On 6/22/2019 11:02 PM, James Cook wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 at 02:52, Jason Cobb wrote:
I note that the Ritual has been performed for 5 continuous weeks.
The ruleset has in the past been Appeased for 5 continuous weeks, but
I had been assuming R2596's "has been continuously appeased at the
On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 at 02:52, Jason Cobb wrote:
> I note that the Ritual has been performed for 5 continuous weeks.
The ruleset has in the past been Appeased for 5 continuous weeks, but
I had been assuming R2596's "has been continuously appeased at the
moment of banishment" meant it had to be con
Same comment as to Jason Cobb: I don't think this worked.
On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 at 20:33, D. Margaux wrote:
>
> I earn (8-1)*1.7 = 12 coins for this proposal
>
> > On Jun 22, 2019, at 2:43 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
> >
> > PROPOSAL 8181 (Referee CAN Impose Fines (v1.1))
> > FOR: R. Lee#, D. Margaux,
On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 at 02:52, Rebecca wrote:
> Title: Spaceships
> AI: 1.1
Why 1.1?
Nitpick: I believe the ratification you quote failed, but D. Margaux's
earlier Astronomor report did self-ratify, which is just as good.
See the section "D. Margaux's attempt to ratify without objection
failed." in my judgement of CFJ 3726 at
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3726
I'm happy to give up Treasuror if anyone is interested, or maybe
Registrar if someone really wants it.
On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 at 04:08, Reuben Staley wrote:
> Is anyone else interested in Rulekeepor right now? If you are, I'm good
> with letting an election play out, though I really do enjoy the job
Or i mean i could do that it does seem like my job
On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 12:45 PM Rebecca wrote:
> Sorry, I meant the space rules? That would enable me to recall the CFJ I
> filed.
>
> On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 12:44 PM Rebecca wrote:
>
>> (That's why I've made a proposal to create spaceships,
Sorry, I meant the space rules? That would enable me to recall the CFJ I
filed.
On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 12:44 PM Rebecca wrote:
> (That's why I've made a proposal to create spaceships, yeah)
>
> Can you find the message where we ratified out the space ru
>
> On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 12:42 PM Ker
(That's why I've made a proposal to create spaceships, yeah)
Can you find the message where we ratified out the space ru
On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 12:42 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On 6/22/2019 7:19 PM, Rebecca wrote:
> > Does the previous state of spce carry over or does it all reset? Are
> >
On 6/22/2019 7:19 PM, Rebecca wrote:
Does the previous state of spce carry over or does it all reset? Are
you planning to battle your spces? discuss today
I believe all of the space assets were eliminated via ratification? There's
no provisions in the rules for creating new spaceship
I don't think the Rules define the position of "Cartographor"...
Jason Cobb
On 6/22/19 10:39 PM, Rebecca wrote:
It is my current position under the Rules as they stand that the entities
as they existed in the previous spaceship rules are not continuous.
Therefore, there are no spaceships and no
Ah sorry. I promise that I can read!
Jason Cobb
On 6/22/19 10:20 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
No, you're getting the formula wrong. Rule 879 says that "If no other
rule defines the quorum of an Agoran Decision, the quorum for that
decision is equal to 2/3 of the number of voters on the Agoran
Decis
IANAAL ("I am not an Agora Lawyer").
I would argue that this is the key section from Rule 1586 ("Definition
and Continuity of Entities"):
If the entity that defines another entity is amended such that it
no longer defines the second entity, then the second entity and
its att
No, you're getting the formula wrong. Rule 879 says that "If no other
rule defines the quorum of an Agoran Decision, the quorum for that
decision is equal to 2/3 of the number of voters on the Agoran
Decision to adopt a proposal that had been most recently resolved at
the time of that decision's in
Does the previous state of spce carry over or does it all reset? Are
you planning to battle your spces? discuss today
--
>From R. Lee
"ha who reads things when they can just complain instead" - me
On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 12:13 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I thought Proposal 8181 did that?
>
> -Aris
>
> On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 7:11 PM Rebecca wrote:
> >
> > uh nobody's fixed the Cold Hand of J
Why wouldn't the quorum change? The highest numbered proposal in the
purported resolution had 10 voters. With Telnaior, it would go to 11.
By Rule 879, quorum is ceil(2/3*(# voters on last resolved decision to
adopt a proposal)). 10*2/3=6.666..., which goes to 7. With Telnaior,
11*2/3=7.333...
