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
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, 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 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 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 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
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 happened if these proposals were enacted twice.
On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 9:10 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
>
> On 1/30/2020 9:03 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote:
> > On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 16:55, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion
> > wrote:
> >> On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 10:32, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
> >> wrote:
On 1/30/2020 9:23 AM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 9:20 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> I went back and forth on that as a possibility - I don't have a strong reason
>> so maybe a SHALL is best - the only issue being what Alexis pointed out, that
>> if we want (as
On 1/30/2020 9:16 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Anyway, I like G.'s proposal, but why even require a reasonably
>> accurate tally for it to be self-ratifying? Just require
>> decision+outcome, and make the rest SHALL.
>
> I went back and forth on that as a possibility - I don't have a strong reason
On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 9:20 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
>
> On 1/30/2020 9:06 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote:
> > On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 17:03, James Cook wrote:
> >> Here's a somewhat different way we could do it:
> >>
> >> * An announcement resolving a decision does
On 1/30/2020 9:06 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 17:03, James Cook wrote:
>> Here's a somewhat different way we could do it:
>>
>> * An announcement resolving a decision doesn't need to specify
>> anything other than the decision --- not even the outcome. Tha
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 12:10, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
wrote:
> Unless I'm misreading your suggestion, wouldn't this leave us open to saying
> weeks/months/years later, if a deep error turns up, "since that result was
> posted incorrectly, we've been playing under the wrong rules for a whi
On 1/30/2020 9:03 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 16:55, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion
> wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 10:32, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
>> wrote:
>>> Proto: "Pragmatic decisions", AI-3
>>>
>>> Amend R208 by replacing:
>>> 4
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 17:03, James Cook wrote:
> Here's a somewhat different way we could do it:
>
> * An announcement resolving a decision doesn't need to specify
> anything other than the decision --- not even the outcome. That causes
> the decision to resolve to the (platonically) correct outc
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 16:55, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 10:32, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> > Proto: "Pragmatic decisions", AI-3
> >
> > Amend R208 by replacing:
> > 4. It specifies the outcome, as described elsewhere, and, if there
> >
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 10:32, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
wrote:
> Proto: "Pragmatic decisions", AI-3
>
> Amend R208 by replacing:
> 4. It specifies the outcome, as described elsewhere, and, if there
> was more than one valid option, provides a tally of the voters'
>
On 1/30/2020 7:47 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 15:43, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion
> wrote:
>> On 1/30/20 10:21 AM, James Cook wrote:
>>> Shouldn't you also say that you resolve these decisions? My
>>> understanding is that you're not publishing a report
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 15:43, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On 1/30/20 10:21 AM, James Cook wrote:
> > Shouldn't you also say that you resolve these decisions? My
> > understanding is that you're not publishing a report here; you're
> > re-taking some by-announcement actions in case you
On 1/30/20 10:21 AM, James Cook wrote:
> Shouldn't you also say that you resolve these decisions? My
> understanding is that you're not publishing a report here; you're
> re-taking some by-announcement actions in case your first attempt at
> those actions failed.
>
> - Falsifian
You're probably r
On 1/30/2020 7:21 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 14:34, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion
> wrote:
>> Draft revision, since this is complicated:
>>
>> All of these CoEs are accepted.
>>
>> Revised resolutions for 8292-8307:
>
> Shouldn't you also say that you
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 14:34, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion
wrote:
> Draft revision, since this is complicated:
>
> All of these CoEs are accepted.
>
> Revised resolutions for 8292-8307:
Shouldn't you also say that you resolve these decisions? My
understanding is that you're not publishing a re
On 1/30/20 8:32 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> Alright, fine. CoE on each resolution for a proposal with number not
> less than 8292, as well as 8290: they're wrong. For the next seven
> days, I pledge not to deny any of these CoEs.
>
> Updated assessments coming... eventually. I have to update my
> autom
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 22:23, omd via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 5:52 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-business
> wrote:
> > [Note that the existing "more than one option" text is basically
> > tautologically true and practically useless anyway. P
On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 5:52 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-business
wrote:
> [Note that the existing "more than one option" text is basically
> tautologically true and practically useless anyway. PRESENT is an option,
> so only a decision with no other options would only have one. And even if
> we chan
Erm... you might want to check this list again. You have it going 3, 4, 6,
7.
-Aris
On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 5:52 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 13:45, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org>
26 matches
Mail list logo
