Taral wrote:
On 11/29/07, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We surrendered?
Not that I know of. :)
Of course, we could make a proposal celebrating the surrender of B Nomic
to Agora.
Whether it happend or not is irrelavant ;)
Levi
On 11/29/07, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We surrendered?
Not that I know of. :)
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On Thursday 29 November 2007 22:06:16 Jamie Dallaire wrote:
> I Withdraw Proposal 195.
>
> I Revise Proposal 191 to read as follows:
> {
>
> At the bottom of Rule 3-8 ("Calendar"), add a sub-heading called "Public
> Holidays".
> In Rule 3-8, under the sub-heading "Public Holidays", add the follow
On Thursday 29 November 2007 22:04:00 Taral wrote:
> On 11/29/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Nov 29, 2007 3:01 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > The AFO won the game as a result of comex's message with Message-ID
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
> > >
> > > The AFO won the g
On 11/29/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 29, 2007 3:01 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The AFO won the game as a result of comex's message with Message-ID
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
> >
> > The AFO won the game as a result of pikhq's message with Message-ID
> > <[EMAIL
On 11/29/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> VCs, each of a color distinct from the rest,
What's wrong with "different"?
"VCs, each of a different color,"
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On 11/29/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I judge CFJ 1806 to be UNDECIDABLE due to unclarity.
Isn't this sort of thing what UNDETERMINED was for?
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
pikhq wrote:
(besides, such a claim would be bullshit: this isn't a question on a
rule-defined action)
I was actually going to CFJ with an argument that perhaps it was,
except that it's moot due to the UNDECIDABLE vs. UNDETERMINED fix.
root wrote:
pikhq's announcement was similar, but each action read "decreate"
rather than "decrease". I argue that this difference is meaningless
per Rule 754(i).
Gratuituous arguments for 1814:
More precisely, each action in pikhq's announcement read "decreate
by 1" rather than "decrease by
root wrote:
On Nov 29, 2007 5:54 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Proto-Proposal: Types of switches
(AI = 2, please)
Amend Rule 2162 (Switches) by appending this text:
A slider is a switch with an infinite number of possible values.
A button is a switch with exactly tw
On Nov 29, 2007 6:41 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I intend to make hedgehogcull inactive, without objection.
hedgehogcull is already inactive, as of 29 Oct 07.
-root
On Nov 29, 2007 5:54 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Proto-Proposal: Types of switches
> (AI = 2, please)
>
> Amend Rule 2162 (Switches) by appending this text:
>
>A slider is a switch with an infinite number of possible values.
>
>A button is a switch with exactly two p
On Thursday 29 November 2007, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> It looks like VLOPs are "parameters", but I don't see a typing anywhere,
> other then that their default values happen to be non-negative integers.
> Is there anything I'm missing forbidding their values from being
> negative, complex, or for that
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, comex wrote:
> While VCs are things, VVLOP is a number.
It looks like VLOPs are "parameters", but I don't see a typing anywhere,
other then that their default values happen to be non-negative integers.
Is there anything I'm missing forbidding their values from being nega
On Thursday 29 November 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> Incidentally, it's interesting that these two Message-IDs are so
> different in form despite both having been assigned by Gmail.
pikhq's message was sent (and the message-id assigned) by KMail:
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7
signature.asc
Description:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, comex wrote:
> I am not trying to use -1 of an asset! While VCs are things, VVLOP is a
> number.
Gotcha. I'll have another look and think. -G.
On Thursday 29 November 2007, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Zefram wrote:
> > I hereby, in linked fashion, assign Goethe as judge of CFJs 1813-1814.
>
> Proto-semi-judgment
>
> Assets are described in the rules as physical, countable, tangible
> things.
>
> When we've had past rules abo
Proto-Proposal: Types of switches
(AI = 2, please)
Amend Rule 2162 (Switches) by appending this text:
A slider is a switch with an infinite number of possible values.
A button is a switch with exactly two possible values. "To
press an instance of a button" is to make it come
Goethe wrote:
5334 D1 3Murphy Refactor co-authors
AGAINST (doesn't fix co-authors against their will?)
