DIS: Slow lately?
I haven't gotten any Agora mails since Friday, and a cursory glance at the web archives seems to confirm the lack of messages. Is it just slow, or is there something wrong with the lists?
Re: DIS: Slow lately?
On Wed, 2011-06-15 at 10:46 -0500, Pavitra wrote: I haven't gotten any Agora mails since Friday, and a cursory glance at the web archives seems to confirm the lack of messages. Is it just slow, or is there something wrong with the lists? It's just slow. (Good thing we don't have BlogNomic's ruleset, or in another two days I could idle everyone else out and trivially force through a dictatorship proposal.) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Slow lately?
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011, Pavitra wrote: I haven't gotten any Agora mails since Friday, and a cursory glance at the web archives seems to confirm the lack of messages. Is it just slow, or is there something wrong with the lists? Heh. Just tried to poke it myself as you were writing this... waiting for some case assignments and some decision results. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: hrm
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: I intend to deputize to Rotate the Bench. Hmm. Proto-CFJ for discussion (not CFJ for obvious reasons - need a justiciar!): It is possible to deputize to Rotate The Bench. CFJ 1776 states (using dated terminology) that it is possible to deputise for the purpose of rotating the bench as long as there is indeed a practical requirement to rotate the bench. H. Murphy, would it be possible to somehow annotate CFJ 1776 in the database so that doing a statement text search for rotating the bench would make it show up? —Tanner L. Swett
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: hrm
On 06/15/2011 12:13 PM, Tanner Swett wrote: On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: I intend to deputize to Rotate the Bench. Hmm. Proto-CFJ for discussion (not CFJ for obvious reasons - need a justiciar!): It is possible to deputize to Rotate The Bench. CFJ 1776 states (using dated terminology) that it is possible to deputise for the purpose of rotating the bench as long as there is indeed a practical requirement to rotate the bench. H. Murphy, would it be possible to somehow annotate CFJ 1776 in the database so that doing a statement text search for rotating the bench would make it show up? —Tanner L. Swett The annotation for CFJ 1776 in the FLR, attached to the rule on deputisation, is worded much more generally than that. It would be prohibitive to include keywords for every possible office-required activity.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: hrm
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011, Tanner Swett wrote: On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: I intend to deputize to Rotate the Bench. Hmm. Proto-CFJ for discussion (not CFJ for obvious reasons - need a justiciar!): It is possible to deputize to Rotate The Bench. CFJ 1776 states (using dated terminology) that it is possible to deputise for the purpose of rotating the bench as long as there is indeed a practical requirement to rotate the bench. That's a very nice precedent, not dated at all when phrased as if an officer can be punished as the net result of not doing something, doing it is a requirement. thx. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: hrm
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote: H. Murphy, would it be possible to somehow annotate CFJ 1776 in the database so that doing a statement text search for rotating the bench would make it show up? I don't know if anyone reads those things, but I just updated the FLR annotation for that case to mention the specific issue.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: hrm
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011, Pavitra wrote: On 06/15/2011 12:13 PM, Tanner Swett wrote: On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: I intend to deputize to Rotate the Bench. Hmm. Proto-CFJ for discussion (not CFJ for obvious reasons - need a justiciar!): It is possible to deputize to Rotate The Bench. CFJ 1776 states (using dated terminology) that it is possible to deputise for the purpose of rotating the bench as long as there is indeed a practical requirement to rotate the bench. H. Murphy, would it be possible to somehow annotate CFJ 1776 in the database so that doing a statement text search for rotating the bench would make it show up? —Tanner L. Swett The annotation for CFJ 1776 in the FLR, attached to the rule on deputisation, is worded much more generally than that. It would be prohibitive to include keywords for every possible office-required activity. Yep! Though it would be worth adding to that annotation the part about if an officer can be found guilty for not doing it, it's a requirement.
