Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2203 overruled to FALSE by Goethe, ais523, woggle
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 10:20 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The AFO and I agree to the following: { ais523 CAN act on behalf of the
> vote collector for Proposal 5707 to resolve that decision. Murphy CAN
> terminate this contract by announcement. }
You just have to make it a pledge. No need to involve the AFO.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A silly paradox
root wrote: > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 8:01 PM, warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I award the Terre Haute to Rochelle O'Shea. > > I think this bit fails since, as previously noted, Rochelle O'Shea > does not exist. Gratuituous arguments: At least one real person named Rochelle O'Shea appears to exist (try a Google search), making the contract's reference ambiguous rather than nonexistent (as opposed to the criminal case against Hillary Rodham Clinton, where the intended target was reasonably obvious).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: My Powers I Can Feel Them.
ehird wrote: > I submit the same arguments. Do you mean these? > Inquiry CFJs are still available, and they can help resolve > controversy just the same. > > Of course, there is no controversy on the interpretation of the rules. > > Just an unhappiness at the state of the contract.
DIS: Re: BUS: A silly paradox
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 8:01 PM, warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I award the Terre Haute to Rochelle O'Shea. I think this bit fails since, as previously noted, Rochelle O'Shea does not exist. > This causes it to become "the Terre Haute", which does exist, > causing it to cease to be an asset Why would it cease to be an asset? The contract says the Terre Haute is an asset. > causing Rochelle O'Shea to lose it She never had it in the first place; see above. -root
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5807-5821
comex wrote: > On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 9:32 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> NUM C I AI SUBMITTER TITLE >>> 5807 O 1 1.0 comex Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction >>> Equity Act of 2008 >> SELL(2VP) > I fill this ticket, specifying FOR. E already retracted it.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: demoting root
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 7:22 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 6:43 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>C#D# F#G#A# >>> Player C D E F G A B Total >>>DbEb GbAbBb >> >> Apparently Gmail is doing that annoying thing where each line that >> starts with more than one space is stripped of one leading space. I >> thought that was a format=flowed thing, but the message doesn't have >> that set. Anybody know how to fix it (short of adding a non-space >> character to the beginning of the line)? > > Not having that problem. Do you have the "show in fixed width font" > thingy added? Yes, that's when I see the problem. It also seems to strip the space when I copy/paste with the fixed width font disabled. With the "Show original" option it comes out correctly. -root
DIS: Re: BUS: A silly paradox
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 10:01 PM, warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I CFJ on the statement "There is an asset known as the Terre Haute". > > If I win because of this, I will hit myself in the shoulder with the > face of a tongue depressor. You forgot the obligatory twisting into an action. But this is just Gnarly all over again, except I don't think we ever actually fixed that...
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: demoting root
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 6:43 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>C#D# F#G#A# >> Player C D E F G A B Total >>DbEb GbAbBb > > Apparently Gmail is doing that annoying thing where each line that > starts with more than one space is stripped of one leading space. I > thought that was a format=flowed thing, but the message doesn't have > that set. Anybody know how to fix it (short of adding a non-space > character to the beginning of the line)? Not having that problem. Do you have the "show in fixed width font" thingy added? -- Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you." -- Unknown
DIS: Re: BUS: Banking
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 17:56, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I deposit an X crop for ^37. > > I deposit a WRV for ^32. > > -woggle > If you would have waited 4 minutes you could have gotten 4 more coins out of this deal. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: demoting root
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 8:46 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 6:43 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>C#D# F#G#A# >> Player C D E F G A B Total >>DbEb GbAbBb > > Apparently Gmail is doing that annoying thing where each line that > starts with more than one space is stripped of one leading space. I > thought that was a format=flowed thing, but the message doesn't have > that set. Anybody know how to fix it (short of adding a non-space > character to the beginning of the line)? Hmm... is that why adopted proposals' rule texts often start with 5 spaces, not 6? I had thought that was intentional.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: demoting root
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 6:43 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >C#D# F#G#A# > Player C D E F G A B Total >DbEb GbAbBb Apparently Gmail is doing that annoying thing where each line that starts with more than one space is stripped of one leading space. I thought that was a format=flowed thing, but the message doesn't have that set. Anybody know how to fix it (short of adding a non-space character to the beginning of the line)? -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: demoting root
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 6:31 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 8:04 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Anyway, comex, how else would you suggest formatting the plaintext >> version of the Conductor's Report? > > Maybe periodically repeating the header? Here, I'll put it right above your line for you. C#D# F#G#A# Player C D E F G A B Total DbEb GbAbBb -- 0x44 0 ais523 3 3 4 1 3 2 4 6 1 5 2 34 arkestra 0 Billy Pilgrim 0 BobTHJ 1 7 5 2 10 6 4 5 2 1 1 44 cctoide 0 cdm014 2 1 3 C#D# F#G#A# Player C D E F G A B Total DbEb GbAbBb comex5 2 5 1 3 4 1 2 23 Doopy 0 Dvorak Herring0 ehird11 Elysion 0 gavin 0 Goethe 1 9 24 2 3 1 22 Murphy 1 1 11 11 3 6 3 2 38 oklopol 0 Olipro0 OscarMeyr9 2 14 7 2 1 1 1 37 Pavitra1 13 5 pikhq6 1 3 3 7 1 21 Quazie 11 12 3 8 root 3 1 5 1 14 1 4 3 5 1 38 Sgeo 2 1 25 Sir Toby 2 2 Taral1 2 6 4 1 2 1 2 4 3 1 2 29 woggle 9 24 1 6 1 23 Wooble 4 5 6 52 1 23 Zefram 1 9 18 4 4 5 41 AFO 11 2 Bayes 0 Human Point Two 0 Law-Abiding Partnership 0 Left Hand 0 Normish Partnership 2 0 PerlNomic Partnership44 Pineapple Partnership 1 1 1 1 4 Protection Racket 0 Reformed Bank of Agora0 The Monster 0 Total 30 24 70 37 82 23 21 30 20 33 18 19 407 -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Definitional power
