Kerim Aydin wrote:
>"I hereby announce that I do X"
If this is acceptable, it is because we treat it as a (virtual)
announcement of "I do X". If it is so accepted, for the purposes of
doing X by announcement, then R2149 can also be applied to "I do X".
-zefram
Kerim Aydin wrote:
Announcements are both statements in their own rights and (sometimes) actions.
In the past, we've accepted "I do X" as an action, but we've also accepted
"I hereby announce that I do X" as an action. Both, by Agoran Custom, do
the Same Thing.
The latter statement, convenie
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 7:51 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> I hereby end/terminate/retract/rescind/finish/kill -9 the Vote Goethe pledge,
> as the pledge allows. -Goethe
-bash: end/terminate/retract/rescind/finish/kill: No such file or directory
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 7:13 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jul 15, 2008, at 4:19 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>>
>> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
>>>
>>> The statement is obviously not FALSE.
>>
>> Here's where it breaks down. If this is considered to be a poorly-labeled
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 7:18 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jul 15, 2008, at 6:18 PM, Elliott Hird wrote:
>
>> 2008/7/15 ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 6:11 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> I support.
>>>
>>> --Ivan Hope CXXV
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 6:08 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 5641 D1 2Taral Pragmatic ribbons
> AGAINST
What's wrong with it?
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
Announcements are both statements in their own rights and (sometimes) actions.
In the past, we've accepted "I do X" as an action, but we've also accepted
"I hereby announce that I do X" as an action. Both, by Agoran Custom, do
the Same Thing.
The latter statement, conveniently enough, is true
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 6:47 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I do this to the pubic forum:
>
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 7:46 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 7:09 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 2:55 P
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 7:09 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 2:55 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Therefore, there is no recordkeepor of
> > public contracts (the phrase itself is an oxymoron), and therefore I
> > judge FALSE.
>
> I intend to appeal this ju
On Jul 15, 2008, at 9:29 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
OscarMeyr wrote:
I need to find a good place to drop into the rules the provision:
The CotC CAN and SHOULD dismiss CFJs that are clearly dilatory.
Rule 2175 seems as good a place as any.
Draft, AI=1: Append to R2175 the following paragr
OscarMeyr wrote:
> I need to find a good place to drop into the rules the provision:
>
> The CotC CAN and SHOULD dismiss CFJs that are clearly dialatory.
Rule 2175 seems as good a place as any.
On Jul 15, 2008, at 7:50 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Zefram wrote:
comex wrote:
- action: claiming to dance in eir message with message-id
The term "dance" has a specialised meaning in the context of Agora,
referring to a verbal (rather than kinaesthetic) activity. By that
On Jul 15, 2008, at 12:49 PM, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 9:45 AM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Instead of penalties, I suggest deciding the omitted votes at random
after the voting period ends. That'll at least make people's laziness
interesting.
I'm not fond of thi
On Jul 15, 2008, at 4:41 PM, Elliott Hird wrote:
2008/7/15 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I dance. I dance a dance of being free to say I do so.
A dance of freedom. A free-from-dumb dance. I dance.
I kill Goethe.
Friend Computer, I accuse ehird, a/k/a/ tusho, of treason, homicide,
On Jul 15, 2008, at 4:19 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
The statement is obviously not FALSE.
Here's where it breaks down. If this is considered to be a poorly-
labeled
and communicated statement, it's not obvious. -Goethe
I need to find a good place to dr
Goethe wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> I think the intended interpretation is that "I do X (disclaimer: maybe
>> not)" is ineffective, while "I do X (disclaimer: not if Y)" is effective
>> provided that Y is false at the time (IOW, it's equivalent to "if not Y
>> then I do X").
>
tusho wrote:
> 2008/7/16 Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Elliott Hird wrote:
>>> If the above statement is false,
>> This condition cannot be evaluated by any reasonable effort, so the
>> attempted action is invalid due to unclarity.
>>
>> -zefram
>>
>
> It can be evaluated trivially - ask me.
Al
2008/7/16 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I'm treating this as not communicating intent with sufficient clarity to
> be effective.
>
>
Want to ask me whether I was drinking coffee?
tusho wrote:
> I am drinking coffee.
