Did the below proposals ever get resolved? -G.
On 6/22/2019 4:37 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
CoE: This leaves out my votes on Telnaior's behalf, which change the
outcome of at least one proposal I think (8184).
On 6/22/2019 11:43 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
I hereby resolve the Agoran decisions to
On 7/1/2019 10:54 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
What would people feel about bringing that requirement back? I’d make it a
Class 1 crime, not committable more than once in a week, and with
exceptions for emails sent primarily in an official or judicial capacity.
Why don't we just make it a "should
What would people feel about bringing that requirement back? I’d make it a
Class 1 crime, not committable more than once in a week, and with
exceptions for emails sent primarily in an official or judicial capacity.
-Aris
On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 10:07 PM Rebecca wrote:
> People should, as used to
Just to be clear, my comments were not at all directed at you specifically,
just about the issue in general.
-Aris
On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 8:11 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> Eh, I thought 8197 was taking advantage of a neat little bug. I'd also
> kind of like to see how R106 is interpreted with a non-n
People should, as used to be required by law, signature their emails with
their preferred Agoran names, I feel.
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 2:43 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> That all looks fine, thanks for resolving it quickly.
>
> Side note, I see in your quote introduction that it says "Falsifian". I am
That all looks fine, thanks for resolving it quickly.
Side note, I see in your quote introduction that it says "Falsifian". I am
not Falsifian, I go by Jason Cobb (although I really don't care if that's
shortened or anything). I just don't want any confusion :).
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019, 12:36 AM Edw
Forwarded Message
Subject: Re: DIS: Proto: Moots are moot
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2019 21:08:27 -0700
From: Edward Murphy
To: ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
ais523 wrote:
This doesn't actually allow indefinite motions to reconsider (e.g. in
cases where a judge is repeatedly insisting
twg wrote:
C C D C F E
C C D C G F
C C c A F E E D
B♭ B♭ A F E F
CoE: We repealed those rules like years ago.
Happy birthday, Agora! I'd award myself a Magenta ribbon, but (a) I'm
late as usual and (b) I've already got one.
Falsifian wrote:
CoE: Rance is the Herald. E published a Herald's report by
deputisation on June 4.
Right after that last response, it occurred to me that this might have
gotten stomped on by self-ratification. But records show that the only
ADoP report I published after that was on June 17, a
Oh true, I forgot about the proposal pool indeed.
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 1:05 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You can CoE it because it makes the proposal list, which is self-ratifying,
> invalid.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 8:04 PM Rebecca wrote:
>
> > T
You have been but I just resigned the office, so you can take it back,
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 1:04 PM Edward Murphy wrote:
> Falsifian wrote:
>
> > CoE: Rance is the Herald. E published a Herald's report by
> > deputisation on June 4.
>
> Admitted, database corrected. This appears to have been s
You can CoE it because it makes the proposal list, which is self-ratifying,
invalid.
-Aris
On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 8:04 PM Rebecca wrote:
> These aren't real CoEs anyway, remember. There's no obligation for
> proposals to be distributed at the same time. So you can't really CoE an
> omission, on
These aren't real CoEs anyway, remember. There's no obligation for
proposals to be distributed at the same time. So you can't really CoE an
omission, only finger point an untimely one.
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 1:00 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> *OH.* Whoops. Yeah,
*OH.* Whoops. Yeah, it's good. For some reason (maybe because the
number was the same? my error in any case) I was sure that the link
was the same as in your previous email; it definitely wasn't though.
Yeah, your CoE totally worked.
-Aris
On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 7:58 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> The
The link I pasted was (my attempt at) sending it to the public forum. Is
replying and setting the to address to agora-business not enough?
Jason Cobb
On 7/1/19 10:55 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
Roger on the proposal, and again, I'm sorry. It's your CoE that's NttPF.
-Aris
On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at
Roger on the proposal, and again, I'm sorry. It's your CoE that's NttPF.
-Aris
On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 7:52 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> It's fine. It's not urgent in light of the judgment on CFJ 3737, so it
> can just wait. Also, it was submitted to the public forum here [0].
>
> [0]:
> https://mail
You're very much welcome. I'm glad I've helped. You remind me a lot of
myself as a new player. :) Good luck in your future endeavors, and
never be afraid to ask for help if you need it.
-Aris
On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 9:36 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> I pay 5 coins to Aris for all of the help that e h
It's fine. It's not urgent in light of the judgment on CFJ 3737, so it
can just wait. Also, it was submitted to the public forum here [0].
[0]:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-July/040745.html
Jason Cobb
On 7/1/19 10:48 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
Ntt
NttPF.
On the merits, accepted, with my sincere apologies. I could patch this
by submitting a revised distribution now, but then the proposal might
not reach quorum (quorum is 7 ATM, which is pretty high, and people
tend to forget to vote on special distributions). Or I could wait and
put it in th
That doesn’t make sense. In this case, the number itself is the topping.
The property at issue isn’t something that’s being numbered, it’s the
number itself.
-Aris
On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 7:17 PM Rebecca wrote:
> Well no, you're asking for an impossible number of an existing topping. If
> you we
Well no, you're asking for an impossible number of an existing topping. If
you went into a burger king and said "i want this burger with 1/2 of an
extra pickle" the employee would say "we cannot cut these pickles in half,
but we will give you one extra pickle, the default number of extra pickles"
No, I just didn't state my regret specifically on that one haha, it seems
fine.
