DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Mother, Can I?

I strongly oppose this rule because it is dangerous. We just need to be more careful in the future. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > On Sep 8, 2017, at 11:50 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > > Title: Mother, May I? > AI: 3 > Amend rule 2152

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Mother, Can I?

On Sat, 9 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: Rule 2431 doesn't seem to restrict where specifications can be made. "With Agoran Consent" is sufficient to restrict this to being done via the public fora, because rule 1728 specifies that an action with that constraint can be done by announcement

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Mother, Can I?

> On Sep 9, 2017, at 1:39 AM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > > On Sat, 9 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > >> Nope the text for CAN is this: " >> >> CAN: Attempts to perform the described action are successful.". That's >> all. So this is just mirroring that. If you want to make an

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Mother, Can I?

There's something that might maybe possibly help if this ever needs to be fixed by judicial fiat: "Agora is a game of Nomic, wherein Persons, acting in accordance with the Rules, communicate their game Actions and/or results of these actions via Fora in order to play the game. The game may be

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Mother, Can I?

On Sat, 9 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote: ninja'd *MWAHAHAHA* On Sat, 9 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote: "Using existing terminology (I hope correctly), an action which CAN be performed, if the rules impose no other constraints, can be done in any way at all" Here's a list (it's quite short) of CANs

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Mother, Can I?

ninja'd On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > On Sat, 9 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > >> Nope the text for CAN is this: " >> >> CAN: Attempts to perform the described action are successful.". That's >> all. So this is just mirroring that. If you want to make an

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Mother, Can I?

"Using existing terminology (I hope correctly), an action which CAN be performed, if the rules impose no other constraints, can be done in any way at all" Here's a list (it's quite short) of CANs w/out "by announcement", "w/o objection" or anything similar. "The Promotor CAN distribute a proposal

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Mother, Can I?

On Sat, 9 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote: Nope the text for CAN is this: " CAN: Attempts to perform the described action are successful.". That's all. So this is just mirroring that. If you want to make an argument that you can do anything with a CAN in private, sure. Hm so searching for CAN...

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Mother, Can I?

> On Sep 9, 2017, at 1:04 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > > Nope the text for CAN is this: " > > CAN: Attempts to perform the described action are successful.". That's > all. So this is just mirroring that. If you want to make an argument > that you can do anything with a CAN in

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Mother, Can I?

Sorry, I got the default reversed, you're right. Your language works because of this: Restricted Actions CAN only be performed as described by the Rules. and the "be performed as described" means you have to describe how its done for it to be allowable (i.e. the rules have to

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Mother, Can I?

Nope the text for CAN is this: " CAN: Attempts to perform the described action are successful.". That's all. So this is just mirroring that. If you want to make an argument that you can do anything with a CAN in private, sure. On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Kerim Aydin

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Mother, Can I?

No. No no no no no. No. CAN isn't successful either, UNLESS THERE'S A BY ANNOUNCEMENT. The problem ISN'T SHALL and CAN. It's the missing "by announcement". That's what the CFJs say. You've just said "if it says MAY, attempts to do it *are successful*. Even if done in Discussion. Even if