ehird wrote:
> 2009/9/18 ais523 :
>> Arguments: So far there hasn't actually been a situation that needs
>> resolving. I recommend a null judgement. (As comex says, this CFJ was
>> submitted for anti-scam reasons (if a situation arises in the future a
>> judgement to reverse it could then be given
2009/9/18 ais523 :
> Arguments: So far there hasn't actually been a situation that needs
> resolving. I recommend a null judgement. (As comex says, this CFJ was
> submitted for anti-scam reasons (if a situation arises in the future a
> judgement to reverse it could then be given), rather than an ac
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009, Pavitra wrote:
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> It's not R1728 intent unless you specify the "method and value for N"
>> for each method. If you do state Method and N, however, you've begun a
>> legal process called a "dependent action". You've become an initiator.
>> It is a multipa
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> It's not R1728 intent unless you specify the "method and value for N"
> for each method. If you do state Method and N, however, you've begun a
> legal process called a "dependent action". You've become an initiator.
> It is a multipart action, but starting the process and ta
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009, ais523 wrote:
> (For instance, suppose
> I had, instead, said "I think that 4 days from now it might be a good
> idea to amend the Cookie Jar into a mousetrap"; would that be intent?
> Pretty much any sane Agoran would say no, thus showing that a statement
> of intent (in the
Pavitra wrote:
> I vaguely remember a CFJ semi-recently about publishing NoVs, and
> whether someone was naturally capable of publishing an NoV since it was
> just a block of text and people can publish things, or if an otherwise
> unremarkable block of text was infused with the NoV-nature by the
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 5:35 PM, ais523 wrote:
> (An even more
> surprising example: suppose we abolished the proposal system and instead
> had a "change the rules via Agoran Consent" rule. Oops, rule 1698 stops
> this; intent isn't an action, so there's no combination of /actions/
> that can chan
ais523 wrote:
> Support is defined in much the same terms as intent by the rules; and it
> at least is clearly an announcement, due to the MMI terms used to
> describe it (a rule saying that something CANNOT be done under certain
> circumstances implies that that thing is an action due to the
> def
ais523 wrote:
> Further arguments:
> {{{
> A person SHALL NOT make a public statement on a matter relevant
> to the rules unless e reasonably believes that it is true (or,
> in the case of a public statement that one performs an action,
> that is effective).
> }}}
> Even if
On Thu, 2009-09-17 at 22:33 +0200, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
> 2009/9/17 comex :
> > I initiate an equity case with respect to the Cookie Jar.*
> >(...)
> > *Parties: Murphy, Billy Pilgrim, coppro, Tiger, OscarMeyr, ehird,
> > ais523, Quazie, Human Point Two, Yally, BobTHJ, allispaul, comex,
> > Woobl
ais523 wrote:
> rule 1728 makes it clear that it's effectively redefining what intent is
> in Agoran terms, from the plain English example.
No it doesn't. It says "announced intent", i.e., to publish a statement
that one intends something. It's a very different construction than
defining an action
2009/9/17 comex :
> I initiate an equity case with respect to the Cookie Jar.*
>(...)
> *Parties: Murphy, Billy Pilgrim, coppro, Tiger, OscarMeyr, ehird,
> ais523, Quazie, Human Point Two, Yally, BobTHJ, allispaul, comex,
> Wooble, c-walker
>
I left the Cookie Jar as a response to the intended scam
12 matches
Mail list logo
