DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8180-8187
Any particular reason you are against 8182? I meant it as a simple bugfix. Jason Cobb On 6/15/19 12:26 PM, Charles Walker wrote: I vote as follows: 8180 Trigon, D Margaux 1.0 Paying our Assessor FOR 8181 D Margaux, [1]1.7 Referee CAN Impose Fines (v1.1) AGAINST 8182 Jason Cobb3.0 Add value to zombies AGAINST 8183 V.J. Rada, Tiger 3.0 Regulated Actions Reform AGAINST 8184 G.3.0 power-limit precedence FOR 8185 Trigon3.0 OUGHT we? AGAINST 8186 Jason Cobb3.0 Minor currency fixes FOR 8187 Jason Cobb3.0 Not so indestructible now, eh? FOR -- Walker
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8180-8187
that's dumb. the rules can't say that 'interpreting' something is
IMPOSSIBLE (well they can, but it utterly defies reality). instead they
have to just positively say what is true under them; to wit, they do not
proscribe unregulated actions.
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 7:38 PM D. Margaux wrote:
> What if we kept the existing language but changed SHALL NOT to
> CANNOT--"the rules CANNOT be interpreted..."?
>
> > On Jun 13, 2019, at 1:50 AM, Rebecca wrote:
> >
> > It wouldn't gut contracts because anything specified by a Contract _is_
> > regulated under the rules. It's just designed to prohibit _criminal_
> > liability for "interpret[ing]" the rules.
> >
> >> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 1:56 PM James Cook
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Proposals 8180 through 8187 I vote as follows, where "AGAINST IF
> >> VETO ELSE" means "conditional vote: AGAINST if a Notice of Veto has
> >> been published specifying this proposal, otherwise"
> >>
> >>> IDAuthor(s) AITitle
> >>>
> >>
> ---
> >>> 8180 Trigon, D Margaux 1.0 Paying our Assessor
> >> AGAINST IF VETO ELSE FOR
> >>> 8181 D Margaux, [1]1.7 Referee CAN Impose Fines (v1.1)
> >> AGAINST IF VETO ELSE FOR
> >>> 8182 Jason Cobb3.0 Add value to zombies
> >> AGAINST IF VETO ELSE FOR
> >>> 8183 V.J. Rada, Tiger 3.0 Regulated Actions Reform
> >> AGAINST (per o, and also, I would like to see the context behind the
> >> decision to use the current bizarre wording before changing it)
> >>> 8184 G.3.0 power-limit precedence
> >> AGAINST IF VETO ELSE FOR
> >>> 8185 Trigon3.0 OUGHT we?
> >> AGAINST IF VETO ELSE PRESENT ("ought" seems nicer than contractions,
> >> but still seems unnecessary)
> >>> 8186 Jason Cobb3.0 Minor currency fixes
> >> AGAINST IF VETO ELSE FOR
> >>> 8187 Jason Cobb3.0 Not so indestructible now, eh?
> >> AGAINST IF VETO ELSE FOR
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > From V.J. Rada
>
--
>From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8180-8187
What if we kept the existing language but changed SHALL NOT to CANNOT--"the
rules CANNOT be interpreted..."?
> On Jun 13, 2019, at 1:50 AM, Rebecca wrote:
>
> It wouldn't gut contracts because anything specified by a Contract _is_
> regulated under the rules. It's just designed to prohibit _criminal_
> liability for "interpret[ing]" the rules.
>
>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 1:56 PM James Cook wrote:
>>
>> On Proposals 8180 through 8187 I vote as follows, where "AGAINST IF
>> VETO ELSE" means "conditional vote: AGAINST if a Notice of Veto has
>> been published specifying this proposal, otherwise"
>>
>>> IDAuthor(s) AITitle
>>>
>> ---
>>> 8180 Trigon, D Margaux 1.0 Paying our Assessor
>> AGAINST IF VETO ELSE FOR
>>> 8181 D Margaux, [1]1.7 Referee CAN Impose Fines (v1.1)
>> AGAINST IF VETO ELSE FOR
>>> 8182 Jason Cobb3.0 Add value to zombies
>> AGAINST IF VETO ELSE FOR
>>> 8183 V.J. Rada, Tiger 3.0 Regulated Actions Reform
>> AGAINST (per o, and also, I would like to see the context behind the
>> decision to use the current bizarre wording before changing it)
>>> 8184 G.3.0 power-limit precedence
>> AGAINST IF VETO ELSE FOR
>>> 8185 Trigon3.0 OUGHT we?
>> AGAINST IF VETO ELSE PRESENT ("ought" seems nicer than contractions,
>> but still seems unnecessary)
>>> 8186 Jason Cobb3.0 Minor currency fixes
>> AGAINST IF VETO ELSE FOR
>>> 8187 Jason Cobb3.0 Not so indestructible now, eh?
