DIS: Re: BUS: NoV: the ATC should take duties more seriously
On 08/13/2010 02:08 AM, Ed Murphy wrote: Keba wrote: Hereby, I publish a Notice of Violation alleging that Murphy violated Rule 2143, which has power 1, by failing to publish an Air Traffic Controller's report in the week starting on 5th July 2010. [It's not the point that they were no weekly reports, because not that much props are transferred. But Ed Murphy (at least I can assume e did) stated in our IRC channel that e does not care until e will get punished, so a simple "Please pull your duties" mail would not help.] It's a fair cop. I close this NoV. I pay a fee to remove the Rest thus gained. Proposal: Low altitude (AI = 1, II = 0, distributable by fee) Keba is a co-author of this proposal, unless e announces within a week after the publication of this proposal that e is not. Amend Rule 2287 (Props) by replacing this text: The Air Traffic Controller is an office and the recordkeepor of props. with this text: The Air Traffic Controller is an office and the recordkeepor of props; prop records are part of eir monthly report. a) The proposal just makes them part of the weekly and monthly reports. b) You can't have future-conditional actions like that. -coppro
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: NoV: the ATC should take duties more seriously
coppro wrote: >> Proposal: Low altitude >> (AI = 1, II = 0, distributable by fee) >> >> Keba is a co-author of this proposal, unless e announces within a >> week after the publication of this proposal that e is not. >> >> Amend Rule 2287 (Props) by replacing this text: >> >>The Air Traffic Controller is an office and the recordkeepor of >>props. >> >> with this text: >> >>The Air Traffic Controller is an office and the recordkeepor of >>props; prop records are part of eir monthly report. > > a) The proposal just makes them part of the weekly and monthly reports. Not so. Rule 2166 (Assets) just says "[The recordkeepor]'s report includes...". Rule 2143 (Official Reports and Duties) says Any information defined by the rules as part of an office's report, without specifying which one, is part of its weekly report. but the proposal would prevent this from being triggered. > b) You can't have future-conditional actions like that. You're right, Rule 106 specifies "unambiguously ... when it was submitted".
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: That guy was fun
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 2:51 AM, Sean Hunt wrote: > Because they are supposed to be an automatic part of the game. In > particular, the only reason someone would make an II=0 proposal > undistributable is to delay it a week, which violates the idea of a > once-a-week offering of weird rule changes. Proto: Voters MUST vote FOR rules submitted in accordance with this rule. Otherwise, the idea of randomly breaking the game would be violated.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: NoV: the ATC should take duties more seriously
Am Freitag, den 13.08.2010, 00:00 -0500 schrieb Aaron Goldfein: > > > On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 20:28, Keba wrote: > > -- > Keba > > > If you don't mind me asking, who are you? Have you played Agora before > (you awarded yourself a white ribbon as if you hadn't). If not, how > much time have you spent watching the game? It's clear you have a > strong understanding of the Agoran rules, customs, etc. > > -Yally Oh, maybe I should have written a "That‘s me" mail. Well, I‘ll introduce myself in this mail then. :) To start with personal data first: I‘m a 16 year old guy from Germany (UTC+2). No, I have not played Agora before. In the middle of January I joined Blognomic, because I read about Nomics in a (German) blog and searched and easy-to-join one. Agora does not intend to be that easy to join, but Blognomic does. ais523 plays both Blognomic and Agora, meanwhile coppro does so, too. Ienpw has played Agora for a long time and comex is at least well known in our IRC channel. So, "Agora" was a name for me. After some of my Proposals were declined, because they were too complicated (at least for newcommers), I decided to take the challenge to join Agora. That‘s about one week ago. I found out, that you have lots of nice Rules, the stone-paper-scissors voting system, the Ribbons, offices (and their weekly reports), a law-like CfJ system and multiple win conditions, to give a few examples. I read about Zaraday then, and decided to join on this holiday. I read the Ruleset and asked many times in your IRC channel for some information. The IRC channel and especially coppro help me to get into the Agoran society. This time, coppro helped me formulating the NoV. -- Keba
DIS: Re: BUS: NoV: the ATC should take duties more seriously
Aaron Goldfein wrote: > I also initiate an election to decide the holder of the ATC office. > Murphy seems to be overburdened controlling two highly critical > offices (CotC and Assessor), and hasn't found time to regularly update > us on air traffic issues. I nominate myself as ATC. I nominate myself as ATC, too. -- Keba
