On Sat, 11 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> I am not sure I agree with the first paragraph, but I definitely agree with
> the second paragraph. Ratifying that the decision was resolved as
> indicated, as provided for by rule 2154, ratifies that the decision was
> resolved by the announcement with t
I'm fine with either interpretation yours or mine, in my head mine made more
sense, but yours makes more sense hearing it, so if people would prefer, I
would have no problem with a reconsideration.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Nov 8, 2017, at 9:
Well PSS *is* the judge and that was eir finding, and it made sense to
em. We're kinda talking it through now because it has follow-on
consequences but if those aren't egregiously game-breaking or nonsensical
enough to lead to reconsideration, it's the judge's privilege to define
"correct"...
Ah, okay. It makes sense what's going on here now.
Although what doesn't entirely make sense, and it seems it doesn't to
anybody, is what the correct solution should be...
On 11/8/2017 9:16 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
1. I resolved a victory election in September, and I won that
election.
1. I resolved a victory election in September, and I won that
election.
2. In late October, I purported to resolve it again (and purported
that it meant that I won again). By R208 this should have failed
to do anything.
3. But no one CoEd on the second resolution (I CFJd on a
I have no idea what's going on here. (as usual with threads like this)
On 11/8/2017 7:45 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I'm saying that ratifying the "resolution" only would ratify "the option
selected was X" and nothing else, which is how PSS judged.
Ratifying that the decision was "resolved as indi
This is along the lines of my thought process and has the equivalent
results in all places, the only difference is in yours the secodn works,
in mine the first works.
On 11/08/2017 07:45 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> I'm saying that ratifying the "resolution" only would ratify "the option
> selected
Ahhh, hm. I'll have to take another look later.
On Wed, Nov 8, 2017, 07:46 Kerim Aydin, wrote:
>
>
> I'm saying that ratifying the "resolution" only would ratify "the option
> selected was X" and nothing else, which is how PSS judged.
>
> Ratifying that the decision was "resolved as indicated" d
I'm saying that ratifying the "resolution" only would ratify "the option
selected was X" and nothing else, which is how PSS judged.
Ratifying that the decision was "resolved as indicated" does ratify the
resolution option of X, but *additionally* ratifies that the decision
was "resolved as indi
How can it be true that a decision was resolved with it being true that it
has a resolution?
To me this is like saying that if I have 5 shine sprites and spend 10,
ratifying that I had 10 doesn't ratify that the illegal spending happened.
On Wed, Nov 8, 2017, 07:33 Kerim Aydin, wrote:
>
>
> Rul
Rule 2034 self-ratifies that a decision was "resolved as indicated" and
this includes the "indication" that it was resolved by the document
purporting to be a r208 resolution announcement that was published on
a particular date. It doesn't say that it ratifies the "resolution"
(result) but that
Because of the phrasing of the rules, a document purporting to resolve a
decision doesn't ratify itself as a resolution and per Rule 208, changes
to the gamestate take effect upon resolution. Additionally the
specification of item 3 in Rule 2034 implies that other gamestate
changes do not self-rati
Why doesn't ratifying the outcome ratify consequences of it? I'm struggling
with that.
On Wed, Nov 8, 2017, 05:48 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Documents do self-ratify on a date, but decisions specify that only the
> outcome, existence of t
Documents do self-ratify on a date, but decisions specify that only the
outcome, existence of the decision, and if it was a proposal, adoption ratify.
Decisions are different in the way that they ratify.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Nov 7, 2017,
On Wed, 8 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 at 21:39 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I judge CFJ 3591 FALSE because Rule 208 reads "The vote collector for an
> > unresolved Agoran decision CAN resolve it by announcement, indic
On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 at 21:39 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I judge CFJ 3591 FALSE because Rule 208 reads "The vote collector for an
> unresolved Agoran decision CAN resolve it by announcement, indicating
> the outcome." Given that the decision was n
If the dates of reports don't ratify, what does? Isn't
self-ratification just "this is the case on this date"?
On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:04 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Note to others: The consequences of this is that when any Decision
> results self-ratify, the date on which the Decision was res
Note to others: The consequences of this is that when any Decision
results self-ratify, the date on which the Decision was resolved
*doesn't* self-ratify. The secondary implication is that, since no
other things (like switches) specify that the dates ratify, that the
dates of reports also don't
18 matches
Mail list logo