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008, comex wrote: > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 8:07 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I really wondered about that, and erred for more freedom with MAY. >> I prob. SHOULD use SHOULD though. -G. > > Hmm. Both "SHOULD be interpreted" and "MAY be interpreted" take the > form of obligating someone (presumably the person reading the Rules, > or the judge) to interpret the Rules a certain way, which sort of > departs from recent game custom. I prefer "is interpreted", which > preserves the legal fiction that the Rules have one "true" > interpretation, and CFJs just help to find out what it is. (Or "may > be" in the sense of "might be", not "MAY be".) I'm not sure I quite see the distinction. A SHOULD guides a judge to the one "true" interpretation, once set by precedent, it becomes a stronger SHOULD for later judges (e.g. becomes "more" true). Part of the point of the change is that contract-defined terms, low- powered definitions, and common out-of-Agora language all become part of the brew of ordinary usage. We SHOULD give general deference to the Agoran terms (e.g. Vote Ticket), but if (for example) a low-powered rule or contract redefines the word "the" to make a scam, we SHOULD be able to use the common term instead. -Goethe
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Short Logical Ruleset
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 6:21 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What do you think of the other piece? R2166 says that a recordkeepor > CAN generally create/destroy assets "subject to the backing document." > If the backing document "subjects" the recordkeepor to limitation, it > is truly binding em, and (if e is not a member) this is impossible. > (I submit that "making a person's action subject to something" is a very > strong synonym for binding--look up "subject"). Therefore, the R2166 > "CAN" empowers em to create/destroy assets, but the backing document > is incapable of limiting em. Good question. If it said "CAN ... subject to restriction by the backing document", I think it would probably be okay. The contract could restrict the recordkeepor's actions, but only within a limited space of actions that stem from the existence of a property defined by the contract. Additionally, it would only be a restriction on possibility; it couldn't use that to obligate the recordkeepor one way or the other. But it actually says "CAN ... subject to modification by the backing document", which opens up the question of just how much modification is allowed. For instance, suppose a contract states "The recordkeepor CAN create assets by transferring a Bone to the Pumpkin King rather than by announcement, and also the CAN is modified by supplementing it with a SHALL." How much of that does R2166 actually purport to propagate? -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Definitional power
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 8:07 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I really wondered about that, and erred for more freedom with MAY. > I prob. SHOULD use SHOULD though. -G. Hmm. Both "SHOULD be interpreted" and "MAY be interpreted" take the form of obligating someone (presumably the person reading the Rules, or the judge) to interpret the Rules a certain way, which sort of departs from recent game custom. I prefer "is interpreted", which preserves the legal fiction that the Rules have one "true" interpretation, and CFJs just help to find out what it is. (Or "may be" in the sense of "might be", not "MAY be".)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: demoting root
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 8:04 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Anyway, comex, how else would you suggest formatting the plaintext > version of the Conductor's Report? Maybe periodically repeating the header?
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Short Logical Ruleset
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: > Another thought. R2166 currently only extends the obligation to > officers. So the "right to refuse to become party to a binding > agreement" is preserved by the ability of the officer to resign. That's a step too far, it's the same as construing "you're not bound by a contract because you can always deregister", or it would allow me to make a contract saying "all Officers must do X, if you don't like it, resign your position." -G.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Short Logical Ruleset
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: > Perhaps this is a better analogy than the pledge I created. When an > equity case is called, a person external to the contract is required > to judge it. But both the subject and the appropriate judgements of > the equity case depend on what the contract actually says. So > wouldn't an equity judge be "bound" to the contract against eir will > in the same manner as the recordkeepor of bananas? Okay, you've convinced me I think. What do you think of the other piece? R2166 says that a recordkeepor CAN generally create/destroy assets "subject to the backing document." If the backing document "subjects" the recordkeepor to limitation, it is truly binding em, and (if e is not a member) this is impossible. (I submit that "making a person's action subject to something" is a very strong synonym for binding--look up "subject"). Therefore, the R2166 "CAN" empowers em to create/destroy assets, but the backing document is incapable of limiting em. -G.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Short Logical Ruleset
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 6:09 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 5:58 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Now you are extrapolating based on me leaving out the obvious. I meant >> of course "If you make a contract whose TEXT says what the contents of >> the reports must be, then no one who is not a member has to follow that >> text BECAUSE OF THAT TEXT." There may of course be other texts that >> the person has agreed to that create the same obligation, though not >> texts that create the obligation by deferring to the not-agreed-to >> text. > > The fact that R2166 defers to the contract for definition does not > mean that the officer is bound to the contract or that the contract is > free to obligate the officer in any way. All it means is that the > officer must report, as a service to the contract, on a list of assets > defined by that contract. If the contract adds the text "The > recordkeepor of bananas SHALL transfer all eir assets to the King > Gorilla", it doesn't mean squat. The R2166 obligation persists, but > the new one is ineffective. How then can the recordkeepor be > considered to be bound by the contract? > > Perhaps this is a better analogy than the pledge I created. When an > equity case is called, a person external to the contract is required > to judge it. But both the subject and the appropriate judgements of > the equity case depend on what the contract actually says. So > wouldn't an equity judge be "bound" to the contract against eir will > in the same manner as the recordkeepor of bananas? Another thought. R2166 currently only extends the obligation to officers. So the "right to refuse to become party to a binding agreement" is preserved by the ability of the officer to resign. -root
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Short Logical Ruleset
