The CFJs are as important as the ruleset. The game has three parts. The
rules, their interpretation, and how they're actually used. These are the
interpretations. My point is that we really need some sort of record for
this. The email archive hardly counts.
-Aris
On Sunday, September 18, 2016, Ni
That seems like a logical short-term solution, though a database would
be nicer. The main problem is that no one wants to take on more
responsibility right now.
On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 6:57 PM, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> Okay that's a big problem. We need one. In theory it could just be a report,
> b
Okay that's a big problem. We need one. In theory it could just be a
report, but have we considered putting it on the wiki?
-Aris
On Sunday, September 18, 2016, Nicholas Evans wrote:
> There is, unfortunately, no current CFJ archive. The best places to
> look right now are the older archive, th
> On Sep 17, 2016, at 10:45 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
>
> Proposal: Voting Strength Fix (AI=1)
> {{{
This looks pretty good overall. I like the generalization of voting strength.
However, I believe this proposal will be ineffective with AI=1 - several of the
rules amended have Power greater than
There is, unfortunately, no current CFJ archive. The best places to
look right now are the older archive, the Full Logical Ruleset, and
the general mailing archives.
On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 1:13 AM, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> Okay, I'm a bit confused about this. I think omd's CFJ archive hasn't been
On Sun, 2016-09-18 at 10:05 -0500, Nicholas Evans wrote:
> Being absurd doesn't generally make it untrue.
>
> If your line of reasoning is upheld, CFJs have no meaning because
> they do not refer to truth. If so, we have no conflict resolution
> system. I'm concerned that purposely breaking the co
On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 11:06 AM Nicholas Evans wrote:
> Being absurd doesn't generally make it untrue.
>
> If your line of reasoning is upheld, CFJs have no meaning because they
> do not refer to truth. If so, we have no conflict resolution system.
> I'm concerned that purposely breaking the con
On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 5:16 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
>
> nichdel's interpretation, that TRUE
> and/or FALSE are only valid for a true and false statement, respectively,
> lead to the even more absurd result that any attempt to assign an incorrect
> judgement fails platonically (since a judge can on
On Sat, 2016-09-17 at 14:45 +, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> Also, I feel I deserve a reward for fixing this bug:
>
> Proposal: New Speaker (AI=1){{{Enact a new Power-1 rule reading:
> Upon enactment of this rule, Alexis wins and then this rule
> repeals itself.
> }}}-Alexis
I'm not 100% sure th
9 matches
Mail list logo
