DIS: Re: BUS: Inquiry
On Mon, 2010-04-26 at 14:40 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote: > Arguments: > > This is a classical case of the Paradox of Self-Amendment. The rule says > that "If any change to the gamestate would cause ... any change in the > effect or attributes of this rule ... including its repeal ... it is > cancelled and does not occur." but also that "If this rule already fails > to have its full effect due to a rule, that rule is repealed." Does this > mean that the rule would cause its own repeal because it prevents itself > from taking full effect? Since this clause comes later in the rule, it > should take precedence (by Rule 2240), which would cause its own repeal. I remember making a similar argument in IRC; the potential rule contradicts itself as to whether or not it affects itself, and the contradiction causes it to repeal itself. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Inquiry case
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 3:30 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I initiate an inquiry case on the following statement, disqualifying > ehird: > > The AFO is bound by the Russian Roulette contract. > > Caller's arguments: > > ehird has disclosed the password to me, but (to the best of my > knowledge) not to the AFO's other partners. Sorry, but this is trivially TRUE. ehird did, in fact, decide to disclose the password to the AFO's other partners.
DIS: Re: BUS: Inquiry cases
On Wednesday 05 November 2008 02:51:48 pm Ed Murphy wrote: > I initiate an inquiry case on the following statements: > > Creating a contract in a public message constitutes an > implicit but nevertheless clear indication that it will be public > when it forms, unless published with an explicit and clear > indication to the contrary. > > Creating a pledge in a public message constitutes an implicit > but nevertheless clear indication that it will be public when > it forms, unless published with an explicit and clear indication to > the contrary. One case on each statement, or a single case on whether both are true?
DIS: Re: BUS: Inquiry cases
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 12:51 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I initiate an inquiry case on the following statements: Fails? This is what linked CFJs are for. -- Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you." -- Unknown
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Inquiry case
On 10 Oct 2008, at 20:37, comex wrote: > Sorry, but this is trivially TRUE. ehird did, in fact, decide to disclose the password to the AFO's other partners. yah, pikhq too -- ehird
