Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report

On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 11:09 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 10:37 PM, Michael Norrish > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The only problem with defining -4 % 10 as equal to 6 is that you then > > have to have -4 / 10 as -1 which strikes many people as a bit odd.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report

On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 10:37 PM, Michael Norrish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The only problem with defining -4 % 10 as equal to 6 is that you then > have to have -4 / 10 as -1 which strikes many people as a bit odd. (You > have to satisfy (a / b) * b + a % b = a if there's to be any sense to >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report

Ian Kelly wrote: On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 11:40 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: There seems to be some disagreement in the literature (and apparently in C machine-dependent differing behavior of the % operator) about how to take the modulus of a negative number. There seem to be

DIS: Re: BUS: Look, A Political Party!

On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 9:36 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree to the following, to become a contract as soon as one other > person agrees to it: I was thinking of something similar, but on a more grandiose scale-- for proposals. But I'll join the C party-- once you dispatch with thi

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report

On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Geoffrey Spear wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 12:27 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 9:49 AM, Iammars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > Wow. That was probably the worst land for me to g

Re: DIS: Proto: Per-case panels

On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 4:28 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Verrry slippery. Take it from the other side, then. What is to prevent >> you from saying "hey! In between my posting consent and you posting the >> message, I (quietly to myself

DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report

On 4/1/08, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mill (land #31) with an Operator of + (Addition) in the possession of Eris I have a Mill! -- Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you." -- Unknown

Re: DIS: Proto: Per-case panels

On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 4:28 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Verrry slippery. Take it from the other side, then. What is to prevent > you from saying "hey! In between my posting consent and you posting the > message, I (quietly to myself) changed my mind!" Nothing. What's the pr

Re: DIS: Proto: Per-case panels

On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: > From my point of view, what is required is the state of agreement > itself, not the evidence that such a state exists (so I would hold the > strict approach to be unnecessary). The game does not purport to > regulate me changing my mind. Verrry slippery. T

Re: DIS: Proto: Per-case panels

On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 4:12 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Finally, a question for you and root: Taking the strict approach > of R2157, if you say "I hereby agree for Goethe to post this message > on behalf of this panel" what makes you think you *can* revoke that > permission?

Re: DIS: Proto: Per-case panels

On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Do you agree that if the message is posted before you change your mind, >> it was posted with your permission even if you change your mind later? > > Yes, but your view would seem to

Re: DIS: Proto: Per-case panels

On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Sorry about repeating myself, but R101 is all about burden of proof. >> If two members disagree on what was agreed to, or if one member claims >> agreement and the other isn't presen

Re: DIS: Proto: Per-case panels

On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, comex wrote: > Then again, what CFJ are you referring to? Contract changes have only > been in place in their present form for two months. R101 says what rights are available to people w.r.t. "agreements" and "binding agreements". R1742 says that whenever a binding agreemen

Re: DIS: Proto: Per-case panels

On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sorry about repeating myself, but R101 is all about burden of proof. > If two members disagree on what was agreed to, or if one member claims > agreement and the other isn't present, the judge should judge on the > prepond

Re: DIS: Proto: Per-case panels

On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Do you agree that if the message is posted before you change your mind, > it was posted with your permission even if you change your mind later? Yes, but your view would seem to imply that if the message is posted after I c

Re: DIS: Proto: Per-case panels

On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 3. The above is no different than transferring your ability to vote to > someone (then revoking said permission). That has been established as a > clear and binding agreement in the courts, even when you can change your >

Re: DIS: Proto: Per-case panels

On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: > R101 protections are unnecessary here. If another panel member sends > a message that you did not agree to, then it was not successfully sent > on behalf of the panel. Sorry about repeating myself, but R101 is all about burden of proof. If two members disag

Re: DIS: Proto: Per-case panels

On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: > When agreeing to an appeal judgement, I have always considered myself > to be reserving the right to change my mind, which can hardly be > called binding. Do you agree that if the message is posted before you change your mind, it was posted with your permiss

Re: DIS: Proto: Per-case panels

On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, comex wrote: > On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 5:21 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> And you'd better believe I expect R101 protections (e.g. silence=refusal). > > Perhaps you'd have to give evidence that you agree to the panelist > who's performing the action. But not pu

Re: DIS: Proto: Per-case panels

On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, comex wrote: > On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 5:07 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> R2157 refers to an agreement to deliver a legal opinion. In the absence of >> further definition of "binding", it is quite likely that agreeing to consent >> to the posting of such an o

