On 09/06/17 19:05, Cuddle Beam wrote: > >From a speech act theory standpoint, any speech act already encodes > conditionals (that the preconditions match, that the way I invoke it > performs it, that others recognizes the previous two points, that > everyone assumes genuine intent). Allowing more conditionals to be > included is a natural extension. > > I doubt enough people will be familiar with speech act theory to > conclude from that that we can do conditional actions here on Agora.
The idea of linguistics, and all other social sciences, is that they describe things people naturally do. You don't need to learn the theory to use speech acts. > > >Your conditional doesn't meet it's own requirements. This > arguably requires me to look through all CFJs, to make sure the > doctrine hasn't been overturned > > lol, yes! That proves my point! > > With that, how is anyone supposed to know that it hasn't been > overturned or not in order to know that we can even do it in the first > place without that dredging? We're using conditionals without even > knowing if we can actually do them or not! If they were in rules, it > would be much more clear. > > >For someone concerned about implicit rules, you don't show much regard > for explicit ones. > > I've mentioned before that its less punishing for me to whacked with a > correction with what I've missed than to dredge through everything to > see if just in case I've missed something. Since you lack either empathy or theory of mind and only react to personal damages: I pledge to vote AGAINST on all proposals created or pended by Cuddle Beam. I pledge to Object to all intentions by Cuddle Beam that I can object to. I pledge to not acknowledge any messages Cuddle Beam sends to a-d, or to respond in a-d to anything CB does. I pledge to give a trust token and 5 shinies (as soon as possible) to any other player who also performs the above three pledges, except Cuddle Beam. > > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 1:53 AM, Nic Evans <nich...@gmail.com > <mailto:nich...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > On 09/06/17 18:16, Cuddle Beam wrote: >> Note: we have explicit conditional voting, but not conditional >> explicit action-doing in general. >> >> I'm in favor of conditional action-doing in general because it's >> another useful tool for doing stuff (...and the rules are silent >> on the issue). > > Voting has an explicit conditional mechanism because it's a > delayed action. The conditional for a vote doesn't need to be > interpretable at time of declaration, but instead at time of > resolution. > > Other things don't need explicit mechanisms because we don't > generally care about the manner of an action. The exceptions being > listed in the rules, when something need be 'by announcement' or > with a previously announced intent. > > From a speech act theory standpoint, any speech act already > encodes conditionals (that the preconditions match, that the way I > invoke it performs it, that others recognizes the previous two > points, that everyone assumes genuine intent). Allowing more > conditionals to be included is a natural extension. > >> >> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 12:58 AM, Aris Merchant >> <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com >> <mailto:thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> If there are no regulations, no part of this message beyond this >> paragraph has any effect. >> >> I determine the regulations for the recent tournament to be >> in title >> T1-2017, or, if that title name is invalid, 1-2017. If I am >> Regkeepor, >> this is the official designation for that title; otherwise, I >> deputize >> for the Regkeepor to assign this designation. >> >> I then assign the ID T1-2017-1 (or, if that is invalid, >> 1-2017-1) to >> the only regulation in that title. If I am still not Regkeepor, I >> deputize for Regkeepor to do so, and then repeat the actions >> attempted >> in the previous paragraph. >> >> In accordance with Rule 2464, I repeal each regulation in title >> T1-2017 (or, if invalid, 1-2017). >> >> -Aris >> >> > >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
