On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 6:25 PM James Cook via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> Questions for anyone interested in Agora:
>
> 1. Would you be interested in seeing an Agoran newsletter? Not like
>"Last week in Agora"; I mean something more carefully written and
>covering a longer span of time.
Y
Questions for anyone interested in Agora:
1. Would you be interested in seeing an Agoran newsletter? Not like
"Last week in Agora"; I mean something more carefully written and
covering a longer span of time.
2. Do you think my "Last Week in Agora" summaries are useful? Any other
comments
Alexis wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 at 19:22, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> >
> > On 2/1/20 7:20 PM, James Cook wrote:
> > > I submit a proposal as follows:
> > >
> > > Title: Unrepetition
> > > AI: 3
> > > Chamber: Efficiency
> >
> >
> > Perhaps the H. Promotor should order this first
(TTttDF forward.)
On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 8:17 AM James Cook via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> This is a counter-proto to Alexis's "Ratification by Legal Fiction", in
> the sense that I think it also fixes the problem of ratification
> failing due to minimal gamestate changes being ambiguous. It is
On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 at 00:35, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 at 19:22, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> >
> > On 2/1/20 7:20 PM, James Cook wrote:
> > > I submit a proposal as follows:
> > >
> > > Title: Unrepetition
> > > AI: 3
> > > Chamber: Efficiency
> >
On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 8:17 AM James Cook via agora-discussion
wrote:
> This is a counter-proto to Alexis's "Ratification by Legal Fiction", in
> the sense that I think it also fixes the problem of ratification
> failing due to minimal gamestate changes being ambiguous. It is a more
> radical chan
On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 at 19:22, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> On 2/1/20 7:20 PM, James Cook wrote:
> > I submit a proposal as follows:
> >
> > Title: Unrepetition
> > AI: 3
> > Chamber: Efficiency
>
>
> Perhaps the H. Promotor should order this first in the batch so that the
> other prop
On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 4:17 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 2/1/20 7:14 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote:
> > No worries, it happens to all of us. That's why we have review
> > mechanisms in place. The review of others is the best way o
On 2/1/20 7:20 PM, James Cook wrote:
> I submit a proposal as follows:
>
> Title: Unrepetition
> AI: 3
> Chamber: Efficiency
Perhaps the H. Promotor should order this first in the batch so that the
other proposals have a definite ruleset to work with? If not, I'll try
to remember to resolve it fi
On 2/1/20 7:14 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote:
> No worries, it happens to all of us. That's why we have review
> mechanisms in place. The review of others is the best way of catching
> errors, and everyone makes an error from time to time. Your legal
> reasoning is generally very goo
On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 4:05 PM Jason Cobb via agora-business
wrote:
>
> On 2/1/20 6:57 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote:
> > I intend, with 2 support, to group-file a motion to reconsider.
>
> I self-file a motion to reconsider in CFJ 3788.
>
>
> > This
> > seems to me to fundamentally m
On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 3:10 PM Jason Cobb via agora-business
wrote:
> I agree with the caller that the "minimal change" caused by ratification
> does not insert events to cancel out the changes it just made. Instead,
> the ratification simply fails to adjust the gamestate except at the
> modificat
On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 at 23:25, James Cook wrote:
> Wait, I'm confused. Which document are you talking about? And what
> does "solely through a lack of change by ratification" mean?
(These arguments are moot now that I've responded to the official
judgment, but ignore this particular argument especi
On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 at 23:10, Jason Cobb via agora-business
wrote:
> JUDGEMENT IN CFJ 3788
Okay, completely different, updated comment:
I'm confused. This judgement doesn't seem to consider that
ratification involves two gamestate modifications. One is a
hypothetical "minimal" change, and the oth
On 2/1/20 6:25 PM, James Cook wrote:
> Comments inline. I think I agree with the gist of this, but there are
> parts I'm confused about, and also, I don't quite buy one of your
> arguments (but it could be because I'm confused).
>
You're probably confused because, in hindsight, the draft wasn't ve
Comments inline. I think I agree with the gist of this, but there are
parts I'm confused about, and also, I don't quite buy one of your
arguments (but it could be because I'm confused).
> Rule 1551 states that the gamestate is "minimally modified to make the
> ratified document as true and accurat
On 2/1/20 5:33 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-business wrote:
>> 8310& Jason, Alexis3.0 Deputisation timeliness
> PRESENT. Seems inoffensive, but I haven't been paying attention to the
> discussion about why it's necessary. Also it's one of those proposals
> that requires me to pain
On 2/1/20 5:24 PM, James Cook via agora-business wrote:
> 8310& Jason, Alexis3.0 Deputisation timeliness
> AGAIST --- Wouldn't let me deputise for a vacant office to perform an
> action unrelated to the office?
Err... yes, yes it would. That's not good. (No, this wasn't a scam.)
-
On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 at 03:15, omd via agora-business
wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 6:29 PM Aris Merchant via agora-official
> wrote:
> > 8308& Falsifian3.0 Imposing order on the order
> AGAINST; I think this is too vague to be a valid rule change
Are you referring to this pa
On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 at 00:10, James Cook via agora-discussion
wrote:
> Are we sure the first attempt at resolving the decisions didn't
> succeed? I've lost track.
>
> In case we're a the situation like Alexis outlined, where the first
> succeeds platonically and this one succeeds via self-ratificat
On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 at 18:20, James Cook wrote:
> Bah, sorry, I overlooked the stuff about ordering of facts when I wrote that.
I mean ordering the evaluation of legal fictions.
On Sat., Feb. 1, 2020, 12:57 James Cook, wrote:
> Finally had time to read this sort-of-carefully. It do like it better
> than the current "minimally modified" language for ratification.
>
> Wasn't there a time in the past when ratification worked by the rules
> simply declaring that when a docum
NttPF.
--
Jason Cobb
On 1/31/20 8:50 AM, Tanner Swett via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2020, 22:37 Alexis Hunt via agora-official <
> agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>> I intend, with 2 Agoran Consent, to award twg the Patent Title of Associate
>> of Nomic, subject to the c
On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 at 16:30, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
wrote:
> On Sat, 2020-02-01 at 16:17 +, James Cook via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> > This is a counter-proto to Alexis's "Ratification by Legal Fiction",
> > in the sense that I think it also fixes the problem of ratification
> > failing du
Finally had time to read this sort-of-carefully. It do like it better
than the current "minimally modified" language for ratification.
Wasn't there a time in the past when ratification worked by the rules
simply declaring that when a document is ratified, it becomes true at
the time specified? I d
On 2/1/20 12:09 AM, James Cook wrote:
> Are we sure the first attempt at resolving the decisions didn't
> succeed? I've lost track.
>
> In case we're a the situation like Alexis outlined, where the first
> succeeds platonically and this one succeeds via self-ratification, I
> tried to work out what
On Sat, 2020-02-01 at 16:17 +, James Cook via agora-discussion
wrote:
> This is a counter-proto to Alexis's "Ratification by Legal Fiction",
> in the sense that I think it also fixes the problem of ratification
> failing due to minimal gamestate changes being ambiguous. It is a
> more radical c
This is a counter-proto to Alexis's "Ratification by Legal Fiction", in
the sense that I think it also fixes the problem of ratification
failing due to minimal gamestate changes being ambiguous. It is a more
radical change and makes the use of ratification less concise, but in
my opinion the reward
On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 9:25 PM Tanner Swett via agora-discussion
wrote:
> Would this ordinance have any "fighting chance" against the United
> States Constitution? One may say that yes, it would. After all, the
> Constitution is part of United States law, and the ordinance is also
> part of Unite
29 matches
Mail list logo
