On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 at 12:06, D. Margaux wrote:
> > On Jun 14, 2019, at 2:29 AM, David Seeber wrote:
> >
> > If this is accepted, {
> >
> > { I cfj the following:
> >
> > "Trigon is the winner of the auction"
> >
> > Argument in favour :
> >
> > Trigon bid two coins, which is more than
The history of R2517 ("Conditionals and Extricability" indicates it
was repealed in July 2018, and doesn't say anything about it being
enacted again after. Was that a mistake? (Of course it's there now
because we ratified an SLR earlier this year.)
Also, maybe related to the "Dollar Auction"
Hmm I just realized that I would have to change more wording in order to
allow fines.
Jason Cobb
On 6/19/19 4:17 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
Here's a proto-proposal. This fleshes out some ideas I mentioned in
G.'s "unregulation" thread. This is mostly brought on by the recent
issues over regulated
Here's a proto-proposal. This fleshes out some ideas I mentioned in G.'s
"unregulation" thread. This is mostly brought on by the recent issues
over regulated actions.
Sorry if this is a bit massive, but I _think_ it covers all of the
necessary consequences of such a change.
Outline
- A
Okay, I never like being the one to do this, but someone has to. I'm
honestly sorry to be telling you this. I like the basic ideas of your
proposal, so it is with a heavy heart that I tell you that based on my
experience, I believe your proto has a critical flaw caused by the
process you used to
Nice.
I think you can shorten this by getting rid of most of the "entities" like
so:
"An entity is requirement-creating if and only if..."
"Regulations are requirement-creating."
"Contracts are requirement-creating."
Etc.
On 6/19/2019 6:08 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
Here it is. This one
On Wed, 2019-06-19 at 20:22 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> I intend with Agoran Consent to trigger Rule 2598, "Side-Game
> Suspension".
I was suspecting a possible scam here, but the listed rule numbers
within rule 2598 do appear to be correct. (It would have been easy to
get one of them slightly
If they've never been useful in the past... I don't see a future use for
them. It's true that there's no longer the total sinecure of Regkeepor. Rip
the ACORN, you will not be missed.
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 1:46 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I simplified
Maybe "binding"?
"Contracts are binding", "Regulations are binding".
"An entity is binding if and only if..."
Jason Cobb
On 6/19/19 11:37 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
I would suggest "regulating", but I feel like that could easily get
confused with regulations.
Jason Cobb
On 6/19/19 11:24 PM,
I would suggest "regulating", but I feel like that could easily get
confused with regulations.
Jason Cobb
On 6/19/19 11:24 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
I'd personally create a shorter word for "requirement-creating
entity". I'm not sure what it should be, but there has to be
something.
-Aris
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 8:32 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2019-06-19 at 20:22 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > I intend with Agoran Consent to trigger Rule 2598, "Side-Game
> > Suspension".
>
> I was suspecting a possible scam here, but the listed rule numbers
> within rule 2598
what if you repeal regulations and change regulations to mean this
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 1:38 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> I would suggest "regulating", but I feel like that could easily get
> confused with regulations.
>
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 6/19/19 11:24 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > I'd
I thought of that, but that looks a lot like the name of an office. Also
gets pretty close to "regulations".
Jason Cobb
On 6/20/19 12:09 AM, Edward Murphy wrote:
Aris wrote:
I'd personally create a shorter word for "requirement-creating
entity". I'm not sure what it should be, but there has
Hey Aris,
Thank you for your message. It's very helpful to be able to see some of
your past experience and the knowledge gained from it. (Sorry, this is
awkward. Thanking people by email is hard :P)
After reading it, I realized this effectively became a (poorly executed)
attempt at unifying
Basically I like this proposal, which is good (although Oaths should also
be binding, right?) but I can't vote for it unless it slashes and burns
rules mwa ha ha.
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 1:49 PM Rebecca wrote:
> If they've never been useful in the past... I don't see a future use for
> them.
