Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Election Campaigns
On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, Nic Evans wrote: > On 09/28/17 14:26, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > >> On Thu, 2017-09-28 at 19:06 +, Alexis Hunt wrote: > >>> I submit the following and spend 1 AP to pend it: > >>> I pend this proposal for 1 AP. > >> IIRC these both work, leaving you out of AP for the week. > > I don't think so. > > > > CFJ 3529 found recently that setting a switch to a value it had > > already was a null-op (didn't count as "flipping the switch"). > > > > There was some discussion of "if you pay a fee for an action that > > fails to do anything, you don't lose the money" recently. I > > thought the conclusion was that you didn't lose the money, but I > > don't think it was CFJ'd. > > I think there's a difference between 'the action fails to happen' and > 'the action fails to have a meaningful effect'. Pending something > already pended might be more of the latter. That was exactly the difference discussed in CFJ 3529. I forgot, but I actually used Pending as the example in the judgement: >From https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3529 > For other practical game effects, if you tried to pay a fee to flip a > Proposal to pending, and it was already pending, you'd probably not want > to lose the money, and the general consensus is that the whole > transaction fails (note, this has not been fully adjudicated, this is a > consensus from discussion). [...] > So in balance, the "no change" = "no flip" is textually correct, and > also, on balance, in the better interests of the game.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Election Campaigns
On 09/28/17 14:26, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, Alex Smith wrote: >> On Thu, 2017-09-28 at 19:06 +, Alexis Hunt wrote: >>> I submit the following and spend 1 AP to pend it: >>> I pend this proposal for 1 AP. >> IIRC these both work, leaving you out of AP for the week. > I don't think so. > > CFJ 3529 found recently that setting a switch to a value it had > already was a null-op (didn't count as "flipping the switch"). > > There was some discussion of "if you pay a fee for an action that > fails to do anything, you don't lose the money" recently. I > thought the conclusion was that you didn't lose the money, but I > don't think it was CFJ'd. I think there's a difference between 'the action fails to happen' and 'the action fails to have a meaningful effect'. Pending something already pended might be more of the latter. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Election Campaigns
On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > On Thu, 2017-09-28 at 19:06 +, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > I submit the following and spend 1 AP to pend it: > > I pend this proposal for 1 AP. > > IIRC these both work, leaving you out of AP for the week. I don't think so. CFJ 3529 found recently that setting a switch to a value it had already was a null-op (didn't count as "flipping the switch"). There was some discussion of "if you pay a fee for an action that fails to do anything, you don't lose the money" recently. I thought the conclusion was that you didn't lose the money, but I don't think it was CFJ'd.
