On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Yeah, exactly, looks like that would work. I might make it "explicitly"
permitted it the first sentence but that might be me being overcautious.
Still doesn't fix your worry about secrecy, though.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Timon Walshe-G
On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:
Is there any reason we’d want proposals resolved out of order? I don’t
see any off hand, but it’s worth making sure we’re not losing the
ability to easily clean up some mess.
In addition to what G. listed, there may be cases where it is _required_
(o
* don't think I've _ever_ used it. That was a typo, not an attempt at verbal
trickery,
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 11:58 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey
wrote:
> I would like to point out that neither of my proposals are even going to be
> adopted unless a larg
Yeah, exactly, looks like that would work. I might make it "explicitly"
permitted it the first sentence but that might be me being overcautious.
On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> Ah, I see now. So it should be something like:
>
> A party to a contract CAN perform any of the f
I would like to point out that neither of my proposals are even going to be
adopted unless a large swathe of people change their minds suddenly and against
character, so y'all are massively overthinking this...
As for the pledge, I agree with G., it's entirely unreasonable. The Assessor's
abili
Ah, I see now. So it should be something like:
A party to a contract CAN perform any of the following actions
as permitted by the contract's text:
* Act on behalf of another party to the contract.
* By announcement, destroy destructible assets in the
contract's possession.
* By an
No. Actions on behalf between persons are governed by R2466, which says
explicitly that the actor CAN use the same method the principal CAN. So
if the Rules say that Person A CAN transfer a currency "by announcement"
(which is covered in the Assets rules), and that Person B CAN act on
behalf
Well in that case it's similarly broken in the current rule as well, albeit
only for actions on behalf, not for currency transfers. No?
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 2:35 PM, Kerim Aydin
wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
>
> > On Su
I see potential impeachment as an additional rather than an alternative
disincentive
On Nov 27, 2018 12:16, "Kerim Aydin" wrote:
If I were the assessor, I wouldn't make this pledge personally. It's
far too constraining for a few votes, and as I mentioned there's some
good and valid reasons to
If I were the assessor, I wouldn't make this pledge personally. It's
far too constraining for a few votes, and as I mentioned there's some
good and valid reasons to resolve out-of-order, and 5 is a high bar.
Your original intent was just to make sure 8133 was resolved before the
others in this
There have been quite a few times where proposals in the same batch operate
on the same rule in an uncoordinated way, and someone realizes "hey, if these
are resolved in order, something fails, but in reverse order they both work
as intended". A simple request to the assessor fixes things easil
On Tue, 2018-11-27 at 08:20 -0800, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> Is there any reason we’d want proposals resolved out of order? I
> don’t see any off hand, but it’s worth making sure we’re not losing
> the ability to easily clean up some mess.
It could potentially work as a counterscam, but if we need t
Is there any reason we’d want proposals resolved out of order? I don’t see any
off hand, but it’s worth making sure we’re not losing the ability to easily
clean up some mess.
Gaelan
> On Nov 27, 2018, at 7:29 AM, Jacob Arduino wrote:
>
> Good catch
> I change my votes on Proposals 8135, 8137
CoV on 8138: AGAINST
Gaelan
> On Nov 27, 2018, at 6:35 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Nov 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
8138 twg 2.5 Access to contracts' assets
>
> I vote AGAINST 8138 and act on behalf of pokes
Sorry, missed a stipulation:
I change my votes on Proposals 8135, 8137, and 8138 to:
ENDORSE twg if e has made a public oath, specifying a time window of the
remainder of eir time as Assessor, to always resolve proposals in numerical
order, the breaking of which is a Class 6 crime
AGAINST otherwise
On Tue, 2018-11-27 at 10:13 -0500, Jacob Arduino wrote:
> Indeed I retract
You need to post the retraction to a public forum (typically agora-
business). Actions in agora-discussion don't work.
--
ais523
Indeed I retract
On Nov 27, 2018 09:48, "Kerim Aydin" wrote:
You may wish to retract these CFJs: if everyone agrees you were right
(well-spotted, btw) and Gaelan has changed eir votes so the issue is
moot, no need to litigate.
On Mon, 26 Nov 2018, Jacob Arduino wrote:
> CFJ: Gaelan's second
You may wish to retract these CFJs: if everyone agrees you were right
(well-spotted, btw) and Gaelan has changed eir votes so the issue is
moot, no need to litigate.
On Mon, 26 Nov 2018, Jacob Arduino wrote:
> CFJ: Gaelan's second ballot on Proposal 8136 is invalid.
> Supporting statement: Rule
On Mon, 26 Nov 2018, Jacob Arduino wrote:
8135 twg, D Margaux 2.0 Blot Decay (Reprise)
ENDORSE twg if the Agoran Decision of Proposal 8133 has been resolved
AGAINST otherwise
8137 Aris, twg, Trigon 3.0 Uncorrecting Rewards
ENDORSE twg if the Agoran Decision of Proposal 8133 has
On Sun, 25 Nov 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
8138 twg 2.5 Access to contracts' assets
No vote for now. I see an issue with this that I have to think about
(i.e. read the rules a few times to see if it's actually an issue).
There seems to be no methods as required by rule 2125.
20 matches
Mail list logo
