On 1/11/25 13:08, Mischief via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 1/11/25 12:48 PM, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
>
>> Hmm. I think I'd argue that, regardless, people who are doing that are
>> not truly subscribed to the forum. For instance, if mail-archive went
>> down but the lists themselves
On 1/11/25 12:48 PM, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
Hmm. I think I'd argue that, regardless, people who are doing that are
not truly subscribed to the forum. For instance, if mail-archive went
down but the lists themselves stayed up, I don't think we'd accept that
the lists have ceased t
On 1/11/25 12:46, Katherina Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Sat, 2025-01-11 at 12:44 -0500, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion
> wrote:
>> On 1/11/25 12:42, Katherina Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2025-01-10 at 00:47 +, ais523 via agora-business wrote:
Gratu
On Sat, 2025-01-11 at 12:44 -0500, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On 1/11/25 12:42, Katherina Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion wrote:
> > On Fri, 2025-01-10 at 00:47 +, ais523 via agora-business wrote:
> > > Gratuitous: I received a copy of this message with only four ">"
> > > charac
On 1/11/25 12:42, Katherina Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Fri, 2025-01-10 at 00:47 +, ais523 via agora-business wrote:
>> Gratuitous: I received a copy of this message with only four ">"
>> characters (the relevant portion is quoted above), so it is at least
>> possible for me to
On Fri, 2025-01-10 at 00:47 +, ais523 via agora-business wrote:
> Gratuitous: I received a copy of this message with only four ">"
> characters (the relevant portion is quoted above), so it is at least
> possible for me to tell that the original had a line starting with
> "From ". There are ind
On 1/10/25 12:33, 4st nomic via agora-discussion wrote:
> Gratuitous: i see 6 >. And no one can prove otherwise. Therefore, take this
> as an argument for IRRELEVANT: the transfer is specifying an ambiguous
> number of spendies, and is therefor invalid.
Is that a true statement? You haven't sent
Gratuitous: i see 6 >. And no one can prove otherwise. Therefore, take this
as an argument for IRRELEVANT: the transfer is specifying an ambiguous
number of spendies, and is therefor invalid.
--
4st
putting jesters cap back on, it fell off while mobile
On Thu, Jan 9, 2025, 4:37 PM Katherina Wals
On 3/25/24 18:10, nix via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 3/16/24 22:08, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
>> So, a potential point of disagreement here is what *exactly* this
>> standard is requiring. Importantly, I think it's unclear whether the
>> requirement for the "specification of the method
On 3/16/24 22:08, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> So, a potential point of disagreement here is what *exactly* this
> standard is requiring. Importantly, I think it's unclear whether the
> requirement for the "specification of the method" includes a requirement
> for the specification to be
On 3/16/24 14:58, nix via agora-discussion wrote:
> One quick thought to add: I suspect one or two people will want to
> reconsider this. If they do, I strongly suggest they come up with
> compelling arguments for why this was missed by every CFJ on Rule 105,
> every Promotor, and every player in 1
On 3/16/24 14:55, nix via agora-business wrote:
> Given that agoran tradition has suggested that this formulation works
> for at least 4 years and perhaps more than a decade, that no previous
> CFJ has raised any concerns about this (despite many CFJs scrutinizing
> Rules 105 and 106), and that "by
On 8/25/23 15:24, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote:
>
>> On Aug 25, 2023, at 10:34 AM, Katherina Walshe-Grey via agora-business
>> wrote:
>>
>> I CFJ: "It is generally POSSIBLE to alter the holder of the office of
>> Distributor without objection."
>>
>> This arose in Agoran't, whose rule
> On Aug 25, 2023, at 10:34 AM, Katherina Walshe-Grey via agora-business
> wrote:
>
> I CFJ: "It is generally POSSIBLE to alter the holder of the office of
> Distributor without objection."
>
> This arose in Agoran't, whose ruleset is still similar enough to Agora's
> that the same question
On 6/22/22 16:46, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote:
> CFJ, barring snail: At least one person was appointed Speaker in the
> quoted message.
>
>
> Arguments:
>
> At question is whether this clause in Rule 103/29:
>If the office of Speaker has been held continuously by the same
>
G. wrote:
On 6/12/2022 9:35 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
CFJ: "The entity at one point known as Rule 2658 is a Rule."
CFJ: "The entity at one point known as Rule 2658 has performed at least
one amendment of a Rule."
CFJ: "The entity at one point known as Rule 2658 has been amended
On 6/12/2022 12:43 PM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Sun, 2022-06-12 at 12:22 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
> wrote:
>> The Winds Died Down recently, beginning the procedure described in
>> R2658.
>>
>> It's pretty clear to me that all of the repeals of (1) went through,
>> an
On Sun, 2022-06-12 at 12:22 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
wrote:
> The Winds Died Down recently, beginning the procedure described in
> R2658.
