> 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
On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 10:56 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On the subject of community size - welcome back, o and omd!!!
Thanks :)
On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 11:21 AM D. Margaux wrote:
> > On May 26, 2019, at 9:01 PM, omd wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 5:49 PM D. Margaux wrote:
> >> and, therefore, any attempt to impose a fine was retroactively INEFFECTIVE.
> >
> > ...wow, that's strange. Why the heck is rule 2531
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 9:25 PM James Cook wrote:
> I would be honoured, but would it be more appropriate to assign this
> case to someone who hasn't already shown a preference for one outcome?
> I invite whoever judges the case to refer to my arguments if they seem
> helpful.
Unless you have a
> 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.
On Mon, 2019-05-27 at 04:25 +, James Cook wrote:
> I'm happy to try being on a court. How does weekend vs. day court
> work? I have the most time on weekends, but if a case comes in on the
> weekend I might end up dealing with it during the week depending on
> circumstances. So really I don't
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 May 26, 2019, at 8:51 PM, omd wrote:
>
> I searched the archives a bit, and the situation seems to be more
> complex than I remembered.
>
> In CFJ 3337, G. ruled that statements about the past *could* be
> ratified, but that it wasn't in that particular case because the scope
> of what
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 5:49 PM D. Margaux wrote:
> and, therefore, any attempt to impose a fine was retroactively INEFFECTIVE.
...wow, that's strange. Why the heck is rule 2531 designed to make
the gamestate (whether fines are EFFECTIVE, and thus indirectly
people's voting power) depend on so
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 4:41 PM James Cook wrote:
> For (a): I think it depends what "gamestate" means. It's never really
> defined. But personally I was assuming the gamestate covers all the
> facts invented by the rules, and not realities, e.g. what happened in
> the past. But I'm not sure
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 get more involved in gameplay.
-Aris
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at
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
> 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 a rule violation.
Why not?
Part of the gamestate is
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 2:09 PM D. Margaux wrote:
> It may be worthwhile to wait a couple days. If the reports self-ratify
> without any claim of error, then the information therein will be
> retroactively accurate... I think?
Ratification changes the gamestate to what it would be if the
I was concerned that ratification without objection might inadvertently
break something outside of those subgames. In contrast, issuing blank Clork
and Astronomor reports would not risk causing something to break outside
those games. It would be self-contained.
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 5:12 PM
I don’t know what the implication of that is for the sentencing, but I
don’t think I’m going to wait. I’d prefer to resolve it now and avoid the
ambiguity.
Why did you use self-ratification, rather than something else like
ratification without objection?
-Aris
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 2:09 PM D.
It may be worthwhile to wait a couple days. If the reports self-ratify without
any claim of error, then the information therein will be retroactively
accurate... I think?
> On May 25, 2019, at 9:31 PM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>
> I accept. I'll have to read up on the relevant rules, and I
19 matches
Mail list logo
