On 6/16/20 9:38 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote:
>> I'll be honest; this was not the outcome I was expecting out of that
>> silly CFJ...
>>
> At this rate I may end up needing to split it off into a thesis or
> something. It's turning into a bit of a tangent. Basically, your second
> a
On 6/16/2020 9:07 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote:
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 5:44 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
On 6/16/2020 5:01 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 12:41 PM Aris Merchant wrote:
On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 1
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020, 6:11 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 6/16/20 9:07 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote:
> > Thanks for this. You're describing exactly what I have in mind, and I'll
> > take you advice.
> >
> > The problem I've identif
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 6:07 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 5:44 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>> On 6/16/2020 5:01 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 12:41 PM Aris M
On 6/16/20 9:07 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote:
> Thanks for this. You're describing exactly what I have in mind, and I'll
> take you advice.
>
> The problem I've identified is that we have a quadrillion different
> standards for how we understand language. There's one set of rules th
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 5:44 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 6/16/2020 5:01 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 12:41 PM Aris Merchant wrote:
> >> On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 10:20 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >>> On 6/13/2020 10:07 AM, Pu
At least for me personally, I've never (earnestly) used the four factors in
my life. For us the text is the law, and there is 99% of the time a common
sense way to grapple with the text.
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 10:02 AM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
On 6/16/2020 5:01 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 12:41 PM Aris Merchant wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 10:20 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> On 6/13/2020 10:07 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 1:04 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On 6/13/2020 9:52
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 12:41 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 10:20 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-business
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 6/13/2020 10:07 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 1:04 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 10:20 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-business
wrote:
>
>
> On 6/13/2020 10:07 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 1:04 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >> On 6/13/2020 9:52 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> >>> In CFJ 1500, the Court found tha
On 6/13/2020 9:52 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> First of all, I think I should address a potential conflict of
> interest with respect to CFJ 3831, that I am the recipient of the
> karma in Murphy's message. I don't believe this represents a conflict
> of interest because Murphy ha
On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 1:04 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
>
> On 6/13/2020 9:52 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> > In CFJ 1500, the Court found that words should be
> > interpreted by their common language definition after a definition in
> > the rules has been overturn
On 6/13/2020 9:52 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> In CFJ 1500, the Court found that words should be
> interpreted by their common language definition after a definition in
> the rules has been overturned. The Court presently believes that this
> is somewhat misguided: while the commo
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 10:09 PM Jason Cobb via agora-business
wrote:
>
> While I'm busy harassing the Arbitor...
>
> I CFJ: "On or about 16 May 2020, CFJ 3835 became G."
>
>
> I CFJ: "CFJ 3835 is G."
>
> Arguments:
>
I just want to present a few precedents for consideration here:
CFJ 2840
{
Nam
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 1:15 PM Jason Cobb via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 6/11/20 10:46 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote:
> > I change my nickname to CFJ 3835.
>
>
> Great. Your ruleset annotations have been updated [0].
>
> [0]: https://agoranomic.org/rule
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 1:42 PM Alex Smith via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Friday, 12 June 2020, 03:48:06 GMT+1, Kerim Aydin via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> > On 6/11/2020 7:08 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> > > If the
On Friday, 12 June 2020, 03:48:06 GMT+1, Kerim Aydin via agora-business
wrote:
> On 6/11/2020 7:08 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> > If the previous CFJ that I called was found TRUE, then that provides
> > evidence for the statement of this CFJ being TRUE: at some point, CFJ
> > 3835
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 12:50 PM Rebecca via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 12:48 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > On 6/11/2020 7:08 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> > > If the prev
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 12:48 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> On 6/11/2020 7:08 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> > If the previous CFJ that I called was found TRUE, then that provides
> > evidence for the statement of this CFJ being TRUE: at
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 12:33 PM Jason Cobb via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 6/11/20 10:08 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> > While I'm busy harassing the Arbitor...
> >
> > I CFJ: "On or about 16 May 2020, CFJ 3835 became G."
>
> > I CFJ: "CFJ 3835 is G."
