On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 11:32 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> H. omd,
>
> Are the unterminated "'s a copy-pasted error, or is weird string
> termination part of your fiendish scheme here?
Just a (rather ugly) copy+paste mistake.
On Wed, 22 Oct 2014, omd wrote:
> I hereby retract my brief, recommending TRUE as part of the retraction.
> I publish the following brief: "I recommend FALSE.
> I hereby retract my brief, recommending TRUE as part of the retraction.
> I publish the following brief: "I recommend FALSE.
> I hereby
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 6:00 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Linked, you think? -G.
The last three, maybe. The first one is independent and shouldn't be.
On Thu, 23 Oct 2014, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 23 Oct 2014, Eritivus wrote:
I guess the power of rules enacted by illicit fast track ratification
actually can't be more than 3, since the fast track rule has power 3?
So not as worrisome as I thought.
If you want to make higher-powered rules
On Thu, 23 Oct 2014, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-10-23 at 15:06 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > I'm interested in how trapped it makes the Case itself, though,
> > as a mechanism. Can't be resolved after 14 days, but can't be
> > restarted either.
> A long time ago, I went to quite a bit of e
On Thu, 2014-10-23 at 15:06 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I'm interested in how trapped it makes the Case itself, though,
> as a mechanism. Can't be resolved after 14 days, but can't be
> restarted either.
A long time ago, I went to quite a bit of effort to set up a CFJ that
nobody was obligated to
On Thu, 23 Oct 2014, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-10-23 at 14:37 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > By the way, my own way of monkeying with the Moot process
> > is just failing to resolve it within the 14 day Notice
> > dependency window. It's not clear at all what happens then!
> > It may le
Linked, you think? -G.
On Thu, 23 Oct 2014, omd wrote:
> At this point, the present Moot is clearly not going to end with
> resolution of the issues involved. Therefore, I call:
>
> CFJ: The original version of Rule 2437 (The Dungeon Master) generally
> allows/allowed the Dungeon Master to se
On Thu, 2014-10-23 at 14:37 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> By the way, my own way of monkeying with the Moot process
> is just failing to resolve it within the 14 day Notice
> dependency window. It's not clear at all what happens then!
> It may leave the case in permanent limbo... that's bad
> ru
By the way, my own way of monkeying with the Moot process
is just failing to resolve it within the 14 day Notice
dependency window. It's not clear at all what happens then!
It may leave the case in permanent limbo... that's bad
rule writing on my part. -G.
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 5:20 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> In any case, I hope that the resulting actual /verdict/ of the judgement
> ends up completely irrelevant and doesn't guide gameplay, especially
> because we're still debating what actually /happened/.
I think the verdict of this particular Moot
On Thu, 23 Oct 2014, Alex Smith wrote:
> Proto: remove TRUE/FALSE/DISMISS verdicts from judgements, just have the
> judge's reasoning.
I think we should encourage some endpoint or "point of decision" somehow.
I'm not sure it hurts to have T/F/D. For example, there's been plenty
of times where
On Thu, 2014-10-23 at 17:12 -0400, omd wrote:
> With the "house rules" interpretation I think there is an implicit
> assumption that the judgement must actually have been made in good
> faith, following a reasonable process, etc. Your statement here
> suggests that a judgement would have to be tak
On Thu, 23 Oct 2014, omd wrote:
> that just leads to the kind of Lindrum World type scams
snap!
On Thu, 23 Oct 2014, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-10-23 at 09:46 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > I think about judgements like House Rules.
> >
> > For any boardgame, when the Rules are unclear, you have to figure out how
> > to play. So everyone argues, and either you come to some consens
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> There are a few possible interpretations of what that action just did.
> With my view on matters, what it does is to cause the CFJ to have to be
> decided TRUE, while its statement is actually FALSE; in other words, it
> simply causes us to have
CORRECTED RESULTS FROM LAST WEEK
LAST WEEK'S RESULTS
GNP: 36
ODDS for 27-36: 7 to 4
Sprocklem bet 70 returning 193
Tiger bet 30 returning 83
Sprocklem bet 30 on losing bets.
Tiger bet 70 on losing bets.
CURRENT PURSES
PLAYERBET WON TAKE
On Thu, 23 Oct 2014, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Oct 2014, omd wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 4:46 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > > So the dice server sent a message via the public forum. Isn't that
> > > the definition of a public message? What am I missing?
> >
> > I think the idea is t
On Thu, 23 Oct 2014, omd wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 4:46 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > So the dice server sent a message via the public forum. Isn't that
> > the definition of a public message? What am I missing?
