Re: DIS: Protos on truth and identity
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 7:33 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> This feels clunky. What are we trying to accomplish here? Prevent >> people from claiming to take actions that they know they can't take? > > Yes. Give me one good reason why that should be allowed. I'm not arguing for it to be allowed. However, how about making it a separate thing from truth/falsity? -- Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you." -- Unknown
Re: DIS: Protos on truth and identity
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Ben Caplan wrote: > On Monday 14 July 2008 11:02:04 am Kerim Aydin wrote: >> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Ben Caplan wrote: >>> On Sunday 13 July 2008 11:43:28 pm Ed Murphy wrote: A public claim intended to mislead others (whether directly or indirectly) regarding one's identity constitutes a false statement, and SHOULD be severely punished. >>> >>> A person SHALL NOT make a public claim intended to mislead others, >>> either directly or indirectly, regarding eir identity. >>> >>> [Less clunky, and allows infractions to be punished against a >>> power-3 rule rather than a power-1 one.] >> >> Do you mean that any Rule containing a SHALL NOT can be punished at >> power-3 because it violates MMI? Has that interpretation been >> tested? > > No, R2170 (into which the paragraph in question is protoproposed to be > inserted) is power-3. Oh I see, Murphy's version deferred the infraction to the rule defining false statements. Got it. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Protos on truth and identity
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Sgeo wrote: > On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 12:03 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> As an Officer, I've been forced by one Rule's asap to attempt to perform >> actions that I knew for a fact (due to another rule) would fail. -goethe >> > Details for the curious please? > A division calculation in one rule, with no rounding provision, required me to (attempt to) give out a fraction of a unit of currency. In another case, I was required to post a notice (of victory) for player B because condition A was true, knowing that the notice would not award victory because condition C prevented it. But condition C did not in itself stop my requirement to post the notice. In other words, it happens all the time. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Protos on truth and identity
On Monday 14 July 2008 11:02:04 am Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Ben Caplan wrote: > > On Sunday 13 July 2008 11:43:28 pm Ed Murphy wrote: > >> A public claim intended to mislead others (whether directly > >> or indirectly) regarding one's identity constitutes a false > >> statement, and SHOULD be severely punished. > > > > A person SHALL NOT make a public claim intended to mislead others, > > either directly or indirectly, regarding eir identity. > > > > [Less clunky, and allows infractions to be punished against a > > power-3 rule rather than a power-1 one.] > > Do you mean that any Rule containing a SHALL NOT can be punished at > power-3 because it violates MMI? Has that interpretation been > tested? No, R2170 (into which the paragraph in question is protoproposed to be inserted) is power-3.
Re: DIS: Protos on truth and identity
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 12:03 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Ed Murphy wrote: >> Taral wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 9:43 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: c) A public statement that one performs an action is true if and only if one succeeds in performing that action by making that public statement, but violates this rule only if one believes it will definitely fail. >>> >>> This feels clunky. What are we trying to accomplish here? Prevent >>> people from claiming to take actions that they know they can't take? >> >> Yes. Give me one good reason why that should be allowed. > > As an Officer, I've been forced by one Rule's asap to attempt to perform > actions that I knew for a fact (due to another rule) would fail. -goethe > Details for the curious please?
Re: DIS: Protos on truth and identity
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Ed Murphy wrote: > Taral wrote: > >> On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 9:43 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>c) A public statement that one performs an action is true if >>> and only if one succeeds in performing that action by >>> making that public statement, but violates this rule only >>> if one believes it will definitely fail. >> >> This feels clunky. What are we trying to accomplish here? Prevent >> people from claiming to take actions that they know they can't take? > > Yes. Give me one good reason why that should be allowed. As an Officer, I've been forced by one Rule's asap to attempt to perform actions that I knew for a fact (due to another rule) would fail. -goethe
Re: DIS: Protos on truth and identity
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Ben Caplan wrote: > On Sunday 13 July 2008 11:43:28 pm Ed Murphy wrote: >> A public claim intended to mislead others (whether directly or >> indirectly) regarding one's identity constitutes a false >> statement, and SHOULD be severely punished. > > A person SHALL NOT make a public claim intended to mislead others, > either directly or indirectly, regarding eir identity. > > [Less clunky, and allows infractions to be punished against a power-3 > rule rather than a power-1 one.] Do you mean that any Rule containing a SHALL NOT can be punished at power-3 because it violates MMI? Has that interpretation been tested? -Goethe
Re: DIS: Protos on truth and identity
On Monday 14 July 2008 04:12:48 am Taral wrote: > On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 9:43 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >c) A public statement that one performs an action is true > > if and only if one succeeds in performing that action by making > > that public statement, but violates this rule only if one believes > > it will definitely fail. > > This feels clunky. c) The announcement of action by which a person acts by announcement is true if and only if the specified action is POSSIBLE.
Re: DIS: Protos on truth and identity
Taral wrote: > On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 9:43 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>c) A public statement that one performs an action is true if >> and only if one succeeds in performing that action by >> making that public statement, but violates this rule only >> if one believes it will definitely fail. > > This feels clunky. What are we trying to accomplish here? Prevent > people from claiming to take actions that they know they can't take? Yes. Give me one good reason why that should be allowed.
Re: DIS: Protos on truth and identity
On Sunday 13 July 2008 11:43:28 pm Ed Murphy wrote: > A public claim intended to mislead others (whether directly or > indirectly) regarding one's identity constitutes a false > statement, and SHOULD be severely punished. A person SHALL NOT make a public claim intended to mislead others, either directly or indirectly, regarding eir identity. [Less clunky, and allows infractions to be punished against a power-3 rule rather than a power-1 one.]
Re: DIS: Protos on truth and identity
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 9:43 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >c) A public statement that one performs an action is true if > and only if one succeeds in performing that action by > making that public statement, but violates this rule only > if one believes it will definitely fail. This feels clunky. What are we trying to accomplish here? Prevent people from claiming to take actions that they know they can't take? -- Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you." -- Unknown