Re: DIS: Proto: Per-case panels

On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 5:21 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And you'd better believe I expect R101 protections (e.g. silence=refusal). Perhaps you'd have to give evidence that you agree to the panelist who's performing the action. But not publicly-- even a bona fide contract can be

Re: DIS: Proto: Per-case panels

On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What I agree to is NOT to hold opinion (which I may or may not agree with at > any particular time), but I agree TO THE ACT OF SENDING THE MESSAGE. I agree > that someone else can deliver a specific and particular legal sta

Re: DIS: Proto: Per-case panels

On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 3:07 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > R2157 refers to an agreement to deliver a legal opinion. In the absence of > further definition of "binding", it is quite likely that agreeing to consent > to the posting of such an opinion is binding. This particular typ

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Water Rights Enforcement

On 01/04/2008, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, it makes sense, although I think maybe the result of not having > enough WRVs should be the destruction of random digit ranches rather > than random lands? If a Mill doesn't require water, not having enough > water shouldn't cause

Re: DIS: Proto: Per-case panels

On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, comex wrote: > On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 4:28 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> (To forestall discussion on another detail, I assume that type of >> "agreement" >> referred to in R101 is the same as "agreements made" by judicial panels, as >> there is no qualifying

Re: DIS: Proto: Per-case panels

On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 5:07 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > R2157 refers to an agreement to deliver a legal opinion. In the absence of > further definition of "binding", it is quite likely that agreeing to consent > to the posting of such an opinion is binding. I preemptively conse

Re: DIS: Proto: Per-case panels

On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 2:28 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> (To forestall discussion on another detail, I assume that type of >> "agreement" >> referred to in R101 is the same as "agreements made" by judicial panels, as >> there is no qualif

Re: DIS: Proto: Per-case panels

On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 2:54 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If, in an appeal panel in which I was a member, > a) one of the members consented > b) I privately consented to the CotC to the same judgement > c) the CotC announced that e was judging with majority consent > (without saying w

Re: DIS: Proto: Per-case panels

On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 4:28 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > (To forestall discussion on another detail, I assume that type of "agreement" > referred to in R101 is the same as "agreements made" by judicial panels, as > there is no qualifying text to the contrary). > R101 (v) is pate

Re: DIS: Proto: Per-case panels

On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 2:47 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 2:28 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > (To forestall discussion on another detail, I assume that type of > "agreement" > > referred to in R101 is the same as "agreements made" by judicial

Re: DIS: Proto: Per-case panels

On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 2:28 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > (To forestall discussion on another detail, I assume that type of "agreement" > referred to in R101 is the same as "agreements made" by judicial panels, as > there is no qualifying text to the contrary). The use of the wor

Re: DIS: Proto: Per-case panels

On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 2:26 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Let's see, "inspect the entire case history" presumably means that, if > the history is presented like so: > > A in, B in, C in, B out, D in Ah, we're talking about different things. I was referring to the problem that to

Re: DIS: Proto: Per-case panels

Goethe wrote: > I agree with Zefram in that I greatly prefer the collective-decision model, > but notwithstanding what the CotC is supposed to track, as a panelist I (and > others) have had trouble knowing what was consented to (e.g. if a panelist > consents to a judgement I propose, but I mildl

Re: DIS: Proto: Per-case panels

On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: > I submit that if comex and woggle had at some point indicated that > they had silently agreed to Wooble's attempted judgement in that case, > then the appropriate judgement in CFJ 1908 would have been TRUE, not > FALSE. This is where the epistemology comes

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Water Rights Enforcement

On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 4:21 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 01/04/2008, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 10:01 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I destroy 1 WRV in root's possession > > > > Oh, yay! I had somehow missed the fact that

Re: DIS: Proto: Per-case panels

root wrote: > On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > More confusing than having to inspect the entire case history in order >> >> > to determine what panels exist? >> >> >> >> No, but the proposed revision would eliminate both. >> > >> > I'm not sure

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Water Rights Enforcement

On 01/04/2008, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 10:01 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I destroy 1 WRV in root's possession > > Oh, yay! I had somehow missed the fact that only digit ranches require water. Darn. I missed the fact that only digit ranche

Re: DIS: Proto: Per-case panels

On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, Ed Murphy wrote: >> Because there are no individual actions that are significant. >> Agreement between panel members is a status, not an action. > > Individual actions /are/ significant, whether or not they are entered > into the database individually or not. See CFJ 1908. Ag

