Ian Kelly wrote:
I CFJ on this statement.
Patently TRUE. By stating it you do in fact initiate the described CFJ,
via the rules on acting by announcement. This makes the statement true.
And it's obviously relevant.
-zefram
not intend to appeal it
Quite possibly guilty, though tricky to establish unless e confesses.
-zefram
an unqualified allegation
of rule violation. R1504 speaks of an allegation internally, but
only as a way to identify the parameters of the case. For the record,
I was undecided about this issue when I drafted it.
-zefram
Elliott Hird wrote:
If the above statement is false,
This condition cannot be evaluated by any reasonable effort, so the
attempted action is invalid due to unclarity.
-zefram
Kerim Aydin wrote:
I hereby announce that I do X
If this is acceptable, it is because we treat it as a (virtual)
announcement of I do X. If it is so accepted, for the purposes of
doing X by announcement, then R2149 can also be applied to I do X.
-zefram
it logically with the
action statement, it is effectively a synonym for the qualifier If
it is possible to do so,. We do allow these, and they mean that the
action occurs if it is possible. I think the qualifier is better style
than the disclaimer.
-zefram
* ascribe
any significance to, because they describe impossible actions. The rules
don't distinguish between I'm voting FOR proposal 1234. (outside the
proposal's voting period) and I'm washing my dog. (when the rules
don't define washing or dogs).
-zefram
Kerim Aydin wrote:
[Aside: when something is undefined, therefore ceasing to exist,
is a thing which is later redefined under the same name the same
thing?]
Patent titles retain their identity, though they don't cease to exist
when not specifically defined. CFJ 1525.
-zefram
ihope wrote:
Now, assuming that Ivan Hope is always in violation of this pledge
works,
I don't think it does. Ivan Hope is not actually contravening any
obligation imposed by the pledge, so e is not in violation of it.
The quoted clause is just a false statement.
-zefram
Roger Hicks wrote:
You're too concerned with the facts of this case.
Ah, you're one of those faith-based politicians.
-zefram
fragments as statements for CFJ purposes if they are
explicitly delimited as the subject of a CFJ, but it is not reasonable
to expect them to be treated as statements otherwise. They create
no ambiguity as to what the subjects of the CFJ is when there is no
explicit delimitation.
-zefram
Kerim Aydin wrote:
Zefram, I'm wondering if the abuse modifies your general Proposals
should be Free stance
Not much. I'm still firmly opposed to requiring payment to submit
proposals or get them distributed, and also opposed to tight rate
limiting and other artificial restrictions
.
-zefram
single proposals.
-zefram
of an identical proposal in a
few months.
-zefram
Charles Reiss wrote:
Also, there should be a strong presumption that excersizing R101
rights is equitable in order to avoid abridging those rights in an
equity judgment.
Aha, finally some judicial precedent on what R101 rights mean.
An excellent principle.
-zefram
of
these judgements are appropriate if the panel feels that the judgement
is appropriate but the arguments insufficient.}
Yes, this is also an intentional feature of the rule.
-zefram
Roger Hicks wrote:
Anything about this in particular that I could change to get your vote?
I dislike the general concept of a profusion of chambers, so no.
-zefram
. It was a deliberately false statement,
and that *does* violate the rules.
-zefram
Ed Murphy wrote:
If you have a record of voting to lynch Pavitra, then
please re-send it and I'll announce corrected results.
|Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:02:13 +0100
|From: Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|To: Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Subject: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Werewolves update
Ed Murphy wrote:
Aha, this was ineffective due to being sent during the discussion
period;
Grumble. Why did you say I need votes when votes weren't actually valid?
-zefram
comex wrote:
Anyone have the script for FLR--SLR?
Attached.
-zefram
#!/usr/bin/perl
use warnings;
use strict;
use IO::Handle;
{
my $peeked_line;
sub peekline() {
unless(defined $peeked_line) {
local $/ = \n
to the period from
the inception of Agora until the first win. That's an historical usage,
based on the game structure that existed at the time.
-zefram
Kerim Aydin wrote:
This I the a CFJ. statement: is on CFJ
Not an obvious transformation from plain English, so not a reasonable
synonym for anything. Random shuffling of words is a patently
unreasonable form of communication.
-zefram
date.
The scam itself fails for all sorts of reasons
Not least because you, er, didn't actually send the message in 1993.
-zefram
Ian Kelly wrote:
Thorny part: the time of day is not part of the date
It is if you're dealing with timezones. Our date stamps have resolution
finer than one day; I see no contradiction here.
-zefram
comex wrote:
I wish ehird had tried that. E would have sent the message before eir birth.
Woo, we have a player younger than the game? Now Agora's really grown up.
-zefram
ehird wrote:
Don't be so sure...
Is that a threat to falsify your log?
-zefram
ehird wrote:
No... because you actually said that you came off hold.
Yes, I did. I was mistaken about what you were saying don't be so
sure about. Sorry.
-zefram
ais523 wrote:
I submit a proposal, with the title Export,
Is this the first (attempted) transfer of rule text between email nomics?
Seems like a momentous occasion.
-zefram
?
And then again, because they still deregistered (in the past).
Either that or it can't be awarded at all until the person who left
comes back, because immediately after deregistration e's not a player
and so doesn't qualify as any player who
-zefram
Kerim Aydin wrote:
1. All rules are amendable, but some are more amendable than others.
How can the second part self-execute?
-zefram
that you ratified preclude the
existence of any rules that you didn't list, so the only rule in existence
now would be R9998.
-zefram
are the rules:
These rules are, of course, not the rules of Agora, to which CFJ
24 refers.
4. ehird can create rules in Agora,
This mechanism is trivially ineffective in Agora, because nothing in
Agora gives effect to the rules of your nomic.
-zefram
Elliott Hird wrote:
perhaps we should platonically
declare that all nomics are Protectorates?
We could, but it doesn't seem very useful.
Nothing in the laws of physics gives effect to the rules of Agora.
Agora doesn't need the approval of the laws of physics. Agora is sovereign.
-zefram
Ed Murphy wrote:
The proposal in question repealed points, and enacted Marks which were
used for officer salaries and such.
Marks already existed, and IIRC by this point they were already used
quite a lot. The proposal (2662) merely repealed Points.
Zefram [2] spent a few months working out
of
the Riemann hypothesis is undetermined, maybe the action just fails for
lack of clarity.
-zefram
901 - 937 of 937 matches
Mail list logo