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 5:58 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Now you are extrapolating based on me leaving out the obvious. I meant > of course "If you make a contract whose TEXT says what the contents of > the reports must be, then no one who is not a member has to follow that > text BECAUSE OF THAT TEXT." There may of course be other texts that > the person has agreed to that create the same obligation, though not > texts that create the obligation by deferring to the not-agreed-to > text. The fact that R2166 defers to the contract for definition does not mean that the officer is bound to the contract or that the contract is free to obligate the officer in any way. All it means is that the officer must report, as a service to the contract, on a list of assets defined by that contract. If the contract adds the text "The recordkeepor of bananas SHALL transfer all eir assets to the King Gorilla", it doesn't mean squat. The R2166 obligation persists, but the new one is ineffective. How then can the recordkeepor be considered to be bound by the contract? Perhaps this is a better analogy than the pledge I created. When an equity case is called, a person external to the contract is required to judge it. But both the subject and the appropriate judgements of the equity case depend on what the contract actually says. So wouldn't an equity judge be "bound" to the contract against eir will in the same manner as the recordkeepor of bananas? -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Definitional power
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008, Ed Murphy wrote: > Goethe wrote: > >> In determining the ordinary-language meaning of a term, >> definitions contained in lower-powered Rules MAY be used >> for guidance. > > s/MAY/SHOULD/ I really wondered about that, and erred for more freedom with MAY. I prob. SHOULD use SHOULD though. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Short Logical Ruleset
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: > To clarify, I don't believe the above works. But I see no difference > between the above and the scenario where R2166 can't require > recordkeepors to track assets for contracts. Being required to track > assets for a contract is a service for the contract, but it does not > bind one to that contract. The difference is: 1. Agreement 1 requires me to do X and I agree to it. 2. Agreement 2 requires me to do X and I don't agree to it. There are no cross-dependencies between 1 and 2 about X. Here, I am bound to do X. versus: 1. Agreement 1 that I agree to allows me to not be bound by Agreement 2 but contradicts this by requiring me to do things of type X required by Agreement 2. This depends on which part of the contradiction has precedence. -goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: demoting root
root wrote: > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 5:42 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 7:04 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I spend C Eb G to demote root, because eir Note report is impossible to read. :( >>> What are you on about? Both e-mail and web use the same format that I >>> used from the beginning. >> Which is why I rarely bothered to figure out what notes I had until >> you set up the Conductor website. :/ (Same with the SoA report, but >> the Conductor's is even more confusing because of the multi-column >> labels.) > > Unless you're trying to set your key, it doesn't matter what notes you > have. All that matters are the intervals, and you don't need the > column labels for that. Surely we don't want a proliferation of "I spend a major chord consisting of the pitches of which I have X, Y, and Z respectively"? Anyway, comex, how else would you suggest formatting the plaintext version of the Conductor's Report?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: demoting root
comex wrote: > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 7:04 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> I spend C Eb G to demote root, because eir Note report is impossible to >>> read. :( >> What are you on about? Both e-mail and web use the same format that I >> used from the beginning. > > Which is why I rarely bothered to figure out what notes I had until > you set up the Conductor website. :/ (Same with the SoA report, but > the Conductor's is even more confusing because of the multi-column > labels.) Surely all you have to do is copy+paste it to another file, then delete everything below the - and above your name?
DIS: Re: BUS: Definitional power
Goethe wrote: > In determining the ordinary-language meaning of a term, > definitions contained in lower-powered Rules MAY be used > for guidance. s/MAY/SHOULD/
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Definitional power
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008, comex wrote: > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 7:55 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> In determining the ordinary-language meaning of a term, >> definitions contained in lower-powered Rules MAY be used >> for guidance. > > Using a definition contained in a lower-powered Rule for guidance does > not violate Rule 754? If you get all the way down to "ordinary", "ordinary" may include how it's used in lower-powered rules. -goethe
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Short Logical Ruleset
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 4:14 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Even if the contract is backed by a rule that specifically says you're >>> bound by it? If I make a contract that requires officers to publish >>> reports, that doesn't exempt the officers who haven't agreed to it >>> from publishing reports. >> >> If you make a contract whose TEXT says what the contents of the reports >> must be, then no one who is not a member has to follow that text. Otherwise >> that non-member would be bound by the text, which is against R101. > > Now there can be no rule-based obligations except on those who > willingly join my pledge, since those obligations would evidently > cause their targets to become bound by my pledge against their will. Now you are extrapolating based on me leaving out the obvious. I meant of course "If you make a contract whose TEXT says what the contents of the reports must be, then no one who is not a member has to follow that text BECAUSE OF THAT TEXT." There may of course be other texts that the person has agreed to that create the same obligation, though not texts that create the obligation by deferring to the not-agreed-to text. -Goethe
DIS: Re: BUS: Definitional power
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 7:55 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In determining the ordinary-language meaning of a term, > definitions contained in lower-powered Rules MAY be used > for guidance. Using a definition contained in a lower-powered Rule for guidance does not violate Rule 754?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: demoting root
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 5:42 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 7:04 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> I spend C Eb G to demote root, because eir Note report is impossible to >>> read. :( >> What are you on about? Both e-mail and web use the same format that I >> used from the beginning. > > Which is why I rarely bothered to figure out what notes I had until > you set up the Conductor website. :/ (Same with the SoA report, but > the Conductor's is even more confusing because of the multi-column > labels.) Unless you're trying to set your key, it doesn't matter what notes you have. All that matters are the intervals, and you don't need the column labels for that. -root
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Short Logical Ruleset
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 5:48 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 4:14 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Even if the contract is backed by a rule that specifically says you're
>>> bound by it? If I make a contract that requires officers to publish
>>> reports, that doesn't exempt the officers who haven't agreed to it
>>> from publishing reports.
