R1607:
Distributed proposals have ID numbers, to be assigned by the
Promotor.
Was this not violated when omd distributed proposals without ID
numbers?
Were the proposals distributed, given that they did not have ID
numbers?
On Wed, 2014-11-12 at 14:43 +, Nicholas Evans wrote:
> I'm not sure the fact that the PoA is imaginary is all that relevant.
> If you add a rule to the PoA then the PoA can only specify imaginary
> events that occur regarding it, but it still clearly refers to the
> actual rule. The Dungeon Mas
In case it's been forgotten, here is a possibly relevant bit of
discussion from before adoption:
On Fri, 2014-09-12 at 18:57 +, Luis Ressel wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 10:51:54 -0400, Tanner Swett wrote:
> > This looks dangerous. What if the Dungeon Master said the following:
> >
> > I cause
On Sun, 2014-11-09 at 23:53 +, omd wrote:
> Referee Eritivus^ 4 Nov 14 30 Oct 14
> [...]
> ^ Held iff any rule violation occurred between 3 Nov 00:00 and 4 Nov 00:01.
> Otherwise vacant. One possible such violation is under CFJ.
On Tue, 2014-11-11 at 01:21 +00
On Mon, 2014-11-10 at 00:44 +, omd wrote:
> You could have said so. :) But I don't think that works, because
> there was no Referee to be obligated at the time; the deputisation
> rule talks about hypothetical obligations, but the office
> hypothetically being filled at the time of deputisatio
On Sun, 2014-11-09 at 23:53 +, omd wrote:
> Referee Eritivus^ 4 Nov 14 30 Oct 14
> [...]
> ^ Held iff any rule violation occurred between 3 Nov 00:00 and 4 Nov 00:01.
> Otherwise vacant. One possible such violation is under CFJ.
Huh. When I deputised, I intended
On Tue, 2014-11-04 at 13:52 +, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Pretty much the same thing that happens if a proposal took effect that
> says "If the last digit of pi is 3, Eritivus gets one point." This
> sort of thing has happened many, many times.
>
> In the current ruleset
On Tue, 2014-11-04 at 08:38 +, omd wrote:
> Is this supposed to Card the (nonexistent) previous Referee or
> yourself (successfully but incorrectly, since you didn't violate the
> rules last week due to not holding the office)?
Myself, clearly. If by "incorrectly" you just mean that the receiv
proposal with the following text takes effect:
If proposal 7701 amended rule 2424 before amending rule 2420,
award Eritivus 1 point.
What happens, and why?
On Mon, 2014-11-03 at 02:45 +, omd wrote:
> > Proposal 7701 (AI=2) by Henri
> > Credits
> > Replace every instance of the word "points" in the ruleset
> > excluding the instances of the word "points" in Rule 1023 (Common
> > Definitions) with "credits".
>
> Fails due to lack of s
Sorry, what errors exactly?
My understanding would have been that, as DM, it would be legal for you to
ratify the Warrigal's hypothetical changes.
Apologies for the HTML, I hope a plaintext part comes through...
On Fri, 2014-10-31 at 02:56 +, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Once again, I vaguely remember a past CFJ that asked how much of
> a report could be missing and still be a considered a report (with
> missing data) versus an entirely missing report.
The gist of my TRUE argument is that R2143 doesn't say t
On Thu, 2014-10-30 at 15:25 +, Sprocklem wrote:
> E did, however, fail to, "as part of eir weekly duties, distribute all
> pending proposals", something that the rules say e SHALL do.
omd distributed the only pending proposal, "Ribbons 2014". I don't
think this duty could enable deputisation a
On Thu, 2014-10-30 at 02:24 +, Eritivus wrote:
> The Promotor failed to publish all such information. In particular,
> e did not publish that "Wordplay" was in the Proposal Pool.
Counterarguments:
The information required is 'a list of all proposals in the Proposal
P
On Tue, 2014-10-28 at 19:49 +, omd wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
> > I had a vague memory of a rule which said that a CAN without mechanism
> > was treated as CAN by announcement, but there is no such rule. Was
> > there ever? Anyway, I will fix.
>
> IIRC there was a
Why were contracts repealed? So far all I've discovered is that the
repeal occurred during a lull in Feb 2010.
"Contracts" was the obvious answer to a question I had about an
idea, so I was pleasantly surprised to see your proposal.
I'm FOR unless I see good reasons not to bring this back.
Is yoyo still up? I note that the link in the Registrar's Census
(http://yoyo.its.monash.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/nomic) 404's. How do I
subscribe?
Even if it's no longer up, if anyone has an archive (preferably .mbox)
of all the yoyo messages, I'd appreciate a copy (or hints on how to
obtain one).
On Sun, 2014-10-26 at 19:15 +, Tanner Swett wrote:
> I was thinking that it may be useful to have a proposal say something
> like "Enact a rule saying 'blah blah blah N blah', where N is the
> number of things that have happened in the past 14 days." I can't
> think of a good example, so on sec
On Sun, 2014-10-26 at 02:48 +, omd wrote:
> Ah, I missed your resubmission. I distribute 7701 again, same
> parameters, title, and text as before, but the corrected AI is indeed
> 2. I re-vote AGAINST.
Whoops, missed this. But didn't you resign?
Ah, nevermind, found it.
