Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3037 assigned to Walker
A first-class person CAN register by sending a public message. No more CFJs by non-players? From that wording, it would still be possible. They CAN register, but they do not necessarily do so. To eliminate non-player CFJs, we could make it something like: Any active player CAN register any first-class person who has sent a public message within (time period). To keep them, but lessen the shenanigans, my first thought is more of a hack than a fix: A first-class person CAN register by sending a public message, and MUST do so unless the message intends solely to (create a CFJ). (Haven't done any looking over recently, but presumably create a CFJ is a bit too ambiguous for the ruleset) Of course, with all of this talk about legal messages versus atomic messages, there may be some ambiguity yet :) -Turiski
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3037 assigned to Walker
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011, Charles Walker wrote: Amend Rule 869 (How to Join and Leave Agora) by replacing A first-class person CAN (unless explicitly forbidden or prevented by the rules) register by publishing a message that indicates reasonably clearly and reasonably unambiguously that e intends to become a player at that time. with: A first-class person CAN register by sending a public message. 1. Breaks Exile. 2. If you mean any public message with any content registers em then this is very much counteracted by R101(iii) and is a very explicit Mousetrap (see for example CFJ 1290) and all around Bad Idea.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3037 assigned to Walker
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011, Eric Stucky wrote: A first-class person CAN register by sending a public message. No more CFJs by non-players? From that wording, it would still be possible. They CAN register, but they do not necessarily do so. Obviously the wording is unclear if at least a couple of us didn't see the intent. How about just CAN register by announcement? (Common definitions define announcements for non-players same way as for players). -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: New lurker, and odd markup
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Arkady English arkadyenglish+ag...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Agorans: I'd like to say Hi! and announce my intent to lurk/spy on the game for a bit, until I get a feel for what it's like here, at which point I will consider joining as a player. While I do: can anyone help with this: I'm getting odd markup in some messages. For example: =20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =20 Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=3D3036 =20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D CFJ 3036 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =20 Under the ruleset in place during the decision to adopt Proposal 7077, a vote of FOR is implicitly treated as FOR, FOR =20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D I'm sure you have seen this before - can you recommend a fix? Many thanks, Arkady English. Looks like quoted-printable encoding, although gmail definitely should not actually be displaying it like that (almost all of the players use gmail and would have noticed...)
DIS: Re: BUS: Register
Gondolier, please send your mail in plaintext. If you do not know how, tell us what client you're using and I'm sure someone can help you. And it probably doesn't require a CFJ, but… if you look at historical attempts to register, they tend to be intentionally obfuscated and then CFJed. So, we're not pedants, we're just conservative! (technically…) -Turiski I find it gloomy that people with difficulty in uttering a particular letter are liable to clearly unneeded Call For Review. I am really caught off guard. Gondolier.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of Proposals 7081-7083
The question is, if Murphy doesn't vote, whether the PRESENT stops us from getting to AGAINST (strict perl-or logic interpretation), or whether the AGAINST somehow overrides the PRESENT (common usage/more common sense interpretation and probably the intent). -G. That's a rather unfortunate feature of endorsement. Arguments: Since the original document specified in particular a Perl-style 'or', rather than simply a more general type of or, the message presented a reasonably unambiguous intent to follow a strict logical interpretation. In that case, the question at play is whether this intent is stronger than the intent to vote what Murphy votes, otherwise AGAINST. -Turiski
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Register
On Fri, 24 Jun 2011, Eric Stucky wrote: And it probably doesn't require a CFJ, but… if you look at historical attempts to register, they tend to be intentionally obfuscated and then CFJed. For certain painful values of recent history.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of Proposals 7081-7083
On Fri, 24 Jun 2011, Eric Stucky wrote: The question is, if Murphy doesn't vote, whether the PRESENT stops us from getting to AGAINST (strict perl-or logic interpretation), or whether the AGAINST somehow overrides the PRESENT (common usage/more common sense interpretation and probably the intent). -G. That's a rather unfortunate feature of endorsement. Arguments: Since the original document specified in particular a Perl-style 'or', rather than simply a more general type of or, the message presented a reasonably unambiguous intent to follow a strict logical interpretation. In that case, the question at play is whether this intent is stronger than the intent to vote what Murphy votes, otherwise AGAINST. Turiski, Your email seems to be the one with funky wrapping; Gondilier's second message looks fine to me. Anyway, I thought 'perl-or' wasn't the Boolean logical 'or'. I thought 'perl-or' was Do X or die so that 'or' == 'otherwise'. (Specifying a Boolean logical OR in the original message would have guaranteed failure, which I'm guessing wasn't the intent). -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of Proposals 7081-7083
On 24 June 2011 20:59, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: Anyway, I thought 'perl-or' wasn't the Boolean logical 'or'. I thought 'perl-or' was Do X or die so that 'or' == 'otherwise'. The semantics of (a or b) and (a || b) are identical in Perl. (I think.)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of Proposals 7081-7083
Turiski, Your email seems to be the one with funky wrapping; Gondilier's second message looks fine to me. I'm not entirely sure how my wrapping works. I fiddled with some settings; is it better now? (Specifying a Boolean logical OR in the original message would have guaranteed failure, which I'm guessing wasn't the intent). Right, but it could have said xor or the like. Further, I don't believe or is ruleset-defined, so it should have the common language meaning, which is exclusive, but I think there is history to suggest that ENDORSE or AGAINST means what Tanner intended. (I could be completely wrong about this) The fact that he explicitly stated perl-style seems to suggest some degree of please look at this carefully, and a careful look found this somewhat bizarre feature of endorsement. -Turiski
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of Proposals 7081-7083
Further, I don't believe or is ruleset-defined, so it should have the common language meaning, which is exclusive, but I think there is history to suggest that ENDORSE or AGAINST means what Tanner intended. (I could be completely wrong about this) Post-research remarks: This is wrong/irrelevant. The actual word you would use here if you wanted to be totally safe would be otherwise, since 2127 actually uses that word in an example: If a vote on an Agoran decision is submitted conditionally (e.g. FOR if X is true, otherwise AGAINST), But regardless, I'd like to quote the actual text in 2127 in question: [*continues from above*] then the selected option is evaluated based on the value of the condition(s) at the end of the voting period, and is clearly specified if and only if the value of the condition(s) can be reasonably determined (without circularity or paradox) from information reasonably available during the voting period. If the option cannot be clearly identified, a vote of PRESENT is cast. I think in this case, the option can be clearly identified, so it probably is unambiguous regardless of whether Murphy votes or not. -Turiski
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of Proposals 7081-7083
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: Anyway, I thought 'perl-or' wasn't the Boolean logical 'or'. I thought 'perl-or' was Do X or die so that 'or' == 'otherwise'. If I'm not mistaken, 'or' in Perl evaluates its left argument and returns that, unless it is false, in which case it evaluates and returns its right argument. Things like do X or die work because the expression die is evaluated if and only if do X is false. —Tanner L. Swett
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of Proposals 7081-7083
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 9:11 PM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote: On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: Anyway, I thought 'perl-or' wasn't the Boolean logical 'or'. I thought 'perl-or' was Do X or die so that 'or' == 'otherwise'. If I'm not mistaken, 'or' in Perl evaluates its left argument and returns that, unless it is false, in which case it evaluates and returns its right argument. Things like do X or die work because the expression die is evaluated if and only if do X is false. Which is the same as ||, just with different precedence.