>
> I think the idea is that since the dice server's message contains a
> ful
On 23 October 2014 22:10, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> ODDS for CURRENT WEEK'S GNP
>
> Bet up to 100 Florins via Discussion or Private Message
>
> BETTING CLOSES 24 HOURS BEFORE WEEK ENDS (SATURDAY 23:59:59.... GMT)
>
> GNPODDS
> 43+10 to 1
> 37-42 2 to 1
>
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 4:46 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> So the dice server sent a message via the public forum. Isn't that
> the definition of a public message? What am I missing?
I think the idea is that since the dice server's message contains a
full copy of your message, it would count as two
On Thu, 23 Oct 2014, omd wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 4:30 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > But it DOESN'T say that a non-person can "publish" anything. So we may
> > have a case were an automated message is a public message that was
> > never "published".
> >
> > Thoughts, anyone else? My readi
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 4:30 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> But it DOESN'T say that a non-person can "publish" anything. So we may
> have a case were an automated message is a public message that was
> never "published".
>
> Thoughts, anyone else? My reading would be that "public" = "published"
> and
On Thu, 23 Oct 2014, Eritivus wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-10-23 at 19:47 +, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > CoE: I came up with 37, not 36. Here are the date strings (dunno if
> > it's helpful). The x means I eyeballed it in the archive text file.
>
> Thanks for checking my work!
>
> > Sun, 19 Oct 201
On Oct 23, 2014 4:17 PM, "Eritivus" wrote:
> I guess it might be arguable whether such an embedded message counts for
> GNP. The MfGNPE's position is that it does not count, since this makes
> eir job easier.
>
> The MfGNPE will make no official comment at this time, but unofficially
> can confirm
On Thu, 2014-10-23 at 19:47 +, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> CoE: I came up with 37, not 36. Here are the date strings (dunno if
> it's helpful). The x means I eyeballed it in the archive text file.
Thanks for checking my work!
> Sun, 19 Oct 2014 15:02:17 -0700 => 2014-10-13 x
I don't have this on
ODDS for CURRENT WEEK'S GNP
Bet up to 100 Florins via Discussion or Private Message
BETTING CLOSES 24 HOURS BEFORE WEEK ENDS (SATURDAY 23:59:59.... GMT)
GNPODDS
43+10 to 1
37-42 2 to 1
36 Exacta 5 to 1
31-35 2 to 1
25-30 8 to 1
On Thu, 23 Oct 2014, Eritivus wrote:
> I guess the power of rules enacted by illicit fast track ratification
> actually can't be more than 3, since the fast track rule has power 3?
>
> So not as worrisome as I thought.
If you want to make higher-powered rules but can get a power-3 proposal
thro
On Thu, 2014-10-23 at 19:51 +, Eritivus wrote:
> I guess the power of rules enacted by illicit fast track ratification
> actually can't be more than 3, since the fast track rule has power 3?
>
> So not as worrisome as I thought.
A Power-3 rule can do anything, though, because the Power restri
I guess the power of rules enacted by illicit fast track ratification
actually can't be more than 3, since the fast track rule has power 3?
So not as worrisome as I thought.
On Thu, 2014-10-23 at 18:33 +, omd wrote:
> That it ignores the AI=1 requirement is accidental, but probably not
> important. If someone makes an obviously deficient fast track
> attempt, that's what a Claim of Error is for.
Sure, I just don't have a feel for how likely it is that skilled
Rid
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Eritivus wrote:
> The "self-ratifying" clause seems worrisome, because it is not obvious
> to me that it requires the conditions in the first paragraph (AI=1, 7
> days notice, etc) to be satisfied.
That ratification can occur regardless of any failures in the actu
Suppose I send the following message, having sent no previous relevant
messages (i.e. no previously published intent).
I hereby fast track the following proposal:
Proposal: Eritivus Regnat
AI: 4
Create a new Power-4 Rule titled "Eritivus Regnat":
Eritivus CAN cause this
On Sun, 19 Oct 2014, Eritivus wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-10-14 at 19:24 +, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > NOW TAKING BETS for GNP for the Week of 2014-10-13!
>
> I see no reason not to bet at 23:59... except that that would be no fun.
>
> So I bet 90 Florins on 27-36, 10 on 37+.
Betting actually closed
On Thu, 23 Oct 2014, Eritivus wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-10-20 at 06:31 +, 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. And at this point, I'm
35 matches
Mail list logo
