On Wed, 23 Mar 2011, omd wrote:
> > Notwithstanding other rules or other provisions of this rule,
> > nested or circular promises, wherin the promise's text purports to
> > create, destroy, or cash another promise, CANNOT be cashed.
>
> I don't see a reason to ban nested cashing (as oppos
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Create a rule (power -2 or -3):
>
> A Promise is an asset created as described by this rule.
"Promises are a class of assets."
> A Player (the promise's author) CAN create a promise by publishing the
> text of the promise with clear int
[ais523: still consider your role to be primary author if you want
to take it from here. Just such a good idea wanted to help get it out].
Promises v0.2
[A fleshed-out version of ais523's idea. The Tree is a method of
making pledges to all Agorans.]
[Note: Does this have to be power-3 to ge
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Alex Smith
wrote:
> --- On Wed, 23/3/11, omd wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 12:13 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> > == CFJ 2980 ==
>> >
>> > ais523 is a player.
>> >
>> >
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I intend to call for appeal of CFJ 2979 with 2 support.
>
> Arguments:
> On timing, this is a pretty strong tradition the judge is bucking here,
> without reasonable justification. The tradition is that doing the
> following in one message:
> I set up
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011, Tanner Swett wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > It would be useful it it could be generalized to some amount of context;
> > e.g. rather than a precise text message, the rule might allow a promise
> > to be "I vote X on Y" where X and Y could be
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Mar 2011, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Inaction is not action. And if this was triggered by an Agoran
>> Consent success, then I'd argue that only the player completing
>> the process would be on the hook.
>
> Here's the simplest case: (1)
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> It would be useful it it could be generalized to some amount of context;
> e.g. rather than a precise text message, the rule might allow a promise
> to be "I vote X on Y" where X and Y could be specified by the spender.
Well, you could do this
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> On 23 March 2011 13:26, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> There's no compelling reason to consider the actions in the message as not
>> occurring simultaneously at the instant it was published (as there might be
>> if, for example, it was IMPOSSIBL
On 23 March 2011 13:26, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> There's no compelling reason to consider the actions in the message as not
> occurring simultaneously at the instant it was published (as there might be
> if, for example, it was IMPOSSIBLE for a non-Player to submit a CFJ)
Does this lack of order
Whoa. I missed the last part, where you actually judged FALSE. Sorry
about that! 'was tired yesterday. =P
~ Roujo
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 8:57 PM, Jonathan Rouillard
wrote:
> Uuhhh...
>
> Gratuitous arguments:
> A. Any /person/ identified by the author as a co-author is a co-author.
> B. MRW&A
11 matches
Mail list logo
