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 by replacing "MAY: Per
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 (“
> 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 argument
>> that you can
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 won
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 w/ou
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 argument
>> that you
"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
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...
Rul
> 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 private, sure.
What the e
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 de
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 wrote:
>
>
> No. No no n
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 do
12 matches
Mail list logo
