On 01/08/2013 12:23 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 12:18 AM, Max Schutz wrote:
sorry for being a pain but in lamens terms he tried to have us all
deregistered and kicked is that it sorry my learning disability makes it a
pain when there are a lot of words surrpounding a point
Yes
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 8:13 AM, Fool wrote:
> Nor is there any common-sense right that can be appealed to. In ordinary
> terms, this is just called "elimination", or more simply, "losing", and
> that's a perfectly routine game occurance.
Not in Agora. While losing is mostly equivalent to being el
On 01/08/2013 8:40 AM, Jonathan Rouillard wrote:
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 8:13 AM, Fool wrote:
Nor is there any common-sense right that can be appealed to. In ordinary
terms, this is just called "elimination", or more simply, "losing", and
that's a perfectly routine game occurance.
Not in Agora
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 1:41 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-07-31 at 22:45 -0400, Fool wrote:
>> I submit the following proposal:
>>
>> ===
>> Agora pulls a B (AI=3.1, PF=0, disi.)
>>
>> In rule 1551 (Ratification, Power=3.1), replace the sentence:
>>
>>Ratifying a public document
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 9:11 PM, Jonathan Rouillard <
jonathan.rouill...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Disclaimer: This fails if I'm not the CotC at the moment.
>
> Detail: http://cotc.psychose.ca/viewcase.php?cfj=3372
>
> == CFJ 3372 ==
>
> Anno
on the grounds that i am understanding correctly I do favor this case
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 11:45 PM, Sean Hunt
> wrote:
>
>> I submit a criminal case, barring the Serious Party, alleging that
>> Fool violated Rule 101 by failing to
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 6:34 AM, Fool wrote:
> As I said right off the bat, I didn't CFJ a free-floating version of Curry's
> paradox. And that is basically why. Because then you only have to argue some
> alternate logic for free-floating statements. Typically, for example, just
> ignore it and sa
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Fool wrote:
> Agora pulls a B (AI=3.1, PF=0, disi.)
>
> In rule 1551 (Ratification, Power=3.1), replace the sentence:
>
> Ratifying a public document is secured.
>
> with:
>
> Ratifying a public document is secured with Power threshold 3.
Oh, wow, thi
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 12:40 PM, omd wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Fool wrote:
>> Agora pulls a B (AI=3.1, PF=0, disi.)
>>
>> In rule 1551 (Ratification, Power=3.1), replace the sentence:
>>
>> Ratifying a public document is secured.
>>
>> with:
>>
>> Ratifying a public d
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 1:34 PM, omd wrote:
>> I assume Promotor, just in case.
>>
>> I hereby distribute the following proposal, initiating the Agoran
>> Decision of whether to adopt it. For this decision, the eligible
>> voters are the active f
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> Wooble, your alternate-reality Registrar.
This is for the Switchy interpretation, not simply ratification failing, right?
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 1:45 PM, omd wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Geoffrey Spear
> wrote:
> > Wooble, your alternate-reality Registrar.
>
> This is for the Switchy interpretation, not simply ratification failing,
> right?
>
Yes, although honestly if no one in 2011 believed that "swi
I need a little more intel on the red tape humbug and kirby proposal
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Tanner Swett wrote:
> I vote:
>
> > 7548 10 O Ienpw IIIStandardized election days
> FOR (this is unambiguous enough for my taste)
>
> > 7549 2 25 O Walker Recruitment Sanity
> FO
On 1 Aug 2013 18:31, "Sean Hunt" wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 12:40 PM, omd wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Fool wrote:
> >> Agora pulls a B (AI=3.1, PF=0, disi.)
> >>
> >> In rule 1551 (Ratification, Power=3.1), replace the sentence:
> >>
> >> Ratifying a public document
On 1 Aug 2013 19:35, "Max Schutz" wrote:
>
> I need a little more intel on the red tape humbug and kirby proposal
FOR, AGAINST and AGAINST respectively. There's a trick where you convert
the proposal text into a folded string which shows you the correct vote.
I'll show you sometime.
ok i must know less about nomic than i thought i didn't know there was a
correct and incorrect vote
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Charles Walker
wrote:
> On 1 Aug 2013 19:35, "Max Schutz" wrote:
> >
> > I need a little more intel on the red tape humbug and kirby proposal
>
> FOR, AGAINST and
On Jul 29, 2013, at 8:13 PM, Fool wrote:
>> You're right, intuitionistic logic is too weird.
>
> Heck no. Classical logic is weird.
But classical logic is the system obeyed by truth-bearing statements!
—"Of course, who cares about truth-bearing statements, anyway" Machiavelli
17 matches
Mail list logo