On 1/18/2020 4:13 PM, omd via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 2:48 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
> wrote:
>> So this judgement actually extends the concept of physical reality quite a
>> bit, by saying "even though no rule outright forbids this, we're still
>> saying it'
On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 4:14 PM omd via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 2:48 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> > So this judgement actually extends the concept of physical reality quite a
> > bit, by saying "even though no rule outright forbids this, we're still
>
On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 2:48 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
wrote:
> So this judgement actually extends the concept of physical reality quite a
> bit, by saying "even though no rule outright forbids this, we're still
> saying it's R106-prohibited due to our (unwritten) precedents about assets
On 1/17/2020 9:33 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote:
> Judge's Arguments for CFJs 3784 and 3785, as well as the whimsically
> quasi-existent CFJ 3785.5
This is a clever judgement, and covers a lot of the ground well, but
honestly I feel like this is missing something. R106 reads in par
Congratulations, this made me chuckle. I’d give you a karma for it, but
unfortunately I’ve already used my notice this week.
Gaelan
> On Jan 17, 2020, at 9:33 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business
> wrote:
>
> Judge's Arguments for CFJs 3784 and 3785, as well as the whimsically
> quasi-existen
H. Judge Aris, reminder: this is due tomorrow.
Gaelan
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Kerim Aydin
> Subject: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJs 3705 and 3706 judged FALSE
> Date: February 7, 2019 at 6:17:48 PM PST
> To: agora-busin...@agoranomic.org
> Reply-To: agora-disc
(bwa ha ha - I am hijacking the court system for my nefarious ends - if
it leads to some deep philosophy-based CFJ it gets bonus points in the
contest IMO).
On 2/7/2019 5:39 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I think that the judgement should address the issue specifically given that
it has come up and i
(I wrote this before seeing Ørjan's reply)
Gaelan
> On Feb 7, 2019, at 4:58 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>
> I, unsurprisingly, disagree. You assume that there is a 1:1 mapping between
> intents and announcements of intents. I'd argue otherwise—I announced the
> same intent in both messages. The
I, unsurprisingly, disagree. You assume that there is a 1:1 mapping between
intents and announcements of intents. I'd argue otherwise—I announced the same
intent in both messages. The rules don't define what an intent is or specify
how one is created, so we fall back to the conventional English
On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 4:47 PM Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Feb 2019, Aris Merchant wrote:
>
> > Gaelan tried to win by Apathy, using one buried intent to satisfy
> R1728(2)
> > and then another open intent to satisfy R1728(1). This relies on the
> assumption
> > that the R1728(1) and R1728(
On Thu, 7 Feb 2019, Aris Merchant wrote:
Gaelan tried to win by Apathy, using one buried intent to satisfy R1728(2)
and then another open intent to satisfy R1728(1). This relies on the assumption
that the R1728(1) and R1728(2) intents can be separate from each other.
However, this is not the cas
I believe it was my idea, from when we were cleaning up some minigame
re-enactment (I think it was PAoAM), so that we could converge the rules
without worrying about whether or not the original proposal actually worked or
not. AFIAK it hasn’t been used since, although I think it needs to stay in
Huh - I've never seen that used and forgot or didn't know it existed. I
meant it in the wholly informal sense of "now the coin balances are the same
regardless of how I got there".
On 1/30/2019 2:50 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
It’s not clear if you meant for it to be one, but this isn’t a conver
It’s not clear if you meant for it to be one, but this isn’t a convergence in
the rules sense—you need to designate it as one with 3 Consent.
Gaelan
> On Jan 30, 2019, at 1:28 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Coin Convergence:
> I earn 5 coins for judging CFJ 3698.
>
> On 1/30/2019 1:16 PM, Ker
On 1/30/2019 1:06 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Jan 29, 2019, at 12:16 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
3697 called 20 January 2019 by D. Margaux, currently unassigned: "D.
Margaux won the game by politics in this message."
Since this is the first win attempt with these rules, I'll need to step
through an
> On Jan 30, 2019, at 1:39 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> I wouldn't feel that you had to wait
> more than say 48 hours before resorting to an arbitrary/random assignment
> (And if you want, as a policy, to encourage more frequent favoring, that's
> totally cool but you'll probably have to remind
On Jan 29, 2019, at 12:16 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
> I assign these CFJs to G., as the first and only player to have expressed
> any interest in judging them.
