Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Surely this has been tried before, but I can't see a reason for it not to work.

2011-07-23 Thread Eric Stucky
On Jul 23, 2011, at 11:07 AM, omd wrote: > On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Eric Stucky wrote: >> Someone who is sleeping may not be a person, but they have certainly been >> both a person and a first-class person at some point, so there's nothing >> wrong with loosening the requirements to: >

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 7094 - 7101

2011-07-23 Thread Pavitra
On 07/23/2011 03:06 PM, ais523 wrote: > On Sat, 2011-07-23 at 15:57 -0400, omd wrote: >> Arguments: I'm not sure exactly what "[no] player of [Agora] can make >> arbitrary changes to the gamestate" means, but it sounds suspiciously >> like an Agora Is a Nomic violation. >> >> (Note that AIaN was am

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [CotC] CFJ 3038 (if it exists) judged TRUE, 3039 judged FALSE by Yally (not Walker)

2011-07-23 Thread omd
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 4:13 PM, ais523 wrote: > On Sat, 2011-07-23 at 13:06 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: >> CoE, accepted:  CFJs 3038 (if it exists) and 3039 were judged by >> Yally, not Walker.  (The body was correct, the subject was wrong.) > > CoE: That isn't a CoE because subject lines are not sel

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [CotC] CFJ 3038 (if it exists) judged TRUE, 3039 judged FALSE by Yally (not Walker)

2011-07-23 Thread ais523
On Sat, 2011-07-23 at 13:06 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: > CoE, accepted: CFJs 3038 (if it exists) and 3039 were judged by > Yally, not Walker. (The body was correct, the subject was wrong.) CoE: That isn't a CoE because subject lines are not self-ratifying. -- ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Surely this has been tried before, but I can't see a reason for it not to work.

2011-07-23 Thread omd
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Eric Stucky wrote: > Someone who is sleeping may not be a person, but they have certainly been > both a person and a first-class person at some point, so there's nothing > wrong with loosening the requirements to: >      A player who is not a person and has never

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Surely this has been tried before, but I can't see a reason for it not to work.

2011-07-23 Thread Eric Stucky
On Jul 23, 2011, at 10:36 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 6:57 PM, Eric Stucky wrote: >> But R689, why is the first-class distinction made? Is there some good reason >> it's not "A player who is not a person and has never been a person?" > > It's to prevent us from deregiste

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Surely this has been tried before, but I can't see a reason for it not to work.

2011-07-23 Thread Geoffrey Spear
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 6:57 PM, Eric Stucky wrote: > But R689, why is the first-class distinction made? Is there some good reason > it's not "A player who is not a person and has never been a person?" It's to prevent us from deregistering people while they're sleeping and thus incapable of comm

DIS: Re: BUS: Surely this has been tried before, but I can't see a reason for it not to work.

2011-07-23 Thread Arkady English
Heh. Thanks. It is quite a big, complex ruleset for a beginner to get to grips with. Been watching a while, and didn't find it was helping, so I just figured I'd join in and hope for the best. Hi, everyone! On 22 July 2011 19:31, omd wrote: > On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 5:00 AM, Arkady English >