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: NoV: the ATC should take duties more seriously
Ed Murphy wrote: > coppro wrote: > > >> Proposal: Low altitude > >> (AI = 1, II = 0, distributable by fee) > >> > >> Keba is a co-author of this proposal, unless e announces within a > >> week after the publication of this proposal that e is not. > >> > >> Amend Rule 2287 (Props) by replacing this text: > >> > >>The Air Traffic Controller is an office and the recordkeepor of > >>props. > >> > >> with this text: > >> > >>The Air Traffic Controller is an office and the recordkeepor of > >>props; prop records are part of eir monthly report. > > > > a) The proposal just makes them part of the weekly and monthly reports. > > Not so. Rule 2166 (Assets) just says "[The recordkeepor]'s report > includes...". Rule 2143 (Official Reports and Duties) says > > Any information defined by the rules as part of an office's > report, without specifying which one, is part of its weekly > report. > > but the proposal would prevent this from being triggered. I agree here and will vote for the proposal. > > b) You can't have future-conditional actions like that. > > You're right, Rule 106 specifies "unambiguously ... when it was > submitted". Yes, but I am ok with the co-author status. :) -- Keba
DIS: Re: BUS: Victory conditions should sound similary
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 09:36, Keba wrote:
> Proposal: "Win by Respect" (AI=1, II=0, distributable)
>
> {{{
> Amend Rule 2287 "Props" by replacing:
>
>A player with 30 or more props CAN destroy all eir props to
>satisfy the Winning Condition of Respect. 14 props are then
>created in that player's possession.
>
> with:
>
>Upon a win announcement that one or more players each possess at
>least 30 props, all those players satisfy the Winning Condition
>of Respect.
>
>Cleanup procedure: For each of those players, all props are
>destroyed and 14 props are created in their possession.
> }}}
>
> ["Each Winning Condition should (if needed) specify a cleanup
> procedure" (R2186)]
>
> --
> Keba
>
This does have the consequence of meaning that any player can force a player
with 30+ props to win, while the original wording does not. I find it very
likely that a player who has accumulated 30+ props may not want to give them
up for a win, as he would be losing pilot (and probably captain) status and
with that, erg income.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Victory conditions should sound similary
Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 09:36, Keba wrote:
> Proposal: "Win by Respect" (AI=1, II=0, distributable)
>
> {{{
> Amend Rule 2287 "Props" by replacing:
>
>A player with 30 or more props CAN destroy all eir
> props to
>satisfy the Winning Condition of Respect. 14 props are
> then
>created in that player's possession.
>
> with:
>
>Upon a win announcement that one or more players each
> possess at
>least 30 props, all those players satisfy the Winning
> Condition
>of Respect.
>
>Cleanup procedure: For each of those players, all props
> are
>destroyed and 14 props are created in their possession.
> }}}
>
> ["Each Winning Condition should (if needed) specify a cleanup
> procedure" (R2186)]
>
> --
> Keba
>
> This does have the consequence of meaning that any player can force a
> player with 30+ props to win, while the original wording does not. I
> find it very likely that a player who has accumulated 30+ props may
> not want to give them up for a win, as he would be losing pilot (and
> probably captain) status and with that, erg income.
>
First, I don‘t assume there are players who think an erg income is more
important than winning. If the win itself is not enough, winning means
becoming the speaker. So the winner is able to form a government and
therefore become an important minister. Are 2 additional ergs per week
more important than (e.g.) a 1.5 times higher voting limit?
Second, if there are such players (you?), they could simply spend their
props to other players, so they won‘t get more than 30 Props.
--
Keba
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2821-22 remanded to G. by ais523, Wooble, Murphy
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 saying, the situation is as if I said "For each decision in >> the list of decisions which a reasonable person would think currently >> exist, (and I do hereby quasi-incorporate that list), I vote FOR on >> it"... > > Naw, I think the legal fiction can be platonic. It's a weird state where > practically there can be a proposal you don't know about, but legally > you can be deemed to have acknowledged it by specifying the full set. 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?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A History of Agoran Wins, 2009-Present
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 1:56 AM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 16:58, Alex Smith wrote:
>>
>> I publish the following thesis, intending to qualify for a degree
>> (perhaps D.N.Hist?):
>> {
>> A History of Agoran Wins, 2009-present
>> by ais52
>
> First, I thought comex's win by Clout didn't succeed. I thought I blocked it
> successfully.