That actually makes a lot of sense, logically. The term binding is
only used in a few places in the rules, and, at a glance, I don't
think any of them would conflict with this.
-Aris
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 8:48 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> Maybe "binding"?
>
> "Contracts are binding", "Regulations
I see your point, but I think the phrasing accomplishes the same
thing. It says "When this Rule is triggered, the following events
happen in order". That makes it pretty clear that the rule is the
agent, doesn't it?
-Aris
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 9:00 PM omd wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at
Try making some for the office(s) you hold then! Or make any kind of use of
them, they're your thing.
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 2:06 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Agreed on the ACORN, though I did like the name.
>
> They're so generic it's just hard to believe
A CFJ did hold that blots can't be expunged, yes.
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 2:26 PM Edward Murphy wrote:
> I earn 5 coins for publishing the latest ADoP report.
>
> I expunge my Blot (if I can, which I suspect I can't).
>
> Notice of Honour:
> -1 Murphy (dragging heels on Prime Minister election)
I simplified regulations to the point where they're literally one
rule. I'm biased, but I personally think the "it might be useful in
future" argument means that keeping them makes sense at this point.
-Aris
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 8:40 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> That would require rewriting the
The purpose of Oaths isn't to define new actions, and the Rules define
the crime of Oathbreaking.
Jason Cobb
On 6/19/19 11:51 PM, Rebecca wrote:
Basically I like this proposal, which is good (although Oaths should also
be binding, right?) but I can't vote for it unless it slashes and burns
Here it is. This one (hopefully) isn't a victim of scope creep. I
actually like this one a lot more because it's so much simpler.
{
Amend Rule 2493 ("Regulations") as follows:
Append the following text to the first paragraph: "Regulations are
requirement-creating entities."
Amend Rule
I'd personally create a shorter word for "requirement-creating
entity". I'm not sure what it should be, but there has to be
something.
-Aris
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 8:16 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Nice.
>
> I think you can shorten this by getting rid of most of the "entities" like
> so:
>
>
That would require rewriting the tournaments wording, and it's kind of
close to the Birthday tournament to be doing that.
Jason Cobb
On 6/19/19 11:38 PM, Rebecca wrote:
what if you repeal regulations and change regulations to mean this
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 1:38 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
I
I hope we actually have a birthday tournament that works this year though
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 1:43 PM Rebecca wrote:
> tournaments should just be contracts with special powers anyway.
>
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 1:40 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
>
>> That would require rewriting the tournaments
tournaments should just be contracts with special powers anyway.
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 1:40 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> That would require rewriting the tournaments wording, and it's kind of
> close to the Birthday tournament to be doing that.
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 6/19/19 11:38 PM, Rebecca wrote:
Okay, I've updated my local draft of it to use "binding".
Jason Cobb
On 6/19/19 11:52 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
That actually makes a lot of sense, logically. The term binding is
only used in a few places in the rules, and, at a glance, I don't
think any of them would conflict with this.
-Aris
Agreed on the ACORN, though I did like the name.
They're so generic it's just hard to believe that they won't be
useful. I mean, they're basically flexible rule extensions. They span
the gap between actions, which can only have specified effect for a
single instant, and rules, which can do
Aris wrote:
I'd personally create a shorter word for "requirement-creating
entity". I'm not sure what it should be, but there has to be
something.
"Regulators"?
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 6:08 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> An action that is regulated by a requirement-creating entity CAN
> only be performed as described by the entity, and only using the
> methods explicitly specified in the entity for performing the given
> action. The entity SHALL
Combined with "Contracts CAN regulate actions that are defined in
other requirement-creating entities.", doesn't this allow contracts to
decide whether rules-defined actions succeed or not?
Yes, it appears to. I will replace the contracts sentence with
"Contracts CAN permit or forbid
(I argue that although this conditional appears to rest on a future CFJ's
interpretation, making it inextricable, there is objectively only one "law"
which judges in the Agoran system merely discover, so this conditional
should work)
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 7:31 AM Rebecca wrote:
> If I am
32 matches
Mail list logo