>
> If the above statement is false, I initiate a criminal CFJ against tusho
> for violating rule 2149 by making a false statement in the message that
> initiated this CFJ.
I'm treating this as not communicating intent with sufficient clarity to
be effective.
2008/7/16 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
>> I support, let's do this thang.
>
> Thanks. uh, have you fixed that "player" think yet? -G.
Yep, the proposal passed and ihope resolved it because the
Assessor didn't.
Also it got rid of the pledge.
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
> I support, let's do this thang.
Thanks. uh, have you fixed that "player" think yet? -G.
2008/7/16 Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> WIth 2 supporters I make teh aboce proposal Democratic.
>
Can you do that?
2008/7/16 Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> E actually violated a contract instead. ##nomic was a contract
> forbidding the eating of cake at the time (if i have my timing
> correct).
That was after.
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 4:50 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Zefram wrote:
>> comex wrote:
>>> - action: claiming to dance in eir message with message-id
>>
>> The term "dance" has a specialised meaning in the context of Agora,
>> referring to a verbal (rather th
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 4:46 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> comex wrote:
>>- rule: 2149
>>- action: eating cake.
>
> R2149 does not regulate gustatory activity.
>
>>- rule: 2149
>>- action: claiming that eating cake is a violation of Rule 2149
E actually violated a contract instead. ##
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> An announcement, in general, does not fit any of the R2125 definitions
> of "regulated". If an overly broad interpretation of R2149 infringes
> on R101, we have a clearly specified method of determining precedence.
An
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 7:46 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What about the fact that while doing something is regulated, attempting to
> do something (and failing) is not regulated, and therefore a privilege?
You mean a right. It's your privilege to do what you wilt, regardless
of
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> What about the fact that while doing something is regulated, attempting to
>> do something (and failing) is not regulated, and therefore a privilege?
>
> Isn't it regulated by R214
2008/7/16 Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Elliott Hird wrote:
>>If the above statement is false,
>
> This condition cannot be evaluated by any reasonable effort, so the
> attempted action is invalid due to unclarity.
>
> -zefram
>
It can be evaluated trivially - ask me.
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Zefram wrote:
> comex wrote:
>> - action: claiming to dance in eir message with message-id
>
> The term "dance" has a specialised meaning in the context of Agora,
> referring to a verbal (rather than kinaesthetic) activity. By that
> meaning, Goethe did in fact dance in that
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What about the fact that while doing something is regulated, attempting to
> do something (and failing) is not regulated, and therefore a privilege?
Isn't it regulated by R2149?
-root
Elliott Hird wrote:
>If the above statement is false,
This condition cannot be evaluated by any reasonable effort, so the
attempted action is invalid due to unclarity.
-zefram
comex wrote:
>- rule: 2149
>- action: eating cake.
R2149 does not regulate gustatory activity.
>- rule: 2149
>- action: claiming that eating cake is a violation of Rule 2149
Ah, finally, a non-trivial issue. We haven't actually established whether
the initiation of a criminal CFJ constitutes
What about the fact that while doing something is regulated, attempting to
do something (and failing) is not regulated, and therefore a privilege?
-Goethe
comex wrote:
>- action: claiming to dance in eir message with message-id
The term "dance" has a specialised meaning in the context of Agora,
referring to a verbal (rather than kinaesthetic) activity. By that
meaning, Goethe did in fact dance in that message.
>- action: claiming to kill Goethe in
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 5:27 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ian Kelly wrote:
>>I CFJ on this statement.
>
> Patently TRUE. By stating it you do in fact initiate the described CFJ,
> via the rules on acting by announcement. This makes the statement true.
> And it's obviously relevant.
Th
Ian Kelly wrote:
>I CFJ on this statement.
Patently TRUE. By stating it you do in fact initiate the described CFJ,
via the rules on acting by announcement. This makes the statement true.
And it's obviously relevant.
-zefram
ais523 wrote:
>Say, this is another argument for allowing attempts to perform actions
>which will certainly fail;
This is a reason for the PNP's message to include a phrase such as
"if the proposal is in its voting period".
