27;t seem to be a way of assigning ID numbers specified in the
rules, thus giving the Rulekeepor some (small) amount of say in the
application of the rules.
Jason Cobb
Wow. Thank you all for the quick replies. I really was not expecting it
that quickly.
That all makes sense, thank you.
Jason Cobb
On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 9:14 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk <
ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 2019-06-01 at 18:09 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
>
context, there is no specific Entity or document that can violate
the rule.
I see a few possible interpretations: that Agora itself would violate the
rule, that each individual Player would violate the rule, or perhaps the
Rule simply fails to identify a violator at all.
Any thoughts?
Thanks,
Jason Cobb
Interesting. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens, then.
Thanks for the help!
Jason Cobb
On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 10:51 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is indeed a tad confusing. The Ritual was explicitly designed as an
> e
I will make no claims as to the accuracy of the drafts, but you did forget
a "what" in the wording "D. Margaux calls is later named CFJ 3727." :)
Jason Cobb
On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 11:59 PM James Cook wrote:
> Comments welcome. Sorry that it's so long. I went back
Thanks :)
Jason Cobb
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 10:30 AM ATMunn wrote:
> Welcome to Agora, Jason Cobb!
>
> On 6/1/2019 10:02 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> > I declare my intent to become a Player.
> >
> > Jason Cobb
> >
>
Are my text-searching skills failing me, or did this Rule just get left
behind in a previous update?
Jason Cobb
Correction, Rule 2481, point 2, not point 3.
Jason Cobb
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 11:57 AM Jason Cobb wrote:
> Hey, another newbie question for you all.
>
> Rule 2481, point 3 reads: "Non-Festive players cannot flip the Imminence of
> any proposal;". However, a simple tex
Thanks, that's an interesting history.
I suppose this would be an issue easy to fix (by just striking the bullet
point), right?
Jason Cobb
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 12:05 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk <
ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 2019-06-02 at 11:57 -0400, Jason Cobb
So I gather that if a Rule refers to an Entity that was previously defined
by the rules, but no longer is, that section of the Rule just has no
effect? Is that correct?
Jason Cobb
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 12:16 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk <
ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 2
That makes sense. Thank you. Sorry for all the questions, I obviously
haven't been interpreting these rules for as long as you :)
Jason Cobb
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 12:49 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk <
ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 2019-06-02 at 12:40 -0400, Jason Cobb
;
This seems to run afoul of Rule 217:
"Definitions and prescriptions in the rules are only to be applied using
direct, forward reasoning; in particular, an absurdity that can be
concluded from the assumption that a statement about rule-defined concepts
is false does not constitute proof that
Ah, sorry, this should have been a direct reply to the main message, not a
reply to Charles Walker.
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 7:20 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> I'm very new, so please take this with a massive pile of salt.
>
> You write:
> "In both cases, if the gamestate did n
One issue with that interpretation might be that "to flip" is a term of art.
Jason Cobb
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 9:19 PM Rebecca wrote:
> I wonder if imminence if not defined as a term of art just bears its
> ordinary meaning; i.e, nobody can change "
> the state o
efined as a term of art just bears its
ordinary meaning; i.e, nobody can change "
the state or fact of being about to happen" of a proposal if a festival
happens. Presumably that would prohibit non-festive players from removing
proposals somehow?
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 2:52 AM Jason Cob
Well, this should be fun :)
On 6/2/19 10:38 PM, James Cook wrote:
I Point my Finger at every player, in the following order:
omd, Aris, Gaelan, G., Cuddle Beam, Trigon, Murphy, ATMunn, twg,
D. Margaux, Jacob Arduino, Falsifian, Bernie, Rance, o, Jason Cobb,
Walker, PSS, Corona, V.J. Rada
rule-defined
concepts is false does not constitute proof that it is true."
Jason Cobb
On 6/1/19 11:59 PM, James Cook wrote:
Comments welcome. Sorry that it's so long. I went back and forth on
3726 a couple of times.