>> AGAINST IF VETO ELSE FOR
>>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8180-8187
It wouldn't gut contracts because anything specified by a Contract _is_
regulated under the rules. It's just designed to prohibit _criminal_
liability for "interpret[ing]" the rules.
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 1:56 PM James Cook wrote:
> On Proposals 8180 through 8187 I vote as follows, where "AGAINST IF
> VETO ELSE" means "conditional vote: AGAINST if a Notice of Veto has
> been published specifying this proposal, otherwise"
>
> > IDAuthor(s) AITitle
> >
> ---
> > 8180 Trigon, D Margaux 1.0 Paying our Assessor
> AGAINST IF VETO ELSE FOR
> > 8181 D Margaux, [1]1.7 Referee CAN Impose Fines (v1.1)
> AGAINST IF VETO ELSE FOR
> > 8182 Jason Cobb3.0 Add value to zombies
> AGAINST IF VETO ELSE FOR
> > 8183 V.J. Rada, Tiger 3.0 Regulated Actions Reform
> AGAINST (per o, and also, I would like to see the context behind the
> decision to use the current bizarre wording before changing it)
> > 8184 G.3.0 power-limit precedence
> AGAINST IF VETO ELSE FOR
> > 8185 Trigon3.0 OUGHT we?
> AGAINST IF VETO ELSE PRESENT ("ought" seems nicer than contractions,
> but still seems unnecessary)
> > 8186 Jason Cobb3.0 Minor currency fixes
> AGAINST IF VETO ELSE FOR
> > 8187 Jason Cobb3.0 Not so indestructible now, eh?
> AGAINST IF VETO ELSE FOR
>
--
>From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8180-8187
Sorry, I'm being an idiot - I was looking back and forth between things and got the SHOULD/SHALL thing backwards backwards. On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:44 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > To me, OUGHT is closer to SHOULD than SHALL, and it bears a tinge of > reproach (you ought not to have done that). In particular, if you > look at the single place it's used, in R2231, that's clearly (to me > anyway) a SHOULD not a SHALL: "As this title is the highest honour > that Agora may bestow, a Bearer of this title OUGHT to be treated > right good forever." I don't want to turn behavior towards a Hero > into a SHALL. > > More generally, R2231 aside, I just don't see a strong use case for > codifying a capitalization for this (it doesn't fill in a missing > grammatical construction or anything). >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8180-8187
I’m sorry, but I’m confused. Did anyone propose to turn it into a SHALL? -Aris On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:45 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > To me, OUGHT is closer to SHOULD than SHALL, and it bears a tinge of > reproach (you ought not to have done that). In particular, if you > look at the single place it's used, in R2231, that's clearly (to me > anyway) a SHOULD not a SHALL: "As this title is the highest honour > that Agora may bestow, a Bearer of this title OUGHT to be treated > right good forever." I don't want to turn behavior towards a Hero > into a SHALL. > > More generally, R2231 aside, I just don't see a strong use case for > codifying a capitalization for this (it doesn't fill in a missing > grammatical construction or anything). > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:22 AM Aris Merchant > wrote: > > > > I think they cover mostly the same semantic area. There might be some > > difference around the edges, but the two expressions both seem to fit the > > provided definition. > > > > -Aris > > > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:20 AM Jason Cobb > wrote: > > > > > That seems like a reasonable distinction to me, at least. > > > > > > Jason Cobb > > > > > > On 6/12/19 2:18 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > > > > To my ear, "ought" means something slightly different from "should." > I > > > would have thought that "ought" means that something is required from a > > > moral perspectivd, while should doesn't. But maybe I'm wrong and > they're > > > synonymous..? > > > > > > > >> On Jun 12, 2019, at 2:05 PM, Jason Cobb > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Why do people not like OUGHT? I get the issue with contractions, not > > > really OUGHT, though. > > > >> > > > >> Jason Cobb > > > >> > > > >>> On 6/12/19 2:03 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > > > >>> I vote and cause L to vote as follows: > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> 8180 Trigon, D Margaux 1.0 Paying our Assessor > > > >>> FOR > > > >>> > > > >>> 8181 D Margaux, [1]1.7 Referee CAN Impose Fines (v1.1) > > > >>> FOR > > > >>> > > > >>> 8182 Jason Cobb3.0 Add value to zombies > > > >>> FOR > > > >>> > > > >>> 8183 V.J. Rada, Tiger 3.0 Regulated Actions Reform > > > >>> FOR > > > >>> > > > >>> 8184 G.3.0 power-limit precedence > > > >>> FOR > > > >>> > > > >>> 8185 Trigon3.0 OUGHT we? > > > >>> AGAINST > > > >>> > > > >>> 8186 Jason Cobb3.0 Minor currency fixes > > > >>> FOR > > > >>> > > > >>> 8187 Jason Cobb3.0 Not so indestructible now, eh? > > > >>> FOR > > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8180-8187