>
> It's pretty clear to me that all of the repeals of (1) went through,
> and I can't think of an argument that those repeals failed.
The rule s
On 6/12/2022 9:35 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> CFJ: "The entity at one point known as Rule 2658 is a Rule."
>
> CFJ: "The entity at one point known as Rule 2658 has performed at least
> one amendment of a Rule."
>
> CFJ: "The entity at one point known as Rule 2658 has been amended
ais523 wrote:
I judge CFJ 3946 FALSE. I award myself Blue Glitter.
I award 9 BoC (549 coins) to ais523.
On 1/30/2022 4:02 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> Next, let's consider the case of a single player who is not grok.
>
> 1. Ratify without objection that "grok is a player." Grok has registered
> multiple times, and eir most recent registration was ended by
> deregistration for inacti
On 1/26/22 17:02, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote:
> On 1/26/2022 1:47 PM, Rose Strong via agora-business wrote:
>> I support.
> With 2 support, I group-file a motion to reconsider CFJ 3938.
>
> Gratuitous arguments:
>
> CFJs on the ratification of playerhood without consent:
>
> https://facul
On Thu, 30 Sep 2021, Ørjan Johansen via agora-discussion wrote:
On Thu, 30 Sep 2021, Sarah S. via agora-business wrote:
On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 9:14 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
CFJ: If R. Lee registers in October and doesn't publish a plan to f
On Thu, 30 Sep 2021, Sarah S. via agora-business wrote:
On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 9:14 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
CFJ: If R. Lee registers in October and doesn't publish a plan to flip
eir focus, eir focus would be flipped to Legislation on Nov 1.
On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 10:43 PM ais523 via agora-business
wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2021-09-04 at 01:23 -0400, Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote:
> > I hereby publish the following collection notice (NOT a self-
> > ratifying stone report):
> >
> > All stones are owned by Agora, and are thus immune. No
On Sun, Jun 06, 2021 at 03:19:56PM +, Falsifian wrote:
> > validly specified. This case is PARADOXICAL.
>
> Nit: I don't think you've actually assigned a judgement to this case.
> You didn't specify the action of assigning a judgement, nor did you
> announce that you performed it.
>
> --
> F
Aris wrote:
I have some final notes. First, we need to
resolve the cultural dissonance between
a model that is built to accept paradoxes
and one that is built to avoid them. Note
that neither of these models suggest that
we should go around legislating in a way
that causes paradoxes. The questio
On 5/16/21 2:00 PM, Falsifian via agora-business wrote:
I call two CFJs, and suggest that they be linked:
CFJ: With the above-quoted message, Trigon revoked 400 Coins from
Falsifian.
CFJ: With the above-quoted message, Trigon created one Victory Card in
Falsifian's possession.
[snip]
Argument
On 4/3/2021 4:52 PM, nix via agora-business wrote:
> On Sunday, March 28, 2021 11:08:30 PM CDT Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
>> I CFJ, barring R. Lee: "R. Lee's votes on the referendums on proposals
>> 8549 and 8552-8555 were clearly specified."
>
> I indicate I'm an interested judge, and
On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 09:18:38AM -0800, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
wrote:
> I'm considering a motion to reconsider this case, and would like comments.
>
> Reasons: ID Numbers are nowhere explicitly defined. So what's an ID
> number? It's a number used to ID a rule. Once a SLR has been
I'm considering a motion to reconsider this case, and would like comments.
Reasons: ID Numbers are nowhere explicitly defined. So what's an ID
number? It's a number used to ID a rule. Once a SLR has been published a
few times, it's clear that there's only one number that identifies a
particu
Proto: Make ISTIDing the default method for all CANs
On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 1:25 PM Gaelan Steele via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> The question at hand is whether the Rulekeepor assigning rule numbers
> works. The caller argues that it doesn't, because the rules specif
On 11/25/20 2:37 PM, nix via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 11/14/20 1:55 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
>> I CFJ: "On or about 00:15:33 UTC on 12 Nov 2020, in a message entitled
>> '[Stonemason] Throwing Stones', Jason made a pledge."
> Did you intend to/were you aware that you might have
On 11/14/20 1:55 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> I CFJ: "On or about 00:15:33 UTC on 12 Nov 2020, in a message entitled
> '[Stonemason] Throwing Stones', Jason made a pledge."
Did you intend to/were you aware that you might have been making a
pledge when you were writing the reference
On 11/14/2020 12:01 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
I CFJ: "On or about 00:15:33 UTC on 12 Nov 2020, in a message entitled
'[Stonemason] Throwing Stones]', Jason made a pledge."
Typo in the title of the message referenced. Might want to retract and
call the CFJ again.
