On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 8:52 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, grok (caleb vines) wrote:
>
>> There is some ambiguity of what, exactly, a nickel is. Common
>> knowledge tells us it is a metal, but one would rarely refer to an
>> amount of nickel as "a nickel" without qualification--
On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, grok (caleb vines) wrote:
There is some ambiguity of what, exactly, a nickel is. Common
knowledge tells us it is a metal, but one would rarely refer to an
amount of nickel as "a nickel" without qualification--a lump of
nickel, or a vein, or an atom. Nickel is ultimately an a
Welp I tried :(
Hopefully you appreciate the cookie recipe more than the formatting!
-grok
On May 26, 2017 7:31 PM, "Ørjan Johansen" wrote:
> On Fri, 26 May 2017, grok (caleb vines) wrote:
>
> This recipe SHOULD fit in an eighty-character fixed-width line, for all our
>> terminal-based or fix
On Fri, 26 May 2017, grok (caleb vines) wrote:
This recipe SHOULD fit in an eighty-character fixed-width line, for all our
terminal-based or fixed-width font mail client users.
While I appreciate the intention, (1) this arrived in my mailbox with the
final parts of many lines already wrapped
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
thing that says the
Dungeon Masters actions are imaginary or incapable of specifying aspects of
"outside" entities.
-Original Message-
From: "Eritivus"
Sent: 11/12/2014 12:23 AM
To: "Agora Nomic discussions (DF)"
Subject: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgment of CF
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 Tuesday, November 11, 2014, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> Why, you're right.
>
I considered this, but decided that it would be too natural to read "add
entities to" as "add new entities to", i.e. "create new entities in", for
that to stand a chance. Especially since the *contents* of the PoA was
def
On Tue, 11 Nov 2014, Nich Del Evans wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 7:22 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 11 Nov 2014, Nich Del Evans wrote:
> >> I judge CFJ 3432 to be TRUE. On its surface, the CFJ asks if rule
> >> 2437's original text specified mechanisms for changing the text of
>
On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 7:22 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 11 Nov 2014, Nich Del Evans wrote:
>> I judge CFJ 3432 to be TRUE. On its surface, the CFJ asks if rule
>> 2437's original text specified mechanisms for changing the text of
>> rule 2437 (that work). It does indeed; rules are entiti
On Tue, 11 Nov 2014, Nich Del Evans wrote:
> I judge CFJ 3432 to be TRUE. On its surface, the CFJ asks if rule
> 2437's original text specified mechanisms for changing the text of
> rule 2437 (that work). It does indeed; rules are entities and thus the
> Dungeon Master could add Rule 2437 (or any
On 4 July 2014 08:06, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
> CFJ 3416
> Caller: ais523
> Judge: Tiger
> Accused: omd
> Text: omd's recent Apology has a signature, and thus did not violate rule
> 2428.
>
> [ ... ]
>
> JUDGMENT:
> I judge CFJ 3416 to be TRUE.
>
> - Tiger
In closing, I want to state for the rec
Not at all.
On Jun 19, 2014 1:56 PM, "Kerim Aydin" wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 19 Jun 2014, Sean Hunt wrote:
> > Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
> > On 19 June 2014 03:51, Sean Hunt
> wrote:
> > > The crux of the matter in CFJ 3407 is whether or not (the
> purported) Rule
> > > 2426 is a mech
On Thu, 19 Jun 2014, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
> On 19 June 2014 03:51, Sean Hunt wrote:
> > The crux of the matter in CFJ 3407 is whether or not (the purported)
> Rule
> > 2426 is a mechanism for judicial determinations, and is hence
> prevented from
>
On 19 June 2014 03:51, Sean Hunt wrote:
> The crux of the matter in CFJ 3407 is whether or not (the purported) Rule
> 2426 is a mechanism for judicial determinations, and is hence prevented from
> being enacted by (2) in the last paragraph of Rule 217.
>
> [...]
