On 1/13/2019 6:33 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
I think that dependency should be a CANNOT for the Assesor, rather than a
SHALL NOT, because it ensures that any mistake isn’t legally binding. The
resolution of a proposal is self-ratifying in any case, so it won’t inject
long term uncertainty.
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
I pledge that whenever I create a politician with a name someone else
suggested to me, I will transfer 5 coins to that person (if it would be
LEGAL and POSSIBLE to do so).
*Looks up the previous list to avoid duplicates*
Theresa Cannot
Benjamin
On Sun, Jan 13, 2019 at 4:52 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On 1/13/2019 3:42 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:> Also, a "this
> proposal does not work unless" needs a pretty high power,
> > which feels like it shouldn't be necessary for this. You might be able
> > to get away with defining "this
On 1/13/2019 3:42 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:> Also, a "this
proposal does not work unless" needs a pretty high power,
> which feels like it shouldn't be necessary for this. You might be able
> to get away with defining "this proposal is dependent on proposal X" to
> mean "this
On Sun, 2019-01-13 at 16:25 -0700, Reuben Staley wrote:
> Please submit revision ideas for this proto-proposal. I'm pretty sure
> it works this way, but I know there are other ways to do it. Also the
> wording is terrible.
Should be a SHALL NOT on the promotor for resolving proposals out of
I very much like the basic idea, although I'd question how often
simple dependencies come up. It's still good as a starting point for
future work though. Fixes follow.
You need to handle indirect dependency cycles. You need to specify
what happens in the case of a dependency cycle (I'd go with
Please submit revision ideas for this proto-proposal. I'm pretty sure it
works this way, but I know there are other ways to do it. Also the
wording is terrible.
Title: Dependent Proposals Draft
Author: Trigon
Coauthors:
Create a rule entitled "Dependent Proposals" with the text:
If a
Indeed it is. I blame the gmail client. I was out of town at that point
and didn't think I was going to be back in town before the week was up.
I apologize for this misinformation; it was not intentional. I'm going
to submit a revision in a few minutes.
On 1/11/19 7:32 PM, Ørjan Johansen
On Sunday, January 13, 2019 6:12 PM, Edward Murphy wrote:
> You can find an up-to-date version of this report at
> http://localhost/adop/report.php
Funnily enough, I don't appear to be able to.
-twg
Lol, great idea!
If all of these proposals pass, then I think any resulting CFJ can have only
two possible outcomes: (1) it would read “Tangelo” into the beginning of every
rule, or (2) it would somehow maneuver to give the rule no practical effect
(basically the same outcome). Otherwise,
Meant to reply to twg’s comments on the zombie auction CFJ earlier, but got a
bit busy this week. A few thoughts for your consideration:
> Twg wrote:
>
> The implication would seem to be that rules can redefine what other rules
> mean.
This does seem to me to be one reasonable approach to
11 matches
Mail list logo
