On Sat, 2010-07-31 at 13:55 -0400, comex wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 12:53 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> > Finally, comex's original "This is a win announcement:" can reasonably
> > be argued as applying to the entire message (e did not specify a more
> > limited scope), thus including eir parenthet
On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> ENDORSEx12 the player with a valid vote with the highest number of props,
> myself excluded; in case of a tie then the first of those players
> alphabetically
i change my name to a
On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Circularity is easily resolved if you stop thinking of it that way:
>
> IF NOT (IF this is a win announcement THEN someone satisfies a winning
> condition) THEN this is not a win announcement.
The proposed rule says "causes", not "would cause [i
On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 13:51, Sean Hunt wrote:
> in case of a tie then the first of those players alphabetically
>
Oh, I see how it is.
-Yally
On 07/31/2010 11:56 AM, comex wrote:
On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 1:11 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
c) It causes at least one Winning Condition to be satisfied, as
defined by other rules.
For it to be a win announcement it must cause a Winning Condition to
be satisfied, but the Winning
On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 1:11 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> c) It causes at least one Winning Condition to be satisfied, as
> defined by other rules.
For it to be a win announcement it must cause a Winning Condition to
be satisfied, but the Winning Condition can only be satisfied by a wi
On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 12:53 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Finally, comex's original "This is a win announcement:" can reasonably
> be argued as applying to the entire message (e did not specify a more
> limited scope), thus including eir parenthetical comment that "...the
> proposal also awarded a win
> The difficulty in ALL win conditions, that 2186 specifies one set
> of conditions for calling something a win announcement, and that other
> rules say that it has to be a winning announcement with different
> (not additional) information ("a win announcement that Proposal X has
> been adopted" in
G. wrote:
> But these sort of CANNOTs have been overridden by proposals in the past
> without blinking an eye! When we install an officer by Proposal, or
> reset currencies or points directly, that's something we also generally
> CANNOT do, but we've taken it to work, even in a power-1 proposal.
9 matches
Mail list logo