I believe this is due on June 4 at 21:53 UTC. I plan to
e valid options, both
messages failed to initiate an election under Rule 104.
——
[1]
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg33821.html
[2]
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg33823.html
--
Trigon
--
Jason Cobb
Ah, sorry, I just checked, and I registered 90 minutes too late to vote
in this election. Probably for the best anyway as I still don't really
know who people are.
Jason Cobb
On 6/3/19 2:10 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:
I'm happy to! My platform was that I was working to resolve the
ng exactly one Citizenship
switch is that, by creating accounts stating intent to "register", you
are asserting that your Citizenship is currently set to "Unregistered".
This would likely constitute a lie under Rule 2471 ("No Faking").
Jason Cobb
On 6/4/19 12:07 AM
Gah, sorry D. Margaux.
Forwarded Message
Subject:Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2019 00:30:06 -0400
From: Jason Cobb
To: D. Margaux
I'll point out that in that example, both parties were each committin
Given that Rule 2221 ("Cleanliness") permits correcting the
capitalization of a rule, would that, for example, permit changing a
rule from saying "shall" to "SHALL" (or vice versa)?
Note: I'm not planning anything, the question just crossed my mind.
--
Jason Cobb
Fogive me if I misunderstand, but isn't the power of a proposal 0 unless
and until the Decision about it results in ADOPTED? Thus, during the
voting period, the Comptrollor would still have higher power than the
proposal, fulfilling the requirements of Rule 2140.
On 6/6/19 12:15 PM, Kerim Aydi
y the
changes that it specifies.
On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 9:40 AM Jason Cobb wrote:
Fogive me if I misunderstand, but isn't the power of a proposal 0 unless
and until the Decision about it results in ADOPTED? Thus, during the
voting period, the Comptrollor would still have higher power than
Thank you, but why?
On 6/6/19 11:13 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
I pay 12 coins to Jason Cobb.
I pay 4 coins to V.J Rada.
I pay 4 coins to Walker.
-o
e 1742, agreement to this contract is given when an
Officer publishes a weekly or monthly report that is required by the Rules.
[...]
}
Obviously I would continue on to do something evil.
Again, I'm sure there's a CFJ or a part of the Rules I am missing, but I
haven't found it yet.
Thanks,
Jason Cobb
the precedent that "willful
consent/agreement means evidence that you're invoking consent on
purpose, not as an accidental/redirected result of doing something
else."
On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 10:53 AM Jason Cobb wrote:
Here's another newbie-ish question, since I'm sure some
into the office, which Rule 2472 cannot prevent. The other requirements
trivially do not help.
I think this is unlikely to be considered a severe vulnerability, but it
appears to be a vulnerability to me.
Thoughts?
--
Jason Cobb
I could maybe see some shenanigans with being able to act as both
Referee and Arbitor but, as you said, probably nothing too serious.
Jason Cobb
On 6/9/19 6:48 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
It's a known scam, it's been used a few times where someone deputizes
for PM to appoint emself
There's no such thing as a Call for *Justice*. :)
Jason Cobb
On 6/9/19 7:49 PM, Rance Bedwell wrote:
I want to attempt to banish The Ritual, but I do not believe it is currently
possible to do so. For this reason I Call For Justice for this statement:
"The value of N Agor
that wording
captured by the Rule?
The authorizing Instrument would be the Rule, giving it power to do
secured changes. The Rule explicitly delegates to the proposal, thus
effectively giving it the entire power of the Rule to destroy assets.
Jason Cobb
On 6/10/19 3:34 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I'm sorry, but I keep hearing this and I don't know what it means. Does
it mean that you wish to be the Judge?
