On 7/5/07, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Instead of an apple, how about a sour grape?
Easy. Those grow on trees. Good luck reaching them.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
Can anyone expound on why it would be necessary to have both
UNDECIDABLE and another category, whatever it ends up being called,
for when there's not enough information to determine if the question
is undecidable? If it's "not capable
of being accurately described as either
On Jul 5, 2007, at 12:14 PM, Taral wrote:
On 7/5/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Eris wrote:
> Where's the Party? :)
Do you have an apple handy that says "to the second-prettiest one"?
Of course not!
Instead of an apple, how about a sour grape?
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
Oscar
Can anyone expound on why it would be necessary to have both
UNDECIDABLE and another category, whatever it ends up being called,
for when there's not enough information to determine if the question
is undecidable? If it's "not capable
of being accurately described as either false or true, at the t
Zefram wrote:
How about "UNDETERMINED"?
Works for me.
Ed Murphy wrote:
> "Unproven" carries connotations of Godelian
>incompleteness,
That would be "unprovable".
>or perhaps "the preponderance of the evidence points
>to TRUE but it's not beyond a reasonable doubt".
One can prove a case in either direction. I i
BobTHJ wrote:
This is just popped into my head, and I thought I would write it out
for comments. Essentially, this broadens current offices by converting
them into 3-person committees. By doing so, it provides redundancy to
official duties and thus eliminates a considerable amount of ruletext
de
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
I would use "UNKNOWN" for this.
Mm. I think "UNPROVEN" is more descriptive. I'm influenced by the
"unproven" verdict in Scottish criminal law. Why do you prefer "UNKNOWN"?
Because it's neutral. "Unproven" carries connotations of Godelian
incompleteness, or
On 7/5/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Roger Hicks wrote:
> By doing so, it provides redundancy to
>official duties and thus eliminates a considerable amount of ruletext
>designed to compensate for officers who fail in their duties.
I don't think there's much
proto-proposal: fix judicial rights
AI: 3
{{{
Amend rule 101 by replacing the text
iii. Every person has the right to invoke judgement, appeal a
judgement, and to initiate an appeal on a sentencing or
judicial order binding em.
with
iii. Every person has t
Roger Hicks wrote:
> By doing so, it provides redundancy to
>official duties and thus eliminates a considerable amount of ruletext
>designed to compensate for officers who fail in their duties.
I don't think there's much such rule text. The main one is Timing
Orders,
This is just popped into my head, and I thought I would write it out
for comments. Essentially, this broadens current offices by converting
them into 3-person committees. By doing so, it provides redundancy to
official duties and thus eliminates a considerable amount of ruletext
designed to compen
Zefram wrote:
> I think the interpretation of R101 was that its use of "invoke" has a
> meaning independent of the actual judicial rules, so it doesn't need to
> be changed due to that.
That was my (caller's) argument, but IIRC Judge Maud rejected it,
which is why it needs fixing. You could do i
Ed Murphy wrote:
>I would use "UNKNOWN" for this.
Mm. I think "UNPROVEN" is more descriptive. I'm influenced by the
"unproven" verdict in Scottish criminal law. Why do you prefer "UNKNOWN"?
>And "NOT A CRIME" for this.
That's the semantic, certainly, but I tried to make each of the
judgements
Zefram wrote:
* UNPROVEN, appropriate if the information available to the
judge is insufficient to determine which of the FALSE, TRUE,
and UNDECIDABLE judgements is appropriate.
I would use "UNKNOWN" for this.
* LAW ABIDING, appropriate if the alleged act was not
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>Note to Zefram: Don't forget to amend R101(iii) to match the
>new "invoke" free terminology
I think the interpretation of R101 was that its use of "invoke" has a
meaning independent of the actual judicial rules, so it doesn't need to
be changed due to that. I have a note to
Zefram wrote:
> [Part I: new judicial rules]
Note to Zefram: Don't forget to amend R101(iii) to match the
new "invoke" free terminology (perhaps generalize to fix the problem
in CFJ-ohCOTCwebisdowngain and guarantee right to timely judgement
overall). -Goethe
Taral wrote:
>I'm not sure you've implemented the useful contents of these rules in
>your substitute.