Just to note, lately (since you've joined) people have favored more than
usual I think - common practice is to favor if you're *really* in
I don’t think it ever got a second supporter. I would support an intent to
put it into moot.
On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 5:58 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Did we ever actually do this?
>
> -Aris
>
> On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 6:29 PM D. Margaux wrote:
>
> > Aris wrote
Did we ever actually do this?
-Aris
On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 6:29 PM D. Margaux wrote:
> Aris wrote:
>
> > In short, there a great many reasons why I disagree with your reading,
> > and I intend, with 2 support, to file a motion to reconsider (you can
> > do so on your own initiative by announce
So, I really don't think that the core "look backwards for intent"
mechanism is a problem at all, or that it needs to be fixed just because
it works differently than most things.
For example, in two places where the "look backwards" idea is
independently implemented, it's clean and straightforw
How about "a player CAN object to an intent by announcement"
Then, we could define Without N Objections as "if less than N players
have objected"
Likewise, "a player CAN support an intent by announcement"
So that With N Support could be defined as "if N or more people have
supported"
Defin
I think we’ve had a lot of trouble with determining exactly how objecting and
supporting work, because unlike many parts of the rules, they are based on some
announcement having happened in the past instead of the actual state in the
present. By splitting the act of having objected and the state
I agree. The fact that a feature exists is not per se a reason to use
it. Gaelan, what advantages do you see in your revised implementation?
-Aris
On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 7:31 PM Reuben Staley wrote:
>
> Switches? Please no. Switches are multi-purpose, but they are not
> all-purpose. I would not v
Switches? Please no. Switches are multi-purpose, but they are not
all-purpose. I would not vote FOR this proposal. The way we currently
define it already works well enough.
On 11/02/2018 06:07 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
Huh. A proto:
DEPENDENT ACTIONS
A dependent action is an action that a rul
On Fri, 2 Nov 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:
- With N Agoran Consent, where N is an integer multiple of 0.1 with a
minimum of 1. ("With Consent" is shorthand for this method with N =
1.)
"With Agoran Consent". Consent has other meanings so not good to leave it
out.
OPINIONS ON DEPENDENT A
Huh. A proto:
DEPENDENT ACTIONS
A dependent action is an action that a rule states can be performed by one of
the following methods:
- Without N Objections, where N is a positive integer. ("Without Objection" is
shorthand for this method with N = 1.) [removed the cap of 8—there’s no reason
for
I think it's just long, long history combined with "it generally works, has
gone through a lot of CFJs, and messing with Objections is dangerous" so
no one's dared/bothered with a big refactor.
That's not bad or good, just no one has tackled it since - I just checked -
1999, when it first came
Is there a reason the dependent action rules are so weird? Seems like they need
a refactor to use more “normal” mechanisms.
Gaelan
> On Nov 2, 2018, at 10:45 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> [The easy one first]
>
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2018, D. Margaux wrote:
>> I CFJ barring twg: “If in the last
I started to get into this, but deleted it because it seemed like too much of
an aside.
My feeling is that No faking regulates the "posting of ineffective actions
with intent to mislead".
So "sending the message 'I object' in a context that I know will fail in a
misleading way" is a regulated
Re CFJ 3680—
I don’t disagree with the conclusion. I think you’re right that the plain
language meanings could go either way, and I have no problem with the plain
language being interpreted in the parliamentary sense so that only one
objection counts as an objection.
The rest of the reasoning
Apologies Aris - I too was focused on the coins, and agree with you on the
"binding" part. -G.
On Sat, 27 Oct 2018, D. Margaux wrote:
> Aris, sorry, I should have been clearer in my email.
>
> I do agree with you about the contract existence and effect part. I think a
> contract with secre
Yeah, that bit was a bit iffy. But again, it seemed to kinda make sense
and I just wanted the CFJ to get judged, so that was what went in.
On 10/27/2018 3:06 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
Aris, sorry, I should have been clearer in my email.
