I'm liking Levi's permission-as-a-state idea, although I don't think
that there's any reason that permissions should be assets...unless we
go way overboard with it. :-)
Liquid assets, no doubt.
I had chosen Assets because permissions would share the concept of 'being owned'
I guess. Each
root wrote:
On Nov 18, 2007 9:34 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(g) If the outcome is APPROVED, then the vote collector CAN
perform the action (by announcement if no other mechanism
is specified) within one week after resolving the decision.
Rule 2172 do
On Nov 18, 2007 9:34 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>(g) If the outcome is APPROVED, then the vote collector CAN
>perform the action (by announcement if no other mechanism
>is specified) within one week after resolving the decision.
Rule 2172 doesn't speci
root wrote:
On Nov 18, 2007 8:21 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Nov 18, 2007 6:51 PM, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thanks. I think CAN does better describe what I'm trying to achieve here.
CAN isn't sufficient; there's still no mechanism to replace the one
you're remov
Ian Kelly wrote:
On Nov 18, 2007 8:21 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Nov 18, 2007 6:51 PM, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thanks. I think CAN does better describe what I'm trying to achieve here.
CAN isn't sufficient; there's still no mechanism to replace the one
you're r
On Nov 18, 2007 8:30 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Except now that I think about it, that completely displaces the point
> of the proposal. You don't send a message to B Nomic on behalf of
> Agora by posting it to Agora's public forum. What's a non-ugly way
> for the rule to supply a
On Nov 18, 2007 8:21 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 18, 2007 6:51 PM, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Thanks. I think CAN does better describe what I'm trying to achieve here.
>
> CAN isn't sufficient; there's still no mechanism to replace the one
> you're removing.
On Nov 18, 2007 6:51 PM, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks. I think CAN does better describe what I'm trying to achieve here.
CAN isn't sufficient; there's still no mechanism to replace the one
you're removing. Make it "CAN by announcement".
On Nov 18, 2007 7:00 PM, Ed Murphy <[E
Josiah Worcester wrote:
On Sunday 18 November 2007 19:37:18 comex wrote:
On Sunday 18 November 2007, Levi Stephen wrote:
I CFJ on the following statements, requesting linked assignment, barring
pikhq.
Gratuitous arguments:
http://cfj.qoid.us/1722
http://cfj.qoid.us/1714
I note that "support
On Sunday 18 November 2007 19:37:18 comex wrote:
> On Sunday 18 November 2007, Levi Stephen wrote:
> > I CFJ on the following statements, requesting linked assignment, barring
> > pikhq.
> Gratuitous arguments:
> http://cfj.qoid.us/1722
> http://cfj.qoid.us/1714
>
I note that "support" may reason
Levi Stephen wrote:
I CFJ on the following statements, requesting linked assignment, barring
pikhq.
Actually, CotC Zefram, upon rereading, although they concern the same action,
they seem to concern separate issues, so linked assignment does not seem
appropriate. I'll trust your judgement o
On Sunday 18 November 2007, Levi Stephen wrote:
> I CFJ on the following statements, requesting linked assignment, barring
> pikhq.
Gratuitous arguments:
http://cfj.qoid.us/1722
http://cfj.qoid.us/1714
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Levi wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
comex wrote:
On Sunday 18 November 2007, Levi Stephen wrote:
(g) If the outcome is APPROVED, then the vote collector MUST
perform the action as soon as possible after resolving the decision.
add CAN
Replace with CAN, actually. A player intending to per
Ed Murphy wrote:
comex wrote:
On Sunday 18 November 2007, Levi Stephen wrote:
(g) If the outcome is APPROVED, then the vote collector MUST
perform the action as soon as possible after resolving the decision.
add CAN
Replace with CAN, actually. A player intending to perform a depende
comex wrote:
On Sunday 18 November 2007, Levi Stephen wrote:
(g) If the outcome is APPROVED, then the vote collector MUST
perform the action as soon as possible after resolving the decision.
add CAN
Replace with CAN, actually. A player intending to perform a dependent
action should b
comex wrote:
On Sunday 18 November 2007, Taral wrote:
A judicial finding is a judgement of a question on veracity
that is neither appealed within the time limit for doing so
nor sustained on appeal.