Jason Cobb
On 6/10/19 8:53 PM, Rebecca wrote:
i favor this one
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 10:28 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
On general principle - yep! The Rules can delegat
I would personally argue that a proposal does not need to take effect in
order to simply _describe_ permisibility of an action, and thus this
rule would delegate to all such proposals, even those not yet adopted or
those explicitly voted down.
Jason Cobb
On 6/10/19 8:28 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote
I was suggesting a problem with G.'s suggested wording: "except as
described by a proposal or rule". I think with the current wording,
you're right, although it does prevent players from destroying eir own
blots, which is what the CFJ is about.
Jason Cobb
On 6/11/19 4
I was thinking something more like "except as explicitly specified by
the asset's backing document", since restricting it to Instruments would
prevent a contract from destroying its own indestructible assets.
Jason Cobb
On 6/11/19 12:42 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
On
'll submit an actual
proposal soon.
Jason Cobb
On 6/11/19 12:58 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
That works nicely, because "the Rules" as a backing document already
specifies how Proposals change things, so that's covered.
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 9:52 AM Jason Cobb wrote:
I was
What is the '"weekend court" distinction'?
Jason Cobb
On 6/11/19 4:28 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
The judicial list (interested judges) I'm working from is:
D. Margaux, G., Murphy, Trigon, Falsifian, V.J. Rada
Any changes/additions, or did I miss anyone?
Thinking of doi
I am the author of "Not so indestructible now, eh?". This is correct in
the table but not correct in the text of the proposal.
Jason Cobb
On 6/11/19 7:31 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
Given how long it's been, and how many proposals there are, I'd like
to send out a draft rath
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
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 per
So does this just mean that you will publish an updated report after the
resolution of the CFJ? Can this self-ratify before the CFJ gets a judgment?
Jason Cobb
On 6/12/19 4:35 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
I resolve this by reference to CFJ 3734
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 4:24 PM Jason Cobb wrote
. Perhaps a solution would be to permit judges to award
Coins (or some other asset) to people who submit helpful arguments (or
counterarguments during the comment period, in the system you describe)?
Although I worry that that might create perverse incentives.
Jason Cobb
On 6/13/19 5:15 PM, omd
I'm sorry, what does this mean?
Jason Cobb
On 6/13/19 5:22 PM, omd wrote:
I sit up.
les - maybe we could say that interpretations or
attempts to infer/reason from the rules are VALID or INVALID? That would
also prevent creating criminal liability. It would also be more
searchable for newer judges (myself included).
Jason Cobb
On 6/13/19 7:45 AM, Rebecca wrote:
that's
-official/2019-February/012775.html
[1]:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2019-February/012795.html
Jason Cobb
On 6/14/19 6:48 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 6:39 PM omd wrote:
Perhaps simplify to something like:
* Publishing an
Would such a section become precedent just as the normal part of a
judgment would, or would it be purely informational?
Jason Cobb
On 6/14/19 9:54 PM, James Cook wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 at 01:13, omd wrote:
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 5:58 PM James Cook wrote:
Requiring notice and comment
into Blots for each individual Player (probably at a very
reduced ratio). I'm sure you all could be more creative than me :).
Anyway, this is obviously just an idea (maybe not even a good idea), and
I would love feedback. Thanks! :)
--
Jason Cobb
> Telling someone that they aren’t allowed to do something does limit
there ability to do it
Did you mean that it _doesn't_ limit their ability to do it?
Jason Cobb
On 6/15/19 12:25 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:
I think you’re misunderstanding what the word “limit” means (or at least
w
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
Looking back at it, you are probably right in your interpretation, and I
think that the judge is likely to agree with you. I didn't withdraw the
CFJ (and I couldn't now, anyway) because I think there could be other
interpretations, and it can't hurt to get it down in writing.
J
I like it. It seems to be a direct logical consequence of the judgment
(although this might get you an IRRELEVANT judgment).