> Zefram does not update it instantaneously when
Taral wrote:
>Well, the problem is that there's two ways to phrase the CFJ:
Back when we started doing criminal CFJs this issue came up. CFJ 1720
decided that by default the rule violated was not part of the action
being tried. That was before we required explicit specification of the
rule alleg
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> I think that (a) you're discussing intent to mislead in general, and
> (b) Zefram and I objected to what used to be called recklessness wrt
> the truth (i.e. publishing a statement without bothering to consider
> whether it was true or not). Would you be ha
Goethe wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> Perhaps our criterion of illegality should be whether the message
>> included intent to deceive, not absolute positive belief in the
>> statement's truth.
>
> I liked a version that included intent to deceive, Zefram didn't care
> for it so
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> I think the intended interpretation is that "I do X (disclaimer: maybe
> not)" is ineffective, while "I do X (disclaimer: not if Y)" is effective
> provided that Y is false at the time (IOW, it's equivalent to "if not Y
> then I do X").
Trivial to turn "may
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, ais523 wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 13:25 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> If you disclaim an action (those of you who claim that action statements
>> can be false) wouldn't the disclaimer always cause it to fail? You can't
>> have it both ways!
> CFJ 1971. Maybe that'll have t
Goethe wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 2:02 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 13:58 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
Intentionally failing to perform an action is a form of dishonesty,
and it should be every bit as illegal as
ais523 wrote:
> Say, this is another argument for allowing attempts to perform actions
> which will certainly fail; the PNP often votes late on Agoran Decisions
> due to the players of PerlNomic not deciding fast enough, and it's much
> easier for it to simply perform the failed actions than it wo
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 6:11 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
I support.
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
2008/7/15 comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
Hi!
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 2:38 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree with that. A disclaimed assertion is no longer an assertion.
> I argued as much when comex made eir OVERLOOKED allegation, but nobody
> seemed to agree with me at the time.
Although apparently I supported the panel's
2008/7/15 ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 13:38 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> I dance. I dance a dance of being free to say I do so.
>> A dance of freedom. A free-from-dumb dance. I dance.
> Is that a Powerful Dance?
Powerful Dances are worth a lot, I don't see why e'd dance
On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 13:38 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I dance. I dance a dance of being free to say I do so.
> A dance of freedom. A free-from-dumb dance. I dance.
Is that a Powerful Dance?
--
ais523
On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 13:25 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> If you disclaim an action (those of you who claim that action statements
> can be false) wouldn't the disclaimer always cause it to fail? You can't
> have it both ways!
CFJ 1971. Maybe that'll have to be revisited in the light of this
discuss
2008/7/15 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> R1728 allows that. We voted that in after comex deliberately
> prevented an appeal by announcing eir intent to do it and then never
> actually doing it, remember?
I remember that in #ircnomic. :)
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> R1728 allows that. We voted that in after comex deliberately
> prevented an appeal by announcing eir intent to do it and then never
> actually doing it, remember?
Nope! Now I know tho. :)
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 3:38 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> I support this. The precedent from CFJ 1738 is that speech acts do
>> carry truth values. Additionally, I know of no precedent stating what
>> Taral claims.
>>
>> The action having r
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> I support this. The precedent from CFJ 1738 is that speech acts do
> carry truth values. Additionally, I know of no precedent stating what
> Taral claims.
>
> The action having received two support, I hereby appeal CFJ 2048.
Um, did you just attempt to
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 2:36 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> YOU MISS THE POINT. WHY IS IT JUST OR VALUABLE TO AGORA TO FORCE US TO
> ANSWER TO CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS FOR THIS SORT OF THING IN THE FIRST PLACE
> THIS PLACE HAS BEEN CRIMINALIZED ENOUGH, AND NOW YOU'RE ASKING US TO BE
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
> 2008/7/15 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>> I dance. I dance a dance of being free to say I do so.
>> A dance of freedom. A free-from-dumb dance. I dance.
>
> I kill Goethe.
>
Nyaaah, my coffee cup is +5 vs. ISID.
2008/7/15 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I liked a version that included intent to deceive, Zefram didn't care
> for it so it disappeared from Murphy's draft. Intent to deceive is a
> good way to cover, say, making true statements but sending them from
> an "imposter" email account. -Goethe
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> Perhaps our criterion of illegality should be whether the message
> included intent to deceive, not absolute positive belief in the
> statement's truth.
