Just wanted to make a couple comments:
1. I think CuddleBeam's text is decent for an A.N., but I would
object to any A.N. where the text wasn't published in Agora first
(especially given the editable nature of the Wiki).
2. Falsifian's work on the CFJs is excellent and deserving of thesis,
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 2:51 PM omd wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 2:56 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > It won't self-ratify even then. The resolution of a CFJ doesn't
> > "cause it to cease to be a doubt" the way a denial of claim does. The
> > only way to make it undoubted post-CFJ is to
"understood" :)
To fill this out, at one time we had a more strictly-structured
judges' rota system that used a bunch of puns on the "bench" concepts
with switches on whether a judge was "sitting" or "standing" and
"lying down" IIRC that indicated how recently e'd been a judge.
Actually relevant
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 2:56 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> It won't self-ratify even then. The resolution of a CFJ doesn't
> "cause it to cease to be a doubt" the way a denial of claim does. The
> only way to make it undoubted post-CFJ is to either just publish a
> "new" document, or re-CoE the old
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 2:30 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> I'm sorry, what does this mean?
Obsolete terminology for saying that I'm interested in judging cases.
I figured it was okay since G. would understand it, but maybe I should
have been less cute.
I'm sorry, what does this mean?
Jason Cobb
On 6/13/19 5:22 PM, omd wrote:
I sit up.
I personally like the idea of requiring judgments to be published before
becoming binding. I think that worked out well for everyone when
Falsifian did something similar (although less formally, of course).
You mention apathy being an issue for gathering actual arguments in
response to a CFJ.
Idea: Create a Rules-defined "notice and comment" process for judgements.
Since I became active, there have been two judgements in CFJs about
minor scams I attempted (3728 and 3833).
The first one I had a minor quibble with, so I moved for
reconsideration, but nobody bothered to support it. I
After more discussion, I plan to motion to reconsider my own judgement
to deal with this situation, because I apparently left out enough
context to imply this worked. Basically, to infer from my argument is
that R2123 means "defining things to add to weekly reports" or "to be
a weekly report" is
that's dumb. the rules can't say that 'interpreting' something is
IMPOSSIBLE (well they can, but it utterly defies reality). instead they
have to just positively say what is true under them; to wit, they do not
proscribe unregulated actions.
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 7:38 PM D. Margaux wrote:
>
What if we kept the existing language but changed SHALL NOT to CANNOT--"the
rules CANNOT be interpreted..."?
> On Jun 13, 2019, at 1:50 AM, Rebecca wrote:
>
> It wouldn't gut contracts because anything specified by a Contract _is_
> regulated under the rules. It's just designed to prohibit
11 matches
Mail list logo