Jason Cobb
On 6/16/19 5:09 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On 6/16/2019 1:45 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
My judgement is as follows:
When a player "SHALL NOT" perform
ulated Actions")
{
A Regulated Action CAN only be performed as described by the
Rules,and only using the methods explicitly specified in the Rules
for performing the given action. The Rules SHALL NOT be
interpreted so as to proscribe unregulated actions.
}
Jason Cobb
Simply striking the last sentence of the Rule would suffice...
Jason Cobb
On 6/16/19 7:28 PM, Rebecca wrote:
G., I strongly suspect, very strongly, that there is a body of precedent on
regulated actions. Do you know anything about that before we get too hasty?
I create and pend the below
"prohibited or regulated by the Rules" through the
requirement for some people to follow the contract, thus taking away
everyone's right to breathe in the Rules.
Note that I could be wrong about the above, especially if there is CFJ
precedent about this language.
Jason Cobb
only be performed as described by the
Rules,and only using the methods explicitly specified in the Rules
for performing the given action.
}
Jason Cobb
On 6/16/19 9:11 PM, Rebecca wrote:
But it's a truism that the rules only regulate what they regulate, we don't
need a speci
uires its players to, say, perform
the Ritual, without allowing it to say that the Ritual can be
performed by doing something else, like, say, sending a public message.
- As currently, contracts can create requirements upon players that the
Rules will enforce on the parties only.
Jason
Well that screws up my Oathbreaking CFJ *grumble grumble*.
Jason Cobb
On 6/17/19 12:43 AM, omd wrote:
On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 10:31 PM omd wrote:
On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 10:24 PM Aris Merchant
wrote:
I intend with 2 support to group-file a motion to reconsider. This
ruling suggests that a
I meant to ask about that. Is there a reason all of these terms use the
"-or" suffix even when normal English would use "-er"?
Jason Cobb
On 6/17/19 1:04 AM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
On Mon, 2019-06-17 at 00:58 -0400, omd wrote:
CFJ: In Rule 2125, "requ
You have two options that I can see (without being guilty of a crime).
Either
- Breathing is a regulated action, or
- The contract does not prohibit breathing.
Jason Cobb
On 6/17/19 2:20 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
Ah, indeed! So we have our conflict.
I SHALL NOT interpret the rules so as to
Whoops, modify both of those statements to only apply in the hypothetical.
Jason Cobb
On 6/17/19 2:20 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
You have two options that I can see (without being guilty of a crime).
Either
- Breathing is a regulated action, or
- The contract does not prohibit breathing.
Jason
Sorry, by the contract not prohibiting breathing, I meant that the
contract can say it prohibits breathing all it wants, but the Rules will
not _enforce_ criminal liability for violations of that, thus the Rules
wouldn't proscribe breathing.
Jason Cobb
On 6/17/19 2:29 PM, Reuben Staley
I suppose that makes sense. Though that does make me wonder if contracts
can specify a crime other than a Class 2 Crime, since this clause
doesn't say otherwise.
Jason Cobb
On 6/17/19 3:45 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I think V.J. Rada had it right - the Rules don't punish breathing, t
Not to the public forum
Jason Cobb
On 6/17/19 8:09 AM, Rebecca wrote:
CoE: there is no astronomor or clork post te sidegame suspension act
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 7:18 PM Edward Murphy wrote:
=Metareport=
You can find an up-to-date version of this report at
http
It would appear so, my apologies.
Jason Cobb
On 6/18/19 1:47 AM, James Cook wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 05:04, Jason Cobb wrote:
(This means that Corona was not a player from ~10 June to ~13 June
because ratification.)
I don't think the "fugitive" vs. "player" d
Yeah, it was that heading.
Jason Cobb
On 6/18/19 2:01 AM, James Cook wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 at 05:56, Jason Cobb wrote:
I point my finger at Falsifian for the Crime of Making My Eyes Bleed.
[Yes this is silly, but the rule (Rule 2143) is silly.]
Jason Cobb
Sorry about that! Do you
CFJ 3736, I would love to hear it ;).
