I solicit comment on the following ruling. Absent an extremely
compelling new argument, it's principles are basically final, but I
would appreciate being told if any of my arguments need to be better
supported, contradict rules or precedent, or are otherwise in error.
-Aris
---
Judge's arguments
On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 11:35 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> I create the proposal “The Lint Screen” with AI 1 by Gaelan:
> {{{
> Create a rule “The Lint Screen” with Power 1: {{
> The Lint Screen is a singleton switch, tracked by the Promotor with possible
> values including all lists of text. The d
On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:
I create the proposal “The Lint Screen” with AI 1 by Gaelan:
{{{
Create a rule “The Lint Screen” with Power 1: {{
The Lint Screen is a singleton switch, tracked by the Promotor with
possible values including all lists of text. The default value is an
e
On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
Just when I think I've resolved all the problems. *sigh* I file a
motion to reconsider CFJ 3557, and invite arguments about why exactly
I shouldn't just rule that CAN (or SHALL) implies "by announcement"
whenever it makes sense. Seems like a perfectly re
On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
Amend rule 2450 ("Pledges") to read, in full:
{
Pledges are an indestructible fixed asset. Ownership of pledges
is restricted to persons. The Referee is the recordkeepor of
pledges. Creating, destroying, modifying, and transferri
On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
Create a new rule, “Instant Run-Off Voting”, with power ??? and the
following text:
When the voting method for an Agoran Decision is instant run-off, then,
for that decision, a valid ballot consists of exactly one of the
following:
* PRESENT.
* END
I haven't checked but I'm also pretty sure you could get rid of murphy.
On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Josh T wrote:
> NB: Bayushi has objected to them being deregistered on the 12th.
>
> 天火狐
>
>
>
>
> On 15 September 2017 at 17:52, Nic Evans wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 09/11/17 15:50, Nic Evans wro
Oh well...
On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 11:49 PM, Nic Evans wrote:
> On 09/15/17 16:33, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>
> I believe it's a matter of difference between how we use language in
> common use and it's literal interpretation. For that case, for example:
>
> X: "You can only do that if I say so.", whe
Right, but the actual effect of the rule clause is based on the common use, and
not
on the absurd-literal that even my first-grader knew was being "funny".
On Fri, 15 Sep 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> I believe it's a matter of difference between how we use language in common
> use and it's lite
I believe it's a matter of difference between how we use language in common
use and it's literal interpretation. For that case, for example:
X: "You can only do that if I say so.", where "so" means X would mean that
the kid can do it, even if that wasn't the intent of the message.
Quibbles, reall
A more direct example:
I say: "You can only do that if I say so."
My kid says: "You just said so!"
That's the logic of a first grader, but it's not actually how conditionals work
in common English.
On Fri, 15 Sep 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> True but my argument was this:
> We got
> A: "CAN Y
True but my argument was this:
We got
A: "CAN Y if X is true"
where X is:
X: "CAN Y exists as text" (for. "doing so is specified by a rule", where
"so" is "The Treasuror CAN cause Agora to pay any player or organization by
announcement". " is specified by a rule" is pretty much "exists as text"
be
The statement "CAN Y if X is true" doesn't make X true.
On Fri, 15 Sep 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> I create the following proposal and pend it with AP:
>
> -+-
>
> Title: Anti-Treasuror Omnipotence
> AI: 3
> Content:
>
> Amend "The Treasuror CAN cause Agora to pay any player or organi
"Omnipotence" is a bit much as a word lol, but yeah, the Treasuror (o)
would have control over Agora's Shiny Balance and whatnot.
On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 9:46 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> I create the following proposal and pend it with AP:
>
> -+-
>
> Title: Anti-Treasuror Omnipotence
> AI:
> Semi-related to this, has a unified way of writing rules been proposed?
The implementation of Mother May I was probably the single biggest example of
formalization. Before that, the distinction between IMPOSSIBLE and ILLEGAL
was very confused - and weren't themselves well-defined with all-cap
Semi-related to this, has a unified way of writing rules been proposed? A
sort of standard? We're pretty much all definitions (like X is ABC) rights
(you can do X) and conditional triggers (if X happens, then Y).
On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 7:41 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> I think a MAY is only eve
I think a MAY is only ever truly useful as an exception, if there's a default
"CAN but SHALL NOT/MAY NOT" in place somewhere else.
On Fri, 15 Sep 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Ah, I see. I don't see how useful a solitary MAY is then aside from being a
> stealth "CANNOT" in a way.
>
> On Fri, Sep
Ah, I see. I don't see how useful a solitary MAY is then aside from being a
stealth "CANNOT" in a way.
On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 7:22 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 15 Sep 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > If it's SHALL and MAY, without providing a method for doing it, if it's
> an
> > unregulate
On Fri, 15 Sep 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> If it's SHALL and MAY, without providing a method for doing it, if it's an
> unregulated action that's OK imo
By R2125 clause(1), putting in a SHALL or MAY automatically makes it regulated
(er, "restricted", was the title of the rule changed by the reg
Ah, true. So:
Proto: Whenever you CAN perform an action, without it being stated the
method via the which you can perform such a CAN, you CAN (and only can)
perform it by announcement.
MAY, given the paradigm that it doesn't give ability like CAN, is pretty
much meaningless imo. You already MAY d
On Fri, 15 Sep 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> >about why exactly I shouldn't just rule that CAN (or SHALL) implies "by
> >announcement" whenever it makes sense.
>
> I think it might be good to have a rule which states the metaphysics of
> action on Agora lol (this relates to the telepathy problem
>about why exactly I shouldn't just rule that CAN (or SHALL) implies "by
announcement" whenever it makes sense.
I think it might be good to have a rule which states the metaphysics of
action on Agora lol (this relates to the telepathy problem too actually.)
Proto: Whenever you CAN perform an acti
First whatever the result, don't worry over-much! If you just reinstate it as
is, I won't call to reconsider. We should actually use this as a conversation
over
what the best choice of default *should* be, and put the default in the rules
explicitly - and meanwhile, all the things that are bro
I’ve taken a look and I can’t find a change that broke it.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Sep 15, 2017, at 2:46 AM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>
> I don’t see a CSS file in the repo at all. No idea how it ever worked.
>
> If I’m perfectly honest, I’m s
Would it be helpful to declare a new public forum for eir use?
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Sep 14, 2017, at 10:45 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>
>
>> On Sep 14, 2017, at 10:40 PM, Alex Smith
>> wrote:
>>
>> (Not everyone is receiving my message
25 matches
Mail list logo