I think they cover mostly the same semantic area. There might be some difference around the edges, but the two expressions both seem to fit the provided definition. -Aris On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:20 AM Jason Cobb wrote: > That seems like a reasonable distinction to me, at least. > > Jason Cobb > > On 6/12/19 2:18 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > > To my ear, "ought" means something slightly different from "should." I > would have thought that "ought" means that something is required from a > moral perspectivd, while should doesn't. But maybe I'm wrong and they're > synonymous..? > > > >> On Jun 12, 2019, at 2:05 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > >> > >> Why do people not like OUGHT? I get the issue with contractions, not > really OUGHT, though. > >> > >> Jason Cobb > >> > >>> On 6/12/19 2:03 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > >>> I vote and cause L to vote as follows: > >>> > >>> > >>> 8180 Trigon, D Margaux 1.0 Paying our Assessor > >>> FOR > >>> > >>> 8181 D Margaux, [1]1.7 Referee CAN Impose Fines (v1.1) > >>> FOR > >>> > >>> 8182 Jason Cobb3.0 Add value to zombies > >>> FOR > >>> > >>> 8183 V.J. Rada, Tiger 3.0 Regulated Actions Reform > >>> FOR > >>> > >>> 8184 G.3.0 power-limit precedence > >>> FOR > >>> > >>> 8185 Trigon3.0 OUGHT we? > >>> AGAINST > >>> > >>> 8186 Jason Cobb3.0 Minor currency fixes > >>> FOR > >>> > >>> 8187 Jason Cobb3.0 Not so indestructible now, eh? > >>> FOR >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8180-8187
That seems like a reasonable distinction to me, at least. Jason Cobb On 6/12/19 2:18 PM, D. Margaux wrote: To my ear, "ought" means something slightly different from "should." I would have thought that "ought" means that something is required from a moral perspectivd, while should doesn't. But maybe I'm wrong and they're synonymous..? On Jun 12, 2019, at 2:05 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: Why do people not like OUGHT? I get the issue with contractions, not really OUGHT, though. Jason Cobb On 6/12/19 2:03 PM, D. Margaux wrote: I vote and cause L to vote as follows: 8180 Trigon, D Margaux 1.0 Paying our Assessor FOR 8181 D Margaux, [1]1.7 Referee CAN Impose Fines (v1.1) FOR 8182 Jason Cobb3.0 Add value to zombies FOR 8183 V.J. Rada, Tiger 3.0 Regulated Actions Reform FOR 8184 G.3.0 power-limit precedence FOR 8185 Trigon3.0 OUGHT we? AGAINST 8186 Jason Cobb3.0 Minor currency fixes FOR 8187 Jason Cobb3.0 Not so indestructible now, eh? FOR
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8180-8187
To my ear, "ought" means something slightly different from "should." I would have thought that "ought" means that something is required from a moral perspectivd, while should doesn't. But maybe I'm wrong and they're synonymous..? > On Jun 12, 2019, at 2:05 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > > Why do people not like OUGHT? I get the issue with contractions, not really > OUGHT, though. > > Jason Cobb > >> On 6/12/19 2:03 PM, D. Margaux wrote: >> I vote and cause L to vote as follows: >> >> >> 8180 Trigon, D Margaux 1.0 Paying our Assessor >> FOR >> >> 8181 D Margaux, [1]1.7 Referee CAN Impose Fines (v1.1) >> FOR >> >> 8182 Jason Cobb3.0 Add value to zombies >> FOR >> >> 8183 V.J. Rada, Tiger 3.0 Regulated Actions Reform >> FOR >> >> 8184 G.3.0 power-limit precedence >> FOR >> >> 8185 Trigon3.0 OUGHT we? >> AGAINST >> >> 8186 Jason Cobb3.0 Minor currency fixes >> FOR >> >> 8187 Jason Cobb3.0 Not so indestructible now, eh? >> FOR
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8180-8187
Why do people not like OUGHT? I get the issue with contractions, not really OUGHT, though. Jason Cobb On 6/12/19 2:03 PM, D. Margaux wrote: I vote and cause L to vote as follows: 8180 Trigon, D Margaux 1.0 Paying our Assessor FOR 8181 D Margaux, [1]1.7 Referee CAN Impose Fines (v1.1) FOR 8182 Jason Cobb3.0 Add value to zombies FOR 8183 V.J. Rada, Tiger 3.0 Regulated Actions Reform FOR 8184 G.3.0 power-limit precedence FOR 8185 Trigon3.0 OUGHT we? AGAINST 8186 Jason Cobb3.0 Minor currency fixes FOR 8187 Jason Cobb3.0 Not so indestructible now, eh? FOR
