Re: DIS: Would I be an Elder if I registered?
On 9 Jul 2013 10:44, "Ørjan Johansen" wrote: > > On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, Alex Smith wrote: > >> I meant "buggy requirement" as a hypothetical in my quote (as in, >> "satisfies the requirement if it's bugged"). >> >> FWIW, I meant omd's interpretation when I wrote the rule originally. Not >> that that really counts for anything. (And not that either >> interpretation is obviously broken.) > > > Before Steve pointed out the ambiguity, I also read it with omd's interpretation. This might not be a bug; recruiting old players to defend against invasion would be useful and has a certain romantic appeal. The judge should therefore consider the benefit to the game of this interpretation. That said, if we actually get invaded I shall eat my hat.
Re: DIS: Would I be an Elder if I registered?
On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, Alex Smith wrote: I meant "buggy requirement" as a hypothetical in my quote (as in, "satisfies the requirement if it's bugged"). FWIW, I meant omd's interpretation when I wrote the rule originally. Not that that really counts for anything. (And not that either interpretation is obviously broken.) Before Steve pointed out the ambiguity, I also read it with omd's interpretation. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Would I be an Elder if I registered?
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 5:32 PM, omd wrote: > On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Matt Berlin wrote: >>> An Elder is a first-class player who has been registered continuously for >>> at least 32 days >> >> Future Perfect Progressive Tense ( ie, happened in the past, is still going >> on, and may continue in the future) requires the present participle of the >> verb. I don't think "registered" would work for this ( has been >> registering doesn't make sense). > > That's not what the future perfect progressive tense is... The future perfect progressive isn't even a tense, as the perfect, progressive, and perfect progressive are technically all aspects. (The future is debatable; some English syntacticians claim it as a tense, mostly because that's what it is in most other European languages, while others opine that future time is something conveyed in a purely semantic manner and that the auxiliary verbs "will" and "be going to" indicate expectation on the part of the speaker and need not refer to future time, pointing to future-time sentences the speaker regards as certain and how they are primarily formed in the aorist/present tense.) Regardless of what you call it, though, the future perfect progressive of a verb X in English clearly refers to that which would be formed "will have been Xing" or "is going to have been Xing", which does not even necessarily imply that any Xing has yet occurred or that there is any chance of it happening in the future (though one of the two is logically necessary). - teucer
Re: DIS: Would I be an Elder if I registered?
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Matt Berlin wrote: >> An Elder is a first-class player who has been registered continuously for >> at least 32 days > > Future Perfect Progressive Tense ( ie, happened in the past, is still going > on, and may continue in the future) requires the present participle of the > verb. I don't think "registered" would work for this ( has been > registering doesn't make sense). That's not what the future perfect progressive tense is...
Re: DIS: Would I be an Elder if I registered?
On Mon, 2013-07-08 at 17:01 -0400, Matt Berlin wrote: > > An Elder is a first-class player who has been registered continuously for > at least 32 days > > Future Perfect Progressive Tense ( ie, happened in the past, is still going > on, and may continue in the future) requires the present participle of the > verb. I don't think "registered" would work for this ( has been > registering doesn't make sense). > > CFJ I am an elder. NttPF. (For the benefit of newbies/oldbies who don't know what that means: "Not to the Public Forum", meaning "that message looks like it was meant to be sent to a-b, but you sent it to a-d by mistake, and so it doesn't take actions".) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Would I be an Elder if I registered?
> An Elder is a first-class player who has been registered continuously for at least 32 days Future Perfect Progressive Tense ( ie, happened in the past, is still going on, and may continue in the future) requires the present participle of the verb. I don't think "registered" would work for this ( has been registering doesn't make sense). CFJ I am an elder. - arkestra On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, omd wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > > > Apparently, you were registered contiguously from 2 Mar 06 to 31 May > 07, > > > easily long enough to satisfy the buggy requirement. > > > > Gratuitous: I have been interpreting it as non-buggy. If I say "I've > > been here for two hours", it means the last two hours, not some > > arbitrary time in the past. > > I was about to say I also have been reading it omd's way. Sounds like > there's enough uncertainty for a cfj on this one... > > > >
Re: DIS: Would I be an Elder if I registered?
On Mon, 2013-07-08 at 13:41 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, omd wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > > > Apparently, you were registered contiguously from 2 Mar 06 to 31 May 07, > > > easily long enough to satisfy the buggy requirement. > > > > Gratuitous: I have been interpreting it as non-buggy. If I say "I've > > been here for two hours", it means the last two hours, not some > > arbitrary time in the past. > > I was about to say I also have been reading it omd's way. Sounds like > there's enough uncertainty for a cfj on this one... I meant "buggy requirement" as a hypothetical in my quote (as in, "satisfies the requirement if it's bugged"). FWIW, I meant omd's interpretation when I wrote the rule originally. Not that that really counts for anything. (And not that either interpretation is obviously broken.) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Would I be an Elder if I registered?
On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, omd wrote: > On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > > Apparently, you were registered contiguously from 2 Mar 06 to 31 May 07, > > easily long enough to satisfy the buggy requirement. > > Gratuitous: I have been interpreting it as non-buggy. If I say "I've > been here for two hours", it means the last two hours, not some > arbitrary time in the past. I was about to say I also have been reading it omd's way. Sounds like there's enough uncertainty for a cfj on this one...
Re: DIS: Would I be an Elder if I registered?
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > Apparently, you were registered contiguously from 2 Mar 06 to 31 May 07, > easily long enough to satisfy the buggy requirement. Gratuitous: I have been interpreting it as non-buggy. If I say "I've been here for two hours", it means the last two hours, not some arbitrary time in the past.
Re: DIS: Would I be an Elder if I registered?
On Mon, 2013-07-08 at 16:27 -0400, Matt Berlin wrote: > Yes, I believe that was the original intent of the rule, though not how it > is written. Would support amendment. > > Also, this may apply to me. Is there a chronological record of > registrations/deregistrations/holds? It's in the Registrar's report, at the bottom. People rarely read it (to the extent that burying intents there is apparently ineffective), but it is there, for times like this when we need it. Apparently, you were registered contiguously from 2 Mar 06 to 31 May 07, easily long enough to satisfy the buggy requirement. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Would I be an Elder if I registered?
Yes, I believe that was the original intent of the rule, though not how it is written. Would support amendment. Also, this may apply to me. Is there a chronological record of registrations/deregistrations/holds? - arkestra On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 12:21 AM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, Steven Gardner wrote: > > R2357: >> >> An Elder is a first-class player who has been registered >> continuously for at least 32 days, and also registered for at >> least 128 days total (not necessarily contiguously). >> >> I was registered continuously from 1 July 1994 until 19 June 2004. If I >> registered now, would I instantly be an Elder? I think I would be, as the >> Rule is written. If the Rule had meant to prevent this, it should have >> said >> ..."registered continuously for 32 days since eir most recent >> registration, >> etc." >> > > Hmmm... > > Greetings, > Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Would I be an Elder if I registered?
On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, Steven Gardner wrote: R2357: An Elder is a first-class player who has been registered continuously for at least 32 days, and also registered for at least 128 days total (not necessarily contiguously). I was registered continuously from 1 July 1994 until 19 June 2004. If I registered now, would I instantly be an Elder? I think I would be, as the Rule is written. If the Rule had meant to prevent this, it should have said ..."registered continuously for 32 days since eir most recent registration, etc." Hmmm... Greetings, Ørjan.
