On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 13:19, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Okay, here are my intended rewrites:
>
> 11. For the purposes of Buy and Sell Tickets, if the specified action
> is to vote in a certain manner on an Agoran decision, a party only
> fills eir obligation to take the spec
I wrote:
> root wrote:
>
>> BobTHJ's exact vote was "SELL(5VP) x5". This is five sell tickets,
>> each corresponding to a single vote, not one sell ticket corresponding
>> to five votes. However, ais523 only filled one of these tickets: "I
>> fill BobTHJ's open sell ticket on proposal 5707, ca
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Especially with democratization in play, root's vote is
> unambiguous: SELL (5 VP - AGAINST) x 3, unbought, thus
> (due to democratization) a single AGAINST.
That's the last thing it is given a collection of (some fairly
disinterested) parties argue for eit
root wrote:
> BobTHJ's exact vote was "SELL(5VP) x5". This is five sell tickets,
> each corresponding to a single vote, not one sell ticket corresponding
> to five votes. However, ais523 only filled one of these tickets: "I
> fill BobTHJ's open sell ticket on proposal 5707, causing em to endors
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 12:41, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> CoE: The publisher of the above CoE is not the Assessor. (The assessor
> didn't publish the original document, so e can't usefully deny CoEs on
> it anyways.)
>
> I don't think that's a genuine CoE (it's not obvious what it'
CoE: The publisher of the above CoE is not the Assessor. (The assessor
didn't publish the original document, so e can't usefully deny CoEs on
it anyways.)
I don't think that's a genuine CoE (it's not obvious what it's referring to),
but the document was published by the Monster deputising for the
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 12:01 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> root:
>>> False dilemma. It's also possible that your interpretation is wrong,
>>> in which case the proposal fails.
>> At least two people came up with that interpretation in goo
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Alexander Smith wrote:
> Goethe:
>> In this case of disagreement between parties (root vs. ais523) then you have
>> to
>> go to strict impartial logical interpretation etc.
>
> I thought you were a fan of equity? Besides, this is a case where a dispute
> in the meaning of a c
Goethe:
> In this case of disagreement between parties (root vs. ais523) then you have
> to
> go to strict impartial logical interpretation etc.
I thought you were a fan of equity? Besides, this is a case where a dispute in
the meaning of a contract affects something that should be determined en
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 11:50, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Contracts aren't algebra. Perhaps we should hear from BobTHJ about intent.
>> -G.
>>
> FWIW my intent was to sell all 5 of my votes for a total of 5VP.
>
> BobTHJ
If the two part
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 12:01 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> root:
>> False dilemma. It's also possible that your interpretation is wrong,
>> in which case the proposal fails.
> At least two people came up with that interpretation in good faith. It
> certainly isn't unambiguously
root:
> False dilemma. It's also possible that your interpretation is wrong,
> in which case the proposal fails.
At least two people came up with that interpretation in good faith. It
certainly isn't unambiguously wrong.
--
ais523
<>
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 11:57 AM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well my argument is that as many people put a different interpretation on it,
> you can't claim that you are /unambiguously/ correct; BobTHJ and I both went
> with a different, entirely reasonable, interpretation of the
root:
> No, my argument is that it's a conditional vote that, per the
> contract, creates a sell ticket when cast.
Well my argument is that as many people put a different interpretation on it,
you can't claim that you are /unambiguously/ correct; BobTHJ and I both went
with a different, entirely
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 11:54 AM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> SELL(5VP) does two things: it creates a sell ticket, and it casts a vote.
> Your argument, that SELL (5VP) is a conditional vote, would create the sell
> ticket at the time the proposal is resolved, which is clearly abs
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 11:50 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Contracts aren't algebra. Perhaps we should hear from BobTHJ about intent.
> -G.
I realize that. I was only casting it that way because ais523 was
insisting on interpreting the vote as an algebraic expression to be
parse
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 11:50, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Contracts aren't algebra. Perhaps we should hear from BobTHJ about intent.
> -G.
>
FWIW my intent was to sell all 5 of my votes for a total of 5VP.
BobTHJ
root wrote:
> It's not a macro. The agreement clearly refers to SELL(5VP) as being
> a conditional vote.