--
ATMunn
frie
On 9/13/2020 3:41 AM, Reuben Staley via agora-business wrote:
On 9/6/20 6:47 PM, ATMunn via agora-business wrote:
On 8/30/2020 2:41 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote:
The below CFJ is 3880. I assign it to ATMunn.
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3880
=
On 2020-08-14 05:36, Byron Krane via agora-discussion wrote:
Gratuitous arguments: There is probably no lowest integer with this
property, because integers include negative numbers.
Also, hi, I'm still lurking, apparently. Hopefully adding DIS: to
title was automatic, I don't remember. (If not
> On Aug 13, 2020, at 10:57 PM, shelvacu via agora-business
> wrote:
>
> Because the integer x specified in the contract is information that is
> not publicly or generally available, all portions that depend on it are
> an "annex". Thus, revoking 5 coins was not effective because no part of
>
Side note to my side note: I misunderstood Gaelan's note. The hash
itself is completely random, I misread and though it was a hash /of/ a
value between 0 and 2^64-1 (a 64-bit value). As such, brute forcing with
all the world's ASICs would be on the order of 10^60 seconds, or 10^50
centuries.
On 8/
Gratuitous arguments: There is probably no lowest integer with this
property, because integers include negative numbers.
Also, hi, I'm still lurking, apparently. Hopefully adding DIS: to
title was automatic, I don't remember. (If not, sorry.)
--
Bayushi
On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 11:16 PM Gaelan S
On 8/3/2020 1:17 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 5:53 AM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>> On 8/3/20 3:38 AM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote:
>>> Judge's Arguments in CFJ 3869
>>>
>>> The question of th
On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 5:53 AM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 8/3/20 3:38 AM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote:
> > Judge's Arguments in CFJ 3869
> >
> > The question of the day is "Is sending a public message a regulated
> action?"
> > The cal
On 8/3/20 3:38 AM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote:
> Judge's Arguments in CFJ 3869
>
> The question of the day is "Is sending a public message a regulated action?"
> The caller argues that it might due to the interaction of two rules.
The reasoning itself is good, but the statement of the
On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 1:04 AM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 12:56 AM Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>> I would've loved to bring up this:
>> - CFJ 3737 (called 15 Jun 2019): Actions that the
On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 12:56 AM Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I would've loved to bring up this:
> - CFJ 3737 (called 15 Jun 2019): Actions that the rules state a player
> SHALL NOT perform are considered to be regulated actions.
> - R2471: "A person
I would've loved to bring up this:
- CFJ 3737 (called 15 Jun 2019): Actions that the rules state a player
SHALL NOT perform are considered to be regulated actions.
- R2471: "A person SHALL NOT make a public statement that is a lie. (...)"
DUN DUN DUUUN
But oh well, maybe some other time
On M
On 8/2/2020 11:26 AM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 2020-08-02 12:21, Falsifian via agora-business wrote:
>> Another argument:
>>
>> Even if the disclaimer does sit alone in its own message, it's also part
>> of Trigon's entire message, and it's not clear which "message" the
>>
On 2020-08-02 12:21, Falsifian via agora-business wrote:
Another argument:
Even if the disclaimer does sit alone in its own message, it's also part
of Trigon's entire message, and it's not clear which "message" the
disclaimer is referring to. Therefore, I don't think anything in a
message fro
Nothing personal, you were just the first Agoran in the judge list who I was
pretty sure was post 2017.
Gaelan
> On Jul 30, 2020, at 11:48 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion
> wrote:
>
> On 7/30/20 2:46 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-business wrote:
>> I CFJ: { Jason is not an interested judge.
On 7/30/20 2:46 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-business wrote:
> I CFJ: { Jason is not an interested judge. }
>
> EVIDENCE
>
> Proposal 7899 (Oct 2017) appended the following to rule 991 (calls for
> judgement):
>
> {
> The Arbitor's weekly report includes a summary of recent
> judicial c
On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 11:28 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-business
wrote:
>
>
> I support this.
>
> On reading the judgement, I'm quite amused, but left a bit dissatisfied.
> In particular, I don't see how this is different than other contract
> clauses that "affirm consent" via an elongated process
On 7/29/2020 4:06 AM, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote:
I motion to reconsider.
This fails; group-filing a Motion to Reconsider is a 2-support dependent
action.
--
ATMunn
friendly neighborhood notary and Czar of Russia :)
On 7/29/20 7:50 AM, Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion wrote:
> Difficult, yes, but formally IMPOSSIBLE?
Something something regulated actions.
--
Jason Cobb
Difficult, yes, but formally IMPOSSIBLE?
