Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resending the message because apparently nobody got it
Not about a missing email, no. Sorry if that was misunderstood. On 6/24/2018 2:51 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: Is this case about a missing email, or about using "I do the same thing" to try and vote? If it's about the email problems, could you provide as Evidence the message from your Sent Mail or something, with headers? On Sun, 24 Jun 2018, ATMunn wrote: I CFJ on the following statement: Before the sending of this message, ATMunn voted FOR proposal 8053. No caller's arguments because I have no clue what I'd argue for and how. And just in case this ends up being FALSE, I vote FOR proposals 8053-8057. On 6/23/2018 6:01 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: Actually, I wonder if the problems mightn't run even deeper than that. I don't think "I do the same thing as the last X people in this thread" necessarily implies "I do the same thing as the last X people in this thread _did in this thread_". Aris, V.J. Rada and I have all previously performed actions other than voting on these proposals, and "the same thing" (singular) is too ambiguous to distinguish any of those actions from the votes. So I would argue neither ATMunn nor Trigon, let alone Corona, have voted on these five proposals. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On June 23, 2018 9:33 PM, Alex Smith wrote: >> On Sat, 2018-06-23 at 23:25 +0200, Corona wrote: I'm not using infinite regression. I'm basing my vote on the next (hypothetical) player to vote, who would vote "I do the same as the last six people in this thread", the six people being Aris, VJ Rada, twg, ATMunn, Trigon (who all voted FOR all proposals) and me. Thus the only way for their conditional vote to resolve as FOR all proposals is for my conditional vote to resolve as FOR all proposals (if I voted differently, their conditional vote would be indeterminate and default to PRESENT). Either you've done the same thing as the other people or you've done something different. If we're assuming that you've done something different, "I do the same as the last six people in the thread" won't do anything because it's too ambiguous. If we're assuming that you've done something that's the same, then you've made a conditional vote. So the next person, who's doing something the same as everyone else (including you) is therefore making a conditional vote, based on the hypothetical person after them. If you're arguing "but it's only me who made a conditional vote, the other people didn't!" then you're arguing that you've done something that's relevantly different from the other people in the thread, and as such your hypothetical can't possibly succeed. - ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Resending the message because apparently nobody got it
Is this case about a missing email, or about using "I do the same thing" to try and vote? If it's about the email problems, could you provide as Evidence the message from your Sent Mail or something, with headers? On Sun, 24 Jun 2018, ATMunn wrote: > I CFJ on the following statement: > >Before the sending of this message, ATMunn voted FOR proposal 8053. > > No caller's arguments because I have no clue what I'd argue for and how. > > And just in case this ends up being FALSE, I vote FOR proposals 8053-8057. > > On 6/23/2018 6:01 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > Actually, I wonder if the problems mightn't run even deeper than that. I > don't think "I do the same thing as the last X people in > > this thread" necessarily implies "I do the same thing as the last X > > people in this thread _did in this thread_". Aris, V.J. Rada and I > > have all previously performed actions other than voting on these > > proposals, and "the same thing" (singular) is too ambiguous to > > distinguish any of those actions from the votes. So I would argue > > neither ATMunn nor Trigon, let alone Corona, have voted on these five > > proposals. > > > > -twg > > > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > > > On June 23, 2018 9:33 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > > > >> >> > >> On Sat, 2018-06-23 at 23:25 +0200, Corona wrote: > >> > >>> I'm not using infinite regression. I'm basing my vote on the next > >>> > >>> (hypothetical) player to vote, who would vote "I do the same as the last > >>> > >>> six people in this thread", the six people being Aris, VJ Rada, twg, > >>> > >>> ATMunn, Trigon (who all voted FOR all proposals) and me. > >>> > >>> Thus the only way for their conditional vote to resolve as FOR all > >>> > >>> proposals is for my conditional vote to resolve as FOR all proposals (if I > >>> > >>> voted differently, their conditional vote would be indeterminate and > >>> > >>> default to PRESENT). > >> > >> Either you've done the same thing as the other people or you've done > >> > >> something different. > >> > >> If we're assuming that you've done something different, "I do the same > >> > >> as the last six people in the thread" won't do anything because it's > >> > >> too ambiguous. > >> > >> If we're assuming that you've done something that's the same, then > >> > >> you've made a conditional vote. So the next person, who's doing > >> > >> something the same as everyone else (including you) is therefore making > >> > >> a conditional vote, based on the hypothetical person after them. > >> > >> If you're arguing "but it's only me who made a conditional vote, the > >> > >> other people didn't!" then you're arguing that you've done something > >> > >> that's relevantly different from the other people in the thread, and as > >> > >> such your hypothetical can't possibly succeed. > >> > >> > >> > - > >> > >> > >> > >> > ais523 > > >
DIS: Re: BUS: Resending the message because apparently nobody got it
Gratituous arguments: You need to "publish a notice" to vote. R478/Fora says: 'A public message is a message sent via a public forum, or sent to all players and containing a clear designation of intent to be public. [...] A person "publishes" or "announces" something by sending a public message.' The message does not need to be sent to all players, it merely needs to be sent via a public forum, and presumably it doesn't need to be received by all players (excerpt from the same rule): 'Each player should ensure e can receive messages via each public forum.' Clearly, the _receiving_ player is responsible for making sure e can receive messages, not the sender or the Registrar. ~Corona On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 8:09 PM, ATMunn wrote: > I CFJ on the following statement: > >Before the sending of this message, ATMunn voted FOR proposal 8053. > > No caller's arguments because I have no clue what I'd argue for and how. > > And just in case this ends up being FALSE, I vote FOR proposals 8053-8057. > > On 6/23/2018 6:01 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > Actually, I wonder if the problems mightn't run even deeper than that. I > don't think "I do the same thing as the last X people in > > this thread" necessarily implies "I do the same thing as the last X > > people in this thread _did in this thread_". Aris, V.J. Rada and I > > have all previously performed actions other than voting on these > > proposals, and "the same thing" (singular) is too ambiguous to > > distinguish any of those actions from the votes. So I would argue > > neither ATMunn nor Trigon, let alone Corona, have voted on these five > > proposals. > > > > -twg > > > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > > > On June 23, 2018 9:33 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> On Sat, 2018-06-23 at 23:25 +0200, Corona wrote: > >> > >>> I'm not using infinite regression. I'm basing my vote on the next > >>> > >>> (hypothetical) player to vote, who would vote "I do the same as the > last > >>> > >>> six people in this thread", the six people being Aris, VJ Rada, twg, > >>> > >>> ATMunn, Trigon (who all voted FOR all proposals) and me. > >>> > >>> Thus the only way for their conditional vote to resolve as FOR all > >>> > >>> proposals is for my conditional vote to resolve as FOR all proposals > (if I > >>> > >>> voted differently, their conditional vote would be indeterminate and > >>> > >>> default to PRESENT). > >> > >> Either you've done the same thing as the other people or you've done > >> > >> something different. > >> > >> If we're assuming that you've done something different, "I do the same > >> > >> as the last six people in the thread" won't do anything because it's > >> > >> too ambiguous. > >> > >> If we're assuming that you've done something that's the same, then > >> > >> you've made a conditional vote. So the next person, who's doing > >> > >> something the same as everyone else (including you) is therefore making > >> > >> a conditional vote, based on the hypothetical person after them. > >> > >> If you're arguing "but it's only me who made a conditional vote, the > >> > >> other people didn't!" then you're arguing that you've done something > >> > >> that's relevantly different from the other people in the thread, and as > >> > >> such your hypothetical can't possibly succeed. > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > - > >> > >> > >> > >> > ais523 > > >
