The most recent such manual ratification annotation I found here:
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg07765.html
...which refers to the following report:
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg07728.html
On 10/12/2018 04:20 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote
Overall, despite thinking it a bit ironic if it had been broken by removing
text in an attempt to make winning more permissive, I think your instinct that
R106 allows the changes to be applied is correct. Rule 2449 doesn't "prohibit"
proposals from making the change in the sense of R106, and R1
Well yes, but if it worked due to explicit Rules text prior to Sept 2016, and
nobody noticed that removing that text broke things, and nobody questioned it,
then no precedent has yet been set with the new rules text, even if we've all
assumed it worked in the mean time. Most of those wins-by-pr
Amusingly, there was previously text that said winning was Secured, which
would have implied that Instruments such as proposals (with the correct
power) would have worked. It was removed to make winning more permissive
for lower-powered rules. This was removed in Sept 2016, so maybe winning-
I'm unsure of the legal status of win by proposal, but the Herald's
monthly report states under the Champions heading that eighteen players,
including yourself, have done so. Precedent tends to fill in where the
rules are unclear, so I submit that these proposal wins are effective.
On 10/12/20
I forgot to mention that the set of winning players does not include any who
were impure at the time of the proposal’s adoption (i.e., Corona, V.J. Rada,
Murphy, PSS, ATMunn, and Trigon). Because this doesn’t affect the TRUE
judgement, I won’t move to formally reconsider and amend it, unless som
My reading is that Rule 106 does it: “if the outcome is ADOPTED, then the
proposal in question is adopted, and _unless other rules prevent it from
taking effect_, its power is set to the minimum of four and its adoption
index, and then it takes effect.”
I don’t read 2449 as preventing it from taki
On Fri, 2018-10-12 at 17:00 -0400, D. Margaux wrote:
> CFJ judged TRUE: “At least one person won the game as a result
> proposal 8097 taking effect.”
Is it even possible to win the game by proposal? I don't see that
victory method listed in the ruleset, and rule 2449 implies that a
victory has to
How about:
1. “All pure active players could have won by announcement on the Effective
Date under rule 2580”
and
2. “Trigon, twg, D. Margaux, G., and L could win the game by announcement
under rule 2580 on the Effective Date after the expungement of Trigon’s
blot”
and
3. “Trigon, twg, and L wo
The second one could use an "only".
On Fri, Oct 12, 2018, 08:01 D Margaux wrote:
> I would suggest a slight amendment and calling both CFJs at the same time,
> with the suggestion that both be assigned to the same judge. Probably most
> efficient that way. My suggested CFJs are:
>
> > “All pure
The term of art for this is to request "linked" CFJs (this used to be
rules-official, but now it's just game custom).
On Fri, 12 Oct 2018, D Margaux wrote:
> I would suggest a slight amendment and calling both CFJs at the same time,
> with the suggestion that both be assigned to the same judge
I would suggest a slight amendment and calling both CFJs at the same time, with
the suggestion that both be assigned to the same judge. Probably most efficient
that way. My suggested CFJs are:
> “All pure active players could have won by announcement on the Effective Date
> under rule 2580"
an
Rule 1472 says “A contract may also terminate by agreement between all
parties.” That’s what happened here. Per Merriam-Webster, the relevant
intransitive definition of “terminate” is to “come to an end in time.” I’m not
sure why a contract that has “come to an end in time” would still be thoug
G. wrote:
> It is no longer a contract, because no one agrees to it, which is basic
> to the definition of "contract". So it cannot own assets.
R1742 actually gives a definition of "contract":
Any group of two or more consenting persons (the parties) may
make an agreement among themse
14 matches
Mail list logo