I do agree with you about the contract existence and effect p
Aris, sorry, I should have been clearer in my email.
I do agree with you about the contract existence and effect part. I think a
contract with secret text can be binding, have mint authority, and do anything
a contract can do. It would be hard to enforce any contract obligations until
the co
You know, I’m prepared to believe ATMunn's interpretation on the ownership
thing, but I’d like to hear why my arguments are wrong or inapplicable
here. On the first thing though, the “contracts are binding” one, I don’t
see how the proposed interpretation could possibly be correct.
Straightforward
Thank you. This makes sense to me. Always appreciate the Agoran history lessons
by the way—they’re fascinating.
> On Oct 27, 2018, at 1:31 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Sat, 27 Oct 2018, D. Margaux wrote:
>> Basically, the lack of the phrase “by announcement” removes a limitation
>> o
On Sat, 27 Oct 2018, D. Margaux wrote:
> Basically, the lack of the phrase “by announcement” removes a limitation
> on the method of achieving the action; it doesn’t prevent the action from
> being successful if attempted by announcement. I think.
This used to be true, and was found in court
> On Oct 27, 2018, at 9:41 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> Actually, the coin-into-fountain rule (R2572) is missing a
> By Announcement. So that rule doesn't enable it.
>
> The only thing that enables asset destruction is in R2577, which
> specifies "by its owner".
Not sure I understand this ar
Really good point! I hadn't thought of that in specific context of
language usage versus diversity of thought.
More generally: because "reasonable people may differ" and also
because we want to encourage everyone to judge and to become more
comfortable judging (and judging is hard work), ther
> On Oct 27, 2018, at 9:31 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> You might
> decide to change it, but it's a well-argued judgement and an
> interpretation that's reasonable, despite not containing any fancy Latin.
Incidentally, this touches on one reason why I personally wouldn’t want to
privilege inte
Actually, the coin-into-fountain rule (R2572) is missing a
By Announcement. So that rule doesn't enable it.
The only thing that enables asset destruction is in R2577, which
specifies "by its owner".
On Sat, 27 Oct 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Oh well we can't have that. I destroy all coins po
Just to say that this was discussed at the time, and at least two others
(other than myself) agreed with the judgement you actually gave (I was
initially in Aris's camp personally but now I see it both ways). I'm
particularly interested in twg's opinion, which was pretty firmly in
line with you
Honestly, I really wasn't that interested in these CFJs, but they were
assigned to me so I had to judge them. I've only judged one or two CFJs
before, so I'm not the best at rules interpretation. I wanted to get the
CFJ off my back in time (but still put in effort, I wasn't about to go
"I judge
I think your last point is most plausible - that a "cost" without an
associated action (but perhaps a later consequence for nonpayment) isn't
a fee-based action at all, so the method of paying isn't governed by the
fee-based actions rule (which means it's pretty much governed by ---
whatever no
What do you think "with upkeep costs" means in Rule 2560? I'm trying to
argue that a facility with an upkeep cost equal to the empty set doesn't
have an upkeep cost, and so Rule 2560 doesn't apply a fee. The rule
defining the upkeep cost is explicit, the rule defining fees is explicit,
but neither
Common-sense has nothing to do with it, this is very explicit rules text.
And your argument seems like a direct contradiction to the actual rule text.
A Rank-1 Mine has a specific rules-defined Upkeep Cost: 2n-2 lumber
= the empty set of assets.
Fee-based actions explicitly says what happens
Argument for FALSE on CFJ 2:
The relevant portion of R2560 only applies to facilities "with upkeep
costs". It is my contention that this implies that the upkeep cost must be
non-null, or the fee is inapplicable in the first place. Our common sense
assumption is that a fee of 0 is no fee. Fee-based
> On May 24, 2017, at 5:32 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, 23 May 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>> https://ap02.alpine.washington.edu/alpine/alpine/2.0/view/0/agora/80517
>> On May 23, 2017, at 5:27 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
>> CFJ 3472: 白票 yields "a white paper". This is clearly
On Tue, 23 May 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> https://ap02.alpine.washington.edu/alpine/alpine/2.0/view/0/agora/80517
> On May 23, 2017, at 5:27 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> CFJ 3472: 白票 yields "a white paper". This is clearly not a valid vote.
