On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 11:00 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> SYN: The contract can say "This shall become a contest", "This is
> intended to be a contest" or even "This is a contest and I don't care
> if the Rules say it isn't!" It can then proceed on its merry way,
> posting rec
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 10:42 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A confession! "Gravy" = "benefit in the other direction beyond equity" means
> the judgement is inequitable and inappropriate: judges take note. Still,
> gravy or equity, that's a side note.
Nonsense, a contract is not
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 10:40 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Furthermore, Enigma explicitly acknowledges that it is /intended/ to be
> a contest ("The purpose of this contract is to be a contest..."), and
> thus implicitly acknowledges that it will fail to operate as intended
> if it
On Wed, 7 May 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Furthermore, Enigma explicitly acknowledges that it is /intended/ to be
> a contest ("The purpose of this contract is to be a contest..."), and
> thus implicitly acknowledges that it will fail to operate as intended
> if it loses that status.
It's sort of a
On Wed, 7 May 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> Previous equity judgements were not so
>> cleanly enumerated and yet all material considerations contained therein
>> were part of the agreements.
>
> No, it was only paragraph 1) that created equity. Everything else
> about the contract was gravy.
A c
Goethe wrote:
> On Wed, 7 May 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> I should have followed this up with an example. An existing contest
>> seems apropos. Would you not agree that the Enigma contract's
>> contesthood is a part of that agreement? Or similarly, that the
>> Pineapple Partnership's partnershiph
On Wed, 7 May 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> I should have followed this up with an example. An existing contest
> seems apropos. Would you not agree that the Enigma contract's
> contesthood is a part of that agreement? Or similarly, that the
> Pineapple Partnership's partnershiphood is a part of tha
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 9:54 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 2. If we are generous, ignore the minor semantic mistake, and and allow
> > that the preamble is a part of the judgement, then the declaration of
> > contest-ness is part of the agreement.
> >
> > If it *is* part of
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 9:24 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Noticed that afterwards, but I don't think it changed my argument. For
> one thing, even though you enumerated some clauses separately, the fact
> that you considered the result to be a contest was essential to your
> per
On Wed, 7 May 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 4. But nothing in the above set of events "made" the agreement a
>> contest. The contest says it is, but that doesn't automatically
>> trigger that condition.
>
> Actually, i
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 4. But nothing in the above set of events "made" the agreement a
> contest. The contest says it is, but that doesn't automatically
> trigger that condition.
Actually, it doesn't, apart from using the term contestma
On Wed, 7 May 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> I don't follow this. How are arbitrary gamestate changes made by
> establishing a contract? Contesthood is an attribute of a contract,
> and it's reasonable to define that attribute when specifying the
> contract.
Actually, it's not reasonable. Most con
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 5:01 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think accepting your logic would imply that an equation can make any
> arbitrary change to the gamestate, since a parties to a contract could
> agree to some arbitrary other contract and then incidentally go on to
> t
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 6:51 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Vote for me, even though I never consented! I have some great
> sca^H^H^Hideas for most efficiently running the office of Ambassador.
>
Rule 2154: "A player who has not refused eir nomination is a
consenting candidate."
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 5:43 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> happen. Rule 2169 is more powerful than it is, explaining that if
> a group of players could do something by emselves (and it is
> possible for a player to create a contest by emself, in fact
> failing requires other p
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 4:45 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This message initiates the Agoran Decisions to choose the holders of
> the Ambassador and Herald offices. The eligible voters are the active
> players, and the vote collector is the IADoP.
>
> For Ambassador, the vali
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 3:24 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rule 2136 regulates the means of making a contract into a contest.
> This reasonably implies that the creation of a contest is regulated
> by a specific CAN, and that other mechanisms that manipulate contracts
> can't arbi
On Wed, 7 May 2008, Zefram wrote:
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Anything particularly evil about this?
