coppro wrote:
> Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Dammit, and I just finished debugging the vote-recording script
>> a couple hours ago, too.
>
> Well, on the plus side you can stop recording people's Chamber and Rests
> and Extra Votes at the start of the voting period, and the logic remains
> valid.
Right
Ed Murphy wrote:
Dammit, and I just finished debugging the vote-recording script
a couple hours ago, too.
Well, on the plus side you can stop recording people's Chamber and Rests
and Extra Votes at the start of the voting period, and the logic remains
valid.
PHP rant: Why doesn't this wo
Ed Murphy wrote:
Dammit, and I just finished debugging the vote-recording script
a couple hours ago, too.
Well, on the plus side you can stop recording people's Chamber and Rests
and Extra Votes at the start of the voting period, and the logic remains
valid.
PHP rant: Why doesn't this wo
coppro wrote:
> comex wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 7:53 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>>> Proposal: More Voting Fun (AI=2, II=0)
>>> {{{
>>> In the fifth paragraph of Rule 2156, replace the second sentence with "The
>>> voting limit
>> This removed the word "initial"; is this intentional? Why "Fix
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 8:58 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> That was your call. To be guilty, "the Accused could have reasonably avoided
> committing the breach without committing a different breach of equal or
> greater severity". It would be unreasonable for the Promotor to have to find
> every proposal
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 8:04 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
wrote:
== Promotor's Proposal Pool Report ==
Date of this report: Tue 27 Oct 2009
Date of last report: Sun 27 Sep 2009
Pool last ratified: 21 Oct, ratified on 26 Oct
Number of Proposals: 45
Distributable proposals:
More V
comex wrote:
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 7:53 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
Proposal: More Voting Fun (AI=2, II=0)
{{{
In the fifth paragraph of Rule 2156, replace the second sentence with "The
voting limit
This removed the word "initial"; is this intentional? Why "Fix Floor-crossing"?
Yes. As it stands
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 8:04 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
wrote:
> == Promotor's Proposal Pool Report ==
>
> Date of this report: Tue 27 Oct 2009
> Date of last report: Sun 27 Sep 2009
> Pool last ratified: 21 Oct, ratified on 26 Oct
>
> Number of Proposals: 45
>
> Distributable proposals:
> More Voting Fu
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 7:53 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Proposal: More Voting Fun (AI=2, II=0)
> {{{
> In the fifth paragraph of Rule 2156, replace the second sentence with "The
> voting limit
This removed the word "initial"; is this intentional? Why "Fix Floor-crossing"?
--
-c.
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
wrote:
>> Dunce Cap 0
>>
> What about having a negative rate for this one?
See the motion I just posted :)
--
-c.
2009/10/27 comex :
> I intend, without two objections in 48 hours, to effect the following Rate
> List:
> [Added new cards, changed relative deck cost and card values based on
> actual usage patterns.]
>
> asset rate (zm)
> --
>
> (...)
>
> Dunce Cap 0
>
Wha
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 16:47, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 16:30, comex wrote:
>> Do you have a copy of the card history on your website not trimmed to
>> the last month?
>>
> You can use the following variables in the querystring:
>
> time - specify an integer number of days, th
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 16:30, comex wrote:
> Do you have a copy of the card history on your website not trimmed to
> the last month?
>
You can use the following variables in the querystring:
time - specify an integer number of days, the history section will
include the specified number of days o
Do you have a copy of the card history on your website not trimmed to
the last month?
--
-c.
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
wrote:
> Have I got something wrong, or did we ratify into existence in the
> pool proposals that were distributed six weeks before the ratification
> intent was even published? If so, is there any way to remove them
> except by the authors?
>
> --
Have I got something wrong, or did we ratify into existence in the
pool proposals that were distributed six weeks before the ratification
intent was even published? If so, is there any way to remove them
except by the authors?
--
-Tiger
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 13:44, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 3:07 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> Walker 10
>
>> Wooble 7 Change Justice Justice Government
>
> I intend, with the support of the people, to cause the PBA to publish
> an No
On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 15:41 -0400, comex wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 3:15 PM, ais523 wrote:
> > On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 11:40 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> >> The domain of the argument is whether or not this opportunity was
> >> "reasonable", by whatever standards we might determine it. Just as
>
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 3:15 PM, ais523 wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 11:40 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> The domain of the argument is whether or not this opportunity was
>> "reasonable", by whatever standards we might determine it. Just as
>> it would be possible but probably unreasonable for som
On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 11:40 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> The domain of the argument is whether or not this opportunity was
> "reasonable", by whatever standards we might determine it. Just as
> it would be possible but probably unreasonable for someone to catch a
> with-notice intent buried in the mi
Why do you think coppro could or would have a set of beliefs differing
from the truth? It seems to me that e would believe the statement is
indeterminate, reducing this to yet another Epimenides.
