Typical G. "well, in my day" incoming:
Conditionals in general crept in through the back door. Before
conditional voting, they were mostly very simple, e.g. "If I haven't
already payed by AP, I pay by Shiny." Usually this was in the context
of quoting a past questionable action and attempting
Apology accepted. To be fair, it was reasonably clear for both of you,
it's just that ais523 was replying to my message, which made me
wonder.
-Aris
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 5:31 PM, grok (caleb vines) wrote:
> Oops. I didn't read the quote text and thought you were asking me. Sorry for
> the snar
On Wed, 2017-09-06 at 17:26 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Mine, or nichdel's? Mine was sent to a-d, and is extremely vague
> (what
> exactly is a 'provocation' anyway)? And no, there isn't a time limit,
> although there is one potential way out of any SHALL at the moment.
Was primarily thinking of
Oops. I didn't read the quote text and thought you were asking me. Sorry
for the snark, Aris
-grok
On Sep 6, 2017 7:28 PM, "grok (caleb vines)" wrote:
I think the answer to that is pretty obvious.
-grok
On Sep 6, 2017 7:27 PM, "Aris Merchant"
wrote:
Mine, or nichdel's? Mine was sent to a
I think the answer to that is pretty obvious.
-grok
On Sep 6, 2017 7:27 PM, "Aris Merchant"
wrote:
Mine, or nichdel's? Mine was sent to a-d, and is extremely vague (what
exactly is a 'provocation' anyway)? And no, there isn't a time limit,
although there is one potential way out of any SHALL a
Mine, or nichdel's? Mine was sent to a-d, and is extremely vague (what
exactly is a 'provocation' anyway)? And no, there isn't a time limit,
although there is one potential way out of any SHALL at the moment.
-Aris
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 5:23 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> Is there a time limit or othe
On Sep 6, 2017 7:23 PM, "Alex Smith" wrote:
On Wed, 2017-09-06 at 17:17 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 5:15 PM, Nic Evans wrote:
> > Since you lack either empathy or theory of mind and only react to
> > personal
> > damages:
> >
> > I pledge to vote AGAINST on all proposals
On Wed, 2017-09-06 at 17:17 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 5:15 PM, Nic Evans wrote:
> > Since you lack either empathy or theory of mind and only react to
> > personal
> > damages:
> >
> > I pledge to vote AGAINST on all proposals created or pended by
> > Cuddle Beam.
> >
>
I concur with Aris, this was a bit harsh, but I do concur with the sentiment.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Sep 6, 2017, at 8:15 PM, Nic Evans wrote:
>
>
>
> On 09/06/17 19:05, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>> >From a speech act theory standpoint, any spe
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 5:15 PM, Nic Evans wrote:
>
>
> On 09/06/17 19:05, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>
> >From a speech act theory standpoint, any speech act already encodes
> conditionals (that the preconditions match, that the way I invoke it
> performs it, that others recognizes the previous two points
>From a speech act theory standpoint, any speech act already encodes
conditionals (that the preconditions match, that the way I invoke it
performs it, that others recognizes the previous two points, that everyone
assumes genuine intent). Allowing more conditionals to be included is a
natural extens
Your conditional doesn't meet it's own requirements. This arguably
requires me to look through all CFJs, to make sure the doctrine hasn't
been overturned. I therefore determine that you haven't submitted a
proposal. I'd also just add it to the last paragraph, rather than
making a new one.
-Aris
O
On 09/06/17 18:47, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> I think that's great for Agora but if its based on a CFJ or tradition,
> that's more of the "implicit rules" (or "obscure rules") phenomenon
> which I dislike. Conditional-ing stuff is as powerful as a real
> mechanic imo, and one of the most powerful ones. L
On 09/06/17 18:16, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Note: we have explicit conditional voting, but not conditional
> explicit action-doing in general.
>
> I'm in favor of conditional action-doing in general because it's
> another useful tool for doing stuff (...and the rules are silent on
> the issue).
Voting
Oh, no, we definitely have conditional actioning (consider that a
nonce). The condition just has to be evaluable at the time it is said,
so no future conditionals. At least, that's my understanding.
-Aris
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Note: we have explicit conditional vot
Note: we have explicit conditional voting, but not conditional explicit
action-doing in general.
I'm in favor of conditional action-doing in general because it's another
useful tool for doing stuff (...and the rules are silent on the issue).
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 12:58 AM, Aris Merchant <
though
16 matches
Mail list logo