>
> Accordingly the Court finds tha
On Wed, 1 Apr 2009, Ian Kelly wrote:
> I intend to appeal the judgement in CFJ 2437 with 2 support. I find
> this precedent rather disturbing, as I doubt that the rules make that
> same distinction.
>
> Case in point: MMI happens to give us an actual working definition
> for (all-caps) "REQUIRED
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> It's not a big deal other than it makes my head hurt: I just can't quite
> understand how something can be simultaneously required and illegal by
> the same clause of the same rule. Can anyone else explain this one to
> me... am I being really, really dense? (wouldn't be the
On Wed, 1 Apr 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
> It was never a part of the case; someone could NoV me about making an
> illegal demotion, but that's about it. Given that the decision to demote
> Billy Pilgrim was not part of the judicial decision and that I'm about
> to reverse it, it doesn't really seem w
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Apr 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> Ian Kelly wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
However, I now publish a Notice of Violation, naming Goethe as the
Accused, for breaking Rule 2211, a 2-Power rule, by illegally flipping
castes while
On Wed, 1 Apr 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> This judgement is not self-consistent. If R2211 requires a promotion be
>> performed (for the purposes of R2160a), it cannot also be illegal to
>> do the promotion by the same clauses R2211.
>
> I draw a distinction between the rules re
On Wed, 1 Apr 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Ian Kelly wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>>> However, I now publish a Notice of Violation, naming Goethe as the
>>> Accused, for breaking Rule 2211, a 2-Power rule, by illegally flipping
>>> castes while deputising for the office
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> This judgement is not self-consistent. If R2211 requires a promotion be
> performed (for the purposes of R2160a), it cannot also be illegal to
> do the promotion by the same clauses R2211.
I draw a distinction between the rules requiring something and an
obligation existing
Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> However, I now publish a Notice of Violation, naming Goethe as the
>> Accused, for breaking Rule 2211, a 2-Power rule, by illegally flipping
>> castes while deputising for the office of Grand Poobah, by failing to
>> adhere to
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> However, I now publish a Notice of Violation, naming Goethe as the
> Accused, for breaking Rule 2211, a 2-Power rule, by illegally flipping
> castes while deputising for the office of Grand Poobah, by failing to
> adhere to Rule 2211. E did not f
On Wed, 1 Apr 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
> R2160(a) specifies {if the rules require the holder of the holder of
> that office, by virtue of holding that office, to perform the action}.
> The rules do require the Poobah to perform promotions and demotions,
> regardless of whether the obligation has bee
Alex Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-04-01 at 22:08 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> This repairs the illegal flips made previously by my office.
>
> Oh great, now we get to argue about what the "result of a claim of error
> is" (I presume you're basing that action on the second paragraph of rule
> 2211?).
On Wed, 2009-04-01 at 22:08 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
> This repairs the illegal flips made previously by my office.
Oh great, now we get to argue about what the "result of a claim of error
is" (I presume you're basing that action on the second paragraph of rule
2211?). Maybe also on the referent of
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> root wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>>> Ed Murphy wrote:
== CFJ 2418 ==
Spent assets are destroyed, unless they are specified as being
>>
Ian Kelly wrote:
> By "lack of a reason to find otherwise", are you intentionally
> excluding CFJ 1854?
>
> -root
Yes, because the text of rule 2126 defining spending assets was added
after CFJ 1854 was resolved, meaning that it has been superseded
(indeed, the CFJ dealt with that specific rule).
root wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> == CFJ 2418 ==
>>>
>>> Spent assets are destroyed, unless they are specified as being
>>> transferred to a different owner than their previous
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Ed Murphy wrote:
>> == CFJ 2418 ==
>>
>> Spent assets are destroyed, unless they are specified as being
>> transferred to a different owner than their previous owner.