Me too.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2828 assigned to G.
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Since the publishing is done by this technical (actual) act, terms like > "I hereby announce" or "I hereby publish" or "I state" are simply handy > delimiters/framing devices or color for focusing relevant content. In > other words, syntactic sugar that is generally without legal effect. > It also means that saying "I hereby publish [external reference] is not > the same thing as publishing the content of the external reference. This is one of those precedents I know will come in handy some day. I had better catch up with those annotations...
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Victory conditions should sound similary
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Keba wrote: > First, I don‘t assume there are players who think an erg income is more > important than winning. It could be, if a Teams win was getting close and the player with 30 Props could win both ways.
DIS: Re: BUS: NoV: the ATC should take duties more seriously
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 03:08, Ed Murphy wrote: > Proposal: Low altitude > (AI = 1, II = 0, distributable by fee) > > Keba is a co-author of this proposal, unless e announces within a > week after the publication of this proposal that e is not. > > Amend Rule 2287 (Props) by replacing this text: > > The Air Traffic Controller is an office and the recordkeepor of > props. > > with this text: > > The Air Traffic Controller is an office and the recordkeepor of > props; prop records are part of eir monthly report. > The problem with this is that, as PSM, I need to know when players change from marine to regular, regular to pilot, pilot to captain, and vice versa. It seems silly to force the PSM to separately track props when there is already an office whose sole purpose is to do so. Thus, I would only vote for a proposal like this if it included a provision for announcing when players switched statuses in such ways. Speaking of which, with all the recent prop transfers, have any players switched statuses?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2821-22 remanded to G. by ais523, Wooble, Murphy
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 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 would think currently > >> exist, (and I do hereby quasi-incorporate that list), I vote FOR on > >> it"... > > > > Naw, I think the legal fiction can be platonic. It's a weird state where > > practically there can be a proposal you don't know about, but legally > > you can be deemed to have acknowledged it by specifying the full set. > > 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. Well you're right. It's non-ideal. But if we consider any sort of "I vote for all" or "I object to all" then we have the following choices: 1. Disallow it entirely. 2. Allow it entirely, including for future-discovered (platonic) ones. 3. Figure out which ones the sender reasonably should "know about" at the time of sending and apply it to those only. 4. Disallow the whole thing retroactively if it turns out there was one no-one knew about. (ugh). 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 personal preference and after browsing I can't find any relevant court cases. I note that for your actual votes in this situation, it doesn't apply because it wasn't undiscovered and it's reasonable to say that everyone voting "should have" known about it. It's also worth noting that it's hard to have a proposal out there in its voting period without passing the "most people should know about this" test. And we've also acknowledged the problem without facing it, because whenever someone issues an overly broad conditional (such as your recent ribbon awarding? :) ) everyone admits it's a pain in the rear amd gets annoyed, but seems to agree that the right thing to do is figure out what the conditional applies to in a platonic sense. > ...How do fungible assets fit into this scheme? "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 Rules anymore. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: This Must Be Fixed
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Proposal: Distribution (AI=1.5, II=1, Distributable via fee)
> {{{
> Award Taral the Patent Title Distributor.
> }}}
>
> -coppro
Note: CFJ 1298 has some wholly irrelevant historical context. For a
while Taral was the official Distributor while Steve held the Patent Title
Distributor. Now Taral may be the official Distributor by common-ish
(or at least Agoran cultural) definition. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2821-22 remanded to G. by ais523, Wooble, Murphy
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.
