On Sun, 29 Dec 2019, AIS523--- via agora-discussion wrote:
Ørjan's issue is that e believes a single ratification can't make
retroactive changes at two different points in past time.
I suppose that's a simple way of putting it, except I'd use "simulate"
instead of "make".
Greetings,
Ørjan.
On Sat, 2019-12-28 at 18:48 -0800, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
wrote:
> So, just to be clear here, we’re going to ratify the claim that a-o
> and a-b stopped being public fora at the start time and resumed being
> public fora at the end time? I’m good with that.
Ørjan's issue is that e
On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 6:45 PM Ørjan Johansen via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Dec 2019, AIS523--- via agora-discussion wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 2019-12-29 at 03:32 +0100, Ørjan Johansen via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> >> The simplest way I can see to fix
On Sun, 29 Dec 2019, AIS523--- via agora-discussion wrote:
On Sun, 2019-12-29 at 03:32 +0100, Ørjan Johansen via agora-discussion wrote:
The simplest way I can see to fix this is to pair each dubious email with
its own ratifying document, specifying the date stamp of the message as
the time it
On Sun, 2019-12-29 at 03:32 +0100, Ørjan Johansen via agora-discussion wrote:
> Rule 1551 states:
>
>the gamestate is modified
> to what it would be if, at the time the ratified document was
> published, the gamestate had been
Rule 1551 states:
the gamestate is modified
to what it would be if, at the time the ratified document was
published, the gamestate had been minimally modified to make the
ratified document as true and accurate as possible;
On Sat, 2019-12-28 at 17:32 -0800, Kerim Aydin via agora-business
wrote:
> (If Rance is a deciding vote on either of these, it may create a
> paradox, since one of the messages in question takes Rance away from
> me. I can't resist, really).
Wouldn't the paradox just cause the ratification to
On 12/28/2019 2:34 PM, AIS523--- via agora-discussion wrote:
On Sat, 2019-12-28 at 14:11 -0800, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
wrote:
I seem to recall hearing once about an incident where a person
attempted to register as a player twice concurrently under different
names. Does anyone know
Whoops. That error is in my latest distribution too. Sorry all.
-Aris
On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 3:40 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> On 12/19/19 1:38 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the
> > quorum is 3
>
>
> I think quorum was 4,
On 12/19/19 1:38 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:
For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the
quorum is 3
I think quorum was 4, since 8276 had 6 voters; although I don't think it
actually matters whether it was 3 or 4, since 4 people voted.
--
Jason Cobb
On 12/28/19 3:49 PM, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote:
~~~
Each of the following messages was effectively sent to the Public Forum
on or about the Date: stamp shown in the archives. Claims within these
messages (in particular, claims to perform actions) may still be
ineffective for other
On Sat, 2019-12-28 at 14:11 -0800, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
wrote:
> I seem to recall hearing once about an incident where a person
> attempted to register as a player twice concurrently under different
> names. Does anyone know where that precedent can be found? It's
> relevant to a
On 12/28/19 5:11 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote:
I seem to recall hearing once about an incident where a person
attempted to register as a player twice concurrently under different
names. Does anyone know where that precedent can be found? It's
relevant to a thesis that I'm
I seem to recall hearing once about an incident where a person
attempted to register as a player twice concurrently under different
names. Does anyone know where that precedent can be found? It's
relevant to a thesis that I'm thinking of writing.
-Aris
On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 1:07 PM Edward Murphy via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> Aris wrote:
>
> > All of the messages having been sent to the public forum would apparently
> > stop me from being PM (see the recent thread). In general, it seems unfair
> > to have changes to the gamestate occurring
Aris wrote:
All of the messages having been sent to the public forum would apparently
stop me from being PM (see the recent thread). In general, it seems unfair
to have changes to the gamestate occurring without a significant number of
people being apprised of them. I’d urge going the other
On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 12:55 PM Edward Murphy via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> > On 12/28/19 3:04 PM, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote:
> >> I wrote:
> >>
> >>> If the above initiation was effective, then I resolve it: Falsifian is
> >>>
All of the messages having been sent to the public forum would apparently
stop me from being PM (see the recent thread). In general, it seems unfair
to have changes to the gamestate occurring without a significant number of
people being apprised of them. I’d urge going the other direction, and
18 matches
Mail list logo