In that case, it has to be able to /retroactively/ create a sell ticket at the
time the voting period ends. Does the act of casting the vote create a sell
ticket? Voting and creating sell tic
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 11:24 AM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> root:
>>> FOO x 3 is our standard shorthand for casting three votes of FOO, not
>>> for casting a single vote of FOO x 3.
>>
>> Yes, but that doesn't help tell our two situations a
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> root:
>> To put it in algebraic terms, "FOO" expands to a vote. The
>> multiplication multiplies the number of votes. I don't see what's
>> ambiguous about that.
> The fact that FOO might not be a constant. It's ambiguo
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 1:29 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The ambiguity is in whether the SELL(5VP) or the x5 is expanded first. You
> seem to think the x5 is expanded first, but I still can't see any evidence
> for this view.
VOTE x 5 is, by game custom, shorthand for I perf
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 1:32 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Er, I'm afraid I don't see the relevance.
If multiple tickets were created, filling one would be sufficient to
require the voter to vote to eir limit. If two such tickets were
filled with different options, e'd be in trouble.
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 9:44 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 10:54 AM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Fails, the decision in question didn't exist when woggle attempted to
>>> democratise it, so eir actio
root:
> To put it in algebraic terms, "FOO" expands to a vote. The
> multiplication multiplies the number of votes. I don't see what's
> ambiguous about that.
The fact that FOO might not be a constant. It's ambiguous whether you're
multiplying the result of the expansion of one mention of FOO, o
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Yes, but that doesn't help tell our two situations apart, as it doesn't
>> explain whether "FOO" is expanded before or after the multiplication. As a
>> result, your vote probably fails altogether due to the ambiguity, as
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 11:24, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> root:
>> FOO x 3 is our standard shorthand for casting three votes of FOO, not
>> for casting a single vote of FOO x 3.
>
> Yes, but that doesn't help tell our two situations apart, as it doesn't
> explain whether "FOO" is
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 11:24 AM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> root:
>> FOO x 3 is our standard shorthand for casting three votes of FOO, not
>> for casting a single vote of FOO x 3.
>
> Yes, but that doesn't help tell our two situations apart, as it doesn't
> explain whether "FOO"
root:
> FOO x 3 is our standard shorthand for casting three votes of FOO, not
> for casting a single vote of FOO x 3.
Yes, but that doesn't help tell our two situations apart, as it doesn't explain
whether "FOO" is expanded before or after the multiplication. As a result, your
vote probably fail
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 11:12 AM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> root wrote:
>> The actual wording of the contract does not agree with you. "A vote
>> of SELL(X - Y) on an Agoran decision is equivalent to posting a Sell
>> Ticket with a cost of X and voting to endorse the filler of th
root wrote:
> The actual wording of the contract does not agree with you. "A vote
> of SELL(X - Y) on an Agoran decision is equivalent to posting a Sell
> Ticket with a cost of X and voting to endorse the filler of that
> ticket" 5 votes of SELL(X - Y), then, is plainly equivalent to
> postin
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 10:45 AM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, I didn't say which one. Also, I don't read SELL (5VP) like that at all.
> The obvious, and only equitable meaning, is that BobTHJ filed a sell ticket
> for 5VP, and then voted 5 times as required by the ticket; SE
Ian Kelly
Sent: Wed 01/10/2008 17:38
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal
5707
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 10:20 AM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I act on behalf of the Monster to deputise for the Assessor to se
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 09:26, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wooble wrote:
>> How much clearer could it be than specifying the exact ID number of
>> the proposal it intended to democritize?
> The intent is to democratise a decision, not a proposal. The decision in
> question didn't e
Wooble wrote:
> How much clearer could it be than specifying the exact ID number of
> the proposal it intended to democritize?
The intent is to democratise a decision, not a proposal. The decision in
question didn't exist,
so there is no way woggle can have referred to it.
--
ais523
<>
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 9:44 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 10:54 AM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Fails, the decision in question didn't exist when woggle attempted to
>> democratise it, so eir action failed due to not clearly specifying what
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Geoffrey Spear
Sent: Wed 01/10/2008 13:30
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I intend, with 2 support, to make the decisio
36 matches
Mail list logo
