Arguments: Rule 683 identifies a ballot in the sentence "An entity
submits a ballot on an Agoran decision by publishing a notice
satisfying the following conditions". Presumably, the notice is what
is being referred to as a ballot. The fact that the ballot is a notice
is very important, because it
Give me a few more hours please to provide arguments. Sorry I'm late.
-Aris
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 9:11 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> The main issue I have with your judgement is not the trust tokens, it's
> this very clear statement at the end of the rule paragraph:
> "If the option cannot be c
Ok, thanks. I will definitely confess that I didn't take that clause into
account, so I'll look at things more carefully when I get to this.
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 at 12:12 Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> The main issue I have with your judgement is not the trust tokens, it's
> this very clear statement a
The main issue I have with your judgement is not the trust tokens, it's
this very clear statement at the end of the rule paragraph:
"If the option cannot be clearly identified, a vote of PRESENT is cast."
This clause is independent of the timing clauses earlier in the paragraph,
and by Rule 2240
I don't have the time to fully go through this right yet, though I know my
reconsideration deadline is coming up soon. I will start by saying that the
effect of this judgment on trust tokens is potentially unfortunate, but
that the point of Nomic is to play the game as written, not the way that we
First, I was incorrect when I say there will be "no net effect" of this
judgement.
Back to it's original purpose, IT INVALIDATES ALL PAST ENDORSEMENT TRUST TOKENS.
So if you've been collecting trust tokens, you might care.
I think a main issue with Alexis's arguments for CFJ 3569 are here:
>
6 matches
Mail list logo
