No
On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 2:42 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> So would I face prejudice if I were to open the exact same CFJs again
> later once we actually get CHoJ fixed?
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 7/3/19 12:38 AM, omd wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 7:49 PM Jason Cobb
> wrote:
> >> Dang it; you are
Your proposal numbers have some off-by-100 errors.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
On Wed, 3 Jul 2019, James Cook wrote:
Votes inline.
IDAuthor(s) AITitle
---
8196 Jason Cobb, Falsifian 1.7 Perfecting pledges
On Mon, 1 Jul 2019, Aris Merchant wrote:
Amend item 3 of the only list of Rule 2528 ("Voting Methods") to read:
3. For an instant runoff decision, non-empty ordered lists for which
each element is a valid option.
The current "entities" text was introduced on purpose in 2017 by Alexis's
On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 at 03:33, Edward Murphy wrote:
> There was a past rule and/or CFJ to the effect that this type of
> ambiguous ordering is still effective, provided that the choice
> doesn't make any substantive difference to the gamestate. (In this
> case, either order would lead to D. Margaux
Oh, sorry, didn't realize the first wasn't to the discussion forum.
Jason Cobb
On 7/2/19 11:34 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
I got the first one, if that helps in any way.
Jason Cobb
On 7/2/19 11:33 PM, Edward Murphy wrote:
Forwarded Message
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: DIS: Proto:
I got the first one, if that helps in any way.
Jason Cobb
On 7/2/19 11:33 PM, Edward Murphy wrote:
Forwarded Message
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: DIS: Proto: Moots are moot
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 20:32:12 -0700
From: Edward Murphy
To: Jason Cobb
Jason Cobb wrote:
I'm not sure
I didn't get back a copy of this message in a timely fashion, so I
suspect the munging is indeed not working yet.
Forwarded Message
Subject: Re: BUS: Kwang
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 20:20:03 -0700
From: Edward Murphy
To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org
Falsifian wrote:
On Mon,
Falsifian wrote:
On Mon, 1 Jul 2019 at 06:37, D. Margaux wrote:
I earn 10 coins total (5 for each of my two most recent CFJs)
I think this didn't work, since the order of these two actions is
ambiguous. R478 requires actions by announcement to be unambigious,
and also says the actions take
On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 at 02:08, omd wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 6:30 PM James Cook wrote:
> > (I'm not suggesting we use Discourse, just that maybe similar options are
> > available with the current software.)
>
> It seems Mailman does support something like that:
>
>
Gratuitous:
I don't think I understood G.'s argument. As far as I can tell, this
is straightforward. R2579 says "To perform a fee-based action, an
entity ... must announce", and later "Upon such an announcement". I
think the first excerpt is clearly only talking about fee-based
actions, and the
In the ongoing election for ADoP, I vote [Murphy].
On Mon, 1 Jul 2019 at 02:00, Rebecca wrote:
>
> Having intended to do so days ago, I deputise for ADoP to initiate an
> agoran decision for the election of the position of ADoP. The voting method
> is instant run-off, the ADoP is the vote
Dang it; you are absolutely right, and I didn't consider that.
Note to judge omd: this applies just as well to CFJ 3743.
Jason Cobb
On 7/2/19 10:45 PM, James Cook wrote:
Gratuitous argument:
As far as I know, finger-pointing still isn't fixed. CFJ 3736
determined that the Referee CANNOT levy
I don't think so.
On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 at 06:08, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Did the below proposals ever get resolved? -G.
>
> On 6/22/2019 4:37 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > CoE: This leaves out my votes on Telnaior's behalf, which change the
> > outcome of at least one proposal I think (8184).
But what if I think strings are just /better/ than numbers?
Jason Cobb
On 7/2/19 9:09 PM, Rebecca wrote:
Gratuitious: the caller emself admits that N is obviously intended to mean
a number. One meaning of N in this specialised context is to stand in for
a number. This isn't even a policy
Gratuitious: the caller emself admits that N is obviously intended to mean
a number. One meaning of N in this specialised context is to stand in for
a number. This isn't even a policy argument, this would be a perfectly
textual holding.
On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 10:56 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
I'd just like to apologize to omd, who managed to get all 3 of my
Oathbreaking CFJs...
Jason Cobb
On 7/2/19 9:02 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
[Quick! While it's still current!]
Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report)
INTERESTED JUDGES AND THEIR MOST RECENT CASE
---
3741
This would be a good candidate for a cleanup. I think the dash is more
correct as its an adjectival phrase as it were?
On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 8:51 AM Jason Cobb wrote:
> Just to be stylistically consistent, which one should I prefer? The
> Rules use both, although "Class N" is more common than
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 11:08 AM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 11:00 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 9:57 AM Aris Merchant
>> wrote:
>> > > > 8201 Aris 3.0 Just Make Them Write It Out
>> > > AGAINST.
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 11:00 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 9:57 AM Aris Merchant
> wrote:
> > > > 8201 Aris 3.0 Just Make Them Write It Out
> > > AGAINST. The fix above (8200) does a better job at the fix.
> > >
> >
> > Please read the comment; this fixes
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 9:57 AM Aris Merchant
wrote:
> > > 8201 Aris 3.0 Just Make Them Write It Out
> > AGAINST. The fix above (8200) does a better job at the fix.
> >
>
> Please read the comment; this fixes a different problem, not the same one.
I sympathize with the
Uh, doesn't distributing with an incorrect AI listed invalidate the
decision if the lack of correct essential parameter is noted?
(we just discussed that I think? Maybe I missed part of that.)
CoE: the Proposal Pool is not empty, it contains the proposal noted
below.
Also, in R107, the
I'm not sure that the outcome of the Agoran Decision includes the margin
by which it was made, so the "less than a 2/3 majority" clause might not
be effective. (Also, minor nitpick: 2/3 is a supermajority, not a majority.)
Also, this makes it even more likely that a vote might get split
Did the below proposals ever get resolved? -G.
On 6/22/2019 4:37 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
CoE: This leaves out my votes on Telnaior's behalf, which change the
outcome of at least one proposal I think (8184).
On 6/22/2019 11:43 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
I hereby resolve the Agoran decisions
On 7/1/2019 10:54 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
What would people feel about bringing that requirement back? I’d make it a
Class 1 crime, not committable more than once in a week, and with
exceptions for emails sent primarily in an official or judicial capacity.
Why don't we just make it a
24 matches
Mail list logo