Jason Cobb
On 6/18/19 8:13 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
As stated, this CFJ is trivially FALSE because no fine CAN be imposed for
anything. Maybe there is a different way to pose the CFJ that would be
PARADOXICAL though?
On Jun 16, 2019, at 1:25 AM, Jason Cobb
Well, not that anything will actually happen :P
Jason Cobb
On 6/18/19 12:03 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
I point my finger at D. Margaux for the Crime of Making My Eyes Bleed.
Jason Cobb
On 6/18/19 8:25 AM, Rebecca wrote:
As I said, per the revised version of that CFJ, the referee CAN
impose the
, for them to breath would
violate this wording, making it a Class 2 crime. The CFJ is,
effectively, whether or not the regulated actions rule "reaches into the
contract", as G. put it.
So, is there any textual or precedent basis for asserting whether or not
the Rules "reach in
I don't think you can interpret as establishing criminal liability,
since it says "shall" and Rule 2152 ("Mother, may I?") specifically
requires all capitals ("SHALL").
Jason Cobb
On 6/18/19 8:42 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
On Jun 16, 2019, at 12:46 AM, Jason
I just wanted to make an easy to break pledge :(
Jason Cobb
On 6/18/19 9:20 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
On Jun 18, 2019, at 9:11 PM, Rebecca wrote:
There is a directly on point CFJ in re pledges and that "no prohibition"
clause, that being 3538.
For anyone else interested, the archi
y describes an alternate violation requirement mechanism. A
requirement-creating entity CAN define an investigator for Finger
Pointing that it authorizes. If it does so, this overrides the
default investigator specified by the Rules, if any.
}
--
Jason Cobb
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
i
my house?
the reason it's so massive is that you*tried* (and quite possibly failed,
because anticipating every possible consequence in advance is basically
impossible) to deal with all of the necessary consequences.
Correction: definitely did fail. Pretty quickly after I submitted it, I
itly specified in the entity for performing the given
action. The entity SHALL NOT be interpreted so as to proscribe
actions that are not regulated by it.
An action is game-defined if and only if it is a regulated action of
some requirement-creating entity.
Retitle Rule 2125 to "
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 the
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
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 wi
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
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 confli
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 wh
o be all explicit about what it means to define
something, I feel like that should include gamestate in addition to
actions.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this. What would it mean to define
the gamestate? Unless you mean the term "gamestate" itself?
Jason Cobb
On 6/20
anomic.org/msg26252.html
Jason Cobb
On 6/20/19 11:59 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
lol. I just noticed that "The Rules SHALL NOT be interpreted so as to
proscribe unregulated actions" can be directly interpreted as proscribing
unregulated actions.
(because "interpreting rule
Hey, I do not object to being granted a win by paradox :P.
Jason Cobb
On 6/20/19 8:49 PM, Rebecca wrote:
I agree with omd. Once again, the only good solution is to follow my
interpretation of the word "limit". Additionally, I strongly object to
whoever called this CFJ being grante
That's the definition of "limit" as a noun, not a verb. Rule 2125
clearly uses it as a verb.
Jason Cobb
On 6/20/19 10:28 PM, Rebecca wrote:
Limit, the first definition off of google
"a point or level beyond which something does not or may not extend or
pass."
d
I think to consider a forbidden interpretation and then explicitly
reject it probably would not run afoul of this SHALL NOT.
Jason Cobb
On 6/20/19 7:56 PM, omd wrote:
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 4:58 AM D. Margaux wrote:
In my opinion, this case is logically undecidable because the facts of the
Why would this go to moot when we could just endlessly group-file
motions to reconsider?
Jason Cobb
On 6/20/19 11:31 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I feel like we're hitting a binary decision point with a split group of
players so I'm guessing this is Moot-bound regardless (FWIW, I'm
't
helpful for anyone, but I haven't been broken of my idealism yet.
