Goethe wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>c) Any disclaimer, conditional clause, or other qualifier
>> attached to a statement constitutes part of the statement;
>> the truth or falsity of the whole is what is significant.
>
> The preamble addition isn't
On Sat, 12 Jul 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
>c) Any disclaimer, conditional clause, or other qualifier
> attached to a statement constitutes part of the statement;
> the truth or falsity of the whole is what is significant.
The preamble addition isn't a bad idea, that's ok.
On Sat, 12 Jul 2008, Charles Reiss wrote:
> for something in between (believe that the action is successful under
> a plausible interpretation of the rules?) because I don't think it
> make sense to permit people to try to get actions past us long enough
> to get into a ratified report when they
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 10:47 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008, Charles Reiss wrote:
>> People will need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you did not
>> believe the action would be successful if you don't include a
>> disclaimer. I don't think that's chillin
On Sat, 12 Jul 2008, Charles Reiss wrote:
> People will need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you did not
> believe the action would be successful if you don't include a
> disclaimer. I don't think that's chilling really.
Even given the ridiculous level of criminal cases brought forward
fo
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 10:33 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>a) An attempted speech act is equivalent to a claim that the
>> person will perform the action by sending the message.
>
> Why on earth are we codifying this? Fo
On Sat, 12 Jul 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
>a) An attempted speech act is equivalent to a claim that the
> person will perform the action by sending the message.
Why on earth are we codifying this? For years, we have not punished
folks for merely failing to perform an action. The
On Sat, 12 Jul 2008, Zefram wrote:
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> The above double-submission may be, er, recursive or difficult.
>
> I took the proposal body to be delimited by the lines of dashes, and was
> not troubled by the redundant statement of submission. I note, however,
> that you are continui
On Saturday 12 July 2008 09:01:10 pm Ed Murphy wrote:
> a) Props are a currency. The recordkeepor of props is the
> ATC. Ownership of props is limited to first-class
> players. Props CANNOT be created, transferred, or destroyed
> except as required by this contract o
On Saturday 12 July 2008 07:09:51 pm Elliott Hird wrote:
> Ping.
Pong.
Ping.
BobTHJ wrote:
>>> What's the objective here?
>> To enable the APA to award points.
>>
>>
> It can via the PRS.
I thought the PRS wasn't a contest yet, either.
Ed Murphy wrote:
>a) An attempted speech act is equivalent to a claim that the
> person will perform the action by sending the message.
I think this muddies things. You're relying on the common understanding
of "attempted speech act", but that's an emergent concept some way remo
Proto-Proposal: Truth of speech acts
Amend Rule 2149 (Truthfulness) to read:
A person SHALL NOT make a public statement unless e believes
that in doing so e is telling the truth.
For the purpose of this rule:
a) An attempted speech act is equivalent to a claim that th
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>The above double-submission may be, er, recursive or difficult.
I took the proposal body to be delimited by the lines of dashes, and was
not troubled by the redundant statement of submission. I note, however,
that you are continuing your habit of repeating the proposal's title
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>It was questions of type "I do X" we were concerned with though, weren't we?
Er, it's those that we are generally most concerned with in Agora.
I don't recall what the context was for discussing imperatives.
> it is untrue as you type it but b
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 10:05 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BobTHJ wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 8:49 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> BobTHJ wrote:
>>>
I attempt to award points as follows:
Wooble - 5 Points
woggle - 5 Points
ais523 - 10 Points
>>
Goethe wrote:
> I'm sorry, I'm very weary of equity cases today. I recuse myself
> from this case. I switch my hawkishness to Hugging. -Goethe
Would someone outside the AAA please sit up? Otherwise I can't assign
this case (Quazie initiated it, Goethe can't be reassigned now that e's
recused e
On Sat, 12 Jul 2008, Zefram wrote:
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>we had a discussion in which
>> you took the position that an imperative (e.g. an assertation that "I do X")
>> was neither true nor false.
>
> We had a discussion about whether imperatives have
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>we had a discussion in which
>you took the position that an imperative (e.g. an assertation that "I do X")
>was neither true nor false.
We had a discussion about whether imperatives have truth values, which as
I recall was inconclusi
On Sat, 12 Jul 2008, Zefram wrote:
> The voting period on P5405 has ended, so this would be a false statement
> if interpreted as a statement (say, if it were interpreted as an attempt
> to act).