Logic error.
In fact, this is not necessary at all. Since AFFIRM reassigns
Eris wrote:
On 11/18/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sunday 18 November 2007, Taral wrote:
I can't find any style guides that support or even mention this
extension of the serial comma.
You're probably right, but if that humongous sentences had no commas
whatsoever, it would be ugly.
On Sunday 18 November 2007, Levi Stephen wrote:
>(g) If the outcome is APPROVED, then the vote collector MUST
> perform the action as soon as possible after resolving the decision.
add CAN
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Sunday 18 November 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
> I don't know that my claim will have any formal support, but I argue
> from common sense (at least it seemed so to me) that omitting the
> comma would be worse. Perhaps this is an argument for moving the
> two items into bulleted paragraphs, or for re
On Nov 18, 2007 6:19 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You could purport (I will attempt to use that word in each message I send)
> to send a message on behalf of Agora, but if Agora does not legally
> support this then it is unlikely to be recognized.
To which I would argue that the only mec
Eris wrote:
On 11/18/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The serial comma's role of disambiguation can be reasonably extended
to lists of two, provided that the items in the list are sufficiently
complex. Furthermore, as demonstrated multiple times in this reply,
there are several other s
On Sunday 18 November 2007 18:24:35 Ed Murphy wrote:
> pikhq wrote:
>
> > The recordkeeporship of VCs being split amongst these different offices
just
> > makes VCs far too tricky to handle. Just leave it all with the Accountor.
> > Also, why does the Accountor keep track of all VDs, but not al
pikhq wrote:
The recordkeeporship of VCs being split amongst these different offices just
makes VCs far too tricky to handle. Just leave it all with the Accountor.
Also, why does the Accountor keep track of all VDs, but not all VCs?
VC tracking is the bulk of the Assessor's workload - I have
On Sunday 18 November 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> Ironically, the only rule that arguably causes sending a message on
> behalf of Agora to be regulated in the first place is R2172. And if
> we accept that sending a message on behalf of Agora is not a dependent
> action, then it doesn't regulate it at
On Nov 18, 2007 6:02 PM, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For discussion purposes, I interpret this decision as giving me permission to
> perform the action (as evidence by MAY in the rule), but not requiring it. So
> I'm not sure I actually have to perform this action, or that I have a ti
On Nov 18, 2007 5:56 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 18 November 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> > According to R1728, e already did:
> >
> > (g) If the outcome is APPROVED, then the vote collector performs
> > the action upon resolving the decision.
> >
> > The fact that
On Sunday 18 November 2007, Josiah Worcester wrote:
> In the criminal case 1783, I sentence comex to APOLOGY.
No prescribed words? Yay!
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
comex wrote:
On Sunday 18 November 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
According to R1728, e already did:
(g) If the outcome is APPROVED, then the vote collector performs
the action upon resolving the decision.
The fact that this action did not result in a physical message at the
B Nomic pu
On Sunday 18 November 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> According to R1728, e already did:
>
> (g) If the outcome is APPROVED, then the vote collector performs
> the action upon resolving the decision.
>
> The fact that this action did not result in a physical message at the
> B Nomic public
On 11/18/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The original sentence is "has not been appealed, or has been sustained" --
> yours is "not appealed, and not sustained"
Woops. Change sustained to overturned then.
> P.S. Is "purport" the word of the month?
Didn't you get the memo?
--
Taral <[EMA
On Nov 18, 2007 4:53 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 18, 2007 5:54 PM, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I intend, with Agoran Consent, to send the message "Chickens" to the
> > B Nomic public forum on behalf of Agora.
>
> Well, do it already!
