How about "a player CAN object to an intent by announcement"
Then, we could define Without N Objections as "if less than N players
have objected"
Likewise, "a player CAN support an intent by announcement"
So that With N Support could be defined as "if N or more people have
supported"
I think we’ve had a lot of trouble with determining exactly how objecting and
supporting work, because unlike many parts of the rules, they are based on some
announcement having happened in the past instead of the actual state in the
present. By splitting the act of having objected and the
Please no Sublettering - Sublettering is used for appeals in the historical
record and this would mess up the archives,. Just give some new unused
numbers.
To not confuse archivists, put all the reassignments of ID numbers in a
single email containing old and new numbers, so anyone searching
Why don’t i just take the next two unused numbers, and use them to renumber two
of the duplicates. Shouldn’t affect the judgement. Sorry all.
> On Nov 3, 2018, at 5:46 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> D. Margaux wrote:
>> Fair enough. This is CFJ 3678. I assign it to Murphy.
> (in response
On Saturday, November 3, 2018 2:41 AM, Reuben Staley
wrote:
> * Having a Thesis pass peer-review and be granted a Degree based
> on its merit: 20 shinies
Apparently we call these "coins" now.
-twg
D. Margaux wrote:
> Fair enough. This is CFJ 3678. I assign it to Murphy.
(in response to a long email chain that I won't reproduce here)
D. Margaux wrote:
> I CFJ barring twg: “If in the last 48 hours the Speaker has objected to any
> announced intents to Demand Resignation, then Agora is not
So, I really don't think that the core "look backwards for intent"
mechanism is a problem at all, or that it needs to be fixed just because
it works differently than most things.
For example, in two places where the "look backwards" idea is
independently implemented, it's clean and
I don't think there was ever a rules-requirement to include gratuitous
arguments in the case record, and don't think that term was ever in
the Rules. Tracking requirements circa 2004:
Upon assignment, only stuff from the Caller was required:
> The Clerk of the Courts shall publish the
On Sat, 3 Nov 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
== Judgement of CFJ 3679 ==
Since, per CFJ 3680, the pledge mentioned does not exist, the statement
affirming the pledge's truthfulness is also INEFFECTIVE. INEFFECTIVE
statements are not lies.
I strongly dislike this argument. INEFFECTIVE applies to
On Sat, 3 Nov 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
You clearly understand my point, though. Since V.J. is referring to a pledge
that doesn't exist, saying "the pledge above is true" just doesn't really
mean anything. I wouldn't call them "lies", or "intending to mislead" because
I don't see any of that
It was in use well before my time here, but it always brought to mind
both the "free" and "unasked for" senses for me. Then I just googled
and found this from the 1828 Webster's dictionary (so archaic?):
2. Asserted or taken without proof; as a gratuitous argument or
affirmation.
On Sat, 2018-11-03 at 16:27 -0400, D. Margaux wrote:
> I’ve been wondering why we call them “gratuitous” arguments. I would
> have thought that a “gratuitous” argument is one that is unwarranted,
> excessive, or improper, or at least one that wouldn’t change the
> outcome of the question under
Something didn't feel right about my last message...
I just realized that rule 2450 does _not_ define what a pledge is - it
cannot, because then it would need to provide a mechanism for making them,
which it clearly doesn't. So it presumably defers to the common sense
definition, which means
That's interesting. If I were asked to define "gratuitous" outside of an Agoran
consent I would say "given freely" was the primary meaning, and I would only
think of "unwarranted" later if at all. Perhaps it's dialectal? Are you
somewhere in the US? (Brit here.)
In direct answer to your
On Saturday, November 3, 2018 8:33 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> outside of an Agoran consent
I meant, of course, "outside of an Agoran context".
-twg
I’ve been wondering why we call them “gratuitous” arguments. I would have
thought that a “gratuitous” argument is one that is unwarranted, excessive, or
improper, or at least one that wouldn’t change the outcome of the question
under consideration. “Gratuitous” has a secondary meaning of “free
You clearly understand my point, though. Since V.J. is referring to a
pledge that doesn't exist, saying "the pledge above is true" just
doesn't really mean anything. I wouldn't call them "lies", or "intending
to mislead" because I don't see any of that in there.
If you want me to change the
You missed my gratuitous arguments, but you ended up with the same
conclusion so whatever. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
On 11/3/2018 3:22 AM, Reuben Staley wrote:
== Context message ==
1 Nov 2018, V.J. Rada:
> I pledge that I am indeed a 26-year-old woman named Jenny Johnson.
>
> The pledge I made above is
For what it’s worth, I’m from the US (near Seattle—hi G!) and I only knew of
the “un-called for” definition, and was similarly confused.
Gaelan
> On Nov 3, 2018, at 1:33 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> Perhaps it's dialectal? Are you somewhere in the US? (Brit here.)
19 matches
Mail list logo