>>
>> If you make a contract whose TEXT says what the contents of the reports
>> must be, then no one who is not a member has to follow that text. Otherwise
>> that non-member would be bound by the text, which is against R101.
>
> Okay then. I agree to the following pledge:
> {{{
> 1. This is a public contract and a pledge.
>
> 2. root CAN terminate this pledge at any time by announcement. root
> CAN act on behalf of any party to this pledge by announcement.
>
> 3. All persons are hereby OBLIGATED to perform all actions the rules
> require them to perform, and not to perform any actions the rules
> require them not to perform.
> }}}
>
> Now there can be no rule-based obligations except on those who
> willingly join my pledge, since those obligations would evidently
> cause their targets to become bound by my pledge against their will.
To clarify, I don't believe the above works. But I see no difference
between the above and the scenario where R2166 can't require
recordkeepors to track assets for contracts. Being required to track
assets for a contract is a service for the contract, but it does not
bind one to that contract.
-root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: demoting root
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 7:04 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I spend C Eb G to demote root, because eir Note report is impossible to >> read. :( > What are you on about? Both e-mail and web use the same format that I > used from the beginning. Which is why I rarely bothered to figure out what notes I had until you set up the Conductor website. :/ (Same with the SoA report, but the Conductor's is even more confusing because of the multi-column labels.)
DIS: Re: BUS: demoting root
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 4:28 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I spend C Eb G to demote root, because eir Note report is impossible to read. > :( What's wrong with it? It's the same format Murphy used to use. And there is a web report coming, when I find the time to finish it. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deeper clarification
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 7:08 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Wouldn't you use the standard-English definition in place of the > contract definition? Ooh, another bug: any term defined in a > contract can't be actually used or assumed in the rules because > it is not (R754) "explicitly defined by the Rules". > > So does that mean any CFJ about "sell tickets" has to use a > standard definition of the term and not the one in the contract? > Thoughts? Well, as you know, this is entirely appropriate for the Rules themselves, which explicitly reference contractual definitions where necessary ... as for CFJs, dunno. Maybe 'ordinary language' counts?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: My Powers I Can Feel Them.
On 30 Oct 2008, at 20:54, Roger Hicks wrote: I don't know that this works. You can't assign a judge until the pre-trial phase ends. It doesn't. -- ehird
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: No involuntary recordkeepors
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 6:18 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Proposal: No involuntary recordkeepors > (AI = 2, please) > > Amend Rule 2166 (Assets) by replacing "instrument" with "rule", Adopted proposals can define assets? Cool. (Assertion: All instruments are either rules or proposals, and the rules specify no way for anything else to become an instrument.) --Warrigal of Escher
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deeper clarification
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008, Taral wrote: > I don't think this is a fix. It doesn't stop the Rules from imposing > an obligation on you derived from a definition or declaration in a > contract by which you are not bound. Wouldn't you use the standard-English definition in place of the contract definition? Ooh, another bug: any term defined in a contract can't be actually used or assumed in the rules because it is not (R754) "explicitly defined by the Rules". So does that mean any CFJ about "sell tickets" has to use a standard definition of the term and not the one in the contract? Thoughts? -Goethe
DIS: Re: BUS: demoting root
comex wrote: > I spend C Eb G to demote root, because eir Note report is impossible to read. > :( What are you on about? Both e-mail and web use the same format that I used from the beginning.
DIS: Re: BUS: Deeper clarification
Goethe wrote: > iv. Every person has the right to not be considered bound or > otherwise be put under obligation by the text of an > agreement, or an amendment to an agreement, which e either > (a) is not a party of, or (b) has not had the reasonable > opportunity to review. s/by/due to/
DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] General Assets Report
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 3:33 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I intend, without objection, to ratify this report. It's self-ratifying. -- Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you." -- Unknown
DIS: Re: BUS: Deeper clarification
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 3:33 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Amend R101 by replacing: >iv. Every person has the right to not be considered bound by >an agreement, or an amendment to an agreement, which e has >not had the reasonable opportunity to review. > with >iv. Every person has the right to not be considered bound or >otherwise be put under obligation by the text of an >agreement, or an amendment to an agreement, which e either >(a) is not a party of, or (b) has not had the reasonable >opportunity to review. I don't think this is a fix. It doesn't stop the Rules from imposing an obligation on you derived from a definition or declaration in a contract by which you are not bound. -- Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you." -- Unknown
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: No involuntary recordkeepors
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 3:18 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Proposal: No involuntary recordkeepors > (AI = 2, please) Boo! "The recordkeepor of a class of assets is an entity bound by the backing document and defined as such by that document." -- Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you." -- Unknown
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deeper clarification
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008, Alex Smith wrote: > On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 15:33 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> I submit the following Rule, "Generalize R101(iv)", AI-3: >> --- >> [Bug or lack of clarity: The text of a contract should not be able to >> generally impose any obligations, reporting or otherwise, on non- >> members, it should be clear that this is a broader protection than >> protecting against "partyhood". Note that being bound by the text of >> a contract is different than being bound by the existence of a contract, >> e.g. under obligation to produce Notary's reports. This is similar >> to when we fixed (ii) to no longer refer to CFJs specifically but >> rather the general process]. > Does this mean I can publish the membership of public contracts but not > their text? I knew you'd say that. You'd bound by the existence of the text but not by any directions contained in its contents. Being "bound by" a text means being bound by its instructions which is what you are not. By the way, we got around this previously by requiring a member of the contract required to publish its contents upon request (notary was required to track existence and members but not content). -G.
