On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 9:43 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> It was TtDF.
>
> There is nothing saying you can't withdraw an intent to a DF.
There is very little reason to believe you can. Or in any other
forum, as your arguments mention, but especially discussion fora...
Are you trying to get away with
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 9:39 PM, omd wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 9:37 PM, Sean Hunt
> wrote:
>> I CFJ: {{omd withdrew an intent in the quoted message.}}
>>
>> Arguments: The rules do not specify a mechanism for withdrawing intents.
>
> It was TtDF.
There is nothing saying you can't withdra
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 9:37 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I CFJ: {{omd withdrew an intent in the quoted message.}}
>
> Arguments: The rules do not specify a mechanism for withdrawing intents.
It was TtDF.
Incidentally, I don't think the rule actually works. It refers to
"highest voting strength among
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 9:32 PM, omd wrote:
> I think we need more gameplay. Although the points won through a
> Proposal Competition are rather useless at the moment, still -
>
> I intend, with Agoran Consent, to initiate a Proposal Competition.
> The objective shall be to create at least one ne
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> They said it was tactical. The only vote that makes tactical sense is
> for them to vote against yours working, and for theirs working, that
> implicitly recognizes the 4-days argument (that's the only outcome on
> the table that leads to that
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014, Eritivus wrote:
> Note: I do intend to submit a(n expanded) Brief, by 07:00 UTC Tuesday
> (midnight tonight PDT), perhaps earlier. I did some related grunt work
> last night (collecting and reviewing all relevant contemporary messages,
> and more mostly -- but not totally --
Note: I do intend to submit a(n expanded) Brief, by 07:00 UTC Tuesday
(midnight tonight PDT), perhaps earlier. I did some related grunt work
last night (collecting and reviewing all relevant contemporary messages,
and more mostly -- but not totally -- fruitless CFJ searching). I 'just'
need to poli
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014, omd wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 2:12 PM, omd wrote:
> >> ais523: FALSE (tactical, but assumes process works after 4 days).
> >> Sprocklem : FALSE (tactical, but assumes process works after 4 days).
>
> Also, I don't think either of these briefs implies anythi
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014, omd wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 1:45 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > G.: FALSE (process of review is broken).
> > Eritivus : "FALSE" (rule in question doesn't allow rule changes).
> > ais523: FALSE (tactical, but assumes process works after 4 days).
> > S
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 2:12 PM, omd wrote:
>> ais523: FALSE (tactical, but assumes process works after 4 days).
>> Sprocklem : FALSE (tactical, but assumes process works after 4 days).
Also, I don't think either of these briefs implies anything about
things working, as opposed to gener
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 1:45 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> G.: FALSE (process of review is broken).
> Eritivus : "FALSE" (rule in question doesn't allow rule changes).
> ais523: FALSE (tactical, but assumes process works after 4 days).
> Sprocklem : FALSE (tactical, but assumes p
Briefs right now I have:
G.: FALSE (process of review is broken).
Eritivus : "FALSE" (rule in question doesn't allow rule changes).
ais523: FALSE (tactical, but assumes process works after 4 days).
Sprocklem : FALSE (tactical, but assumes process works after 4 days).
omd
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014, Alex Smith wrote:
> You know what? I'm actually really concerned with the current Moot
> process. By making things into a vote, not a discussion, it's pretty bad
> at actually finding the truth.
There *is* no "truth" here. Just several reasonable player definitions
of what
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-10-20 at 06:45 +, Eritivus wrote:
> > Note: I have not submitted a Brief yet, because I was deregistered when
> > I attempted to do so.
> >
> > I'm pondering whether to resubmit as is, expand, or abandon.
>
> From my point of view, opini
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014, omd wrote:
> The second is a little more concerning. The judgement of FALSE will,
> as things currently stand, be a composite of the following two
> opinions:
Assuming FALSE holds, but the Moot opinions aren't clear on which
type of FALSE, it will be settled by followup CF
15 matches
Mail list logo