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 26, 2009, at 1:36 PM, ais523
wrote:
On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 13:2
It's not obviously false to me... if anything, it's somewhere between
undecidable and true. It depends on how you define an undecidable
statement, really, but I don't see how it would be false.
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 26, 2009, at 1:36 PM, ais523
wrote:
On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 13:28 -
ais523 wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 10:49 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> I believe that argument is only valid within a certain scope. In
>> particular, consider it in conjunction with G.'s gratuitous arguments
>> in the same case; there was certainly reasonable opportunity to review
>> the possibi
On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 10:49 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> I believe that argument is only valid within a certain scope. In
> particular, consider it in conjunction with G.'s gratuitous arguments
> in the same case; there was certainly reasonable opportunity to review
> the possibility of a loophole in
ais523 wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-10-25 at 10:15 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> 2698: TRUE
>>
>> I accept the caller's arguments, but also c.'s gratuitous arguments;
>> in particular, ais523's "I intend to amend via various objection-based
>> methods" did not necessarily offer a reasonable opportunity to
On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 13:28 -0400, comex wrote:
> Doesn't matter. If coppro knows e will cease to be a person before
> 2215 is next amended, e can judge FALSE without affecting the truth
> value of anything. If e knows e will remain a person, it's plainly
> UNDECIDABLE albeit almost certain
Doesn't matter. If coppro knows e will cease to be a person before
2215 is next amended, e can judge FALSE without affecting the truth
value of anything. If e knows e will remain a person, it's plainly
UNDECIDABLE albeit almost certainly arising from the case itself.
(if the statement i
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 26, 2009, at 1:00 PM, ais523
wrote:
I play my Drop Your Weapon to destroy coppro's Presto!. (As far as I
can
tell, this is the best use for Drop Your Weapons in the game.)
i prefer major arcana
On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 10:57 -0400, comex wrote:
> If the judge is not a person it's definitely legal because nonpersons
> are not barred from lying. If e is, it's undecidable or not
> unambiguously legal. So, undetermined.
I think you're missing the point behind the paradox. The statement of
t
If the judge is not a person it's definitely legal because nonpersons
are not barred from lying. If e is, it's undecidable or not
unambiguously legal. So, undetermined.
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 26, 2009, at 8:30 AM, ais523
wrote:
On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 08:25 -0400, comex wrote:
Impos
Sean Hunt wrote:
ais523 wrote:
I intend, with 2 support, to appeal this judgement, for two reasons.
First, the arguments do not show that the judgement actually depends on
the condition stated (e.g. if the statement is TRUE both ways round,
then UNDETERMINED is inappropriate). Secondly, coppro (
ais523 wrote:
I intend, with 2 support, to appeal this judgement, for two reasons.
First, the arguments do not show that the judgement actually depends on
the condition stated (e.g. if the statement is TRUE both ways round,
then UNDETERMINED is inappropriate). Secondly, coppro (the actual judge;
On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 08:25 -0400, comex wrote:
> Impossible things can still be legal/illegal. I don't see your point.
My point is that UNDETERMINED is only appropriate if it would be, say,
legal if possible and illegal if impossible, or the other way round.
coppro needs to demonstrate this for t
FWIW, my R101 proto effectively had a weaker version of this: you have
the privilege (must be explicitly waived) to refuse to agree to an
amendment.
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 26, 2009, at 12:33 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
Aaron Goldfein wrote:
Right, so what if we just said that players must a
Impossible things can still be legal/illegal. I don't see your point.
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 26, 2009, at 8:08 AM, ais523
wrote:
On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 07:55 -0400, comex wrote:
there are several ways e could cease to be a person.
But if e did, e couldn't send email, by definition, so
On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 07:55 -0400, comex wrote:
> there are several ways e could cease to be a person.
But if e did, e couldn't send email, by definition, so the point is
moot.
--
ais523
there are several ways e could cease to be a person.
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 26, 2009, at 6:54 AM, ais523
wrote:
On Sun, 2009-10-25 at 11:26 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
[coppro is hovering, but the only criminal cases requiring a judge
are 2721-23 which e initiated.]
Det
No they don't, see my gratuitous arguments in 2698. We had reasonable
notice of the amendment (i.e., "replace the entire text with blah"),
but not necessarily of the intent (I intend, without objection, to
amend Points Party by replacing the entire text with blah), because
there was one ame
On Sun, 2009-10-25 at 10:15 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> 2698: TRUE
>
> I accept the caller's arguments, but also c.'s gratuitous arguments;
> in particular, ais523's "I intend to amend via various objection-based
> methods" did not necessarily offer a reasonable opportunity to review
> the notice-b
BobTHJ wrote:
> Not that I think you've been unfair, but did you consider my argument
> for NOT GUILTY via implicit announcement? The NOVs were announced in
> the Insulator report, and by assigning them ID numbers I implicitly
> declared their validity. I think this does satisfy the requirement in
40 matches
Mail list logo