DIS: Re: BUS: *Wakes up after a multi-month nap*
Waking up after a multi-month nap seems like a good idea to me. I become active. I sit. I change my nickname to Tanner L. Swett. —Tanner L. Swett, now one of the few Agorans who uses his real name for Agora but a nickname for his "From" line
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: *Wakes up after a multi-month nap*
Warrigal wrote: > Waking up after a multi-month nap seems like a good idea to me. I > become active. I sit. I change my nickname to Tanner L. Swett. > > —Tanner L. Swett, now one of the few Agorans who uses his real name > for Agora but a nickname for his "From" line wrong mailing list. -- Keba
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: *Wakes up after a multi-month nap*
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Warrigal wrote: > This. I'm treating this as effective if no one CFJs it.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: NoV: the ATC should take duties more seriously
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 00:00 -0500, Aaron Goldfein wrote: > On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 20:28, Keba wrote: > > -- > Keba > > If you don't mind me asking, who are you? Have you played Agora before > (you awarded yourself a white ribbon as if you hadn't). If not, how > much time have you spent watching the game? It's clear you have a > strong understanding of the Agoran rules, customs, etc. E has quite a strong understanding of nomic in general, currently playing at least BlogNomic (and maybe others). Additionally, e has actually read the ruleset, something which many Agorans seem reluctant to do for some reason. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: NoV: the ATC should take duties more seriously
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 3:18 PM, ais523 wrote: > something which many Agorans seem reluctant > to do for some reason. > Current total number of rules: 139
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: That guy was fun
On 08/13/2010 05:21 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 2:51 AM, Sean Hunt wrote: Because they are supposed to be an automatic part of the game. In particular, the only reason someone would make an II=0 proposal undistributable is to delay it a week, which violates the idea of a once-a-week offering of weird rule changes. Proto: Voters MUST vote FOR rules submitted in accordance with this rule. Otherwise, the idea of randomly breaking the game would be violated. I was considering it. -coppro
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2821-22 remanded to G. by ais523, Wooble, Murphy
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 personal preference and after browsing I can't find any > relevant court cases. I note that for your actual votes in this situation, > it doesn't apply because it wasn't undiscovered and it's reasonable to say > that everyone voting "should have" known about it. Well... I don't think #2 is a valid option; or rather, if we use #2 (which we always have), it's not fair to call it purely an administrative convenience; we have to accept that the transformation of "all proposals" into "P7000, P7001, P7002" is happening at a deeper level than language or dialect transformations. Assuming a legalistic point of view (not reasonable observer), for me to acknowledge something's existence is to state that it exists; thus, a person who did not previously know that it existed, if I did acknowledge it, would find out after reading my message. In fact, that is the case, assuming that e looked up relevant distributions of proposals to find out what I was voting on. However, the set of proposals e would find (and so the set of proposals I acknowledged) might differ from the set of proposals that the message is effective in voting for, if "common opinion" were wrong about some relevant fact. Does this make sense? > "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 Rules anymore. Actually, the relevant text at the time of CFJ 1307 said you had to "specify" the assets to transfer. Rule 478 currently requires that you "unambiguously and clearly specify" the action, which (CFJ 2238) applies to the parameters of an action. Current game custom directly contradicts those precedents.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2821-22 remanded to G. by ais523, Wooble, Murphy
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 Rules anymore. Actually, the relevant text at the time of CFJ 1307 said you had to "specify" the assets to transfer. Rule 478 currently requires that you "unambiguously and clearly specify" the action, which (CFJ 2238) applies to the parameters of an action. Current game custom directly contradicts those precedents. I consider 'unambiguously and clearly' to be allowed to include shorthands; for instance, it is so widely accepted now that FOR in response to a proposal is a vote FOR, because it still conveys enough information. By contrast, due to historical precedent, AGAINT is viewed as ambiguous. -coppro
DIS: Re: BUS: a
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 15:32 -0400, comex wrote: > I intend, with 3 support, to start a new journey. Why is that not "3 support and notice?" On the other hand, I don't really understand why Space Alert exists at all... -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2821-22 remanded to G. by ais523, Wooble, Murphy
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 came out and said you >>> had to be very specific. That's not in the Rules anymore. >> >> Actually, the relevant text at the time of CFJ 1307 said you had to >> "specify" the assets to transfer. Rule 478 currently requires that >> you "unambiguously and clearly specify" the action, which (CFJ 2238) >> applies to the parameters of an action. Current game custom directly >> contradicts those precedents. > > I consider 'unambiguously and clearly' to be allowed to include shorthands; > for instance, it is so widely accepted now that FOR in response to a > proposal is a vote FOR, because it still conveys enough information. By > contrast, due to historical precedent, AGAINT is viewed as ambiguous. Sure. But that directly contradicts the precedent I just mentioned.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: a