I liked a version that included intent to deceive, Zefram didn't care
for it so it disappeared from Murp
2008/7/15 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> YOU MISS THE POINT. WHY IS IT JUST OR VALUABLE TO AGORA TO FORCE US TO
> ANSWER TO CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS FOR THIS SORT OF THING IN THE FIRST PLACE
> THIS PLACE HAS BEEN CRIMINALIZED ENOUGH, AND NOW YOU'RE ASKING US TO BE
> PARANOID ABOUT OUR EVERY AT
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 2:25 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> although (a) to be fair, I covered those attempts with various disclaimers
> explaining the situation, although (b) I'm puzzled by the disclaimers issue.
> If you disclaim an action (those of you who claim that action stateme
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 2:23 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 14:04 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
>>> Links? I haven't been following the full discussion.
>>> From memory: Goethe, as an officer in the past, attempted to give
>> someo
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 2:28 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/7/15 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Why couldn't you do it as is?
>>
>> -root
>>
>
> Failing actions aren't illegal yet, thank god.
In your opinion, perhaps.
-root
2008/7/15 Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> comex got out of being found guilty in a criminal case by alleging that
>> the act occurred a long time ago, even though it didn't (with
>> appropriate disclaimers), thus forcing an OVERLOOKED version.
> Wouldn't e be guilty of lying then?
>
> (with
>> approp
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 4:28 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 13:25 -0700, Taral wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:12 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Amend Rule 1504 (Criminal Cases) by replacing this text:
>> >
>> > * UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if th
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 2:23 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 14:04 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> Links? I haven't been following the full discussion.
> >From memory: Goethe, as an officer in the past, attempted to give
> someone a fractional amount of currency because a
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, ais523 wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 14:04 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
> immediately when the voting period ends (and in general, I don't think
> it should be illegal to try to vote on something after the end of the
> voting period, because that would entail the voter, rather tha
2008/7/15 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> although (a) to be fair, I covered those attempts with various disclaimers
> explaining the situation, although (b) I'm puzzled by the disclaimers issue.
> If you disclaim an action (those of you who claim that action statements
> can be false) wouldn't
On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 13:25 -0700, Taral wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:12 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Amend Rule 1504 (Criminal Cases) by replacing this text:
> >
> > * UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act was not proscribed
> >by the specified rule at the
2008/7/15 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Why couldn't you do it as is?
>
> -root
>
Failing actions aren't illegal yet, thank god.
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:12 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Amend Rule 1504 (Criminal Cases) by replacing this text:
>
> * UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act was not proscribed
>by the specified rule at the time it allegedly occurred
>
> with this text:
>
> *
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 2:02 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 13:58 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
>>> Intentionally failing to perform an action is a form of dishonesty,
>>> and it should be every bit as illegal as any other lie. Do
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/7/15 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Neat. I create 1 billion chits in my possession.
>>
>
> If some people get their way I could criminal CFJ you if
> you did this to a-b.
Why couldn't you do it as is?
-root
On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 14:04 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
> Links? I haven't been following the full discussion.
>From memory: Goethe, as an officer in the past, attempted to give
someone a fractional amount of currency because a rule forced em to do
so (and this action failed); I gave the example of th
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 12:34 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Isn't that what "first-class" is for?
More or less. The purpose of "first-class" was to restrict abilities,
not rights, but there's no reason they couldn't be conflated into the
same thing.
-root
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> The statement is obviously not FALSE.
Here's where it breaks down. If this is considered to be a poorly-labeled
and communicated statement, it's not obvious. -Goethe
2008/7/15 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Neat. I create 1 billion chits in my possession.
>
If some people get their way I could criminal CFJ you if
you did this to a-b.
On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 16:01 -0400, comex wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 3:19 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 12:15 -0700, Dice server wrote:
> >> 19
> > I submit the following proposal (AI=1, II=0, Title="Exilous
> > Monsteredicts", based on rule 2144):
> >
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 2:02 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 13:58 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> Intentionally failing to perform an action is a form of dishonesty,
>> and it should be every bit as illegal as any other lie. Do you have a
>> specific scenario in mind wher
On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 13:58 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
> Intentionally failing to perform an action is a form of dishonesty,
> and it should be every bit as illegal as any other lie. Do you have a
> specific scenario in mind where this is not the case?