Feel free to propose adding something like "The author SHALL NOT
specify a co-author unless a significant portion of the proposal
accurately represents the co-author's input".
On Thursday 29 November 2007 17:40:07 Ed Murphy wrote:
> pikhq wrote:
>
> >> 5320 O1 1pikhq Non-reporting Office
> > Thanks to recent VVLOP increases, I vote FOR this twice more.
>
> This doesn't work. These increases will only affect your voting limit
> starting with proposals distr
pikhq wrote:
5320 O1 1pikhq Non-reporting Office
Thanks to recent VVLOP increases, I vote FOR this twice more.
This doesn't work. These increases will only affect your voting limit
starting with proposals distributed next week.
Goethe wrote:
Precedent is mixed on whether "spend 0 VCs" is an action (see CFJ 1444 vs.
CFJ 1456). I also remember a stronger precedent with regard to fees that
supports the caller's arguments, but I also haven't found it on a cursory
look, may look deeper later. At this point, I do not rely
Zefram wrote:
something like "... whose Quality for that case is not within 5 of the
highest Quality for that case among those eligible to be judge".
"... whose Quality for that case is at least 5 less than the Quality
of another eligible judge".
Eagerness is an integer index with a value fr
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Zefram wrote:
> I hereby, in linked fashion, assign Goethe as judge of CFJs 1813-1814.
Proto-semi-judgment
Assets are described in the rules as physical, countable, tangible things.
When we've had past rules about such objects, we had a strong custom and
precedent (e.g.
Josiah Worcester wrote:
> On Wednesday 28 November 2007 22:08:21 Michael Norrish wrote:
>> My Mac is doing a great job of rendering the Japanese; I was very
>> pleasantly surprised to find it, Emacs and Thunderbird all coping so
>> well.
>>
>> Michael.
>>
>>
>
>
> Now, H. First Speaker, can you *
Roger Hicks wrote:
>Except where modified by other rules, the entities qualified to be
>assigned as judge of a judicial case are active players.
Should be "... are the active players.".
> The CotC SHALL NOT knowingly assign a judge to a case who
>does not share the highest Quality value
Latest Revision:
Proto-Proposal: Quality Judge Assignment
{
Replace the last three paragraphs of R1868 with:
{{
Except where modified by other rules, the entities qualified to be
assigned as judge of a judicial case are active players. Being
unqualified to be assigned as a judge does not
inherent
On Nov 29, 2007 1:39 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What happens in this case when the partnership's quality is reduced?
> Is the alien's quality reduced like any other member's, or is the
> reduction spread over only the player members?
Actually, I guess it clearly needs to be over on
On Nov 29, 2007 1:31 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Quality for all natural persons can be defaulted to 0 with only active
> players eligible to be assigned as judges. This would allow
> partnerships containing aliens to judge (albeit less often than if
> they were players).
What hap
On Nov 29, 2007 1:27 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 29, 2007 1:19 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > {
> > The Quality of an entity which is composed of one or more persons is
> > the average of the quality of each of those persons. Whenever an
> > entity composed of
On Nov 29, 2007 1:19 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> {
> The Quality of an entity which is composed of one or more persons is
> the average of the quality of each of those persons. Whenever an
> entity composed of one or more persons would have its quality reduced,
> that reduction is
On Nov 29, 2007 1:05 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At least if the player actually does judge, despite their previous
> expression of disinterest in doing so. This could equally apply to
> accidental assignment of inactive players.
Due to the nature of inactivity, I think it's less l
On Nov 29, 2007 1:05 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Partnerships should never be qualified to judge, period.
> > Inactive players are unlikely to actually judge a case mistakenly
> > assigned to them.
> >
> > It may be worthwhile to let the assignment stand if the player is
> > first-
On Nov 29, 2007 12:56 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I may
> also start including some "holdings as of " sections, so
> that those can be cleaned up and ratified even while more recent points
> of contention continue to be examined.
