Ed Murphy wrote:
e.g. why bother enshrining the basic behavior of some concept in a
Power 3 rule if you're going to let Power 2 rules modify that behavior?
Perhaps some aspects need to be power=3 difficult to modify, but other
aspects should be modifiable at power=2 in certain well-defined ways.
I vote as follows. A vote on any of the below shall be taken to mean
an infinite number of votes in that fashion on that proposal. Any
proposal which does not have a vote listed is considered to be voted
PRESENT:
NUM FL AI SUBMITTER TITLE
5147 Oi 1comex more knaves
FOR
5148
Roger Hicks wrote:
I vote as follows. A vote on any of the below shall be taken to mean
an infinite number of votes in that fashion on that proposal.
I don't believe you can do that. Finite repeat counts have been accepted
as a shorthand for something that you could in principle do in full,
but
On 8/20/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Whence the anti-Zefram movement?
I don't think it's a personal thing, Zefram. For all we know, those
votes could have been I'll vote AGAINST this one just because I can,
and vote FOR the other because it's funny.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let
Zefram wrote:
Amend rule 2149 by inserting the words or which e is reckless
regarding the veracity of at the end of each sentence in the second
paragraph.
I still think this should define reckless, perhaps by example.
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
e.g. why bother enshrining the basic behavior of some concept in a
Power 3 rule if you're going to let Power 2 rules modify that behavior?
Perhaps some aspects need to be power=3 difficult to modify, but other
aspects should be modifiable at power=2 in certain
How reckless of you.
Quoting Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
With Agoran consent, I install Peekee to the office of Herald.
BobTHJ
--
Peekee
Taral wrote:
I vote as follows: (or do I?)
I think that if you said you do then you actually do. You might therefore
be violating a SHOULD in the statement that you do. Be glad P5147 hasn't
been adopted yet, which would make it a SHALL.
Perhaps your (or do I?) is sufficient qualifier to get
Quoting Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Whence the anti-Zefram movement?
-zefram
Damn he's on to us. Move to plan B.
--
Peekee
On 8/20/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It might be a tall-poppies thing. Let's look at the VLOP and VC
leaders, grouping partnerships with the players who most often
control them in practice:
27 33 Zefram + Pineapple
15 23 Murphy + Human Point Two
12 9 BobTHJ +
proposal which does not have a vote listed is considered to be voted
PRESENT:
This bit's fine.
Might have unexpected consequences, though. I think you just voted
PRESENT on proposals 5145 and 5146.
Pavitra wrote:
Might have unexpected consequences, though. I think you just voted
PRESENT on proposals 5145 and 5146.
Well spotted. E was somewhat unclear on which proposals e meant.
Ultimately, of course, e didn't cast any votes at all, because of the
infinitude issue.
-zefram
On 8/18/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(a) The action CANNOT be performed, or CAN be performed
ONLY IF certain conditions are satisfied.
(b) The action MAY NOT be performed, or MAY be performed
ONLY IF certain conditions are satisfied.
On 8/20/07, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/18/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(a) The action CANNOT be performed, or CAN be performed
ONLY IF certain conditions are satisfied.
(b) The action MAY NOT be performed, or MAY be performed
Proposal: Refactor regulation
(AI = 3, please)
Amend Rule 2125 (Regulation Regulations) to read:
An action is regulated if any of the following is true:
(a) The rules specify that the action CANNOT be performed, or
CAN be performed ONLY IF certain conditions are
15 matches
Mail list logo
