It wouldn't gut contracts because anything specified by a Contract _is_
regulated under the rules. It's just designed to prohibit _criminal_
liability for "interpret[ing]" the rules.
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 1:56 PM James Cook wrote:
> On Proposals 8180 through 8187 I vote as follows, where "AGA
The below report is also missing D. Margaux's 2019-06-03 reward, but
it won't self-ratify because it's already CoE-ed. The "fresh" report
at [0] already includes the update.
[0] https://agoranomic.org/Treasuror/reports/weekly/fresh.txt
On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 at 01:59, James Cook wrote:
>
> I publis
On Jun 11, 2019, at 5:53 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> [My recent posts included all the info in a Gazette in a minimal form,
> so I might as well call it a Gazette while waiting for any
> corrections... more complete-form Gazettes in the future...]
>
> I deputise for the Arbitor to publish the follo
Yeah, I could have phrased that a lot better, couldn't I? Sorry. :P
If Murphy chooses not to address the 2019 election (or doesn't notice the
dates) I will resubmit the CFJ with better grammar.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Wednesday, June 12, 2019 3:10 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
If we happen to be amending that rule anyway, could we also replace "inquiry
case" with "Call for Judgement"? I know there're several CFJs saying that it
works fine as a synonym even though "inquiry case" isn't defined any more, but
it confused me to no end the first few times I read the rules a
Actually, the "cite a relevant existing inquiry case" part needs a
public qualification too. How about moving it up a level:
Replace:
do one of the following in a timely fashion:
with
do one of the following in a timely fashion, in an announcement
that clearly cites the claim of error:
On
Any verbs that are "speech verbs" (e.g. object, doubt, support, deny,
claim, etc.) are assumed to be doable by email virtue of the factual
evidence of the email that constitutes the act - so for those we say
it needs to be public, but we don't have to specify "by announcement".
But "publicly and cl
It's still unclear what method a player can use to "deny" a claim (or even what
a denial is).
What about this:. "publicly and clearly announce that the claim is denied" or
"publicly and clearly deny the claim by announcement"
> On Jun 12, 2019, at 6:01 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> I submit th
It won't self-ratify even then. The resolution of a CFJ doesn't
"cause it to cease to be a doubt" the way a denial of claim does. The
only way to make it undoubted post-CFJ is to either just publish a
"new" document, or re-CoE the old one (which gives the publisher an
opportunity to deny the clai
No, report won't self ratify unless the CFJ says players CAN expunge blots
> On Jun 12, 2019, at 4:40 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> So does this just mean that you will publish an updated report after the
> resolution of the CFJ? Can this self-ratify before the CFJ gets a judgment?
>
> Jason Cobb
So does this just mean that you will publish an updated report after the
resolution of the CFJ? Can this self-ratify before the CFJ gets a judgment?
Jason Cobb
On 6/12/19 4:35 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
I resolve this by reference to CFJ 3734
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 4:24 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
Un
Sorry, I'm being an idiot - I was looking back and forth between
things and got the SHOULD/SHALL thing backwards backwards.
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:44 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> To me, OUGHT is closer to SHOULD than SHALL, and it bears a tinge of
> reproach (you ought not to have done that).
I’m sorry, but I’m confused. Did anyone propose to turn it into a SHALL?
-Aris
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:45 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> To me, OUGHT is closer to SHOULD than SHALL, and it bears a tinge of
> reproach (you ought not to have done that). In particular, if you
> look at the single pla
To me, OUGHT is closer to SHOULD than SHALL, and it bears a tinge of
reproach (you ought not to have done that). In particular, if you
look at the single place it's used, in R2231, that's clearly (to me
anyway) a SHOULD not a SHALL: "As this title is the highest honour
that Agora may bestow, a Be
I think they cover mostly the same semantic area. There might be some
difference around the edges, but the two expressions both seem to fit the
provided definition.
-Aris
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:20 AM Jason Cobb wrote:
> That seems like a reasonable distinction to me, at least.
>
> Jason Cob
That seems like a reasonable distinction to me, at least.
Jason Cobb
On 6/12/19 2:18 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
To my ear, "ought" means something slightly different from "should." I would have thought
that "ought" means that something is required from a moral perspectivd, while should doesn't. But
To my ear, "ought" means something slightly different from "should." I would
have thought that "ought" means that something is required from a moral
perspectivd, while should doesn't. But maybe I'm wrong and they're synonymous..?
> On Jun 12, 2019, at 2:05 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> Why do peop
Why do people not like OUGHT? I get the issue with contractions, not
really OUGHT, though.
Jason Cobb
On 6/12/19 2:03 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
I vote and cause L to vote as follows:
8180 Trigon, D Margaux 1.0 Paying our Assessor
FOR
8181 D Margaux, [1]1.7 Referee CAN Impose F
On Jun 12, 2019, at 12:28 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:40 AM D. Margaux wrote:
>> Under R2154, “In a timely fashion after the nomination period ends, the ADoP
>> CAN and SHALL” initiate an Agoran decision to resolve that PM “election.”
>
> ...
>
> Obviously the flipp
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:40 AM D. Margaux wrote:
> Under R2154, “In a timely fashion after the nomination period ends, the ADoP
> CAN and SHALL” initiate an Agoran decision to resolve that PM “election.”
IMO one of the biggest recurring grammatical issues in the Rules is
whether "CAN and SHALL
Oh wow. That’s funny. I didn’t even notice that that was for a prior year
election. Lol.
This made me notice another big problem. There is an ongoing “election” under
Rule 2154, and I don’t think there’s any way to terminate it!
Here’s why:
Several weeks ago, an “election” for PM was “initia
It's trivially TRUE in the context of the ~July 6 election (and based on
how the CFJ is worded, that's enough for a trivial TRUE without addressing
the current election, that twg was intending to address).
BUT, in terms of the matter twg was trying to get at, Corona gave consent in
the context
Gratuitous arguement: Seems to be TRUE to me. Corona subsequently
became a zombie, but I see no rules that would retract a player's
consent to holding office upon becoming a zombie, nor are there any
prohibitions against zombies being elected to offices. Not sure what
I'm missing, but seems stra
23 matches
Mail list logo