This is really niggling me, Zefram. I could have sworn this all came up
when you first proposed th
All the relevant arguments I've already made, complete with quotes and
signatures:
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 10:29 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree to the following pledge
> {
> I pledge to, upon a player giving me eir entire supply of a currency,
> give said player all of my supply of
Ivan Hope wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 11:33 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Ivan Hope, Sgeo, I inform you of CFJ 2067 and invite you to submit
>> arguments regarding the equitability of the situation.
>
> I ask that you include all the relevant arguments I've already made.
Pleas
BobTHJ wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 8:49 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> BobTHJ wrote:
>>
>>> I attempt to award points as follows:
>>> Wooble - 5 Points
>>> woggle - 5 Points
>>> ais523 - 10 Points
>>> Murphy - 5 Points
>>> ehird - 5 Points
>>> Pavitra - 1 Point
>> Without 3 objec
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 8:49 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BobTHJ wrote:
>
>> I attempt to award points as follows:
>> Wooble - 5 Points
>> woggle - 5 Points
>> ais523 - 10 Points
>> Murphy - 5 Points
>> ehird - 5 Points
>> Pavitra - 1 Point
>
> Without 3 objections, I intend to flip t
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 11:33 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ivan Hope, Sgeo, I inform you of CFJ 2067 and invite you to submit
> arguments regarding the equitability of the situation.
I ask that you include all the relevant arguments I've already made.
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
ais523 wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-07-12 at 07:49 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> BobTHJ wrote:
>>
>>> I attempt to award points as follows:
>>> Wooble - 5 Points
>>> woggle - 5 Points
>>> ais523 - 10 Points
>>> Murphy - 5 Points
>>> ehird - 5 Points
>>> Pavitra - 1 Point
>> Without 3 objections, I intend to
On Saturday 12 July 2008 10:14:29 am ais523 wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-07-12 at 07:49 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> > Without 3 objections, I intend to flip the APA's contestmaster
> > to [Quazie, doopy, Pavitra].
>
> Any player CAN flip the contestmaster of a public contract
> without 3 object
On Sat, 2008-07-12 at 07:49 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> BobTHJ wrote:
>
> > I attempt to award points as follows:
> > Wooble - 5 Points
> > woggle - 5 Points
> > ais523 - 10 Points
> > Murphy - 5 Points
> > ehird - 5 Points
> > Pavitra - 1 Point
>
> Without 3 objections, I intend to flip the APA's
2008/7/12 ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> That's 6 FOR to 5 AGAINST, meaning it passes.
>
> --Ivan Hope CXXVII
>
Thank god.
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 10:52 AM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I intend to deputise for the Assessor to resolve the Agoran decision
> on whether to adopt proposal 5582.
These are the votes on it, I believe:
Sgeo FOR
Goethe FOR
Zefram AGAINST
Schrodinger's Cat wrote:
> If possible, I recuse myself from CFJ 2058a
Not possible; only the panel as a whole can be recused. I'll take
care of it tomorrow after the time limit expires.
comex wrote:
>Proposal: WALRUS gains the patent title of 1 3 > Quazie 4 1 2 Points. > P12.
Not clear what the extent of the proposal's text is.
>I register as Land, as described below.
You can't register, and there's no description below.
>AI of 2 for | I submit the following AI=3D3 disinterest
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 7:09 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The voting period on P5405 has ended, so this would be a false statement
> if interpreted as a statement (say, if it were interpreted as an attempt
> to act). But the disclaimer precludes that interpretation. As I said
> before,
Ed Murphy wrote:
>comex wrote:
>> I CFJ on the statement: w/ o objection I
>
>>{{This is Agora}}(www.poolappeal.tv)
>> I CFJ on the statement: intend to rat-ify this /products.a
comex wrote:
>By the way, I had to read the entire third part of my message to make
>sure it didn't contain any attempts at actions.
It contains this, which is somewhat clearer than your patent title bit:
|indicated by this Proposal, of Dereliction of Duty but of contract
|change, I judge this Au
comex wrote:
> Reading nonsense is
>somewhat fun, you should try it.
I did. I read the whole message fairly closely, on the grounds that
you must be trying to hide something in it. I didn't see any attempt at
actions apart from the CFJs. I reckon
ais523 wrote:
>Well, there's at least one attempt at a scam, but I'm not entirely sure
>if there is a patent title that may not be In-Ground Pool Cleaners.
I think it's not a coherent sentence, because of the interspersed
advertising text. Therefore ineffective. The only coherent parts of
the me
38 matches
Mail list logo