Goethe and I have both posted examples of such s
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 3:19 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 12:15 -0700, Dice server wrote:
>> 19
> I submit the following proposal (AI=1, II=0, Title="Exilous
> Monsteredicts", based on rule 2144):
>
> Append the following to the rule entitled "The Monster":
>
2008/7/15 comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
>>> No, doer vs non-doer would not be a question of rights. Only people have
>>> rights,
>>> and thus partnerships wouldn't.
>>
>> Do you even
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 12:36 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> First, let's take a look at how performing actions by announcement works.
> You write a message stating that you perform an action, and somehow, when you
> send off the message, it happens. (Note that this is actually ISTID
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
>> No, doer vs non-doer would not be a question of rights. Only people have
>> rights,
>> and thus partnerships wouldn't.
>
> Do you even read the ruleset? R2145.
I presume ehird is
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
> No, doer vs non-doer would not be a question of rights. Only people have
> rights,
> and thus partnerships wouldn't.
Do you even read the ruleset? R2145.
I suppose one could make the argument that R101 applies to "natural"
persons only and so superse
On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 14:59 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 2:55 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I submit the following proposal (AI=3,II=0,Title="Making 2125(e)
> > actually do something"):
> >
> > Replace paragraph (e) of rule 2125 with the following:
> > {{{
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 2:55 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I submit the following proposal (AI=3,II=0,Title="Making 2125(e)
> actually do something"):
>
> Replace paragraph (e) of rule 2125 with the following:
> {{{
> e) It would, as part of its effect, modify information which
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It can't just add a week from the distribution date?
I believe the rationale for not doing that was to not remove proposals
that were still in their voting period due to failed quorum, but
that's been rare lately, and I'd be h
There has been recent debate over whether a failing action should be illegal
or not. Here's some arguments.
First, let's take a look at how performing actions by announcement works.
You write a message stating that you perform an action, and somehow, when you
send off the message, it happens. (Not
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 11:57 AM, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 2008/7/15 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
The problem is that partnerships aren't people.
>>>
>>> They are if they're public and have a basis of
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 12:26 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But the very act of doing that removes the rights of them as persons,
> which is against R101, does a change to R101 have to comply with R101?
Not if a temporory Power-3.1 rule allows otherwise.
-root
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 12:14 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I suspect that Wooble caused the PNP to send these votes not because e
> thought they would work, but because it was the easiest way of
> uncluttering the PNP's idea of what was going on in Agora after its
> server crash.
>
> Say
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 2:25 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/7/15 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Ah. I would suggest that, in keeping with legal practice we should
>> instead split "persons" into "natural persons" and "artificial
>> persons", and have R101 assign rights only
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 11:24 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 11:57 AM, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 2008/7/15 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
The problem is that partnerships aren't people.
>>>
>>> They are if they're public and have a basis o
2008/7/15 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Ah. I would suggest that, in keeping with legal practice we should
> instead split "persons" into "natural persons" and "artificial
> persons", and have R101 assign rights only to the natural variety.
>
> -root
>
Yes. This is essentially what I was sugge
2008/7/15 Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> But you can't un-people them without reducing eir rights. So even if
> its wrong, its something we can't just change.
>
We can make it so that future partnerships are doers, but not people.
And a powerful proposal can de-person the existing ones.
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 11:57 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/7/15 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> The problem is that partnerships aren't people.
>>
>> They are if they're public and have a basis of at least two, which are
>> the only ones that we've decided we want to have i
On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 21:23 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
>
> > 5590 AGAINST
> > 5591 AGAINST
> > 5593 FOR
> > 5594 FOR
> > 5596 FOR
> > 5597 AGAINST
> > 5598 PRESENT
>
> These (and 5589 from the previous method) missed the voting period.
I suspect that Wooble caused
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:39 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For one thing, Quazie's EVLOD is 5, right? Assuming we treat this as
> pseudo-C, the result differs depending on whether "myevlod" is an int
> (5/2 = 2; FOR AGAINST FOR AGAINST PRESENT) or a float (5.0/2 = 2.5;
> FOR AGAINST FOR A
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 10:57 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/7/15 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> The problem is that partnerships aren't people.
>>
>> They are if they're public and have a basis of at least two, which are
>> the only ones that we've decided we want to have i
1 - 100 of 120 matches
Mail list logo