DIS: Re: BUS: Disclaimer
On 06/15/2011 04:52 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: if disclaimers work immediately forward, it would imply they could work immediately backwards (I suggest using 'atomic message' to mean the ordinary sense of an email message, and 'compound message' to mean the legal fiction of a message reconstructed from parts.) This is not at all obvious to me. Backwards-disclaimers *might* work if the disclaimer was in the same atomic message as the disclaimed text, but in the case of any kind of confusion, I would strongly lean towards evaluating in chronological order, with the context of each statement determined solely by its predecessors. For example, a single atomic message reading I register. The preceding statement has no effect. would probably not result in a registration due to general reasonableness, but The following statement has no effect. The other two statements in this message have no effect. I register. probably would, because a strict reading is necessary in order to make sense of it. In this case, I believe it was reasonably clear from my first atomic message alone that that atom was not the last in the compound. In CFJs 1451-2, the extent of the compound could only be inferred from timing, and only after the compound had ended and some time had passed. Since the compound in 1451-2 was good enough, this one ought to be as well. (I would have suggested a general rule that if it is not made clear in a given atom whether there are further atoms in the compound, then that atom should be taken as ending the compound, regardless of the content of later atomic messages. However, this level of strictness contradicts the 1451-2 precedent; we must either choose a laxer standard, or else overturn 1451-2.) Pavitra
DIS: Re: BUS: Disclaimer
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Pavitra celestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote: CFJs 1451-1452 establish that messages generally can be split into multiple emails. Gratuitious: yes, but in those cases, the messages were reasonably clearly marked as forming a single message. In this case, the messages are reasonably clearly marked as forming *separate* messages, since the first message refers to the second message as a message, rather than another part of the same message. —Tanner L. Swett
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Disclaimer
On 06/15/2011 05:53 PM, Pavitra wrote: This is not at all obvious to me. Backwards-disclaimers *might* work if the disclaimer was in the same atomic message as the disclaimed text, but in the case of any kind of confusion, I would strongly lean towards evaluating in chronological order, with the context of each statement determined solely by its predecessors. I've just come across CFJ 1971, which indicates that a disclaimer can affect earlier parts of the same (atomic?) message. Hrm.
DIS: Re: BUS: Disclaimer
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: I think the timing of truth values and disclaimers is in fact more complex and less clear. For example, if disclaimers work immediately forward, it would imply they could work immediately backwards, with connotations that a message never leaves a technical domain of control because we'd never be able to tell if it were finished. ais523's judgement in CFJ 2227 is relevant: * One final issue is about whether Warrigal's statements immediately presumably-after the presumed pledge constituted a disclaimer that prevented it being created. I suspect probably they do, because there was very little time involved in between the messages. For email messages, sending a message and then disclaimering it in a future message would obviously not be valid, as convention is that the entire content of an email message is in one email. On IRC, however, there is a convention that messages can be split over multiple lines. For instance, #ubuntu at high-traffic times sometimes has a rule that messages have to be written in one line for pragmatic reasons (during high-traffic, the parts of the message may end up very separated and hard to read otherwise); for email, this rule would be pointless, because nobody splits up messages anyway. Due to a multiple-lines convention, it seems reasonable that a purported contract and the disclaimer that it's only a proto (Oops, I didn't mean to agree to that.) are really part of the same message in this case, especially as there were no intervening lines and a very short timeframe. (As such, it's also plausible to conclude that no contract is created via IRC until a few seconds after the message arrives, so as to be sure that the message itself is actually finished; the same presumably applied to game actions in #really-a-cow, but I don't believe anything happened for which this would make a difference.)
DIS: Re: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 7059 - 7073 (and maybe 7046)
Voting results for Proposals 7059 - 7073 (and maybe 7046): Informal CoEs, accepted: * Wooble also voted PRESENT on 7059-73 * Number of voters on 7059-60 did not include ehird (who voted conditionally)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Disclaimer
On 06/15/2011 11:31 PM, omd wrote: On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: I think the timing of truth values and disclaimers is in fact more complex and less clear. For example, if disclaimers work immediately forward, it would imply they could work immediately backwards, with connotations that a message never leaves a technical domain of control because we'd never be able to tell if it were finished. ais523's judgement in CFJ 2227 is relevant: I maintain that none of this is an issue at all in the present case, because the disclaimer preceded the disclaimed. Pavitra
