Pseudo-judgement of CFJ 1718:
The message in question has no substantive effect, regardless of
the identity of its submitter.
I recommend a CFJ regarding the proposal "Support Ordinary" (or
purported proposal, if submitted by a non-player). I recommend
reading up on Steve's Spam Scam, then runni
root, care to swap pseudo-judgements on these?
Zefram wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > A knight SHALL NOT publish statements that e believes are
> > > false. A knave SHOULD NOT publish statements that e
> > > believes are true.
>
> Yuck. That sounds completely unworkable. It's definitely a recipe for
> confusion, espec
BobTHJ, you sent your votes to a-d again.
Zefram wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> 5124 AGAINST
>
> What's the problem with proper disinterest? Having the penalty apply
> to disinterested proposals provides a perverse incentive for people
> to vote on disinterested proposals contrary to their actual opinion of
> the proposal. That's
Zefram wrote:
> Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Gunner Nomic 2.0 0 1 1 0
>
> Per CFJ 1697, Gunner Nomic 2.0 is not and never has been a player.
I disagree with that judgement, hence my current attempt to appeal
it. If it doesn't get 2 support, I'll update the report accordingl
root wrote:
> Now that the matter no longer has any bearing on Partnerships thanks
> to the new, improved Rule 2145, I would like to reiterate my appeal of
> CFJ 1682 in the hopes of garnering more support. I still find fault
> in the logic of the Judge's arguments, and it seemed at the time that
root wrote:
> On a somewhat related note, are the various partnerships aware that if
> CFJ 1684 is sustained, they will not have been considered persons
> until the adoption of R2145 and will need to have registered
> subsequent to that event to be considered players?
Acutely. Five months worth
Zefram wrote:
>> Amend Rule 2126 (Voting Credits) by removing "ordinary".
>
> Which instance of it?
Whoops, there is indeed more than one. Will fix later.
Zefram wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Citizenship is a person switch with values Null (default) and
>> Registered, tracked by the Registrar. A player is a person
>> whose citizenship is Registered.
>
> So an entity that is a person and then ceases to be a person immediately
>
"Really Generalize Dependent Actions" will need to be revised
if "refactor voting limits" is adopted. Will deal with it later.
Zefram wrote:
>> This CAN+SHALL pattern appears again later, suggesting that the
>> definition of "SHALL" should be amended to include "can, unless
>> explicitly prohibited by the rules".
>
> Nonono! That would defeat the point of MMI. CAN and SHALL are orthogonal
> concepts, and MMI resolves t
Zefram wrote:
> When a judicial case requires a judge and has no judge assigned,
> the CotC CAN assign a qualified entity to be its judge by
> announcement. Whenever this situation arises the CotC SHALL
> make such an assignment as soon as possible.
MMI does not define "C
To answer Wooble and Zefram's questions about Wooble's voting
limits: Rule 2126 delays changes to voting limits until the
start of the next week, including the initialization of a
player's voting limits when e registers. As such, Wooble is
unable to effectively vote on Proposals 5062 through 5074
14 matches
Mail list logo
