Oops, thanks, updated.
On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 04:45, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2 Jun 2019, James Cook wrote:
>
> > I believe the answers are yes, and so at the end of this message I will
> > judge CFJ 3726 TRUE. Before I say why, I'd like explain why there could
> > be doubt about this.
>
Thanks, noted.
On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 04:08, Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> I will make no claims as to the accuracy of the drafts, but you did forget
> a "what" in the wording "D. Margaux calls is later named CFJ 3727." :)
>
> Jason Cobb
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 11:59 PM James Cook wrote:
>
> >
On Sun, 2 Jun 2019, James Cook wrote:
I believe the answers are yes, and so at the end of this message I will
judge CFJ 3726 TRUE. Before I say why, I'd like explain why there could
be doubt about this.
6. An interpretation causing CFJ 3726 to be FALSE
I will make no claims as to the accuracy of the drafts, but you did forget
a "what" in the wording "D. Margaux calls is later named CFJ 3727." :)
Jason Cobb
On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 11:59 PM James Cook wrote:
> Comments welcome. Sorry that it's so long. I went back and forth on
> 3726 a couple
Comments welcome. Sorry that it's so long. I went back and forth on
3726 a couple of times.
I believe this is due on June 4 at 21:53 UTC. I plan to send it out
the next couple of days.
This is my judgement of CFJs 3726 and 3727.
CFJ 3726 was called by Aris, with the statement: "The
Thanks. I think that makes sense, and it certainly makes CFJ 3726 more
interesting. I'll assume you're right unless I hear more about it.
On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 01:13, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> Y’all, I think you’re overthinking this. “authorize” isn’t necessarily a
> synonym for “enable”. According
Maybe, but I’d guess not. Assigning a number to something is inherently a
by announcement action. If I say “this is boat number 1”, then it’s boat #1
by my definition. All Rule 2141 does is to say the Rulekeepor’s definitions
are the ones officially recognized by Agora.
-Aris
On Sat, Jun 1, 2019
No method? There might be a Rule 2125 problem here.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
On Sat, 1 Jun 2019, Aris Merchant wrote:
Good question. Rule 2141 says that the Rulekeepor can assign a number, and
doesn’t say in what way e must do so, so e could theoretically assign any
number. You’re right that this
I vaguely seem to recall that there is precedent that payments for
something fail entirely if it's impossible for them to achieve that
something.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
On Thu, 30 May 2019, James Cook wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2019 at 03:34, Rance Bedwell wrote:
I make a COE for this Treasuror's
Interesting. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens, then.
Thanks for the help!
Jason Cobb
On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 10:51 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is indeed a tad confusing. The Ritual was explicitly designed as an
> expirement to test
This is indeed a tad confusing. The Ritual was explicitly designed as an
expirement to test this very point. Either everyone is a violator or (more
likely) no one in particular is. Either way, we’re supposed to feel a
collective responsibility to make sure that it is performed.
-Aris
On Sat, Jun
[This continues my newbie questions.]
Here it goes: who exactly can be punished for violating Rule 2596 ("The
Ritual")?
The problematic phrasing is: "The Ritual MUST be performed at least once in
every Agoran week."
Clearly this Rule wishes to specify that such an inaction is a violation.
Wow. Thank you all for the quick replies. I really was not expecting it
that quickly.
That all makes sense, thank you.
Jason Cobb
On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 9:14 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk <
ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 2019-06-01 at 18:09 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > Was that
On Sat, 2019-06-01 at 18:09 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Was that really a deliberate perk? It seems incredibly trivial, as
> perks go. I was under the impression the old rule was repealed as
> part of a simplification effort; lots of stuff was being repealed
> around then.
I think it was an
Y’all, I think you’re overthinking this. “authorize” isn’t necessarily a
synonym for “enable”. According to Google, the definition is “give official
permission for or approval to”. I think telling someone they’re required to
do something as part of their job counts as “authorization” to do it
On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 6:01 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk <
ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 2019-06-01 at 20:57 -0400, Jason Cobb wrote:
> > I'm new, and I've just started reading the rules, so please forgive me if
> > this is has an obvious answer.
> >
> > Can the Rulekeepor assign any
Rulekeepor reporting in.
As AIS523 says, there is no perscribed method of ID assignment. I assign
each rule the ID number one greater than the one enacted before it.
Theoretically, I *could* influence the way rules are interpreted in a
very minor way, but I don't see any purpose. The general
Good question. Rule 2141 says that the Rulekeepor can assign a number, and
doesn’t say in what way e must do so, so e could theoretically assign any
number. You’re right that this gives em some power over conflict
resolution. However, as a matter of convention, e only assigns the next
number in
On Sat, 2019-06-01 at 20:57 -0400, Jason Cobb wrote:
> I'm new, and I've just started reading the rules, so please forgive me if
> this is has an obvious answer.
>
> Can the Rulekeepor assign any ID numbers to rules that e wishes? I ask
> because I noticed that the ID numbers of rules affect
> The self-ratifying statements were about the current state at the time
> they were published,
Looking at judge G.'s "BREAKING NEW EVIDENCE" at the bottom of the
judgement, it looks like there actually was a ratification of a
document explicitly talking about the past, not just about the current
Hello everyone,
I'm new, and I've just started reading the rules, so please forgive me if
this is has an obvious answer.
Can the Rulekeepor assign any ID numbers to rules that e wishes? I ask
because I noticed that the ID numbers of rules affect conflict resolution,
and there doesn't seem to be
> Here are the hypotheticals and my answers:
These all make sense to me, though I haven't dug too deeply.
I noticed a few things while researching whether ratification can in
some sense "change the past". I'll post separately about that,
although it looks like the CFJ won't depend on it.
>
Interesting catch! Is there any argument that, in this circumstance, MUST
implies CAN? I think probably that argument doesn’t work, but here’s what it
might say:
There is no method for the Referee to discharge eir mandatory duties except by
imposing the Cold Hand of Justice when warranted.
23 matches
Mail list logo