Some of them are just not implemented yet. I plan to retain the essence
of "Linked Statements" and "Pragmatic Judicial Assignments" in the new
version of "The Standing Court". (I can do them muc
Eris wrote:
On 7/4/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
4) Each week, the contestmaster shall award floor(10/N) points to each
of the N contestants whose Party's membership at the end of the
week was closest to the median of all such memberships.
Where's the Party? :)
Beh
Zefram wrote:
Peekee wrote:
I believe accountants(?) etc. use that rounding fairly often.
No. Bankers' rounding is nearest-or-even. That's also the usual mode
for binary floating point arithmetic.
The proto's method is a variation of bankers' rounding; I didn't
want 0.5 to be rounded to 0
Roger Hicks wrote:
>It seems like linked CFJs could be replaced by a single CFJ with extra
>Judicial Questions under this new system. This would simplify the
>process considerably for related judgments.
Yes, that's what I originally planned for this system. But actually
my current thinking is tha
On 7/5/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Eris wrote:
> Where's the Party? :)
Do you have an apple handy that says "to the second-prettiest one"?
Of course not!
--
Eris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On 7/5/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2024 ("Linked Statements"),
2132 ("Excess CFJs"),
698 ("Always an Eligible Judge"),
2133 ("Pragmatic Judicial Assignments"),
408 ("Late Judgement"),
217 ("Judgements Must Accord with the Rules"),
1575 ("Stan
On 7/5/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm working on a complete revision of the judicial system. My proto is
not yet complete: there are a couple of rules still to do.
It seems like linked CFJs could be replaced by a single CFJ with extra
Judicial Questions under this new system. This w
Eris wrote:
> Where's the Party? :)
Do you have an apple handy that says "to the second-prettiest one"?
I'm working on a complete revision of the judicial system. My proto is
not yet complete: there are a couple of rules still to do. Here is what
I have so far, for discussion of the concepts:
{{{
[--]
[Part I: new judicial rules]
[--]
Retitle rule
Zefram wrote:
> I'm renaming the category "Winners' Hall of Ugly Fountains" to
> "Trophies". etc.
The new ruleset is ugly and lifeless. If anyone agrees, please
propose the following.
-
Proto: Don't hide the territory
The Map of Ag
On 7/4/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
4) Each week, the contestmaster shall award floor(10/N) points to each
of the N contestants whose Party's membership at the end of the
week was closest to the median of all such memberships.
Where's the Party? :)
--
Taral <[EMAIL P
Quoting Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
guess he is just being quirky then.
Peekee wrote:
I believe accountants(?) etc. use that rounding fairly often.
No. Bankers' rounding is nearest-or-even. That's also the usual mode
for binary floating point arithmetic.
-zefram
--
Peekee
Peekee wrote:
>I believe accountants(?) etc. use that rounding fairly often.
No. Bankers' rounding is nearest-or-even. That's also the usual mode
for binary floating point arithmetic.
-zefram
Quoting Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Ed Murphy wrote:
a) When a proposal is adopted, its proposer gains Red VCs
Ordinary, Interested, and only once per week please.
which any fractional voting limits are rounded to the nearest
integer (nearest odd integer if the fractional p
Ed Murphy wrote:
>a) When a proposal is adopted, its proposer gains Red VCs
Ordinary, Interested, and only once per week please.
> which any fractional voting limits are rounded to the nearest
> integer (nearest odd integer if the fractional part is 0.5).
Never seen this roundi
Quoting Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
"then e loses loses a VC"
Proto-Proposal: Three-Tone Economics
(AI = 3, please)
Change the Power of Rule 2126 (Voting Credits) to 2, and amend it
to read:
Voting Credits (VCs) are a measure of each player's ability to
affect voting limits o
BobTHJ wrote:
I vote as follows:
Not to the PF.
34 matches
Mail list logo
