Ed Murphy wrote:
This gets into the attribute vs. possession debate.
Well, yes. I'd like you to pick one or the other and be consistent
about it. Much of your rule text speaks of gaining and losing S, so it
appears that you intend them to be possessions.
It's a proposal award, it goes with the
Ed Murphy wrote:
This hinges on whether is recused in Rule 2126 (losing VCs) (c)
implicitly restricts its scope to non-reflexive recusals.
I think it (well, actually your second CFJ) hinges on whether the
because clause in R2126 means anything.
-zefram
Levi Stephen wrote:
I seem to remember there was a proto or proposal trying to define
statements like these in more
detail, but I can't find it right now.
clarify Mother, May I?, proposal 5136, rejected with VI=1.25. You voted
against it; it would have been adopted if you'd voted in favour
Pavitra wrote:
[We really should canonize CAN NOT as a synonym of CANNOT, though.]
I suggest not doing so. can not is a confusing turn of phrase,
best avoided. Where not is a separate word in these phrases, there
are two possible things it could be negating. Consider:
x MUST NOT y = x
proto-proposal: black cap
AI: 2
{{{
Amend rule 2126 by replacing item c) in the list of ways that VCs
can be gained with
c) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question, and
has not violated a requirement to submit that judgement
within a time limit, e gains
Ed Murphy wrote:
Proto-Proposal: Republic repair
I'm opposed to this being a separate proposal from the Republic of Agora.
Merge the fixes into the main proposal.
-zefram
proto-proposal: reward for deputisation
AI: 2
{{{
Amend rule 2126 by appending to the list of ways that VCs can be gained:
d) When a player deputises for an office e gains one Cyan VC,
unless someone previously gained a VC in this manner for the
same office in the same
proto-proposal: list VC behaviour by colour
AI: 2
{{{
Amend rule 2126 by replacing the text
VCs may be gained as follows:
a) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains a
number of Red VCs equal to the integer portion of the
proposal's adoption
On 8/17/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To flip an instance of a switch to a particular value is to
make that switch come to have that value (regardless of what the
switch's value was previously). To become X, where X is a
possible value of exactly one of the
or I'm flip'in active?
Quoting Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 8/17/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To flip an instance of a switch to a particular value is to
make that switch come to have that value (regardless of what the
switch's value was previously). To become X,
Ian Kelly wrote:
So I become active will no longer be an acceptable variant of I
flip my activity to active?
I think it would reasonably imply that you are flipping your activity.
To say I make myself active would be a more direct synonym of I
flip my activity to active, and it's clearer when
Ian Kelly wrote:
also argue thet I make myself active is closer in meaning to I
become active than to I flip my activity to active.
I find that a strange assertion. I become active says nothing about
the means by which one becomes active, whereas both of the others are
explicit that one is
proto-proposal: return of the newbie award
AI: 2
{{{
Amend rule 2126 by appending to the list of ways that VCs can be
gained (and lost, if both are in a single list):
(+W) When a person becomes a player and has never been a player
before, e gains 1 white VC. When a person has
On 8/17/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
within a time limit, e gains one VC. The VC gained is Black
if the judicial question is on sentencing, or Blue otherwise.
on veracity or culpability, e gains one Blue VC, unless e
Spurious line.
--
Taral [EMAIL
On 8/17/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is starting to remind me of this paper:
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/steele.pdf
A brilliant paper. Quite persuasive in its point, I think.
Nifty, I was previously unaware of that paper. Disappointing that he
never
(+W) When a person becomes a player and has never been a player
before, e gains 1 white VC. When a person has been a
player continuously for 100 days and has never been a
player before that period, e gains 1 white VC.
I'd restrict the award to
On 8/17/07, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I judge FALSE. BobTHJ was not recused because a judicial question
has remained applicable, open, and unjudged; e chose to recuse emself
because (or so e said at the time, and I see no reason not to take em
at eir word) e didn't have enough time
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Proto-Proposal: Republic repair
I'm opposed to this being a separate proposal from the Republic of Agora.
Merge the fixes into the main proposal.
I plan to; that was written before I saw the votes swinging
roughly 2 to 1 against.
Ed Murphy wrote:
Proto-Proposal: Transfinite arithmetic
Do you have a use for more of those identities, then?
-zefram
19 matches
Mail list logo