According to R
On Sunday 18 November 2007, Taral wrote:
> On 11/18/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sunday 18 November 2007, Taral wrote:
> > > A judicial finding is a judgement of a question on veracity
> > > that is neither appealed within the time limit for doing so
> > > nor susta
On 11/18/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 18 November 2007, Taral wrote:
> > A judicial finding is a judgement of a question on veracity
> > that is neither appealed within the time limit for doing so
> > nor sustained on appeal.
>
> Logic error.
It is logically e
On Nov 18, 2007 5:54 PM, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I intend, with Agoran Consent, to send the message "Chickens" to the
> B Nomic public forum on behalf of Agora.
Well, do it already!
On Sunday 18 November 2007, Levi Stephen wrote:
> The option selected by Agora is SUPPORT.
APPROVED
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
I intend with Agoran Consent to cause Agora to unconditionally
surrender to B Nomic.
I OBJECT
Levi
On Nov 18, 2007 2:19 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 18 November 2007, Taral wrote:
> > I can't find any style guides that support or even mention this
> > extension of the serial comma.
>
> You're probably right, but if that humongous sentences had no commas
> whatsoever, it would
On Nov 18, 2007 2:10 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To formally distinguish between the concepts described under the
> new AFFIRM and CONCUR. For instance, Rule 2126 would revoke the
> prior judge's salary on CONCUR.
In some cases that's fine, but it also leaves judges open to losing
On Sunday 18 November 2007, Taral wrote:
> A judicial finding is a judgement of a question on veracity
> that is neither appealed within the time limit for doing so
> nor sustained on appeal.
Logic error.
In fact, this is not necessary at all. Since AFFIRM reassigns the
judgem
On 11/18/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 18 November 2007, Taral wrote:
> > I can't find any style guides that support or even mention this
> > extension of the serial comma.
>
> You're probably right, but if that humongous sentences had no commas
> whatsoever, it would be ugly.
T
On Nov 18, 2007 12:41 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It seems to me that CFJ1799 is actually about an *unregulated* action (by rule
> 2125). By rule 101, every player has the right to perform unregulated
> actions. Thus, this CFJ should *probably* be judged either IRRELEVANT or
>
On Sunday 18 November 2007, Taral wrote:
> I can't find any style guides that support or even mention this
> extension of the serial comma.
You're probably right, but if that humongous sentences had no commas
whatsoever, it would be ugly.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed me
Goethe wrote:
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
The rules only ascribe importance to the actual judgement, not to the
arguments presented; the CotC isn't even required to track them. So
it's not as if any rule would be broken by doing that.
I forgot that. How can we have a meaningful pr
Eris wrote:
On 11/17/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Proto-Proposal: Concurring opinions
(AI = 1.7, please)
Why?
To formally distinguish between the concepts described under the
new AFFIRM and CONCUR. For instance, Rule 2126 would revoke the
prior judge's salary on CONCUR.
Also
On 11/18/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, there was; they only became meaningless when a second nomination
> was accepted within the four-day window.
Oh, quite right.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On 11/18/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The serial comma's role of disambiguation can be reasonably extended
> to lists of two, provided that the items in the list are sufficiently
> complex. Furthermore, as demonstrated multiple times in this reply,
> there are several other situation
On Sunday 18 November 2007 12:17:26 Ed Murphy wrote:
> Proposal: Voting debits and refraction
> (AI = 2, please)
>
> Create a rule titled "Voting Debits" with Power 2 and this text:
>
>Voting Debits (VDs) are a class of fixed assets. VDs CANNOT
>be affected except as defined by
Ed Murphy wrote:
>On majority party proposals, each player has a number of votes
>equal to the size of eir party.
>
>On minority party proposals, each party (measured at start of
>voting period) has one vote (members vote F>A -> FOR, F
>AGAINST, F=A -> PRESENT).
I don't think much to the party con
Eris wrote:
On 11/17/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Um, people, you can't vote yet (Rule 2154).
