On Mon, 29 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
> Cool cool. It was a double whammy of precedence I was trying to set.
>
> 1 - you can CFJ on questions (non-controvertial)
> 2 - some future conditionals are legit outside of voting (but I tried
> to ensure that it was limited in scope)
Yeah, the full impact
Cool cool. It was a double whammy of precedence I was trying to set.
1 - you can CFJ on questions (non-controvertial)
2 - some future conditionals are legit outside of voting (but I tried to
ensure that it was limited in scope)
Also - that judgement also implies that the case is still open, as I
On Mon, 29 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
> I am always willing to listen to your criticism G. - please let me know what
> you thought I said, and how I can word things better in the future to reduce
> confusion.
Actually, thinking about it, the honest truth is that in cutting/pasting
everything, I los
I am always willing to listen to your criticism G. - please let me know
what you thought I said, and how I can word things better in the future to
reduce confusion.
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 13:08 Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> I humbly and un-regulated-ly withdraw any objection I had to Quazie's
> judge
I humbly and un-regulated-ly withdraw any objection I had to Quazie's
judgement here. In rapidly cutting and pasting lots of judgements
into the database yesterday, I completely misread/misinterpreted the
way e rephrased the CFJ statement. Looking at it for more than 2 minutes
now, it's a fine
I am happy to reconsider of you lemme know where I over stepped.
On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 21:17 Josh T wrote:
> I am willing to support reconsidering this CFJ on behalf of G. if there is
> interest among the players for reconsideration.
>
> 天火狐
>
> On 28 May 2017 at 21:18, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>>
I am willing to support reconsidering this CFJ on behalf of G. if there is
interest among the players for reconsideration.
天火狐
On 28 May 2017 at 21:18, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> I'm just catching up to this CFJ now, and I have to say I'd consider
> this an example of judicial overreach and motio
I'm just catching up to this CFJ now, and I have to say I'd consider
this an example of judicial overreach and motion to reconsider were I a
player. Rather than extrapolating slightly to generalize the question,
or slightly changing the wording of the CFJ to answer what the caller
*meant* to ask
> On May 23, 2017, at 9:09 PM, Quazie wrote:
>
> If i am the judge, how am I not the judge summoned to the CFJ? Eir
> conditional didn't say that e paid a shiney to the barred judge, but to the
> summoned judge.
Hang on, I don’t think that matters. The pledges, reproduced here for
convenienc
I told you o, at all times I will have some Shiny in dispute, you
encouraged me to do it.
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 6:10 PM Owen Jacobson wrote:
>
> > On May 23, 2017, at 9:09 PM, Quazie wrote:
> >
> > If i am the judge, how am I not the judge summoned to the CFJ? Eir
> conditional didn't say th
> On May 23, 2017, at 9:09 PM, Quazie wrote:
>
> If i am the judge, how am I not the judge summoned to the CFJ? Eir
> conditional didn't say that e paid a shiney to the barred judge, but to the
> summoned judge.
Oh, hell.
-o
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
If i am the judge, how am I not the judge summoned to the CFJ? Eir
conditional didn't say that e paid a shiney to the barred judge, but to the
summoned judge.
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 6:07 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I agree with o's int
I agree with o's interpretation.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> So, in order:
>
> 1. I’m pretty sure Cuddlebeam’s condition is invalid, and thus no judges
> are barred.
>
> 2. Therefore, the final proviso “as long as … the barring at
So, in order:
1. I’m pretty sure Cuddlebeam’s condition is invalid, and thus no judges are
barred.
2. Therefore, the final proviso “as long as … the barring attempt above had
barred someone” in eir pledge does not hold.
3. Therefore, the pledge does not hold.
4. Therefore, the condition “the
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 5:36 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 23 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
> > Proposal: "Betterer Pledges" AI=1.7 Coauthor='G., Gaelan, Aris'
> > {{{
> > Replace the text of Rule 2450 with the following:
> > {{{
> > A pledge is an agreement between a player and Agora.
