I agree. The fact that a feature exists is not per se a reason to use
it. Gaelan, what advantages do you see in your revised implementation?
-Aris
On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 7:31 PM Reuben Staley wrote:
>
> Switches? Please no. Switches are multi-purpose, but they are not
> all-purpose. I would not
Invariably, I have made a mistake in the following proposal. So I'm
asking for contributions before submitting it.
-
Title: Reinstituting Rewards
AI: 1
Author: Trigon
Coauthors:
[ COMMENT: For those of you who know that I really liked the rewards
system from last year, this shouldn't
Switches? Please no. Switches are multi-purpose, but they are not
all-purpose. I would not vote FOR this proposal. The way we currently
define it already works well enough.
On 11/02/2018 06:07 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
Huh. A proto:
DEPENDENT ACTIONS
A dependent action is an action that a
On Fri, 2 Nov 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:
- With N Agoran Consent, where N is an integer multiple of 0.1 with a
minimum of 1. ("With Consent" is shorthand for this method with N =
1.)
"With Agoran Consent". Consent has other meanings so not good to leave it
out.
OPINIONS ON DEPENDENT
Huh. A proto:
DEPENDENT ACTIONS
A dependent action is an action that a rule states can be performed by one of
the following methods:
- Without N Objections, where N is a positive integer. ("Without Objection" is
shorthand for this method with N = 1.) [removed the cap of 8—there’s no reason
I think it's just long, long history combined with "it generally works, has
gone through a lot of CFJs, and messing with Objections is dangerous" so
no one's dared/bothered with a big refactor.
That's not bad or good, just no one has tackled it since - I just checked -
1999, when it first came
Is there a reason the dependent action rules are so weird? Seems like they need
a refactor to use more “normal” mechanisms.
Gaelan
> On Nov 2, 2018, at 10:45 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> [The easy one first]
>
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2018, D. Margaux wrote:
>> I CFJ barring twg: “If in the last
I started to get into this, but deleted it because it seemed like too much of
an aside.
My feeling is that No faking regulates the "posting of ineffective actions
with intent to mislead".
So "sending the message 'I object' in a context that I know will fail in a
misleading way" is a regulated
Re CFJ 3680—
I don’t disagree with the conclusion. I think you’re right that the plain
language meanings could go either way, and I have no problem with the plain
language being interpreted in the parliamentary sense so that only one
objection counts as an objection.
The rest of the
I just put together a new web-based ruleset viewer. Currently it’s just the SLR
(plus a table of contents and keyword links), but I’ll try to add the FLR
information soon. It’s also fairly slow right now—working on that. The data is
from the Rulekeepor’s YAML files, so it should stay up to
> On Nov 2, 2018, at 8:41 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
>
>
>> On Nov 2, 2018, at 1:58 AM, Aris Merchant
>> wrote:
>>
>> I CFJ "Performing an action with N support is a dependent action".
>
> This is CFJ 3681.
>
>> I CFJ "Performing an action on behalf is always a dependent action".
>> These
11 matches
Mail list logo
