I'm happy with the intent of this proposal, but I'm not convinced that
The voting limit of an eligible voter is reduced by one if e is
not a natural person.
is actually going to work. It's at least unclear. When is the voting
limit reduced? The most natural interpretation seems to
On 5/4/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm happy with the intent of this proposal, but I'm not convinced that
The voting limit of an eligible voter is reduced by one if e is
not a natural person.
is actually going to work. It's at least unclear. When is the voting
limit
Taral wrote:
Any suggestions on wording?
I think your explanation was much clearer:
at any point, the voting limit is one less than it
would be if the voter was not a natural person.
We've used such forms of wording in the rules before. Adjusting slightly,
I suggest the
On 5/4/07, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I struggled with making it sufficiently generic and yet clear. The
intent is that at any point, the voting limit is one less than it
would be if the voter was not a natural person.
I have a better idea: restrict playerhood to actual persons.
--
C.
Maud wrote:
On 5/4/07, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I struggled with making it sufficiently generic and yet clear. The
intent is that at any point, the voting limit is one less than it
would be if the voter was not a natural person.
I have a better idea: restrict playerhood to actual
1. I understand my registration may be under dispute. However, if the CFJ
returns in my favor, shouldn't my votes be counted?
2. I can't find anything in the rules stating that my votes are invalid
simply because my registration occurred after proposals were distributed. If
I'm missing something
Roger Hicks wrote:
I hereby submit the following CFJ:
That's the spirit! By the way, submitting a CFJ is legal even if
you're not a player, which is just as well with your registration
still uncertain. But unfortunately that uncertainty does mean that
your CFJ doesn't only hinge on the
On 5/4/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyone fancy another group of massively-linked CFJs?
I don't think that will be necessary.
By rule 107 (b), the notice initiating an Agoran decision must give a
``description of the class of eligible voters sufficient to enable
public agreement on
Well, then it appears I submitted an invalid ballot. Such is life.
On 5/4/07, Michael Slone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/4/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyone fancy another group of massively-linked CFJs?
I don't think that will be necessary.
By rule 107 (b), the notice initiating
Maud wrote:
By rule 107 (b), the notice initiating an Agoran decision must give a
``description of the class of eligible voters sufficient to enable
public agreement on which persons are eligible''. Therefore, the
class of eligible voters is set when the decision is initiated and
cannot be
Michael Slone wrote:
By rule 107 (b), the notice initiating an Agoran decision must give a
``description of the class of eligible voters sufficient to enable
public agreement on which persons are eligible''. Therefore, the
class of eligible voters is set when the decision is initiated and
cannot
Michael Slone wrote:
(2) people who join in the middle of the voting period can't vote.
This could be construed as a feature. I thought it was intended as one.
-zefram
On 5/4/07, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The class of eligible voters may (or may not) be all current
players and all persons who register during the voting period. There
is nothing in the above clause preventing this interpretation. The
act of registration (which makes a person into an
On 5/4/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I note, in passing, that we don't in practice require the notice
defined by R107 to be explicit.
The rules do not vanish when we choose to ignore them.
--
C. Maud Image (Michael Slone)
I think someone has a comprehension problem here. I don't think
Maud wrote:
Now, I know we've been following a judicial path lately, but in this
case we ought to pursue a legislative solution, even if only to make
the rules clear.
There are many cases where a concise legislative solution is perferrable,
even in a judicial game. This is one of them.
In
Michael Slone wrote:
The rules do not vanish when we choose to ignore them.
Quite so, but we have a history of allowing paraphrases and implicitudes.
If you seriously doubt the efficacy of present proposal distributions,
please CFJ on it.
Related question: if Agoran decisions have not been
Maud wrote:
Since adopting a proposal is an Agoran decision, every notice of
proposal distribution which omits a description of the class of
eligible voters is invalid. An Agoran decision is not actually
initiated except by a valid notice. See rule 107.
We are now splintering into two
Kerim Aydin wrote:
means this distribution (but not prior ones, where there was no
such disagreement in evidence!) was invald.
Curious argument. I never read sufficient to enable ... that way
before. It would mean that the null description, as has previously
been used, would be sufficient if
Zefram wrote:
I don't agree with your adoption of the R991 criterion, at least as
sole criterion for determining public agreement. You can read R991 such
that submission of a CFJ (even if the CFJ is later dismissed or refused)
proves a lack of public agreement, but I think lack of public
On 5/4/07, Michael Slone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a better idea: restrict playerhood to actual persons.
How boring.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can't prove anything.
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
Here are some statements on which we might want to call for judgement
to resolve this mess:
* a message labelled as a distribution of proposals and detailing
the text and other attributes of proposals, as has been periodically
published during the first quarter of 2007, in the absence of
Taral wrote:
On 5/4/07, Michael Slone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a better idea: restrict playerhood to actual persons.
How boring.
I agree. We've previously had Groups that could vote, own currencies, and
suchlike; I see no reason not to explore the possibilities of group-like
entities
On 4/29/07, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
== CFJ 1627 ==
The text in exhibit A, if enacted into a Rule, would conflict
with Rule 101.
The Caller
Wow
will every official post I make spark this much controversy? This could be
quite exciting :)
BobTHJ
On 5/4/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael Slone wrote:
The rules do not vanish when we choose to ignore them.
Quite so, but we have a history of allowing paraphrases and
24 matches
Mail list logo