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2224-25 assigned to comex
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 4:08 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > == CFJ 2225 == > >Taral's attempted vote of SELL(3VP) on the most recent Mad >Scientist election constitutes a pledge. > > Missed this. FALSE. A pledge is too complicated to be inferred in this way (unless there's been a clear precedent of people making vote-pledges), and anyway the average Agoran reading the purported vote would probably assume that it was a Vote Market Sell Ticket (not knowing that Taral was not a party to the Vote Market). Altogether entirely too unclear to implicitly make a contract, although if this vote had been posted more recently, Taral might have been violating R2215. (This confirms that 2224 is FALSE.)
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Short Logical Ruleset
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008, warrigal wrote: > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 6:18 PM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Rule 1742 obligates parties to binding agreements to comply with them. >> (Of course, that obligation is now only enforceable via equity, due to >> TITE.) Therefore, rule 101's protection against becoming party to a >> binding agreement protects players from rule 1742 obligations. It is not >> at all obvious that "imposing obligations" and "becoming a party to" are >> synonymous; in fact, to me that's obviously false. Rule 1742 would not >> need to obligate parties to a binding agreement to obey it otherwise. >> >> Rule 2166 obligates contract-defined recordkeepors to recordkeep the >> assets defined there, whether or not they are a party. Therefore, rule >> 101's protection against becoming party to a binding agreement has no >> effect on it, as it doesn't care whether or not the person is a party. > > Don't forget R101(v). If a contract creates an obligation on a person, > that person is bound by that contract. Thank you (you mean (iv) I think in most recent ruleset). It's also important to note that when R101 was written, there was no formal definition of "becoming a party to" that was separate from "being bound to" or otherwise having obligations imposed by. R1742 read at the time: Players may make agreements among themselves with the intention that such agreements will be binding; i.e. that they become parties to the agreement and agree to be bound by the agreement. Possibly, the narrow definition of "becoming a party" that was later added illegally restricted R101, or we are *required* by the R101 preamble to interpret that term in R101 more generally to include any type of obligation, even one that lower-powered rules allow a contract to impose. -goethe
DIS: Re: BUS: Deeper clarification
On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 15:33 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > I submit the following Rule, "Generalize R101(iv)", AI-3: > --- > [Bug or lack of clarity: The text of a contract should not be able to > generally impose any obligations, reporting or otherwise, on non- > members, it should be clear that this is a broader protection than > protecting against "partyhood". Note that being bound by the text of > a contract is different than being bound by the existence of a contract, > e.g. under obligation to produce Notary's reports. This is similar > to when we fixed (ii) to no longer refer to CFJs specifically but > rather the general process]. Does this mean I can publish the membership of public contracts but not their text? -- ais523 Notary
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: This Makes You Feel Pain
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 6:14 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 2:53 PM, Elliott Hird > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> ehird can create a Pain by adding a line to the List of Pains; the Pain's >> name becomes >> the line in the file. > > This might be insufficient. Who owns the Pain? The Lost and Found Department. --Warrigal of Escher
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Short Logical Ruleset
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 6:18 PM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Rule 1742 obligates parties to binding agreements to comply with them. > (Of course, that obligation is now only enforceable via equity, due to > TITE.) Therefore, rule 101's protection against becoming party to a > binding agreement protects players from rule 1742 obligations. It is not > at all obvious that "imposing obligations" and "becoming a party to" are > synonymous; in fact, to me that's obviously false. Rule 1742 would not > need to obligate parties to a binding agreement to obey it otherwise. > > Rule 2166 obligates contract-defined recordkeepors to recordkeep the > assets defined there, whether or not they are a party. Therefore, rule > 101's protection against becoming party to a binding agreement has no > effect on it, as it doesn't care whether or not the person is a party. Don't forget R101(v). If a contract creates an obligation on a person, that person is bound by that contract. --Warrigal of Escher, who's beginning to wonder if R101(v) is Escher incarnate or something
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Short Logical Ruleset
On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 15:10 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > For example, if I wrote in a contract "this contract imposes the > following obligations on non-members, but these obligations should not > be considered 'becoming party to' the agreement", it would seem obvious > that this violates R101 and that "imposing obligations" is synonymous > in legal terms with "becoming a party to." This is the same situation > you're trying to defend. Nope, I'd consider those obligations to exist, but not to be binding, because nothing in the rules enforces them. Obligations under contracts only exist insofar as the rules let them. Rule 1742 obligates parties to binding agreements to comply with them. (Of course, that obligation is now only enforceable via equity, due to TITE.) Therefore, rule 101's protection against becoming party to a binding agreement protects players from rule 1742 obligations. It is not at all obvious that "imposing obligations" and "becoming a party to" are synonymous; in fact, to me that's obviously false. Rule 1742 would not need to obligate parties to a binding agreement to obey it otherwise. Rule 2166 obligates contract-defined recordkeepors to recordkeep the assets defined there, whether or not they are a party. Therefore, rule 101's protection against becoming party to a binding agreement has no effect on it, as it doesn't care whether or not the person is a party. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: This Makes You Feel Pain
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 2:53 PM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ehird can create a Pain by adding a line to the List of Pains; the Pain's > name becomes > the line in the file. This might be insufficient. Who owns the Pain? -- Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you." -- Unknown
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Short Logical Ruleset
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> If a contract defines something, and I am not a member of the contract, >> I am not bound in any way by that definition. > > Even if the contract is backed by a rule that specifically says you're > bound by it? If I make a contract that requires officers to publish > reports, that doesn't exempt the officers who haven't agreed to it > from publishing reports. If you make a contract whose TEXT says what the contents of the reports must be, then no one who is not a member has to follow that text. Otherwise that non-member would be bound by the text, which is against R101. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Short Logical Ruleset
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008, comex wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If a contract defines something, and I am not a member of the contract,
>> I am not bound in any way by that definition.
