On 08/15/2010 10:46 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 13:31, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/15/2010 11:20 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
I withdraw this proposal.
Proposal: Super Robot Powers (AI=1, II=1, coauthor)
{{{
Enact a new Rule reading
The Robot can, by announcement,
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 00:38, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/15/2010 10:46 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 13:31, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/15/2010 11:20 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
I withdraw this proposal.
Proposal: Super Robot Powers (AI=1, II=1,
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, Ed Murphy wrote:
I opine AFFIRM without prejudice. The original judgement suggests a
precedent that even a disclaimered statement violates Truthiness if you
don't reasonably believe it could be true.
Also, I think the disclaimer was general enough to render the whole
On Sun, 15 Aug 2010, Keba wrote:
Does anyone saved all (or at least the most recent) theses? First,
theses should not only be written just to gain Degrees, but to be useful
as well. Second, if ais523 fix eir thesis, I am not sure which Degree
it‘s worth, because I don‘t have any comparison.
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010, Keba wrote:
comex wrote:
[I've complained repeatedly about the length of time currently
required to adopt proposals, which can have a significant negative
effect on the game. Since the current proposal volume really isn't
all that high (if it were, this would be
Kerim Aydin wrote:
More from the ancient archives. I think it should come back, it scarcely
needs modification to do so (maybe a cost jiggle, and an MMI edit):
Rule 1724/8 (Power=1)
Urgent Proposals
A Proposal is Urgent if all the following conditions are met:
i) the
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010, Keba wrote:
Kerim Aydin wrote:
More from the ancient archives. I think it should come back, it scarcely
needs modification to do so (maybe a cost jiggle, and an MMI edit):
Hm, that sounds nice, but need to be rewritten. Class 1 Infraction
should be Class-1-Crime
On Sun, 15 Aug 2010, comex wrote:
To avoid spam scams, a proposal CANNOT be created except in a
message with exactly one Subject header, which must contain with
the exact text [Proposal] with no more than ten characters
preceding it.
Regardless of the merits of the
Kerim Aydin wrote:
Here we go, simple proto, Urgency, AI-3:
Amend R107 by replacing:
Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the
voting period for a decision with at least two options cannot
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010, Keba wrote:
Kerim Aydin wrote:
Nice. I thought about a with N support (or without N objetions)
phrase, but this way is much better. If there is anyone who wants to pay
a fee to make an Urgent Proposal undistributable. Maybe we should say
that undistribute a Urgent
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Sun, 15 Aug 2010, comex wrote:
To avoid spam scams, a proposal CANNOT be created except in a
message with exactly one Subject header, which must contain with
the exact text [Proposal] with no more
G. wrote:
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010, comex wrote:
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Warrigal ihope12...@gmail.com wrote:
This, this.
G., if you're going to AFFIRM as well, can you please specify a
substantive set of arguments? In particular, it would help if you
made some reference to my
G.
Amend R107 by replacing:
Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the
voting period for a decision with at least two options cannot be
shorter than seven days.
with:
The voting period for a decision with at least two options is
secured
On Mon, 2010-08-16 at 11:39 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
G.
Amend R107 by replacing:
Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the
voting period for a decision with at least two options cannot be
shorter than seven days.
with:
The voting period
So, what sort of disclaimers work? The judgements of CFJs 1935, 1971,
and 2227 imply that they can come after a message without trouble, and
CFJ 1971 in particular that an excessively disclaimered message fails
to provide any substantive information and so fails to take some
actions; but here is
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010, omd wrote:
So, what sort of disclaimers work?
Looking through all this, I think disclaimers should have no direct legal
effect other than to alert people that something might be wrong. Then, if
a truthiness case is brought, an honest disclaimer about minor uncertainty
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010, omd wrote:
So, what sort of disclaimers work?
Looking through all this, I think disclaimers should have no direct legal
effect other than to alert people that something might be wrong. Then, if
a truthiness case is brought,
On 08/16/2010 02:27 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010, omd wrote:
So, what sort of disclaimers work?
