Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
When a player deregisters, e ceases to be a party to all
contracts, unless e specifies otherwise at the time, or the
contract specifies otherwise.
I think that's the wrong default. We've decoupled contractual capacity
from playerhood; let's not
Ian Kelly wrote:
I did contest that part of the judgement. I pointed out that one
possible mechanism for creating such a CFJ would be a proposal, which
would not need to change any rules as part of its effect.
Duh, I misspoke. I intended to exclude the potential proposal mechanism,
which of
Ian Kelly wrote:
I think it is clear that my announcement
must have initiated at least one case, as it met the requirements of
both R591 and R1504.
I think it meets neither. You announced that you were initiating
a mixed-class case. If that's not possible, then R591
On 9/28/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ian Kelly wrote:
I hereby initiate the following inquiry/criminal case:
The judge in CFJ 1745 initially ruled that a mixed-subclass case could
not be initiated under the present rules. That part of the judgement
was not contested in the appeal.
I'm being a bit lazy here. The rule below would need to be Power 3, do
I need to specify that in the proposal or what is a good way to word
that. Does the AI follow from the power of rules or does that need to
be stated also?
Quoting Peekee [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Proto: Water and oil
[On
Peekee wrote:
I'm being a bit lazy here. The rule below would need to be Power 3, do I
need to specify that in the proposal or what is a good way to word that.
Create a rule with Power 3 and this text: ...
Does the AI follow from the power of rules or does that need to be
stated also?
On 9/28/07, Peekee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Obviously there is some potential for this getting messy. However,
this proposal does not create the split in players or in rules but
rather just lays the framework. If it passes care can be taken to
create oil/water rules and switch players. ]
2149
On 9/28/07, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I furthermore believe that your message cannot be interpreted as
initiating two separate cases, because it was clearly not your intent
to do so.
Correct.
Er. To clarify, I meant that your interpretation of my intent was
correct. My intent,
On 9/28/07, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Instead, I choose to assume
that the entered judgement of IRRELEVANT is appropriate for the reason
that nobody has ever attempted to create such a case. Now somebody
has.
That's true. I'd probably not judge IRRELEVANT on the same inquiry
put
Ed Murphy wrote:
When a player deregisters, e ceases to be a party to all
contracts, unless e specifies otherwise at the time, or the
contract specifies otherwise.
I think that's the wrong default. We've decoupled contractual capacity
from playerhood; let's not link them again.
On 9/28/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Statement: message [EMAIL PROTECTED] had the effect of
resolving the Agoran decision on proposals 5224
I judge TRUE.
I'm unable to decide from the rule whether a former Assessor should or
should not remain the vote collector for Agoran
11 matches
Mail list logo
