2009/9/18 ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk:
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
ehird wrote:
2009/9/18 ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk:
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
2009/9/17 comex com...@gmail.com:
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
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;
On Thu, 2009-09-17 at 22:33 +0200, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
2009/9/17 comex com...@gmail.com:
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,
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 I had
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
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 5:35 PM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk 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
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, 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
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 taking
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 multipart action,
12 matches
Mail list logo
