February 18, 2019 11:05 PM, James Cook
> wrote:
> > Can a proposal designate a change as a convergence? I worry about "in
> > accordance with the rules" in R214.
>
>
Can a proposal designate a change as a convergence? I worry about "in
accordance with the rules" in R214.
Is there anything wrong with D. Margaux's latest suggestion? I like
the fact that it doesn't try to retroactively change the rule's
history. (Though the retroactive rule change might be
Would also add G as coauthor (thanks for help researching history of the
rule) and use the proper handle for ais523 (will double-check with earlier
email to make sure I have it right).
On Mon., Feb. 18, 2019, 00:58 James Cook On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 05:08, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On 2/17/
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 05:52, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Here are the others since then:
>
> > Amended(20) by R2430, 24 May 2017
> I don't know what this is - lots of rules have this comment but I can't find
> the event.
It's for cleaning rules. By design, I doubt the change could matter.
E.g.
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 05:08, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On 2/17/2019 7:30 PM, James Cook wrote:
> > I'm not familiar with the History of R2124. Do you know which proposal
> > added #4, and whether there were any substantial changes to the rule
> > after that?
>
> Thi
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 03:40, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-02-18 at 03:31 +0000, James Cook wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 00:31, D. Margaux
> > wrote:
> > > I submit and pend this proposal:
> >
> > What does "pend" mean?
>
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 00:31, D. Margaux wrote:
> I submit and pend this proposal:
What does "pend" mean?
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 01:00, D Margaux wrote:
> > On Feb 17, 2019, at 5:11 PM, James Cook wrote:
> > Is it easy to make that a separate proposal from my amendment
> > proposal? Or is that complicated to do?
>
> I think it would make the most sense to do it in one propos
601 - 700 of 718 matches
Mail list logo
