On 8/7/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Yuck, violation of orthogonality. And as discussed some weeks ago,
> > not nearly as useful as you'd expect. Consider "the toastmaster shall
> > initiate a toast to Agora as soon as possible": if relying on your
> > implicitude, the toastmaster cann
comex wrote:
>The toastmaster shall initiate a toast to Agora as soon as possible after a
>proposal passed if the proposal had an adoption index of at least 3; e
>must have a bag on eir shoulder to do this.
I find this very unclear regarding the application of your implicitude.
>This is a bit u
On Tuesday 07 August 2007, Zefram wrote:
> Eek, you're going to have "can" canonically refer to permissibility
> rather than possibility? And "should" for permissibility instead of
> recommendation? What are your unambiguous terms going to be?
That merely selected terms to address. Perhaps "ter
comex wrote:
> Within the rules, terms related to permissibility such as 'may',
> 'must', 'can', 'should',
Eek, you're going to have "can" canonically refer to permissibility
rather than possibility? And "should" for permissibility instead of
recommendation? What are your unambiguous t
root has said most of what I was going to say in reply to comex on
this thread. I'll just add: it's easy to rectify R2161 to avoid this
issue entirely, which I have just proposed.
-zefram
On 8/7/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 August 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> > No, game custom is that possibility and requirement are independent.
> > This passage just solidifies that into a rule. With regard to R2161,
> > the rule says nothing about possibility, and so by the pro
On Tuesday 07 August 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> No, game custom is that possibility and requirement are independent.
> This passage just solidifies that into a rule. With regard to R2161,
> the rule says nothing about possibility, and so by the proposed R2152
> as well as game custom, it implies not
On 8/7/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 August 2007, Zefram wrote:
> > R2161 is flawed in that it
> > does not discuss possibility, but is not actually broken. My proposed
> > amendment of MMI doesn't change this.
> Yes, it does. The current MMI does not define SHALL, so its o
On Tuesday 07 August 2007, Zefram wrote:
> R2161 is flawed in that it
> does not discuss possibility, but is not actually broken. My proposed
> amendment of MMI doesn't change this.
Yes, it does. The current MMI does not define SHALL, so its ordinary
language meaning applies. With your clarifi
Amend rule 2152 to read
Within the rules, terms related to permissibility such as 'may',
'must', 'can', 'should', etc. have their ordinary language
meaning except that:
* The recommendation of action or inaction by the Rules
never constitutes a requirement
comex wrote:
>I believe this breaks this, from Rule 2161:
That's already been discussed recently. R2161 is flawed in that it
does not discuss possibility, but is not actually broken. My proposed
amendment of MMI doesn't change this.
Please learn to trim what you quote.
-zefram
On Tuesday 07 August 2007, Zefram wrote:
> I hereby submit the following AI=2 proposal, titled "clarify Mother,
> May I?":
>
> {{{
>
> Amend rule 2152 to read
>
> The following terms are defined for the discussion of the status
> of events. The key words are spelled in all capitals. W
Peekee wrote:
>I thought the above meant my EVLOP is 4.
Doh, I forgot we'd changed the BVLOP. Yes, your EVLOP for last week is 4,
not 1. Your EVLOP for this week is 6.
-zefram
Quoting Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Each player has a parameter known as eir base voting limit on
ordinary proposals (BVLOP). The BVLOP of a first-class player
is four, and the BVLOP of any other player is zero. BVLOP
cannot be modified.
Each player has a paramete
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Subject: DIS: otes
You're dropping a character from all your subject lines.
>Am I correct in thinking I can cast 4 votes on Ordinary proposals in the
>latest batch?
No. You can only cast 1 vote on ordinary proposals in that batch, because
at the time they were distrib
Am I correct in thinking I can cast 4 votes on Ordinary proposals in the latest
batch?
Peekee
16 matches
Mail list logo
