On 2/17/2019 9:59 PM, James Cook wrote:
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 dou
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 2/17/2019 7:30
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. thi
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?
>
> This was the change that added it:
> >
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.
> Amended(21) by P8017 'RTRW Cleanups' (Alexis), 06 Mar 2018
Amend Rule 2124 (Agoran Satisfaction) by replacing "the Executor of the
annou
On Sun, 17 Feb 2019, Kerim Aydin wrote:
This was the change that added it:
Amended(19) by P7815 'Agencies' (Alexis, aranea), 28 Oct 2016
the clause that added it was straightforward:
Amend Rule 2124 (Agoran Satisfaction) by adding:
(4) if the action is to be performed With Notice or W
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?
This was the change that added it:
> Amended(19) by P7815 'Agencies' (Alexis, aranea), 28 Oct 2016
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 proposal if we could,
> right?
On Sun, 17 Feb 2019, D. Margaux wrote:
5. FORCE GAELAN AND ATMUNN TO SUPPORT GROUP-FILED RECONSIDERATION
// only works if intents are not broken
I intend with 2 support to move to reconsider the above-called CFJ. I
cause ATMunn and Gaelan to support that intent. I move to reconsider
that
> 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 proposal if we could,
right?
I’m not sure what the right language would be. Mayb
> On Feb 17, 2019, at 7:31 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> I'm not clear how your win attempt relies on it though. I understand that
> you've arranged matters so that you only win* if intents are broken (because
> otherwise the CFJ is eventually judged DISMISS), but not _why_ you've done
>
On Sunday, February 17, 2019 7:34 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
>
>
> > On Feb 17, 2019, at 2:17 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote:
> > Yes you did: (1) the power to assign a judge to a CFJ in the same message
> > it's initiated; and (2) the power to personally select who judges a CFJ.
>
> Nope
On 2/17/2019 4:05 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:> I have no objection
to ratifying the fact "player A judged CFJ B with> the result C", given that
that fact has, in general, very little impact> on the gamestate.
I also just realized that, given that Moots are Decisions, a resolution
mess
What about making a safety clause that the caller of a CFJ cannot judge
it (all else notwithstanding)?
On 2019-02-18 06:17, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
On Sunday, February 17, 2019 2:28 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
I purposefully didn’t use any of the powers of the Arbitor for this scam.
Yes you did:
On Sun, 2019-02-17 at 15:56 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Ok, are we talking about self-ratifying the fact that a certain Judge
> delivered a judgement of FALSE, or self-ratifying a document that
> states that the CFJ statement was, in fact, FALSE going forward? (it
> sounds like the above discussio
On 2/17/2019 3:49 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
On Sun, 2019-02-17 at 15:43 -0800, Aris Merchant wrote:
CFJ findings probably should self-ratify, although they doesn’t really do
anything. Ruleset self-ratifications are incredibly dangerous (think of all
the scares people would try) so we
On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 3:49 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk <
ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 2019-02-17 at 15:43 -0800, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > CFJ findings probably should self-ratify, although they doesn’t really do
> > anything. Ruleset self-ratifications are incredibly dangerous (thi
I'm against ratifying the Patent Titles automatically. It's our historical
record and there's no harm in fixing using historical records when needed,
and patent titles don't have follow-on effects. That said, it's been
ratified about - I dunno - every other year manually.
I think Aris's draft
On Sun, 2019-02-17 at 15:43 -0800, Aris Merchant wrote:
> CFJ findings probably should self-ratify, although they doesn’t really do
> anything. Ruleset self-ratifications are incredibly dangerous (think of all
> the scares people would try) so we only do them occasionally. We’re about
> due for one
On Mon, 2019-02-18 at 10:38 +1100, Madeline wrote:
> What if we set up these things to self-ratify after, say, a quarter?
> That way we know we don't have to dig up years of history if
> something does go wrong, but we don't run the risk of getting into
> trouble with something important that just
CFJ findings probably should self-ratify, although they doesn’t really do
anything. Ruleset self-ratifications are incredibly dangerous (think of all
the scares people would try) so we only do them occasionally. We’re about
due for one now, as it happens. Patent titles are long term state that we
t
What if we set up these things to self-ratify after, say, a quarter?