Re: DIS: Proto: Per-case panels

On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, Zefram wrote: > Ed Murphy wrote: >> already pointed out how the old system (under which the individual >> significance of an individual action could be determined immediately) >> is simpler than the new (in which it cannot be determined until the >> panel acts); > > If you want

Re: DIS: Proto: Per-case panels

On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > More confusing than having to inspect the entire case history in order > >> > to determine what panels exist? > >> > >> No, but the proposed revision would eliminate both. > > > > I'm not sure what revision you're

Re: DIS: Proto: Per-case panels

root wrote: > On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Individual actions /are/ significant, whether or not they are entered >> into the database individually or not. See CFJ 1908. > > I submit that if comex and woggle had at some point indicated that > they had

Re: DIS: Proto: Per-case panels

On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Individual actions /are/ significant, whether or not they are entered > into the database individually or not. See CFJ 1908. I submit that if comex and woggle had at some point indicated that they had silently agreed to Woo

Re: DIS: Proto: Per-case panels

Zefram wrote: > Ed Murphy wrote: >> So long as appeals are handled by sets of three, they're going to be >> sui generis no matter what you call them. > > What is sui generis (that I'm talking about) in your system and in > the pre-reform system is the framework governing appeals. Under the > cur

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report

Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 12:27 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 9:49 AM, Iammars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Wow. That was probably the worst land for me to get. I had 2 Digit Ranches >> > (4) and a subtraction Mill. 0 is the only number

Re: DIS: Proto: Per-case panels

root wrote: > On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 10:39 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> As for complexity, I've >> already pointed out how the old system (under which the individual >> significance of an individual action could be determined immediately) >> is simpler than the new (in which it

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report

On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 11:40 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There seems to be some disagreement in the literature (and apparently > in C machine-dependent differing behavior of the % operator) about how > to take the modulus of a negative number. There seem to be equally > goo

Re: DIS: Proto: Per-case panels

Ed Murphy wrote: >So long as appeals are handled by sets of three, they're going to be >sui generis no matter what you call them. What is sui generis (that I'm talking about) in your system and in the pre-reform system is the framework governing appeals. Under the current system, judicial panels

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report

On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 12:27 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 9:49 AM, Iammars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Wow. That was probably the worst land for me to get. I had 2 Digit Ranches > > (4) and a subtraction Mill. 0 is the only number I can make! > > It would

Re: DIS: Proto: Per-case panels

On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 10:39 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As for complexity, I've > already pointed out how the old system (under which the individual > significance of an individual action could be determined immediately) > is simpler than the new (in which it cannot be determine

Re: DIS: Proto: Per-case panels

Zefram wrote: > Ed Murphy wrote: >> Proto-Proposal: Per-case panels > > Messy. It's a lot of extra complexity and room for bugs. It doesn't > interface properly with the rest of the judicial system, as evidenced by > your need to increase the power of R911 so that it can make exceptions > to t

DIS: Re: BUS: Water Rights Enforcement

On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 10:01 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I destroy 1 WRV in root's possession Oh, yay! I had somehow missed the fact that only digit ranches require water. -root

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report

On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 9:49 AM, Iammars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Wow. That was probably the worst land for me to get. I had 2 Digit Ranches > (4) and a subtraction Mill. 0 is the only number I can make! It would take two weeks, but you could make a 0 and then subtract 4 from it to get 6. -roo

DIS: Re: BUS: Water Rights Enforcement

This is why you need g-mail custom time . (http://mail.google.com/mail/help/customtime/index.html) On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 12:01 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Apologies to Iammars and OscarMeyr for doing this after subsidizati

DIS: Re: BUS: AAA actions

On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I mill 2 '9' crops with my '*' mill to create a '1' crop. > > I harvest 1919. > > --Wooble > I recognize your milling action. However, your harvesting is invalid due to the first line of section 6: 6. A Farmer CANNOT Ha

DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report

Wow. That was probably the worst land for me to get. I had 2 Digit Ranches (4) and a subtraction Mill. 0 is the only number I can make! On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 11:37 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I create the following lands: > > Digit Ranch (land #32) with a Seed of 0 in the posses

DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report

On 01/04/2008, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I request to be un-busy. That's not going to happen. Who wants my stuff? What, you're giving it away? --Ivan Hope CXXVII

Re: DIS: Proto: Per-case panels

Ed Murphy wrote: >Proto-Proposal: Per-case panels Messy. It's a lot of extra complexity and room for bugs. It doesn't interface properly with the rest of the judicial system, as evidenced by your need to increase the power of R911 so that it can make exceptions to the framework rules. The rati