comex wrote:
> Well, I disagree with that. It is unreasonable to allow X as an
> "administrative convenience" shorthand for Y if nobody, not even the
> administrators, know what Y is.
>
> ...How do fungible assets fit into this scheme?
Depends whether the rules require one to "specify" or merel
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, ais523 wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 13:59 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > Speaking of which, returning to the matter directly at hand on the specific
> > proposal, I didn't think about what considering "all decisions" as a
> > conditional "if a proposal is in its voting peri
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, comex wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > None of these are ideal. I think #2 is cleaner as (when one of these is
> > discovered) it probably involves recalculating for everyone, anyway. I
> > generally dislike going doing the "who knew about w
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 13:59 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Speaking of which, returning to the matter directly at hand on the specific
> proposal, I didn't think about what considering "all decisions" as a
> conditional "if a proposal is in its voting period, I vote for it" might
> imply.
You don't
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, comex wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> > On 08/13/2010 01:49 PM, comex wrote:
> >>>
> >>> "I transfer all my assets to the bank and then deregister". There's
> >>> some precedents here, but unfortunately, those precedents were for when
> >>> asse
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On 08/13/2010 01:49 PM, comex wrote:
>>>
>>> "I transfer all my assets to the bank and then deregister". There's
>>> some precedents here, but unfortunately, those precedents were for when
>>> assets were more strictly controlled and the rules c
On 08/13/2010 01:49 PM, comex wrote:
"I transfer all my assets to the bank and then deregister". There's
some precedents here, but unfortunately, those precedents were for when
assets were more strictly controlled and the rules came out and said you
had to be very specific. That's not in the Ru
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> None of these are ideal. I think #2 is cleaner as (when one of these is
> discovered) it probably involves recalculating for everyone, anyway. I
> generally dislike going doing the "who knew about what when" path. But I
> admit this is all p
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> it's hard to have a proposal out there in its
> voting period without passing the "most people should know about this"
> test.
In fact, for rule change proposals, R101 makes it very likely IMPOSSIBLE.
-G.
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, comex wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:51 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, comex wrote:
> >> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 8:12 PM, Kerim Aydin
> >> wrote:
> >> > So what I'm saying is: if you allow those administrative conveniences
> >> > to create leg
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:51 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, comex wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 8:12 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> > So what I'm saying is: if you allow those administrative conveniences
>> > to create legal fictions of individual cast ballots
>>
>> So, you're
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, comex wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 8:12 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > So what I'm saying is: if you allow those administrative conveniences
> > to create legal fictions of individual cast ballots
>
> So, you're saying, the situation is as if I said "For each decision in
>
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 8:12 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> So what I'm saying is: if you allow those administrative conveniences
> to create legal fictions of individual cast ballots
So, you're saying, the situation is as if I said "For each decision in
the list of decisions which a reasonable person
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, comex wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, comex wrote:
> >> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 7:23 PM, Kerim Aydin
> >> wrote:
> >> > In other words, if you merely allude to something that may or may
> >> > not exist (rather than ack
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, comex wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 7:23 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> > In other words, if you merely allude to something that may or may
>> > not exist (rather than acknowledging something that does exist),
>> > you
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, comex wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 7:23 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > In other words, if you merely allude to something that may or may
> > not exist (rather than acknowledging something that does exist),
> > you may be referring to it, but you're not "clearly identifying"
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 7:23 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> In other words, if you merely allude to something that may or may
> not exist (rather than acknowledging something that does exist),
> you may be referring to it, but you're not "clearly identifying" it,
> therefore not voting.
This implies th
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, comex wrote:
> The difference is that, while, for Agoran purposes, my message-- every
> message-- is parsed platonically with perfect knowledge of the
> gamestate, "acknowledgement" only makes sense in the context of
> incomplete knowledge-- in this case, basic knowledge of
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 6:10 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> If the ballot wasn't accepted, by the facts of the time of sending, as clearly
> identifying the specific decision in question (among others), it shouldn't
> have
> been accepted as a valid ballot for that decision. R683 is one of those
> pl
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, comex wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 5:33 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > Specifically, anything that is interpreted as a valid ballot must be
> > interpreted
> > as satisfying clause R683(b). And to "clearly identify" something you must
> > acknowledge it. And I'll further
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 5:33 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Specifically, anything that is interpreted as a valid ballot must be
> interpreted
> as satisfying clause R683(b). And to "clearly identify" something you must
> acknowledge it. And I'll further say, lest you use the "one level of
> indirect
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, comex wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > > So, the Assessor's announcement was not a win announcement. Where does
> > > that leave us? According to the voting record, comex voted for proposal
> > > 6
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, comex wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > So, the Assessor's announcement was not a win announcement. Where does
> > that leave us? According to the voting record, comex voted for proposal
> > 6740, and this is a clear public acknowledgment of
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> So, the Assessor's announcement was not a win announcement. Where does
> that leave us? According to the voting record, comex voted for proposal
> 6740, and this is a clear public acknowledgment of its existence.
> Therefore, comex was not a
24 matches
Mail list logo
