Re: DIS: Re: BUS: rerereregistration
Thanks! I have a history of registering and idling out of things, so here's hoping this time's different. On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 3:30 AM, Charles Walker wrote: > On 14 May 2013, at 02:28, James Beirne wrote: > > > I, reasonably clearly and reasonably unambiguously, announce my intent > to rerereregister as a player of Agora. > > Welcome! > > -- Walker
DIS: Re: BUS: rerereregistration
On 14 May 2013, at 02:28, James Beirne wrote: > I, reasonably clearly and reasonably unambiguously, announce my intent to > rerereregister as a player of Agora. Welcome! -- Walker
Re: DIS: I am Ienpw III...
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 6:57 PM, James Beirne wrote: > ...by the way, and I'd like be referred to by that name (if it's not too > much trouble). Noted. Welcome back. - The Registrar
DIS: I am Ienpw III...
...by the way, and I'd like be referred to by that name (if it's not too much trouble).
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7426-7434
NttPF Sent from my iPhone On May 13, 2013, at 3:55 PM, Tanner Swett wrote: > I vote: > >> 7428 1 omd, etc. Agoran arms in a rule > FOR > >> 7429 1 omd, etc. Protection Racket > AGAINST > >> 7431 2 Walker (untitled) > AGAINST > >> 7432 1 Walker Downsizing > FOR > >> 7433 3 Walker Rule Changes Fix > FOR > >> 7434 3 omd Fifty-Nine Thirty-Seven > AGAINST > >> 7435 2 scshunt Numericity > FOR > > (Some proposals are missing on purpose. I do not vote PRESENT on those > proposals.) > > ―Machiavelli
DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7426-7434
I vote: > 7428 1 omd, etc. Agoran arms in a rule FOR > 7429 1 omd, etc. Protection Racket AGAINST > 7431 2 Walker (untitled) AGAINST > 7432 1 Walker Downsizing FOR > 7433 3 Walker Rule Changes Fix FOR > 7434 3 omd Fifty-Nine Thirty-Seven AGAINST > 7435 2 scshunt Numericity FOR (Some proposals are missing on purpose. I do not vote PRESENT on those proposals.) —Machiavelli
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal
On May 13, 2013, at 10:25 AM, com...@gmail.com wrote: > I'm arguing that if it's "nonsensical and meaningless", it's not truly > "about" anything, like in the nkep CFJ. That's fair. > I don't see any reason to a priori prefer otherwise unreasonable > interpretations because they don't cause paradoxes. It's somewhat in the > best interests of the game to avoid them, but that's only one factor I see nothing unreasonable about considering messy statements to be meaningless. After all, a self-contradictory definition is invalid, and if a statement doesn't have a valid definition, that seems to make it meaningless. It seems to me like every statement is either true, false, or meaningless, or (for subjective concepts) something in between the three. While "meaningless" seems like the most reasonable interpretation here, "half true and half false" also seems somewhat reasonable, as does "not completely true, nor completely false, nor completely meaningless, but something in between the three". There are some compromises I would not necessarily oppose, like changing "nonsensical and meaningless" to "inaccurate (but not necessarily false)", or to "neither true nor false", or to "equally true and false (but not necessarily meaningful)", or just repealing the rule altogether. —Machiavelli
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3320 assigned to omd
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:49 PM, woggle wrote: > I hereby appeal this judgment. > > Arguments: > The message was eventually delivered. Per CFJ 1646 and CFJ 2058, it was sent > when it left my technical domain of control, which was before the deadline. > Even if this precedent does not apply, on its basis, I could have reasonably > believed that my inaction did not violate Rule 2143. Arguments: Sorry, I didn't remember that CFJ. The precedent (specifically, the part about the time of an action being counted differently for one specific purpose) should not apply, in my opinion, on account of its having no rule basis or argument for why it should be true whatsoever, but it is certainly an argument for DISCHARGE.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal
I'm arguing that if it's "nonsensical and meaningless", it's not truly "about" anything, like in the nkep CFJ. I don't see any reason to a priori prefer otherwise unreasonable interpretations because they don't cause paradoxes. It's somewhat in the best interests of the game to avoid them, but that's only one factor Sent from my iPhone
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3320 assigned to omd
Well, I thought the sentence was pretty minor (more so than APOLOGY), but that's subjective. Feel free to appeal. Sent from my iPhone On May 12, 2013, at 9:26 PM, Tanner Swett wrote: > On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 8:13 PM, omd wrote: >> I assume the defendant received the bounce message immediately after >> attempting to post the ruleset, so e could have reasonably avoided >> breaking the rule by various methods, such as splitting the ruleset >> into parts or possibly posting a link to it along with its hash. >> However, all of these workarounds are fairly annoying, so a light >> punishment is appropriate. GUILTY/COMMUNITY SERVICE, destroy 1 VC (as >> a R2354 cost for completing the task) within 1 month. > > The rule breach seems extremely minor in my opinion, since the rules > are kept up to date at > https://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~charles/agora/current_flr.txt anyway, > and Rulekeepor woggle did in fact attempt to publish eir report. While > publishing a message in multiple parts does indeed count as publishing > the message (by CFJs 1451 and 1452), I don't think this method of > publishing large messages is obvious. > > ―Machiavelli