> I judge 3472 FALSE.
>
>
> I’m surprised at
> On May 23, 2017, at 5:27 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> CFJ 3472: 白票 yields "a white paper". This is clearly not a valid vote.
> I judge 3472 FALSE.
I’m surprised at this. I had assumed this was meant to translate as PRESENT -
it’s an unmarked, but cast, ballot.
-o
signature.asc
Descriptio
The following information is for the future thesis writer about translation
and history of language on Agora:
反対 is both the verb "to oppose" or "to object" and a noun which can mean
"against" or "objection". On a Japanese ballot paper, the conventional
choices are 賛成 ("support") and 反対 ("against"
On Wed, 17 Aug 2016, ais523 wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-08-17 at 09:15 -0400, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
> > The Registrar's report dated 24 Jun 2016 indicates that I last
> > deregistered
> > on 28 Jan 2014. So statement 2 is also TRUE.
> >
> > OscarMeyr
> >
> > (Why am I looking for evidence on a CFJ
On Wed, 2016-08-17 at 09:15 -0400, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
> The Registrar's report dated 24 Jun 2016 indicates that I last
> deregistered
> on 28 Jan 2014. So statement 2 is also TRUE.
>
> OscarMeyr
>
> (Why am I looking for evidence on a CFJ about me???)
This isn't so much a case about "did O
On Wed, 10 Aug 2016, nichdel wrote:
> Under the interpretation that OscarMeyr was a player during this time,
> I certainly owe some budget to em, regardless of current citizenship. If
> not, the ABM appears to indicate that my budget switch should decrease
> anyway. My CFJs are intended to clarif
On Wed, 2016-08-10 at 19:19 -0500, nichdel wrote:
> So my concern with this is partially that I accepted a bet made by
> OscarMeyr here:
>
> https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg27587.h
> tml
>
> The conditions of this bet have come to fruition. I lost because
> proposal
G. wrote:
The key part of my current reasoning is that the *existence* of switches
does not self-ratify. Rather, the value of *existing* switches ("each
instance of that switch") is the only thing that is subject to self-
ratification in R2162. (This would be different with explicit
ratificat
On Fri, 5 Aug 2016, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Aug 2016, ais523 wrote:
> > https://cfj.qoid.us/3337: a self-ratifying list of switches can cause
> > people to become players in order to allow the switches to exist,
>
> I'm really surprised at that ruling; at least it doesn't match the
> cur
On Fri, 5 Aug 2016, ais523 wrote:
> https://cfj.qoid.us/3337: a self-ratifying list of switches can cause
> people to become players in order to allow the switches to exist,
I'm really surprised at that ruling; at least it doesn't match the
current reading of the rule IMO, wonder if it's change
6 18:30 (GMT-06:00)
> To: Agora Discussion
> Subject: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJs Regarding OscarMeyr
>
>
>
> On Wed, 3 Aug 2016, nichdel wrote:
> > I submit the following statements for judgement, barring OscarMeyr from
> > judging them (luckily, barring applies to people, not
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 9:36 PM, nichdel wrote:
> Secretary reports list eir budget in the ABM. E should have no budget
> switch if e is not a player.
>
> Original message
> From: Kerim Aydin
> Date: 8/3/16 18:30 (GMT-06:00)
> To: Agora Discussion
> Sub
On Wed, 3 Aug 2016, nichdel wrote:
> Secretary reports list eir budget in the ABM. E should have no
> budget switch if e is not a player.
Ah, competing switches! That makes more sense then where I thought
you were going with that.
Secretary reports list eir budget in the ABM. E should have no budget switch if
e is not a player.
Original message From: Kerim Aydin
Date: 8/3/16 18:30 (GMT-06:00) To: Agora Discussion
Subject: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJs Regarding
OscarMeyr
On Wed, 3 Aug 2016, nichdel wrote
On Wed, 3 Aug 2016, nichdel wrote:
> I submit the following statements for judgement, barring OscarMeyr from
> judging them (luckily, barring applies to people, not players).