I was confused by this when you mentioned it before: where do the rules
establish any kind of deadline at all?
I didn't think to actually echo your intent. However, I am ready to
distribute the proposals after ribbons; if you'd like me to do so,
resign.
On Fri, 2014-10-24 at 16:22 +, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
> I wager 10 Florins on 25-30, and another 10 on 0-24.
Note: unbet Florins are lost each week.
On Thu, 2014-10-23 at 19:47 +, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> CoE: I came up with 37, not 36. Here are the date strings (dunno if
> it's helpful). The x means I eyeballed it in the archive text file.
Thanks for checking my work!
> Sun, 19 Oct 2014 15:02:17 -0700 => 2014-10-13 x
I don't have this on
I guess the power of rules enacted by illicit fast track ratification
actually can't be more than 3, since the fast track rule has power 3?
So not as worrisome as I thought.
On Thu, 2014-10-23 at 18:33 +, omd wrote:
> That it ignores the AI=1 requirement is accidental, but probably not
> important. If someone makes an obviously deficient fast track
> attempt, that's what a Claim of Error is for.
Sure, I just don't have a feel for how likely it is that skilled
Rid
Suppose I send the following message, having sent no previous relevant
messages (i.e. no previously published intent).
I hereby fast track the following proposal:
Proposal: Eritivus Regnat
AI: 4
Create a new Power-4 Rule titled "Eritivus Regnat":
Eritivus CAN
On Mon, 2014-10-20 at 06:31 +, Alex Smith wrote:
> You know what? I'm actually really concerned with the current Moot
> process. By making things into a vote, not a discussion, it's pretty bad
> at actually finding the truth. And at this point, I'm not really
> sure /what/ to think about this c
So, several valid criticisms have been raised regarding my Brief.
I myself wasn't as happy with the end result as I'd hoped to be. I
submitted it anyway, because it was late (with regard to both deadlines
and clocks), because I expected that any potential harm was revertible,
and probably due to t
On Wed, 2014-10-22 at 21:41 +, omd wrote:
> "Rules pertaining to" sounds right to me, but "people pertaining to"
> sounds fundamentally wrong; this doesn’t change just because the rule
> talks vaguely about entities.
Yes, totally agree! While pretending "pertaining to" meant "related to",
I co
> exploit this if G.'s "process" argument was upheld (most likely to set
> my own Power to 1)? I don't consider this situation as all that
> nonsensical; broader dictatorship rules have existed in the past.
I don't think so. That you were going to try to use it doesn&#x
I had been planning to send a similar message. Happy to give the office
a shot if neither you nor aranea want it.
On Thu, 2014-10-23 at 01:27 +, Nich Del Evans wrote:
> 1) No one mentioned that interpretation until you did, so this leads
> me to believe that interpretation is not the most natural one, and
> makes me think most people weren't aware of it (I certainly wasn't).
I argued in the Brief that, ex
Note: I do intend to submit a(n expanded) Brief, by 07:00 UTC Tuesday
(midnight tonight PDT), perhaps earlier. I did some related grunt work
last night (collecting and reviewing all relevant contemporary messages,
and more mostly -- but not totally -- fruitless CFJ searching). I 'just'
need to poli
t; review period and is thus inherently incapable of satisfying Rule 105.
> - (Eritivus) The rule has no bug because it is using a secondary
> definition of "pertaining".
Note: I have not submitted a Brief yet, because I was deregistered when
I attempted to do so.
I'm pondering whether to resubmit as is, expand, or abandon.
On Sun, 2014-10-19 at 16:45 +, woggle wrote:
> This information is not self-ratifying. The list of players registered is as a
> result of R2162(c).
Ah, I see. I mistakenly thought that all information required to be in
reports is self-ratifying.
Oh well, see you next month :).
On Tue, 2014-10-14 at 19:24 +, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> NOW TAKING BETS for GNP for the Week of 2014-10-13!
I see no reason not to bet at 23:59... except that that would be no fun.
So I bet 90 Florins on 27-36, 10 on 37+.
On Fri, 2014-10-17 at 21:52 +, omd wrote:
> Well, to the extent that language is communication, I think the
> failure of the term to communicate the seemingly intended meaning to,
> apparently, anyone in the audience is prima facie evidence for its
> unclearness.
On the other hand, I think eve
On Tue, 2014-10-14 at 18:58 +, Alex Smith wrote:
> In my case, I simply didn't know that "pertain" had two meanings; the
> only meaning I'd come across was "relevant to". (I just looked it up;
> "belonging to" is indeed another possible meaning.)
>
> I'm not quite sure what effect this has on t
I could probably be easily convinced to retract this Brief.
I think that the fact that (this part of) omd's scam became generally
accepted can be explained by the fact that equivocation can be difficult
to detect, especially if one sense is generally more common and overlaps
with the other, and es
On 2014-10-09 21:34 UTC, Alex wrote:
> One argument the other way that may be worth considering is that just
> because omd's message gave Agorans an opportunity to review the rules
> change, it didn't give any opportunity for that review to have any
> effect. Depending on your interpretation of the
What is the flaw in this alternative argument?
The Low-Powered Rule sets up a Rules Change mechanism of By
Announcement. This is a different mechanism than the mechanism which
is, according to R105, the only mechanism. This mechanism is therefore
overruled by a higher-powered rule, and just plain
42 matches
Mail list logo