I thought Proposal 8181 did that?
-Aris
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 7:11 PM Rebecca wrote:
>
> uh nobody's fixed the Cold Hand of Justice?
>
> On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 12:07 PM Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 7:02 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> > >
uh nobody's fixed the Cold Hand of Justice?
On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 12:07 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 7:02 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> >
> > Quorum might be wrong, given this CoE on the Assessor report by G (in a
> > reply to the thread):
>
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 7:02 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> Quorum might be wrong, given this CoE on the Assessor report by G (in a
> reply to the thread):
Thanks for pointing that out; you're right that I didn't notice. On
this occasion, quorum is unchanged due to the way the rounding works
out.
> >
Quorum might be wrong, given this CoE on the Assessor report by G (in a
reply to the thread):
CoE: This leaves out my votes on Telnaior's behalf, which change the
outcome of at least one proposal I think (8184).
Also, what exactly is your "standard reward policy"?
Jason Cobb
On 6/22/19
Sorry! Will do.
Jason Cobb
On 6/22/19 9:24 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
Note from the Office of the Promotor:
Please don't use the > style quote formatting again. It makes text
formatting a nightmare, and stops me from wrapping lines.
-Aris
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 5:01 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
Oh,
Here's a draft of my Promotor report. My standard reward policy for
catching errors is in effect.
-Aris
---
I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assesso
Note from the Office of the Promotor:
Please don't use the > style quote formatting again. It makes text
formatting a nightmare, and stops me from wrapping lines.
-Aris
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 5:01 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> Oh, I meant to make it say "player" instead of "person who plays the
> g
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 9:58 AM Jason Cobb wrote:
> Looking at this again, if the Rules state that doing something is a
> crime (such as lying in a public message), then that arguably alters the
> Rules-defined "state" of whether or not they are guilty of a crime. Is
> this a valid reading, and is
> On Jun 22, 2019, at 11:39 AM, Reuben Staley wrote:
>
> Or a proposal resolution, for that matter.
>
>
Hey, I'm not late yet! Planning to resolve the outstanding ones today if I
can...
Clarification: performing the action arguably alters the Rules-defined
"state"...
Jason Cobb
On 6/22/19 12:58 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
Looking at this again, if the Rules state that doing something is a
crime (such as lying in a public message), then that arguably alters
the Rules-defined "state
Looking at this again, if the Rules state that doing something is a
crime (such as lying in a public message), then that arguably alters the
Rules-defined "state" of whether or not they are guilty of a crime. Is
this a valid reading, and is this intended?
Jason Cobb
On 6/22/19 1:50 AM, omd wr
I have to agree with Aris here. It doesn't create any rule conflicts at
all. Besides, is it really that bad if the method has to be approved? I
don't understand why you want to change this part of the rule.
On 6/22/19 1:37 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 12:16 AM omd wrote:
Or a proposal resolution, for that matter.
On 6/22/19 9:32 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On 6/21/2019 7:40 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
I refuse to use it to help in scams, even when people offer bribes.
It's true - I've tried.
Speaking of which, I'm hoping to see a proposal distribution this week -
t
On 6/21/2019 7:40 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
I refuse to use it to help in scams, even when people offer bribes.
It's true - I've tried.
Speaking of which, I'm hoping to see a proposal distribution this week -
there's some stuff in there I'm concerned about on timeliness.
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 12:16 AM omd wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 11:12 PM Aris Merchant
> wrote:
> > Also, the bit in Mother May I should still go in the regulated actions
> > rule. Let's keep all the regulated action stuff in one place. I really like
> > the current phrasing; it's extreme
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 11:12 PM Aris Merchant
wrote:
> Also, the bit in Mother May I should still go in the regulated actions
> rule. Let's keep all the regulated action stuff in one place. I really like
> the current phrasing; it's extremely elegant (honestly, more so than the
> one here), and n
Does any language have inherent meaning? :thinking:
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 5:07 PM omd wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 11:12 PM Aris Merchant
> wrote:
> > I think you’re making it worse rather than better. I’d drop the “with no
> > inherent meaning” bit; a judge could easily interpret it to f
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 11:12 PM Aris Merchant
wrote:
> I think you’re making it worse rather than better. I’d drop the “with no
> inherent meaning” bit; a judge could easily interpret it to forbid
> "distribute" being a term of art, since distributing something has meaning.
The point of that phr
35 matches
Mail list logo