>
> No, but the Rules are if they explicitly invoke it ("defined as such
> by its backing document"). I in turn am bound by the Rules.
But you are not bound by the text of the agreement, and so can ignore
it. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Short Logical Ruleset
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: > This isn't really any different than the way R2166+R2181 require the > Accountor to track contract-defined assets with no defined > recordkeepor. If that works (and nobody has objected to it), then > this works as well. Just because noone objects to it so far doesn't mean it isn't broken. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Short Logical Ruleset
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008, Alex Smith wrote: > On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 14:32 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> On Thu, 30 Oct 2008, Alex Smith wrote: >>> Rule 2166 implies that the information in the contract is part of the >>> Rulekeepor's report, regardless of whether the Rulekeepor is party to it >>> or not. (The contract doesn't bind anyone to post the information; rule >>> 2166 does.) >> >> No. >> >> Rule 2166 permits a contract to bind a person to track information. >> Rule 101 prohibits a contract from binding a person who does not consent. >> This is a "true and direct" conflict between the two rules on what a >> contract can require, and R101 wins. >> > The contract isn't binding anything. It's the rules that are doing the > binding, and the Rulekeepor has agreed to them (I think). Players SHALL > recordkeep information that contracts tell them to recordkeep, not to do > with the contract, but to do with the rules. (IMO, this is a bug.) R101 specifically states that NO BINDING AGREEMENT may limit a person's rights to refuse to become party to an agreement. Now, the real question is whether "becoming party to" is seen in the specific sense of the lower-powered definition of joining a contract, or whether it is construed in the natural sense of incurring any obligation from the contract text. As R101 speaks of the natural rights, this leads to seeing R101(iii) as strongly overriding the more specific definition of contract-joining (membership). For example, if I wrote in a contract "this contract imposes the following obligations on non-members, but these obligations should not be considered 'becoming party to' the agreement", it would seem obvious that this violates R101 and that "imposing obligations" is synonymous in legal terms with "becoming a party to." This is the same situation you're trying to defend. Note that this distinguishes *the contents* of a contract binding a non-member from the *existence* of a contract binding a non-member; the latter can be binding, for example, on the Notary to note that a contract exists. Also, while I believe the above relieves all responsibility, another idea: the recordkeepor may recordkeep (but needn't), but (as such) (1) e CAN create/destroy etc as per R2166; (2) e is not "subject to the modification of the backing document" as R101 prevents that, so e can do so in any way e pleases; (3) the members of the contract must respect whatever e does in that regard, as they *are* bound by the backing document. -Goethe
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Loose Recordkeeping
On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 16:07 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote: > Proposal: Loose Recordkeeping (AI=2): > > Amend R2166 by replacing the sentence "That entity's report includes a > list of all instances of that class and their owners." with the > sentence "If the backing document is a rule, or if the recordkeepor is > a party of the backing document, eir report includes a list of all > instances of that class and their owners." > I suggest that at the same time you fix the bug that occurs when the recordkeepor is not an officer and so isn't required to publish eir report. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: This Makes You Feel Pain
On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 18:01 -0400, comex wrote: > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 5:58 PM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I intend, without objection, to terminate the above-quoted contract. > > I object. This is an abuse of the Notary's power, although quite > possibly anyone should be allowed to terminate contracts without > objection. I'm aiming to get EXCUSED on the resulting court case. This means I have to try all reasonable methods to fulfil the obligation first. I think attempting to terminate the contract in question is reasonable; if I weren't the Notary, I'd have asked the Notary to try. Also, agreed that anyone should be able to terminate contracts without objection. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: This Makes You Feel Pain
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 3:53 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree to the following:
> {
> This is a pledge. Nobody apart from ehird can join this pledge.
>
> ehird can leave this contract by announcement.
>
> "Pains" are a type of asset whose recordkeepor is the Notary.
>
> Pains are identified only by a unique name or identifier, which is a string.
>
> Pains cannot be created, destroyed, or transferred apart from as specified
> by this
> contract.
>
> The file on ehird's computer at /Users/ehird/agoraguids.txt is the List of
> Pains.
>
> ehird can create a Pain by adding a line to the List of Pains; the Pain's
> name becomes
> the line in the file.
>
> ehird can destroy a Pain by removing the line with its name from the List of
> Pains.
> }
Okay, now somebody has severely abused it.
