On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 11:28 PM, Sprocklem wrote:
> Also, there were several paragraph breaks that were lost in your
> adjustment of whitespace.
>
> --
> Sprocklem
>
You say "paragraph breaks". I hear "whitespace".
-scshunt
On 2014-10-06 21:23, Sprocklem wrote:
> On 2014-10-06 17:33, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules
>>
>>
>> takesprecedence.Wherethetextissilent,inconsistent,orunclear,itistobeaugmentedbygamecustom,commonsense,pastjudgements,andconsi
On 2014-10-06 17:33, Sean Hunt wrote:
> When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules
>
>
> takesprecedence.Wherethetextissilent,inconsistent,orunclear,itistobeaugmentedbygamecustom,commonsense,pastjudgements,andconsiderationofthebestinterestsofthegame.Definiti
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 7:24 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> [Nichdel: do you want to be on the list of judges?]
>
> CFJ 3430
> is hereby assigned to ais523.
Arguments:
If Rule 2429 does lead to rules having extremely ambiguous meanings,
then Rule 217 says:
When interpreting and applying the
On Mon, 6 Oct 2014, Jonathan Rouillard wrote:
> I agree as well, although I do wonder if it makes it so that there is
> no actual upper limit, then. =P
Upper limit is a week, because that's the fastest a Proposal can get
passed, so if we set it longer than a week, the whole Proposal
system wou
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 4:15 PM, omd wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Hi omd, a genuine question for you:
>>
>> Let's say that I was a player that hadn't posted for a couple weeks
>> before your scam.
>>
>> Let's further say that, on Day 2, I post the following: "I n
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Hi omd, a genuine question for you:
>
> Let's say that I was a player that hadn't posted for a couple weeks
> before your scam.
>
> Let's further say that, on Day 2, I post the following: "I noticed
> that omd just tried a long scam but I didn'
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> For example, in your case, you surprised us with an unexpected
> interpretation of a brand new rule (and a nice one, I might add),
> scammed the moment the new rule was adopted. This "surprise" means we
> should have plenty of time to review it
On Mon, 6 Oct 2014, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Oct 2014, omd wrote:
> > Anyway, wrt the judgement itself, I continue to maintain that a
> > process need not be precisely known in advance to be a process, and
> > that there should be a strong bias against reading a broadly worded
> > clause wh
On Mon, 6 Oct 2014, omd wrote:
> ... where public review was clearly not practically affected.
Note: I specifically disagree with this assertion. Of course
I had time to review the issue if it were, say, a priority job
assignment in real life. But the frequency with which I check in on
Agor
On Mon, 6 Oct 2014, omd wrote:
> Anyway, wrt the judgement itself, I continue to maintain that a
> process need not be precisely known in advance to be a process, and
> that there should be a strong bias against reading a broadly worded
> clause whose purpose is to ensure public review as applyi
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-10-06 at 09:32 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> 7. omd was clearly "counting" on us making that assumption, then
>> pointing out that the assumption wrong. Now, if omd had shown
>> the assumption was wrong due to a hidden speci
On Mon, 6 Oct 2014, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-10-06 at 09:32 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > 7. omd was clearly "counting" on us making that assumption, then
> > pointing out that the assumption wrong. Now, if omd had shown
> > the assumption was wrong due to a hidden specific rule
On Mon, 2014-10-06 at 09:32 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> 7. omd was clearly "counting" on us making that assumption, then
> pointing out that the assumption wrong. Now, if omd had shown
> the assumption was wrong due to a hidden specific rules loophole,
> that's how the game is played.
Well, #1 judgement was a rousing success. Don't get a third chance.
Here's an outline of my new logic for discussion:
1. There is a process, can be informal, or somewhat informally
specified. omd's announcement of intent was good enough to start
a review process.
2. The DEFAULT
15 matches
Mail list logo