Looking through all this, I think disclaimers should have no direct legal
effect other than to alert people that something might be wrong. Then, if
a truthiness case is brought, an
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Looking through all this, I think disclaimers should have no direct legal
effect other than to alert people that something might be wrong. Then, if
a truthiness case is brought, an honest disclaimer about minor
ais523 wrote:
How about:
Making a decision's voting period shorter than seven days is
secured if the decision has at least two options.
Buggy; secured only works against changes, specifically, so it would
allow a decision to be created with a short voting period.
A more
Didn't see anyone else comment on this: the report seems to be pasted
in double. Probably a one-time error, but some of you guys use those
fancy automations and python that I've heard about so if this had
anything to do with that I thought I'd give you a heads up.
--
-Tiger
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010, Keba wrote:
ais523 wrote:
How about:
Making a decision's voting period shorter than seven days is
secured if the decision has at least two options.
Buggy; secured only works against changes, specifically, so it would
allow a decision to be
Proto: Reinventing The List v0.2 (AI-2)
[Changes:
1. Made cost of list movement equal to number of votes over which
one jumps. Makes it very expensive to get to the top of the
list unless the Speaker puts yo7u there.
2. The Speaker's position becomes very like the Grand Poobah in
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 5:29 PM, Keba ag...@kebay.org wrote:
Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the voting period for a
decision with at least two options cannot be shorter than seven
days, except a Rule with a power of 3 or higher explicitly
states so.
On 08/16/2010 04:28 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
3. Moved the office-tracking to the granulator (associated with
Leadership, I suppose, and I'm willing to get it started).
I think this belongs to the Herald and, honestly, Herald is currently in
Kerim Aydin wrote:
Proto: Reinventing The List v0.2 (AI-2)
AI should be 2.1 because of Create the following Rule, Leader
Bootstrap, power-2.1:, shouldn’t it?
I like most of the idea, but I don’t want DICE rolls here. The Rebbel
system should work differently. 1/3 of all active Players could be
On 08/16/2010 05:06 PM, Keba wrote:
Kerim Aydin wrote:
Proto: Reinventing The List v0.2 (AI-2)
AI should be 2.1 because of Create the following Rule, Leader
Bootstrap, power-2.1:, shouldn’t it?
I like most of the idea, but I don’t want DICE rolls here. The Rebbel
system should work
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010, Sean Hunt wrote:
waitwhat? This does nicely solve the rapid Court manipulation problem, I
think. I would give you a prop for this idea, but I'd end up taking it
from you for suggesting the current system, so it's a wash.
Hey now hooold on there...the last system but one
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010, Sean Hunt wrote:
[When multiple players win, they can cycle through speakership at
7-day intervals with order of winning not mattering]
7 or 14? I like that there may be a ratrace to crown other people so as to
get
the Speakership when the dust settles.
Does that
On 08/16/2010 05:32 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010, Sean Hunt wrote:
waitwhat? This does nicely solve the rapid Court manipulation problem, I
think. I would give you a prop for this idea, but I'd end up taking it
from you for suggesting the current system, so it's a wash.
Hey
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 9:31 PM, Keba ag...@kebay.org wrote:
Proposal 6796 should
not be in this batch, as coppro has withdrawn it.
This proposal was re-submitted in the exact form in which it was
distributed; the distribution was successful but ILLEGAL.
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 4:40 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Followup:
One important thing to consider is the difference between:
I do X. It may not work.
which disclaims the ability to X but not the attempt, versus:
I may nor may not do X
which disclaims the
On 08/16/2010 05:36 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010, Sean Hunt wrote:
[When multiple players win, they can cycle through speakership at
7-day intervals with order of winning not mattering]
7 or 14? I like that there may be a ratrace to crown other people so as to get
the
coppro wrote:
Nah, Chamber doesn't work that well anyways.
What about that change that ehird suggested, where you got 5 votes
on some chamber other than your own?
On 08/16/2010 11:05 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
coppro wrote:
Nah, Chamber doesn't work that well anyways.
What about that change that ehird suggested, where you got 5 votes
on some chamber other than your own?
I'm a fan. I suppose we could leave it in with this proposal - though it
would mean
35 matches
Mail list logo
