Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] [Weekly Report] Forbes 486
On 2020-08-22 21:10, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: On 8/22/2020 11:05 AM, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote: * ASSUMPTIONS * This report assumes that shelvacu has not had any Agoran I wonder if that counts as a claim of error and prevents self-ratification that way. Claims of error (or 'issuing doubts') are by announcement, and I don't think this qualifies as 'unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs it'. Good point. -- Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] [Weekly Report] Forbes 486
On 8/22/2020 11:05 AM, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote: > * ASSUMPTIONS > * This report assumes that shelvacu has not had any Agoran > > I wonder if that counts as a claim of error and prevents > self-ratification that way. > Claims of error (or 'issuing doubts') are by announcement, and I don't think this qualifies as 'unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs it'.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] [Weekly Report] Forbes 486
On 2020-08-16 01:29, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 8/15/2020 5:54 PM, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote: > Nevermind, I should probably read more than just one email before > replying like this. I called a CoE to make sure it wouldn't self-ratify. I don't think just listing the assumption does that. In the past, when I've published reports with assumptions like that, I've immediately CoEed them for that reason. >>> >>> You can do it without a seperate CoE, if you explicitly mark which >>> values are provisional. IIRC there's a precedent somewhere that says >>> that provisional values are excluded from self ratification. >>> >>> -Aris >> >> That's interesting. If someone can find that CFJ, it would be good to >> add it to R2201's annotations. >> >> I find it surprising. Especially since I think we consider these >> documents sufficient for recordkeeping duties. >> > > It doesn't wort that way. Self-ratificatoin and CoEs operate on the level > of "report section" (i.e. 'the portion of the report' that is defined by > the rules as self-ratifying). You either doubt the whole section or none > of it: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3658 > > -G. That still leaves open the question of whether a caveat in a report can prevent self-ratification. It just means the prevention would have to be all-or-nothing (for one class of asset). The Treasuror's report included this: * ASSUMPTIONS * This report assumes that shelvacu has not had any Agoran I wonder if that counts as a claim of error and prevents self-ratification that way. -- Falsifian
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] [Weekly Report] Forbes 486
For the record, I am aware that it does not prevent self-ratification. I guess I assumed people would CoE upon seeing any assumptions at all. Would people prefer it if I doubted all my reports immediately after posting them? If so I'll do it; it just seemed unnecessary.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] [Weekly Report] Forbes 486
On 8/15/2020 5:54 PM, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote: Nevermind, I should probably read more than just one email before replying like this. >>> >>> I called a CoE to make sure it wouldn't self-ratify. I don't think just >>> listing the assumption does that. >>> >>> In the past, when I've published reports with assumptions like that, >>> I've immediately CoEed them for that reason. >> >> You can do it without a seperate CoE, if you explicitly mark which >> values are provisional. IIRC there's a precedent somewhere that says >> that provisional values are excluded from self ratification. >> >> -Aris > > That's interesting. If someone can find that CFJ, it would be good to > add it to R2201's annotations. > > I find it surprising. Especially since I think we consider these > documents sufficient for recordkeeping duties. > It doesn't wort that way. Self-ratificatoin and CoEs operate on the level of "report section" (i.e. 'the portion of the report' that is defined by the rules as self-ratifying). You either doubt the whole section or none of it: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3658 -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] [Weekly Report] Forbes 486
Nevermind, I should probably read more than just one email before replying like this. I called a CoE to make sure it wouldn't self-ratify. I don't think just listing the assumption does that. In the past, when I've published reports with assumptions like that, I've immediately CoEed them for that reason. You can do it without a seperate CoE, if you explicitly mark which values are provisional. IIRC there's a precedent somewhere that says that provisional values are excluded from self ratification. -Aris That's interesting. If someone can find that CFJ, it would be good to add it to R2201's annotations. I find it surprising. Especially since I think we consider these documents sufficient for recordkeeping duties. -- Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] [Weekly Report] Forbes 486
On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 5:36 PM Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 2020-08-14 14:30, ATMunn via agora-business wrote: > > On 8/14/2020 10:29 AM, ATMunn wrote: > >> On 8/13/2020 10:33 PM, Falsifian via agora-business wrote: > >>> On 2020-08-09 20:02, Reuben Staley via agora-official wrote: > > > FORBES FOUR HUNDRED EIGHTY-SIX > or > > TREASUROR'S WEEKLY REPORT > > > > Date of last week's first report: 02 August 2020 > Date of this week's first report: 09 August 2020 > >>> > >>> CoE: This report (last week's) is missing Shelvacu's birthday gifts. > >>> > >> > >> > NOTES ON REPORT (contains no > >> data) > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > * ASSUMPTIONS > >> >* This report assumes that shelvacu has not had any Agoran > >> birthdays. > >> > > > > Nevermind, I should probably read more than just one email before > > replying like this. > > I called a CoE to make sure it wouldn't self-ratify. I don't think just > listing the assumption does that. > > In the past, when I've published reports with assumptions like that, > I've immediately CoEed them for that reason. You can do it without a seperate CoE, if you explicitly mark which values are provisional. IIRC there's a precedent somewhere that says that provisional values are excluded from self ratification. -Aris
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] [Weekly Report] Forbes 486
On 2020-08-14 14:30, ATMunn via agora-business wrote: On 8/14/2020 10:29 AM, ATMunn wrote: On 8/13/2020 10:33 PM, Falsifian via agora-business wrote: On 2020-08-09 20:02, Reuben Staley via agora-official wrote: FORBES FOUR HUNDRED EIGHTY-SIX or TREASUROR'S WEEKLY REPORT Date of last week's first report: 02 August 2020 Date of this week's first report: 09 August 2020 CoE: This report (last week's) is missing Shelvacu's birthday gifts. > NOTES ON REPORT (contains no data) > > > * ASSUMPTIONS > * This report assumes that shelvacu has not had any Agoran birthdays. Nevermind, I should probably read more than just one email before replying like this. I called a CoE to make sure it wouldn't self-ratify. I don't think just listing the assumption does that. In the past, when I've published reports with assumptions like that, I've immediately CoEed them for that reason. -- Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] [Weekly Report] Forbes 486
oh lol, get better names guys
On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 6:16 PM Reuben Staley via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 2020-08-10 02:10, N. S. via agora-business wrote:
> > COE: This report lists Fred and Gaelan as separate entities, they are the
> > same (I don't think Fred has any assets though, e cannot have got a
> welcome
> > package as gaelan was already registered)
>
> Denied. I'm pretty sure that Fred is just a player who hasn't interacted
> very much. I think you're thinking of Greg.
>
> --
> Trigon
>
> I’m always happy to become a party to contracts.
> I LOVE SPAGHETTI
> transfer Jason one coin
> nch was here
> I hereby
> don't... trust... the dragon...
> don't... trust... the dragon...
> Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this
>
> The following text comprises a public message:
> {{{ DISCLAIMER: There are no game actions in this message. }}}
>
--
>From R. Lee
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] [Weekly Report] Forbes 486
On 2020-08-10 02:10, N. S. via agora-business wrote:
COE: This report lists Fred and Gaelan as separate entities, they are the
same (I don't think Fred has any assets though, e cannot have got a welcome
package as gaelan was already registered)
Denied. I'm pretty sure that Fred is just a player who hasn't interacted
very much. I think you're thinking of Greg.
--
Trigon
I’m always happy to become a party to contracts.
I LOVE SPAGHETTI
transfer Jason one coin
nch was here
I hereby
don't... trust... the dragon...
don't... trust... the dragon...
Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this
The following text comprises a public message:
{{{ DISCLAIMER: There are no game actions in this message. }}}