>
> 1) OscarMeyr is not currently a player.
>
> 2) OscarMeyr hasn't been a player since January 28th, 2014.
Can you pro
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On 07/29/2010 02:42 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > Hmm, I'm suddenly unconvinced that Win Announcements work at all for
> > most defined win conditions.
> >
> > A win announcement must be factually correct in announcing that
> > someone wins the game (R2
Yally wrote:
> I support and appeal this case.
I'm interpreting this intent/support/appeal as reasonable
shorthand for doing so for each of CFJs 2821 and 2822.
On 07/29/2010 02:42 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Hmm, I'm suddenly unconvinced that Win Announcements work at all for
most defined win conditions.
A win announcement must be factually correct in announcing that
someone wins the game (R2186).
But most win conditions are not triggered until a win ann
G. wrote:
> The problem now is (if we accept that it's circular to say that
> one or more people won in order to cause those one or more people
> to win) that:
Rule 2215 (Truthiness) suggests (albeit weakly) that such
bootstrapping is allowed.
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010, comex wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > The difficulty in ALL win conditions, that 2186 specifies one set
> > of conditions for calling something a win announcement, and that other
> > rules say that it has to be a winning announcement with di
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010, ais523 wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 14:05 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 29 Jul 2010, ais523 wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 13:42 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hmm, I'm suddenly unconvinced that Win Announcements work at all for
> > > > most def
On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 14:05 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010, ais523 wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 13:42 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > >
> > > Hmm, I'm suddenly unconvinced that Win Announcements work at all for
> > > most defined win conditions.
> > >
> > > A win announcemen
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010, ais523 wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 13:42 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > Hmm, I'm suddenly unconvinced that Win Announcements work at all for
> > most defined win conditions.
> >
> > A win announcement must be factually correct in announcing that
> > someone wins the g
On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 17:03 -0400, comex wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > The difficulty in ALL win conditions, that 2186 specifies one set
> > of conditions for calling something a win announcement, and that other
> > rules say that it has to be a winning announcem
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> The difficulty in ALL win conditions, that 2186 specifies one set
> of conditions for calling something a win announcement, and that other
> rules say that it has to be a winning announcement with different
> (not additional) information ("a wi
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010, ais523 wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 13:42 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > Hmm, I'm suddenly unconvinced that Win Announcements work at all for
> > most defined win conditions.
> >
> > A win announcement must be factually correct in announcing that
> > someone wins the
On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 13:42 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> Hmm, I'm suddenly unconvinced that Win Announcements work at all for
> most defined win conditions.
>
> A win announcement must be factually correct in announcing that
> someone wins the game (R2186).
A win announcment need not state that
Hmm, I'm suddenly unconvinced that Win Announcements work at all for
most defined win conditions.
A win announcement must be factually correct in announcing that
someone wins the game (R2186).
But most win conditions are not triggered until a win announcement
is made (are triggered "upon" a win
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010, comex wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > This clearly wins by Legislation if it's taken as deferring to (being
> > intercepted by?) the power-1 Rule 2188. But does it (power-3 instrument)
> > override the power-2 clause in R2186: "The game CA
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> This clearly wins by Legislation if it's taken as deferring to (being
> intercepted by?) the power-1 Rule 2188. But does it (power-3 instrument)
> override the power-2 clause in R2186: "The game CANNOT be won in any other
> way, rules to the
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010, Sean Hunt wrote:
> > I intend, with 2 support, to appeal this judgment, as it implies that the
> > win
> > announcement is in fact the adoption of the proposal, but does not fully
> > address whether a posting the text of a proposal
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 11:38 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I can't act as a judge in the face of this ridiculous spam.
>
> Calling for multiple unlinked judgements as a call for "consistency"
> is a bit of a farce (as opposed to hoping that one will be assigned
> to someone friendly and thus be your lo
This is probably more of a proto-proto for a legislative fix than a
legitimate interpretation of the existing rules, but here goes.
comex wrote:
> * For any entity X, X is an entity whose existence depends on X.
Any entity generally has exactly one other entity (its founder) that
grants it existen
1 - 100 of 168 matches
Mail list logo