That way we know we don't have to dig up years of history if something
does go wrong, but we don't run the risk of getting into trouble with
something important that just gets missed for a couple of weeks?
On 2019-02-18 10:28
Oh! How could I forget in the current scam - whether Moots or Motions for
CFJs worked, which might mean original judgements were still in place.
On 2/17/2019 3:28 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On 2/17/2019 2:11 PM, James Cook wrote:
Also, isn't most of the game state periodically ratified by offic
On 2/17/2019 2:11 PM, James Cook wrote:
Also, isn't most of the game state periodically ratified by official
reports? I don't have a firm grasp of what exactly this messes up, and
I haven't looked at the public messages much further back than than
the date I registered*.
The ruleset doesn't s
On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 at 14:08, D. Margaux wrote:
> Also... if intents are truly broken, that could lead to a lot of havoc in the
> gamestate. It would be potentially impossible to sort out.
>
> Maybe the fix legislation could say something like, “upon enactment of this
> proposal, the gamestate i
On 2019-02-18 09:00, D. Margaux wrote:
On Feb 17, 2019, at 4:54 PM, Madeline wrote:
Yo, this doesn't get you a win regardless of what follows because the Win by Paradox rule
only works for "a CFJ about the legality or possibility of a game action",
which this is not.
Arg. Well played, Ru
> On Feb 17, 2019, at 4:54 PM, Madeline wrote:
>
> Yo, this doesn't get you a win regardless of what follows because the Win by
> Paradox rule only works for "a CFJ about the legality or possibility of a
> game action", which this is not.
Arg. Well played, Ruleset, well played.
Yo, this doesn't get you a win regardless of what follows because the
Win by Paradox rule only works for "a CFJ about the legality or
possibility of a game action", which this is not.
On 2019-02-18 00:08, D. Margaux wrote:
Intents may be completely broken, and if they are, then that will
elimi
Ah - gotcha. That makes sense. I don't begrudge the win, but you're right,
retroactive is pretty much needed here to prevent massive breakages if the
whole intent thing has been broken for a while. Retroactive fixes have
been used many times when things have turned out to be broken, not just
> On Feb 17, 2019, at 2:58 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 2/17/2019 11:48 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
>> Anyhow, I don’t really expect this PARADOXICAL win (if it becomes a win) to
>> be permanent.
>
> Why wouldn't it be permanent? Nothing takes away the win once the judgement
> has been i
On 2/17/2019 11:48 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
Anyhow, I don’t really expect this PARADOXICAL win (if it becomes a win) to be permanent.
Why wouldn't it be permanent? Nothing takes away the win once the judgement
has been in place for 7 days, even if the judgement is overturned or
overruled later
I think maybe there is some confusion about how this scheme is meant to
operate. Hopefully this clarifies it:
The idea here isn’t to abuse the Arbitor’s power to call or assess votes in
moots. The idea is to take advantage of the fact that intents might be broken,
so it might be _impossible_ to
> On Feb 17, 2019, at 2:17 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> Yes you did: (1) the power to assign a judge to a CFJ in the same message
> it's initiated; and (2) the power to personally select who judges a CFJ.
Nope. I didn’t use any Arbitor power. I used the Prime Minister’s cabinet order
of
On Sunday, February 17, 2019 2:28 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
> I purposefully didn’t use any of the powers of the Arbitor for this scam.
Yes you did: (1) the power to assign a judge to a CFJ in the same message it's
initiated; and (2) the power to personally select who judges a CFJ. Both of
these se
On Sunday, February 17, 2019 1:08 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
> I call the following CFJ: "This CFJ is FALSE."
I intend, with 2 support, to enter the judgement of this CFJ into Moot.
I intend to deputise for the Arbitor to initiate the Agoran decision to
determine public confidence in the judgement o
Also... if intents are truly broken, that could lead to a lot of havoc in the
gamestate. It would be potentially impossible to sort out.
Maybe the fix legislation could say something like, “upon enactment of this
proposal, the gamestate is changed to be what it would have been if the list
had
36 matches
Mail list logo