>
On Tue, 23 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
> Proposal: "Betterer Pledges" AI=1.7 Coauthor='G., Gaelan, Aris'
> {{{
> Replace the text of Rule 2450 with the following:
> {{{
> A pledge is an agreement between a player and Agora.
So this single statement is a definition, which means it takes the t
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 5:23 PM, Quazie wrote:
> Proposal: "Betterer Pledges" AI=1.7 Coauthor='G., Gaelan, Aris'
> {{{
> Replace the text of Rule 2450 with the following:
> {{{
> A pledge is an agreement between a player and Agora.
>
> Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offe
Proposal: "Betterer Pledges" AI=1.7 Coauthor='G., Gaelan, Aris'
{{{
Replace the text of Rule 2450 with the following:
{{{
A pledge is an agreement between a player and Agora.
Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offense.
If a publicly-made pledge says that the creator of
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 22 May 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
>>
>> I smell cheese. Lots of cheese. We already have cuttlefish, do we
>> really need to Trap any Mice?
>>
>> Obscure history references aside, this allows someone to make a pledge
>> binding on so
On Mon, 22 May 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Quazie wrote:
> > Proposal: "Pledge Timelines" AI=1.7 Coauthor='G.'
> > {{{
> > Replace the text of Rule 2450 with the following:
> > {{{
> > Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offense. If a
> > publ
Proposal: "Better Pledges" AI=1.7 Coauthor='G., Gaelan, Aris'
{{{
Replace the text of Rule 2450 with the following:
{{{
Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offense. If a
publicly-made pledge
says that the creator of a pledge will do something, without providing
a time limit,
Proposal: "Timely Pledges v.Lots" AI=1.7 Coauthor='G., Gaelan, Aris'
{{{
Replace the text of Rule 2450 with the following:
{{{
Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offense. If a
publicly-made pledge
says that a the creator of a pledge will do something, without
providing a tim
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Quazie wrote:
> Proposal: "Pledge Timelines" AI=1.7 Coauthor='G.'
> {{{
> Replace the text of Rule 2450 with the following:
> {{{
> Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offense. If a
> publicly-made pledge
> says that a person will do somethin
Proposal: "Pledge Timelines" AI=1.7 Coauthor='G.'
{{{
Replace the text of Rule 2450 with the following:
{{{
Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offense. If a
publicly-made pledge
says that a person will do something, without providing a time limit,
then e SHALL in
a timel
Good point. In common language terms and current legal effect, "I pledge
to do X" is synonymous with "Pledge: I SHALL do X", so why bother with
the latter, as it's more confusingly written?
On the flip side, maybe "I pledge to do X" would be judged (in current
ruleset) to contain an implicit S
I don't know if I've ever seen someone use all-caps SHALL in a pledge.
> On May 22, 2017, at 3:07 PM, Quazie wrote:
>
> Proposal: "Pledge Timelines" AI=1.7 Coauthor='G.'
> {{{
> Replace the text of Rule 2450 with the following:
> {{{
> Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offen
Proposal: "Pledge Timelines" AI=1.7 Coauthor='G.'
{{{
Replace the text of Rule 2450 with the following:
{{{
Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offense. If a
publicly-made pledge
says a person SHALL do something, without providing a time limit, then
e SHALL in
a timely ma
Phrase it as the default if no time limit is supplied, not a hard-coded
only option. Like: "if a pledge says a person SHALL do something, without
providing a time limit, then e SHALL in a timely manner in order to keep
the pledge").
The problem with your phrasing: Think about SHALL NOTs instea
I can't figure out the right way to note that a pledge SHALL be fulfilled
in a timely manner, but I only want to imply that the pledge maker SHALL
fulfil their end of the pledge, once the conditional is met, but i want to
do that without being overly perscriptive on pledges.
{{{
Breaking a publicl
On Mon, 22 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
> Also - What's the time scale on fulfilling pledges? I assume in a timely
> manner for
> general pledges like this one, but I am unsure.
There's no Rules-specified time limit and the question's never been asked
for pledges. For Rules-based SHALLs, if there
30 matches
Mail list logo