-root
DIS: Re: BUS: Music
On Oct 30, 2008, at 10:00 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: I spend C# Eb E F# Ab to decrease my own Caste to Beta. --Wooble That, sir is very creative. I salute you! - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM Grand Poobah OscarMeyr
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Short Logical Ruleset
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 3:58 PM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 30 Oct 2008, at 21:56, Ian Kelly wrote: > >> nobody has severely abused it > > Wrnng! If you mean the R thing, I wouldn't consider that severe. If you mean something else, I must have forgotten about it. -root
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Short Logical Ruleset
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If a contract defines something, and I am not a member of the contract, > I am not bound in any way by that definition. Even if the contract is backed by a rule that specifically says you're bound by it? If I make a contract that requires officers to publish reports, that doesn't exempt the officers who haven't agreed to it from publishing reports. -root
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Short Logical Ruleset
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If a contract defines something, and I am not a member of the contract,
> I am not bound in any way by that definition.
No, but the Rules are if they explicitly invoke it ("defined as such
by its backing document"). I in turn am bound by the Rules.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Short Logical Ruleset
On 30 Oct 2008, at 21:56, Ian Kelly wrote: nobody has severely abused it Wrnng! -- ehird
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Short Logical Ruleset
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 3:32 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, 30 Oct 2008, Alex Smith wrote: >> Rule 2166 implies that the information in the contract is part of the >> Rulekeepor's report, regardless of whether the Rulekeepor is party to it >> or not. (The contract doesn't bind anyone to post the information; rule >> 2166 does.) > > No. > > Rule 2166 permits a contract to bind a person to track information. > Rule 101 prohibits a contract from binding a person who does not consent. > This is a "true and direct" conflict between the two rules on what a > contract can require, and R101 wins. This isn't really any different than the way R2166+R2181 require the Accountor to track contract-defined assets with no defined recordkeepor. If that works (and nobody has objected to it), then this works as well. Also, we've known about this bug for quite a while, and nobody has severely abused it or proposed a fix. -root
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Short Logical Ruleset
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008, comex wrote: > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 5:32 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> No. >> >> Rule 2166 permits a contract to bind a person to track information. >> Rule 101 prohibits a contract from binding a person who does not consent. >> This is a "true and direct" conflict between the two rules on what a >> contract can require, and R101 wins. > > Rule 2166 is itself binding me to track information, which happens to > be defined by a contract. If a contract defines something, and I am not a member of the contract, I am not bound in any way by that definition. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Short Logical Ruleset
On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 14:32 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Thu, 30 Oct 2008, Alex Smith wrote: > > Rule 2166 implies that the information in the contract is part of the > > Rulekeepor's report, regardless of whether the Rulekeepor is party to it > > or not. (The contract doesn't bind anyone to post the information; rule > > 2166 does.) > > No. > > Rule 2166 permits a contract to bind a person to track information. > Rule 101 prohibits a contract from binding a person who does not consent. > This is a "true and direct" conflict between the two rules on what a > contract can require, and R101 wins. > The contract isn't binding anything. It's the rules that are doing the binding, and the Rulekeepor has agreed to them (I think). Players SHALL recordkeep information that contracts tell them to recordkeep, not to do with the contract, but to do with the rules. (IMO, this is a bug.) The problem here is really power-positive stuff depending on power-0 stuff. It's another escalation bug, just like the Gnarly Contract bug that escalates a power-0 contract ambiguity into a power-1.something pledgeness ambiguity. This one escalates a power-0 obligation that isn't binding into a power-2 obligation that is. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Short Logical Ruleset
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 5:32 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No. > > Rule 2166 permits a contract to bind a person to track information. > Rule 101 prohibits a contract from binding a person who does not consent. > This is a "true and direct" conflict between the two rules on what a > contract can require, and R101 wins. Rule 2166 is itself binding me to track information, which happens to be defined by a contract.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Short Logical Ruleset
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008, Alex Smith wrote: > Rule 2166 implies that the information in the contract is part of the > Rulekeepor's report, regardless of whether the Rulekeepor is party to it > or not. (The contract doesn't bind anyone to post the information; rule > 2166 does.) No. Rule 2166 permits a contract to bind a person to track information. Rule 101 prohibits a contract from binding a person who does not consent. This is a "true and direct" conflict between the two rules on what a contract can require, and R101 wins. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Short Logical Ruleset
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 3:13 PM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 11:34 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> THE SHORT LOGICAL RULESET > CoE: You forgot to recordkeep the Rule /0 (Power=4) > Dictatorship > ais523 may change the rules by announcement.. (Per rule 2166 and the Not > a rule really contract, information about that weirdly-named asset is > part of the Rulekeepor's weekly report.) Denied. It is part of my weekly report, but I am not required to report on it in the same message as the SLR.
DIS: Re: BUS: My Powers I Can Feel Them.
On 30 Oct 2008, at 20:21, Taral wrote: R2175 permits a player to retract a case if it has not yet had a judge assigned to it. However, R101(ii) prohibits actions which would prevent resolution of a controversy. If ehird's actions on behalf of BobTHJ are intended to abridge BobTHJ's R101 rights, then they would be prohibited by that rule. (Note that R101 mentions binding agreements specifically.) I submit the same arguments. -- ehird
DIS: Re: BUS: My Powers I Can Feel Them.
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 14:43, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Gratuituous counter-arguments: { This may be affected by the CotC's
> willingness to arrange with BobTHJ to get a judge assigned before ehird
> or Wooble can retract. }
>
> In the spirit of greed:
>
> I issue a Sell Ticket for 5VP, fillable only by BobTHJ; this is the
> Get Out of Jail Free Card.