>
> The only
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> (Note that since this is still a clause in a rule, you might still
> avoid criminal prosecution due to being EXCUSED if you have conflicting
> contracts, but you wouldn't avoid an unfavorable equity settlement
> which could spawn a criminal non
On Thu, 2009-03-12 at 23:02 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Mar 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
> >> Since it seems
> >> unreasonable to add an obligation retroactively due to changing
> >> circumstances, it seems equally unreasonable to remove one.
> >>
> >> I judge case 2403 to
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I CFJ the following statement:
> {
> If a rule requires a player to perform an action without making it
> possible for em to do so, and there is a rule forbidding em from doing
> so, e can take no action that is not in violation of a rule.
> }
This is, I th
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Mar 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> Since it seems
>> unreasonable to add an obligation retroactively due to changing
>> circumstances, it seems equally unreasonable to remove one.
>>
>> I judge case 2403 to be TRUE.
>
> I'm not sure about this one at all. For example, l
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Since it seems
> unreasonable to add an obligation retroactively due to changing
> circumstances, it seems equally unreasonable to remove one.
>
> I judge case 2403 to be TRUE.
I'm not sure about this one at all. For example, let's say I'm required
to awar
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 9:08 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > While this addresses the original issue with the Vote Market
> > agreement, it does not remedy or address the breach of CFJ 1915's
> > equati
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While this addresses the original issue with the Vote Market
> agreement, it does not remedy or address the breach of CFJ 1915's
> equation. I will leave it for someone else to determine if that is a
> problem.
Well, my
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 8:44 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In CFJ 1927, my judgment is the following Equation:
>
> 1. Each first-class party to this equation (the first-class members of
> the CFJ 1915 equation at the time CFJ 1927 was called), with the
> exception of comex, CAN,
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 12:57:14PM -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Zefram wrote:
>
> > In quoting old rule text it is only necessary to identify which part
> > of the existing text is meant; precisely what that text is is
> > determined principally by what text already exists. Specifying new
> > text i
Ed Murphy wrote:
>the format=flowed issue
It's a variation of the text/plain media type, assigning particular
semantics to space characters preceding newlines. Essentially, it means
that where a space precedes a newline, the newline is the result of
linewrapping rather than an author-defined `har
Zefram wrote:
> In quoting old rule text it is only necessary to identify which part
> of the existing text is meant; precisely what that text is is
> determined principally by what text already exists. Specifying new
> text is completely different: the rule change is the sole source of
> the te
Ed Murphy wrote:
>we're all
>operating on the interpretation that anything inconsequential per
>Rule 105 when quoting old rule text is equally inconsequential ("same
>text, different formatting") when quoting new rule text.
I'm certainly not,
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Unlike Proposal 4963 (see CFJ 1655), the only difference between what
I submitted and what the Promotor distributed is that some whitespace
slipped into the middle of a word. I argue that this difference does
not create an ambiguity in meaning,
It results in a
Ed Murphy wrote:
>Unlike Proposal 4963 (see CFJ 1655), the only difference between what
>I submitted and what the Promotor distributed is that some whitespace
>slipped into the middle of a word. I argue that this difference does
>not create an ambiguity in meaning,
It results in a different rule
I wrote:
>* Proposal 4939 was not in fact Murphy's "Re-divide some offices"
> proposal, but was validly voted on and passed in the distributed form.
> Contrary to what we thought at the time, Murphy did not earn VCs for
> its passage, because e was not its proposer.
After a cursory examination,
I wrote:
>* Proposal 4939 was not in fact Murphy's "Re-divide some offices"
> proposal, but was validly voted on and passed in the distributed form.
> Contrary to what we thought at the time, Murphy did not earn VCs for
> its passage, because e was not its proposer.
Second thoughts: the relevan
Ian Kelly wrote:
>I generally concur with the caller's arguments, but I judge CFJs 1655
>and 1656 to be FALSE and TRUE, respectively. I claim that this is not
>such a terrible outcome as the caller suggests.
Good argument. I described it as "perverse", not "terrible", and you're
quite correct th
48 matches
Mail list logo