Jason Cobb
On 6/20/19 11:41 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
I’m for this solution. Moots are kinda lousy at consensus building, due to
the limited number of voting options.
-Aris
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 8:39 PM Rebecca wrote:
Mumbles something about instant-runoff only working for entities and
voting [Rule 2125, Agora, G., Aris, Corona].
Jason Cobb
On 6/21/19 12:38 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:
If we’re doing this, it should be instant runoff.
-Aris
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 9:37 PM Rebecca wrote:
I would like us
Also not really something we can force upon em...
Jason Cobb
On 6/21/19 1:10 AM, Reuben Staley wrote:
Recuse D. Margaux? What good would that do?
On 6/20/19 10:47 PM, omd wrote:
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 9:37 PM Rebecca
wrote:
I would like us all to informally vote TRUE, FALSE, PARADOXICAL
ing the remaining options, I judge PARADOXICAL."
I don't think that this judgment reads into the record that the Rules
proscribe any unregulated action.
Jason Cobb
On 6/20/19 11:24 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
Yeah, I’d agree with that. It doesn’t seem like that’s what the judge is
tracts to
which I am not party to be regulated for me. Therefore, the flipping of
the judge switch of CFJ X would NOT be regulated for me, and the Rules
SHALL NOT be interpreted to proscribe it.
I really hope that my reasoning is flawed in some way because,
otherwise, this is a disturbing precede
y SHALL NOT be interpreted so as to proscribe actions that
are not regulated by it.
An action is game-defined if and only if it is a regulated action of
some binding entity.
Retitle Rule 2125 to "Binding Entities".
Set the power of Rule 2125 to 3.1.
}
Jason Cobb
On 6/19/19 9
. I just can't provide a fully
informed comment on ISIDTID for unregulated actions.
Jason Cobb
On 6/21/19 8:26 PM, James Cook wrote:
I don't think sending a message saying you flip a switch causes the switch
to flip just because you said it and it's unregulated. I think this is the
&
make sense, we’d need
to assume that you have the inherent power to alter arbitrary variables,
which doesn’t make sense.
How dare you underestimate me!
Jason Cobb
On 6/21/19 9:47 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
Murhpy’s statement is true, it’s just incomplete. It’s not true that
unregulated actions
That doesn't sound suspicious at all...
Jason Cobb
On 6/21/19 10:28 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
It’s kind of hard to communicate subtleties over text, so just so I’m
clear: I’d really, really, really like to remain Promotor. :)
-Aris
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 5:53 PM Aris Mer
performing it;
Rule 2598 ("Side-Game Suspension") contains no such clause to prohibit
supporters from doing so.
Jason Cobb
On 6/21/19 10:32 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 11:18 PM James Cook wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 at 03:35, Rebecca wrote:
I support bu
;that player" would still be R.
Lee, since e is the one that announced intent. Do you happen to know if
there is precedent for this?
Jason Cobb
On 6/21/19 10:43 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
Yes, but then I’d be installed into the relevant office. I don’t want
another office at the moment, and
y
be construed as a lie or a falsehood published in a report.
Jason Cobb
On 6/21/19 10:40 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
I assure you, I’m not plotting anything malevolent. I just really enjoy the
work, and it’s become part of my routine. I’d deeply miss it if no longer
held the job. On the few occasions
Ah sorry about that then.
Jason Cobb
On 6/21/19 10:53 PM, Rebecca wrote:
We've always taken it to mean the player who actually takes the action that
requires support. For example, I have intended to initiate elections but I
also don't want three of those positions, so I will leave
t;The judgement of an inquiry case should be based on the facts and legal
I take issue with "should". I feel like this should be stronger, at
least SHOULD. Perhaps maybe a MUST?
I don't really take any issue with the substance of the proposal, it all
seems reasonable to me.
Ja
1 - 100 of 1186 matches
Mail list logo