>
> I agree to the following: { This is a pledge. If BobTHJ has filled
> the Get Out of Jail Free Card, then e CAN act on my behalf to assign
> a judge to an equity case pertaining to the Protection Racket. }
>
I don't know that this works. You can't assign a judge until the
pre-trial phase ends.
BobTHJ
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2203 overruled to FALSE by Goethe, ais523, woggle
On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 00:45 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2203a > > Appeal 2203a > > Panelist: woggle > Decision: OVERRULE/FALSE > > Panelist: Goethe > Decision: OVERRULE/FALSE > > Panelist: ais523 > Decision: OVERRULE/FALSE > > H. Assessor AFO (and presumably H. Ex-Assessor Murphy acting via em), I believe that it is now possible to resolve proposal 5707 correctly, and the true result is one that hasn't been suggested yet. I make it: (5707 was Ordinary per CFJ 2202) ais523 2F BobTHJ no vote per CFJs 2203 and 2204 comex F Dvorak He A Goethe 2F Ivan Hope F OscarMeyr3A Pavitra A root no vote per CFJ 2203 Sir Toby A Taral8F tusho F woggle no vote per CFJ 2203 Wooble 5A Totals: 15F, 11A, so the proposal passes. Can I have my Win by Legislation now please? -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Short Logical Ruleset
On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 13:06 -0700, Taral wrote: > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 11:34 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> THE SHORT LOGICAL RULESET > > CoE: You forgot to recordkeep the Rule /0 (Power=4) > > Dictatorship > > ais523 may change the rules by announcement.. (Per rule 2166 and the Not > > a rule really contract, information about that weirdly-named asset is > > part of the Rulekeepor's weekly report.) > > The Rulekeepor is not a party to that contract. So it cannot bind him > to post that information. > Rule 2166 implies that the information in the contract is part of the Rulekeepor's report, regardless of whether the Rulekeepor is party to it or not. (The contract doesn't bind anyone to post the information; rule 2166 does.) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Short Logical Ruleset
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 11:34 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> THE SHORT LOGICAL RULESET > CoE: You forgot to recordkeep the Rule /0 (Power=4) > Dictatorship > ais523 may change the rules by announcement.. (Per rule 2166 and the Not > a rule really contract, information about that weirdly-named asset is > part of the Rulekeepor's weekly report.) The Rulekeepor is not a party to that contract. So it cannot bind him to post that information. -- Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you." -- Unknown
DIS: Re: BUS: Music
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 7:00 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I spend C# Eb E F# Ab to decrease my own Caste to Beta. Interesting. -- Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you." -- Unknown
DIS: Re: OFF: Short Logical Ruleset
On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 11:34 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > THE SHORT LOGICAL RULESET CoE: You forgot to recordkeep the Rule /0 (Power=4) Dictatorship ais523 may change the rules by announcement.. (Per rule 2166 and the Not a rule really contract, information about that weirdly-named asset is part of the Rulekeepor's weekly report.) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Music theory for the tl;dr crowd
2008/10/30 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 0 = C > 1 = C# = Db (# = sharp, b = flat) > 2 = D > 3 = D# = Eb > 4 = E > 5 = F > 6 = F# = Gb > 7 = G > 8 = G# = Ab > 9 = A > 10 = A# = Bb > 11 = B > > Major chord = (x, x+4, x+7) mod 12 for some x > Minor chord = (x, x+3, x+7) > Major pentad = (x, x+2, x+4, x+5, x+7) > Minor pentad = (x, x+2, x+3, x+5, x+7) > Musicianship = (five x, two x+2, two x+4, two x+5, nine x+7, three x+9, >two x+11) > > Thanks.
DIS: Music theory for the tl;dr crowd
0 = C 1 = C# = Db (# = sharp, b = flat) 2 = D 3 = D# = Eb 4 = E 5 = F 6 = F# = Gb 7 = G 8 = G# = Ab 9 = A 10 = A# = Bb 11 = B Major chord = (x, x+4, x+7) mod 12 for some x Minor chord = (x, x+3, x+7) Major pentad = (x, x+2, x+4, x+5, x+7) Minor pentad = (x, x+2, x+3, x+5, x+7) Musicianship = (five x, two x+2, two x+4, two x+5, nine x+7, three x+9, two x+11)
DIS: Re: BUS: Music
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 10:46 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 8:00 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I spend C# Eb E F# Ab to decrease my own Caste to Beta. > > Invalid. The third note would be F, not E. Never mind. I somehow read "decrease" as "increase". -root
DIS: Re: BUS: Music
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 8:00 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I spend C# Eb E F# Ab to decrease my own Caste to Beta. Invalid. The third note would be F, not E. -root
DIS: Re: OFF: Short Logical Ruleset
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 12:34 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > THE SHORT LOGICAL RULESET I should have Bayes cancel the cronjob when voting results have been recently published. (i.e. this does not contain the effects of the most recent adopted proposal).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5823-5832
On 30 Oct 2008, at 15:26, Ed Murphy wrote: Second vote ineffective because you're in the chokey. Similarly for the rest, of course. :'( -- ehird
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5823-5832
ehird wrote: >> NUM C I AI SUBMITTER TITLE >> 5823 D 1 2.0 rootSecure contract adjustments > FOR*2 Second vote ineffective because it's democratic. >> 5824 O 1 1.0 rootClean-up on Aisle 2192 > AGAINST*2 Second vote ineffective because you're in the chokey. Similarly for the rest, of course.
