On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 2:35 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> where the line was drawn. Does anyone know why rule 2127 was created in
>> the first place? I'm wondering if the bar was intentionally set high to
>> discourage that sort of scam.
>
> T
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, ais523 wrote:
> Does anyone know why rule 2127 was created in
> the first place? I'm wondering if the bar was intentionally set high to
> discourage that sort of scam.
I wrote it, because I thought it would be fun to allow just the sort
of activity that's now going on (sell ti
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 2:35 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> where the line was drawn. Does anyone know why rule 2127 was created in
> the first place? I'm wondering if the bar was intentionally set high to
> discourage that sort of scam.
The archives show that Goethe originally proposed it
On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 11:15 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Just a followup ais523, would you agree with the following statement?
>
> For the purposes of R2127, if information published in the same message
> as a conditional vote and/or directly associated with a conditional vote
> contains a clear ab
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, ais523 wrote:
>> On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 10:26 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> If you were arguing that a vote was unclear because it was unclear or
>>> ambiguous in the way it used an abbreviation, all well and good. But I'm
>>> not
>>> g
On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 10:47 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, ais523 wrote:
> > On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 10:26 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >> If you were arguing that a vote was unclear because it was unclear or
> >> ambiguous in the way it used an abbreviation, all well and good. But I
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, ais523 wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 10:26 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> If you were arguing that a vote was unclear because it was unclear or
>> ambiguous in the way it used an abbreviation, all well and good. But I'm not
>> going to support the idea that an abbreviation is a
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, comex wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 1:15 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Rule 754 is more powerful than rule 2127, and they contradict each
>> other. Rule 754 wins.
>
> hmm..
>
> Rule 683 is more powerful than rule 2127, and they contradict each
> other (because R683
On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 10:26 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> If you were arguing that a vote was unclear because it was unclear or
> ambiguous in the way it used an abbreviation, all well and good. But I'm not
> going to support the idea that an abbreviation is automatically forbidden
> because an a
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 11:22 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 1:15 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Rule 754 is more powerful than rule 2127, and they contradict each
>> other. Rule 754 wins.
>
> hmm..
>
> Rule 683 is more powerful than rule 2127, and they contr
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, ais523 wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 10:12 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, ais523 wrote:
>>> Rule 754 explicitly allows knowledge of standard English, and of the
>>> rules. It doesn't allow knowledge of contract-defined terms. By the same
>>> "an explicit MAY
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 1:15 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rule 754 is more powerful than rule 2127, and they contradict each
> other. Rule 754 wins.
hmm..
Rule 683 is more powerful than rule 2127, and they contradict each
other (because R683 requires that the voter clearly identify whic
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 1:12 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And was the SLR published within every voting period? Otherwise by your
> rules you can't refer to it. -Goethe
Note that the Rulekeepor's obligation to post the SLR weekly would be
satisfied if e published, for example, on
On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 10:12 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, ais523 wrote:
> > Rule 754 explicitly allows knowledge of standard English, and of the
> > rules. It doesn't allow knowledge of contract-defined terms. By the same
> > "an explicit MAY implies MAY NOT in all other cases" th
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, ais523 wrote:
> Rule 754 explicitly allows knowledge of standard English, and of the
> rules. It doesn't allow knowledge of contract-defined terms. By the same
> "an explicit MAY implies MAY NOT in all other cases" that we have in the
> rules (via the definition of regulation),
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, ais523 wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 09:49 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> If, as you claim, you don't allow *any* references to outside material,
>> you'd have to publish a dictionary every voting period. And a grammar
>> guide. And maybe a kindergarten curriculum. Clearly ab
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, comex wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:49 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "Information" is *not* merely the words in the message, it is something
>> that informs. If you publish (during the voting period) a clear and
>> adequate reference to something that may
On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 09:49 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> If, as you claim, you don't allow *any* references to outside material,
> you'd have to publish a dictionary every voting period. And a grammar
> guide. And maybe a kindergarten curriculum. Clearly absurd even under
> the *current* Rule.
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:49 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Information" is *not* merely the words in the message, it is something
> that informs. If you publish (during the voting period) a clear and
> adequate reference to something that may be outside that period, but is
> reason
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, ais523 wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 12:30 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> My point is not that it's true now and needs a fix (though a clarification
>>> is always useful) my point is that it's ridicul
On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 09:42 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Wooble wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> My point is not that it's true now and needs a fix (though a clarification
> >> is always useful) my point is that it's ridiculous to interpret the
Wooble wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> My point is not that it's true now and needs a fix (though a clarification
>> is always useful) my point is that it's ridiculous to interpret the *current*
>> rule as excluding readily-available information
On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 12:30 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > My point is not that it's true now and needs a fix (though a clarification
> > is always useful) my point is that it's ridiculous to interpret the
> > *current*
>
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My point is not that it's true now and needs a fix (though a clarification
> is always useful) my point is that it's ridiculous to interpret the *current*
> rule as excluding readily-available information (as long as it's *re
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, ais523 wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 07:22 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
>>> So we are saying that SELL votes aren't valid unless the VM is
>>> published during the voting period on which they are cast? That is
>>> somewhat ridiculous, isn
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 15:44, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
>
>> I submit the following arguments on the CFJs which Murphy's website shows
>> will be assigned the numbers 2203-2205:
>>
>> An excerpt from Rule 2172:
>> {{{
>> The option selected shall be considered to b
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> Counter-evidence:
>>
>> Tue, 23 Sep 2008 16:21:26 -0700 Voting period of Proposal 5707 begins
>> Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:13:41 -0600 Vote Market text published
>> Tue, 30 Sep 2008 16:21:26 -0700 Voting period of Proposal 5707 ends
>>
> So we are saying that
comex wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 6:09 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I don't see why not. It seems functionally equivalent to saying
>> "I intend to vote on this later", and then later voting normally
>> (including with a defined-at-the-same-time condition).
>
> Not if the defi
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 4:11 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Murphy wrote:
>> I don't see why not. It seems functionally equivalent to saying
>> "I intend to vote on this later", and then later voting normally
>> (including with a defined-at-the-same-time condition).
> Just wait un
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 6:09 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't see why not. It seems functionally equivalent to saying
> "I intend to vote on this later", and then later voting normally
> (including with a defined-at-the-same-time condition).
Not if the definition comes after the
Murphy wrote:
> I don't see why not. It seems functionally equivalent to saying
> "I intend to vote on this later", and then later voting normally
> (including with a defined-at-the-same-time condition).
Just wait until you see the definition of TETRAHEDRON, then you might change
your mind.
--
a
ais523 wrote:
> Yep, I got the timing wrong, and I've already admitted my mistake.
> (That's during or close to the period of time during which emails to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] got held up for random lengths of time and arrived
> in random order.)
And that's what happens on my end when (as you proba
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 3:47 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yep, I got the timing wrong, and I've already admitted my mistake. (That's
> during or close to the period of time during which emails to [EMAIL
> PROTECTED] got held up for random lengths of time and arrived in random
Murphy wrote:
> Tue, 23 Sep 2008 16:21:26 -0700 Voting period of Proposal 5707 begins
> Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:13:41 -0600 Vote Market text published
> Tue, 30 Sep 2008 16:21:26 -0700 Voting period of Proposal 5707 ends
Yep, I got the timing wrong, and I've already admitted my mistake. (That's
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 4:16 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The text of the contract that defined the options was not published during
> the voting period, and rule 2172 does not make an allowance for text
> published /before/ the voting period.
BobTHJ published the text of the
35 matches
Mail list logo