And having my zombie vote FOR proposals that i swore to oppose and destroy
is counter to my intent, if not the pledge's wording.
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 12:07 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> Are you strongly against 8196 (I k
Claim of error: I submitted the proposal "Regulated actions reform (v2)"
here [0].
[0]:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-June/040719.html
Jason Cobb
On 7/1/19 9:55 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the A
Are you strongly against 8196 (I know that it adds text)? Is there
something materially wrong with it that I should fix later?
Also, you could make Tarhalindur vote FOR the ones that you can't due to
your pledge (I think, depending on the wording of the pledge).
Jason Cobb
On 7/1/19 10:04 PM
ttpf
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 12:03 PM Rebecca wrote:
> Reminder that I am still pledged to vote AGAINST anything that adds words
> to the rules
>
> I vote as follows. I also act on Tarhalindur's behalf to vote as follows.
>
> 8196 Jason Cobb, Falsifian 1.7 Perfecting pledges (
Reminder that I am still pledged to vote AGAINST anything that adds words
to the rules
I vote as follows. I also act on Tarhalindur's behalf to vote as follows.
8196 Jason Cobb, Falsifian 1.7 Perfecting pledges (v1.2)
AGAINST
8197 G. none no power is all powerful
AGAINST
I thought about this earlier. The problem I have with it is that
there's no time at which the switch would fail to have a possible
value. If the specified value is invalid, you don't create a proposal
that would have an invalid value apart from that provision, you just
fail, at least under my theor
I'm actually coming round to D. Margaux's result now, but for a bit of a
different, more narrow reason. R2162(Switches) says:
If an
instance of a switch would otherwise fail to have a possible
value, it comes to have its
Switches need to specify a default value or they have a default value
of "null", which has the same problem.
-Aris
On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 3:27 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> You could just state that
>
> > "none" is not a valid value for the adoption index of proposals.
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 6/23/1
I can see where you’re coming from on this, but I guess I have a different
theory of how the speech act works. As far as I’m concerned, you’re
specifying an entity you want to bring into existence, and then doing so.
If you describe an impossible entity, then the entire thing just fails.
Otherwise,
Instead of being one whole, a part of which we are severing, a proposal's
usual form is implicitly making multiple speech acts like
"I create a proposal with this text"
"I choose to optionally specify this title"
"I choose to optionally specify these co-authors"
"I choose to optionally specify this
Well we're not rewriting the speech act. Textually, if you optionally
specify an AI, you have to specify a valid AI. If you don't do so, you have
failed to correctly optionally specify a valid AI, so that part fails. But
you haven't failed at the proposal itself and the other options, so they
succe
It is possible that you’re correct. However, you have failed to counter my
argument about the way speech acts work and the fact that we’re literally
rewriting statements to make them work at that point. You’re saying that
because something is invalid, it can be removed. Please explain why this
does
I think a proposal with an incorrect AI should be allowed to succeed
because an AI is optional. In my opinion only mandatory requirements should
be made to be met for something to succeed.
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 8:31 AM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I’d propose a d
I’d propose a different theory. Mine is cleaner and simpler, but I’m not
entirely sure which is actually better. Barring someone is a separate
action from calling the CFJ; it just has to be done in the same message. By
contrast, it’s a tad hard to argue that specifying the AI of a proposal is
someh
Is there a judgment on whether a proposal can have an adoption index of
"none"? The one CFJ I can think of was on elections, nothing to do with
proposals. G. initiated a proposal with AI="none". As far as I know,
nobody challenged that, and, if adopted, it would have some interesting
effects on
The current standing judgements AFAICT are "ain't broke - don't fix".
This relies on assuming "no AI" == "AI='none'" but two judges have
agreed with that reading.
On 7/1/2019 11:32 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:
I don’t think this is a great idea. It seems like a rather large addition
of rule text
I think it's good to prohibit "none" from being an AI for a proposal -
it makes it easier to reason about the rest of the Rules that touch
proposals, and it might make bugs less likely for later changes that
touch AIs - you don't have to think about proposals having an AI of
"none" (even if an
IANAAL (I am not an Agora lawyer).
I think that a key difference between those two scenarios is whether or
not the invalid action affects the gamestate. For instance, the AI of a
proposal is a key part of the proposal's identity, it will affect
whether or not it gets adopted, what it can do, e
I don’t think this is a great idea. It seems like a rather large addition
of rule text to fix one specific incidence of a larger problem.
-Aris
On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 11:30 AM Jason Cobb wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
>
>
> Title: Proposal AI fix
>
> Author: Jason Cobb
>
> AI: 3
>
>
Ooh, I like questions about the currency system.
I favour this CFJ.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, July 1, 2019 3:29 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> I award myself the Patent Title "nouveau riche" by paying a fee of 1 Coin
> for this sole purpose.
>
> [To avoid any sort of no f
On 6/30/2019 11:32 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
If a player does all that and also specifies that AI=e, I don't see why that
makes the CAN clause fail.
It's impossible to create a Proposal with AI=0.5. If I say "I create the
following proposal with AI=0.5" it's equally reasonably to say "no you
di
42 matches
Mail list logo