>
> Not directly so, but it would encourage bad drafting. We already have a
> fair bit of trouble with people not thinking through the CAN and the SHALL
> as distinct items, and we hardly ever want th
Because I've only just joined and am not sure who would be suitable,
feel free to lobby and advertise like mad to try to persuade me to
vote for you. Especially if you're a candidate.
--
ais523
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Geoffrey Spear
Sent: Wed 07/05/2008 21:
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, and I believe the judge has the power to create the same
> agreement that you could create yourself. I don't believe e has the
> power to make it into a contest absent the explicit power to do so
> being granted b
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I initiate a criminal CFJ with ais523 as the defendant, alleging a
> violation of Rule 2158 by assigning an inappropriate judgement to CFJ
> 1932. Eir judgment in this case is not "a reasonably equitable
> resolution of
There only seems to be one relevant use of "reasonably"; are you implying
that you interpret "reasonably equitable" as "reasonable and equitable"?
I don't, and I don't think it's standard English usage to. I can't find
anywhere in the ruleset where it says judgements must be reasonable, could
you p
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 1:43 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would like to submit the additional argument that the contest in
> question would have failed to become a contest were it attempted
> through the normal procedure (even with the full support of root, the
> sole party),
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 4:00 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It was an equitable resolution of the situation; all parties agreeing
> to the equation, having thought of it themselves, is one of the most
> equitable outcomes I can think of. There are other possible equitable
> resl
It was an equitable resolution of the situation; all parties agreeing
to the equation, having thought of it themselves, is one of the most
equitable outcomes I can think of. There are other possible equitable
reslutions too, most of which are a lot simpler than the equation I
gave, but the fact tha
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 1:00 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 2:38 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > OK, it looks like this case is applicabl
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 1:00 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 2:38 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > OK, it looks like this case is applicable now. My judgement is the
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 1:00 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 2:38 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > OK, it looks like this case is applicable now. My judgement is the
> > following contract, which is a contest, and has root as contestmaster:
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> sorry, posted in the wrong forum...
>
> root, this is an official request under the terms of the quoted contest to
> award me 5 points.
You still need to join the contract first. Then ask me again, because
it's not cl
root, this is an official request under the terms of the quoted contest to
award me 5 points.
--
ais523
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Ian Kelly
Sent: Wed 07/05/2008 19:43
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: BUS: RE: [CotC] CFJ 1932 assigned to ais523
On Wed, Ma
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>Anything particularly evil about this?
Not directly so, but it would encourage bad drafting. We already have a
fair bit of trouble with people not thinking through the CAN and the SHALL
as distinct items, and we hardly ever want them to have the same extent.
I don't think ther
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 11:59 AM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nothing particularly evil, but it's a bit clunky and inelegant. SHALL and CAN
> is to me elegant and clear; MANDATE/MANDATED is a long word to say, and a
> long word to think about, as well as complicating that particul
Nothing particularly evil, but it's a bit clunky and inelegant. SHALL and CAN
is to me elegant and clear; MANDATE/MANDATED is a long word to say, and a long
word to think about, as well as complicating that particular list (which is
clean at the moment). If you'd used a shorter name, I might hav
On Wed, 7 May 2008, Zefram wrote:
>> 5512 D1 3Goethe Mandate II
> AGAINST
Anything particularly evil about this? I thought it was just
a useful shorthand to replace "SHALL and CAN by announcement".
-Goethe
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 9:08 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > While this addresses the original issue with the Vote Market
> > agreement, it does not remedy or address the breach of CFJ 1915's
> > equati
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While this addresses the original issue with the Vote Market
> agreement, it does not remedy or address the breach of CFJ 1915's
> equation. I will leave it for someone else to determine if that is a
> problem.
Well, my
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 8:44 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In CFJ 1927, my judgment is the following Equation:
>
> 1. Each first-class party to this equation (the first-class members of
> the CFJ 1915 equation at the time CFJ 1927 was called), with the
> exception of comex, CAN,
37 matches
Mail list logo