They can vote in the Agoran Consent decisions, though those decisions
can't be resolved because there are multiple consenting nominees.
Okay, you can't vote *meaningfully* yet. :D The or
Eris wrote:
On 11/17/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Eris wrote:
On 11/17/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A judicial finding is a judgement of a question on veracity
that is not appealed within the time limit for doing so, or
that is sustained on appeal
Proto-proto: More types of proposals
On majority party proposals, each player has a number of votes
equal to the size of eir party.
On minority party proposals, each party (measured at start of
voting period) has one vote (members vote F>A -> FOR, F
AGAINST, F=A -> PRESENT).
On cabinet proposa
On 11/18/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Because it is nonsensical, UNDECIDABLE is appropriate; see Rule 591.
I think UNDETERMINED is a perfectly appropriate judgement.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On Sunday 18 November 2007, Josiah Worcester wrote:
> It seems to me that CFJ1799 is actually about an *unregulated* action
> (by rule 2125). By rule 101, every player has the right to perform
> unregulated actions. Thus, this CFJ should *probably* be judged either
> IRRELEVANT or TRUE.
Because it
It seems to me that CFJ1799 is actually about an *unregulated* action (by rule
2125). By rule 101, every player has the right to perform unregulated
actions. Thus, this CFJ should *probably* be judged either IRRELEVANT or
TRUE.
This case, however, seems to come down to the permissibility of an u
comex wrote:
>What do you think would be useful with urgency?
Proposals governing the civil liberties of infiltrators.
-zefram
Ian Kelly wrote:
>Judgements are appealed, not cases, and R2110 is consistent with this
>distinction. The new UNDECIDABLE judgement is distinct from the
>original one and thus has never been appealed, so I don't believe this
>is a problem either.
That's the way I intended it to work.
-zefram
On Sunday 18 November 2007 10:59:14 Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> I submit the following proposal, entitled "Protective Alliance" and
> set its AI to 4.
>
> {{
> Whereas Agora faces grave danger from devious external forces, and is
> in dire need of protection,
>
> Agora submits to Nomicapolis as its b
On Nov 18, 2007 8:05 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I hadn't thought about the bug in the win rule. (Now it's resulted in a
> judgement of undecidable, but that CFJ was *previousy* appealed within the
> same week, don't ask me what happens).
Judgements are appealed, not cases, and R
On Nov 18, 2007 7:57 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 17 Nov 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> > The rules only ascribe importance to the actual judgement, not to the
> > arguments presented; the CotC isn't even required to track them. So
> > it's not as if any rule would be broken
On Sunday 18 November 2007, Zefram wrote:
> AGAINST (doesn't address doing anything *useful* with urgency)
What do you think would be useful with urgency? While internomic relations
may compel Agora to act quickly, in domestic issues delays are, IMO,
appropriate.
signature.asc
Description: Th
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Goethe wrote:
>
>> I don't suppose there's any way of just appending this to the arguments
>> of the judgement I haven't appealed yet, is there... really wishing for
>> concurring opinions here...
>
> I can always throw 'em into the database as gratuituous a
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> The rules only ascribe importance to the actual judgement, not to the
> arguments presented; the CotC isn't even required to track them. So
> it's not as if any rule would be broken by doing that.
I forgot that. How can we have a meaningful precedence/st
On 11/17/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Eris wrote:
>
> > On 11/17/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>A judicial finding is a judgement of a question on veracity
> >>that is not appealed within the time limit for doing so, or
> >>that is sustained on ap
On 11/17/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Proto-Proposal: Concurring opinions
> (AI = 1.7, please)
Why?
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On 11/17/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Um, people, you can't vote yet (Rule 2154).
>
> They can vote in the Agoran Consent decisions, though those decisions
> can't be resolved because there are multiple consenting nominees.
Okay, you can't vote *meaningfully* yet. :D The original n
65 matches
Mail list logo
