Pavitra wrote:
>> Anarchist: ehird, Yally, Tiger
> denounce the Anarchist
That doesn't work, though arguably in a two-horse race it would be a
sufficiently obvious synonym for "if the Anarchist votes for one
candidate, then I vote for the other one".
On Sat, 14 Mar 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
> After having carefully considered the consequences of doing so,
> including the fact that it opens up Agora to multiple easy wins; that it
> reveals a serious flaw in the rules; and that it allows me to win, for
> the duration of this message I will fail to
On Sat, 14 Mar 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
>
> If the proposal entitled "Fix recursive SHOULD" was adopted at the same
> time as this proposal, it is of no effect.
This is an interesting, orthogonal note. Assuming the referent o
On Sat, 2009-03-14 at 03:15 -0500, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
> > Anarchist: ehird, Yally, Tiger
> denounce the Anarchist
Is it even possible to denounce in an election where the choices aren't
FOR/AGAINST/ABSTAIN?
--
ais523
On Sat, 2009-03-14 at 07:52 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Mar 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
> >
> > If the proposal entitled "Fix recursive SHOULD" was adopted at the same
> > time as this proposal, it is of no effect.
>
>
On Sat, 2009-03-14 at 00:53 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
> After having carefully considered the consequences of doing so,
> including the fact that it opens up Agora to multiple easy wins; that it
> reveals a serious flaw in the rules; and that it allows me to win, for
> the duration of this message I
On Sat, 14 Mar 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-03-14 at 07:52 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Mar 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
>>>
>>> If the proposal entitled "Fix recursive SHOULD" was adopted at the same
>>> time
On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 2:53 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> After having carefully considered the consequences of doing so,
> including the fact that it opens up Agora to multiple easy wins; that it
> reveals a serious flaw in the rules; and that it allows me to win, for
> the duration of this message I w
On Sat, 14 Mar 2009, comex wrote:
> But I believe this is incorrect, because this is not a pragmatic
> nomic: it's a platonic nomic with some explicit elements of
> pragmatism.
Perhaps a typical example of the fallacy of "I Think It Is, Therefore It
Has Become So"?
2009/3/14 Kerim Aydin :
> Perhaps a typical example of the fallacy of "I Think It Is, Therefore It
> Has Become So"?
That has plagued Agora for a long time?
ais523 wrote:
> For an even more stark example of this (which may not be directly
> applicable), consider a power-3 rule saying "Players MAY A. Players MAY
> B.", and a power-1 rule saying "Players MAY NOT B." In this situation, I
> believe that B is illegal (although punishments for it would be f
Goethe wrote:
> Yah, that would be fine for the same practical effect, although it couldn't
> wholly undo things - if the previous one changed a rule and then a later
> one put it back, at the very least an amendment number would change. It
> would be possible to go further and retroactively rese
On Sat, 14 Mar 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> For an even more stark example of this (which may not be directly
>> applicable), consider a power-3 rule saying "Players MAY A. Players MAY
>> B.", and a power-1 rule saying "Players MAY NOT B." In this situation, I
>> believe that B is illegal (although p
On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Not so good. This means that if a power-1 rule says MAY X, and a power-2
> rule says MAY NOT X, then the power-3 MMI would make the power-1 MAY
> take precedence over the power-2 MAY NOT.
MMI provides definitions only. If the Oxford English D
On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 5:33 PM, The PerlNomic Partnership
wrote:
> This message serves to announce and make effective changes to
> the list of parties to the PerlNomic Partnership (a public contract).
>
> The current list of parties is:
> Nickname Ema
ehird wrote:
> Murphy, missed this?
I've got it, just haven't caught up on updating e-mails to the
database yet. Maybe later tonight.
On Sat, 14 Mar 2009, Warrigal wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Not so good. This means that if a power-1 rule says MAY X, and a power-2
>> rule says MAY NOT X, then the power-3 MMI would make the power-1 MAY
>> take precedence over the power-2 MAY NOT.
>
> MMI prov
17 matches
Mail list logo