That's basically what I was planning to proto; I don'
On Nov 29, 2007 11:39 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Roger Hicks wrote:
> >In my estimation that deters from one of the strengths of this system.
> >All Players (or all possible judicial panels) are qualified judges,
> >even those who are second-class or not presently interested in
> >judg
root wrote:
On Nov 29, 2007 11:12 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In my estimation that deters from one of the strengths of this system.
All Players (or all possible judicial panels) are qualified judges,
even those who are second-class or not presently interested in
judging. Will th
root wrote:
On Nov 29, 2007 10:20 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ian Kelly wrote:
The Truthkeepor is an office;
Insert "low-priority".
The inspiration for this was that it's getting to be difficult to
remember what the self-ratification status is for each VC report,
especially s
Roger Hicks wrote:
>In my estimation that deters from one of the strengths of this system.
>All Players (or all possible judicial panels) are qualified judges,
>even those who are second-class or not presently interested in
>judging.
My suggestion retains that aspect of your proposal. It would ma
On Nov 29, 2007 11:12 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In my estimation that deters from one of the strengths of this system.
> All Players (or all possible judicial panels) are qualified judges,
> even those who are second-class or not presently interested in
> judging. Will they ever
On Nov 29, 2007 10:59 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Roger Hicks wrote:
> >What if we revised the assignment provision to read "The CotC SHALL
> >NOT knowingly assign an unqualified judge to a case." This would
> >prevent assignments of unqualified judges from being later found
> >invalid.
Roger Hicks wrote:
>What if we revised the assignment provision to read "The CotC SHALL
>NOT knowingly assign an unqualified judge to a case." This would
>prevent assignments of unqualified judges from being later found
>invalid.
I think that's basically what you'll have to do, but don't overload
On Nov 29, 2007 10:19 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Roger Hicks wrote:
> >Except where modified by other rules, the entities qualified to be
> >assigned as judge of a judicial case are those who share the highest
> >Quality value.
>
> Bad idea. Quality records are likely to get out of sy
On Nov 29, 2007 10:20 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ian Kelly wrote:
> > The Truthkeepor is an office;
>
> Insert "low-priority".
The inspiration for this was that it's getting to be difficult to
remember what the self-ratification status is for each VC report,
especially since they
Ian Kelly wrote:
> The Truthkeepor is an office;
Insert "low-priority".
> The Truthkeepor's report is self-ratifying.
Ontological problems ahoy. Better not, I think.
-zefram
Roger Hicks wrote:
>Except where modified by other rules, the entities qualified to be
>assigned as judge of a judicial case are those who share the highest
>Quality value.
Bad idea. Quality records are likely to get out of synch with reality,
as for example happened to OscarMeyr's posture two da
Proto: The Truthkeepor
Create a new rule titled "The Truthkeepor", reading:
The Truthkeepor is an office; its holder is responsible for
tracking the ratifications of official documents.
The Truthkeepor's report includes, for each official document
ratified within the prev
Roger Hicks wrote:
>VCs, each of a distinct color,
My red VCs are each of a distinct color. Their color is distinctly
red, and that color is distinct from all other VC colors (such as blue
and magenta).
-zefram
On 11/29/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> comex wrote:
> >I spend 0 VCs of different colors to decrease the AFO's VVLOP by -1.
>
> Fortunately that bit of rule text was drafted by someone whose favourite
> number is zero, so the rule handles this case sensibly.
How so?
On Nov 29, 2007 1:09 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's Dictionary.com's definition:
>
> 1. words or language having little or no sense or meaning.
>1. Words or signs having no intelligible meaning: a message that
> was nonsense until decoded.
These are the only relevant
comex wrote:
>I spend 0 VCs of different colors to decrease the AFO's VVLOP by -1.
Fortunately that bit of rule text was drafted by someone whose favourite
number is zero, so the rule handles this case sensibly.
-zefram
Josiah Worcester wrote:
>(let's see how *that* mucks up the CFJ works. :p)
Not at all. It is the status of the contract at the time of Goethe's
announcement that matters.
-zefram
51 matches
Mail list logo