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 4:05 PM, ais523 wrote: > On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 15:32 -0400, comex wrote: >> I intend, with 3 support, to start a new journey. > > Why is that not "3 support and notice?" I was wondering if anyone would support and let me start a new journey before y'all's notice timeouts expired. :p
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2821-22 remanded to G. by ais523, Wooble, Murphy
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 > >>> assets were more strictly controlled and the rules came out and said you > >>> had to be very specific. That's not in the Rules anymore. > >> > >> Actually, the relevant text at the time of CFJ 1307 said you had to > >> "specify" the assets to transfer. Rule 478 currently requires that > >> you "unambiguously and clearly specify" the action, which (CFJ 2238) > >> applies to the parameters of an action. Current game custom directly > >> contradicts those precedents. > > > > I consider 'unambiguously and clearly' to be allowed to include shorthands; > > for instance, it is so widely accepted now that FOR in response to a > > proposal is a vote FOR, because it still conveys enough information. By > > contrast, due to historical precedent, AGAINT is viewed as ambiguous. > > Sure. But that directly contradicts the precedent I just mentioned. Indeed, now that I look at 1307, there is considerable precedent drift in what "specificy." In fact, it looks paradoxically like the rules language has gotten tougher while our interpretation of that language has gotten much weaker (or if you like, more generous). The only direct Rule change that I can point to that might allow the weaker interpretation is that the implementation of conditional votes led to a cultural willingness to permit conditionals in other areas. 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. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2821-22 remanded to G. by ais523, Wooble, Murphy
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 vote on proposals, though; you vote on decisions. Thus that would be equivalent to "If I can, I vote for it". -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2821-22 remanded to G. by ais523, Wooble, Murphy
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 what when" path. But I > > admit this is all personal preference and after browsing I can't find any > > relevant court cases. I note that for your actual votes in this situation, > > it doesn't apply because it wasn't undiscovered and it's reasonable to say > > that everyone voting "should have" known about it. > > Well... I don't think #2 is a valid option; or rather, if we use #2 > (which we always have), it's not fair to call it purely an > administrative convenience; we have to accept that the transformation > of "all proposals" into "P7000, P7001, P7002" is happening at a deeper > level than language or dialect transformations. Well, it's a mapping. So yes it's deeper. The administrative convenience is that we allow such mapping in the first place. What makes it into the "convenience" rather than "absolute" category is that (since it's not strongly rules-governed) it can be discarded if the "deeper level mapping" causes contradictions, etc. > Assuming a legalistic point of view (not reasonable observer), for me > to acknowledge something's existence is to state that it exists; thus, > a person who did not previously know that it existed, if I did > acknowledge it, would find out after reading my message. In fact, > that is the case, assuming that e looked up relevant distributions of > proposals to find out what I was voting on. However, the set of > proposals e would find (and so the set of proposals I acknowledged) > might differ from the set of proposals that the message is effective > in voting for, if "common opinion" were wrong about some relevant > fact. > > Does this make sense? Yes, it makes perfect sense, that legalistically one can "identify" by providing a mapping without "acknowledging" that a particular proposal belongs to the mapping. I think it's a version of the Sir Humphrey logic I posted a bit ago. As opposed to what I'm saying, that in a R683 context, one should take identifying and acknowledging as synonymous. Or one could go further, and turn into a preponderance of the evidence case: "comex does not typically vote like that (evidence of past voting record) so eir vote is evidence that e was acknowledging an odd proposal, which the preponderance of the evidence suggests must be that one." As I said then, I'm uncertain, but I think the direction one goes here is within reasonable discretion of a judge either way (certainly I agree now it's not as clear-cut as I made it sound in my judgement, when it felt more obvious to me). Again, it would be good if a third opinion jumped in :). -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2821-22 remanded to G. by ais523, Wooble, Murphy
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 period, I vote for it" might > > imply. > > You don't vote on proposals, though; you vote on decisions. Thus that > would be equivalent to "If I can, I vote for it". yeah yeah I'm typing quickly you knew what I meant. :P -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2821-22 remanded to G. by ais523, Wooble, Murphy
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 merely "indicate". There was an old case where "I transfer all my stuff to " was rejected because the standard was "specify" at the time.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: *Wakes up after a multi-month nap*
Wooble wrote: > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Warrigal wrote: >> This. > > I'm treating this as effective if no one CFJs it. Yeah, seems reasonably similar to "TTttPF".
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: a
ais523 wrote: > On the other hand, I don't really understand why Space Alert exists at > all... It has to exist! Where would all the fragments go?
DIS: Re: BUS: omd
comex wrote: > I stand up. Ineffective, you can't directly stand (except in conjunction with judging or sommat, which you didn't).
DIS: Re: BUS: Opinion on 2830a
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: > Also, I think the disclaimer was general enough to render the whole > list ineffective. If the effective statement is vague enough to be ineffective, surely it's too vague to violate Truthiness.
