On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 13:41, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 1/20/2020 1:30 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion wrote: > > ...aaaand, maybe, if it please m'lud, to request that at least the > > degree intent, if not also the separate title, be delayed for a further, > > oh, say, four to five days? For purely self-serving reasons, I admit. > > Since this is "undergoing peer-review", I won't make any awards until you > say either "I'm happy with the published draft" or "here's a new draft". > Note that the Herald may change hands in the meantime. > > >> Oh, and on peer-review: having read it, I can think of no edits. This > is a > >> gem. Well done. > > > > Not even to suggest pointing out the Town Fountain and Royal Parade in > > the part where I talk about honouring interesting/memorable scams? I'm > > kicking myself for forgetting to mention them, as basically the most > > prominent memorials of gameplay past. Ah well. > > Your writing focused on "recent scams", and of course the style of gameplay > preferred is a function of current and not past players, it didn't even > occur to me that it was missing! > > That said, this reminded me of pers. comm/memory that supports your case. > For both the Town Fountain and the Royal Parade, the scam perpetrator > (myself and Alexis respectively), a while after each scam (a year or so > after IIRC), submitted proposals to repeal said rules. The proposals > failed, and I remember being told in no uncertain terms (by a couple of the > most fervent anti-scammers on the actual scam, no less) that it was part of > our history now and should stay. Good evidence that people might get > annoyed > in the heat of the moment, but after the dust and emotions have settled > it's > an accepted and appreciated part of the game. > > -G. > Two questions: First, twg, are you satisfied with the draft as it is? There do not seem to have been any substantive comments from peer review so I believe we could proceed with the award soon. Second, does anyone else have any opinion as the appropriateness of which degree to award? It seems that the agruments so far can be summarized as follows: A.N.: ~ This is most suitable by default (Alexis) J.N.: + This thesis relates to the practice of law (Alexis) ~ Expanding the scope of the degree to relate to the practice of law is possible but it's not the current scope (G.) - Most theses are about legal/historical matters; this is public policy and not rule intepretation (Aris) - The degree was originally intended only for draft judgments, which this is not (Aris, twg) B.N.: ~ A nonspecialized degree (such as a bachelor's?) might be appropriate (Aris) ~ twg should choose between J.N. and B.N., with no reasoning specified as for why B.N. and not another degree (G.) - The thesis is insufficiently academic or scholarly in character to be awarded a B.N. In particular, while the consensus seems to be against J.N. being appropriate, only three people have expressed an opinion between B.N and A.N., with two in favour of B.N. but without any reasoning. Thus, if anyone feels strongly that J.N. is appropriate who has not already voiced this, or if anyone has any other arguments or opinions between A.N. and B.N., I would appreciate hearing them. If I do not, I will likely make intents for both B.N. and A.N. and resolve the stronger one. -Alexis