On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 1:34 PM ais523 via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2020-07-29 at 10:06 +0200, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote:
> > I motion to reconsider. The "A public message, after all, is evaluated
> only
>
I guess I was mistaken about the record length, so sorry for
that.
--
-twg
On 2020-07-04 7:11 p.m., Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via
agora-business wrote:
I established in my previous judgment on this case that an intent to
engage in a forbidden action is an attempt to perform a forbidden
action; however, the case is under reconsideration because it is unclear
whethe
On 7/3/2020 5:09 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
On 7/3/2020 1:45 PM, ATMunn via agora-business wrote:
Even if it turns out
my arguments are terrible and it gets reconsidered, I'm glad I put the
effort into it.
At a first read, this looks comprehensive and well-done. Thanks for
p
On 7/3/2020 1:45 PM, ATMunn via agora-business wrote:
> Even if it turns out
> my arguments are terrible and it gets reconsidered, I'm glad I put the
> effort into it.
At a first read, this looks comprehensive and well-done. Thanks for
putting in the substantial effort when you could have just
Cool, the fact that it's you doesn't matter to the CFJ itself (we judge
CFJs at the time they are called). Your vote was not withdrawn and your
second vote did not count.
On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 11:01 PM Unspecified Behavior via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun
On 6/30/20 8:50 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> On 6/30/20 6:57 AM, Becca Lee via agora-business wrote:
>> Whether or not the ballot satisfied the sixth condition for a valid
>> ballot is impossible to decide. This is because the anonymous player
>> was unsuccessful in retracting eir pre
>"the strong interest of the game"
oh hi it's you again
On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 8:11 AM Aris Merchant via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> Judge's Arguments in CFJ 3856
>
> omd's exploit is the most clever I have seen during my time as a player.
> Rule 1742, "Contracts" s
> On Jun 28, 2020, at 7:28 PM, nch via agora-business
> wrote:
> - If it refers to the announcement, what does it mean for an announcement to
> be valid or invalid? Does an invalid announcement fail to have effect?
I’d argue that being valid or invalid is not an inherent property of the
ann
On 6/28/20 9:28 PM, nch via agora-business wrote:
> There was some debate and disagreement about this in the discord the
> other night, so I think it's worth formally discussing.
As a tangent, I don't think I could've formulated this CFJ this well
without the previous discussion in discord. In my
On 6/27/2020 2:43 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> On 6/27/20 12:10 AM, omd via agora-discussion wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 6:12 PM James Cook wrote:
>>> I've thought it would be interesting to play a Nomic that starts with
>>> just one simple rule with text like "This is a Nom
On 6/27/2020 5:43 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via
agora-discussion wrote:
On 6/27/20 12:10 AM, omd via agora-discussion wrote:
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 6:12 PM James Cook via agora-discussion
wrote:
I've thought it would be interesting to play a Nomic that starts with
just one simple ru
to be fair, this might be different if i had not made it clear that i rule
you all like a monarch
On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 11:14 AM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 6:12 PM James Cook via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@ag
this nomic already exists: it's the ruleset of my discord server. nerds.
On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 11:10 PM nch via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 6/27/20 4:43 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> > On 6/27/20 12:10 AM, omd via agora-d
On 6/27/20 4:43 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On 6/27/20 12:10 AM, omd via agora-discussion wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 6:12 PM James Cook via agora-discussion
>> wrote:
>>> I've thought it would be interesting to play a Nomic that starts with
>>> just on
On 6/27/20 12:10 AM, omd via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 6:12 PM James Cook via agora-discussion
> wrote:
>> I've thought it would be interesting to play a Nomic that starts with
>> just one simple rule with text like "This is a Nomic; figure the rest
>> out.". Or just on rul
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 6:12 PM James Cook via agora-discussion
wrote:
> I've thought it would be interesting to play a Nomic that starts with
> just one simple rule with text like "This is a Nomic; figure the rest
> out.". Or just on rules written down explicitly.
Back in 2008, there was a short
On 6/26/20 9:18 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> I may have forgotten this case existed.
>
> Rule 2221 reads, in its entirety:
>
>> Rule 2221/7 (Power=3)
>> Cleanliness
>>
>> Any player CAN clean a rule without objection by specifying one or
>> more corrections to spelling, grammar, capitaliza
On 6/26/2020 6:14 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> On 6/26/20 9:11 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 16:08, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
>> wrote:
>>> On 6/26/2020 8:49 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
On 6/19/20 8:26 PM, Kerim Ay
On 6/26/20 12:04 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 6/26/2020 8:49 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
>> On 6/19/20 8:26 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote:
>>> The below CFJ is 3851. I assign it to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus.
>>>
>>> status: https://faculty.washin
On 6/26/20 9:11 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 16:08, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
> wrote:
>> On 6/26/2020 8:49 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
>>> On 6/19/20 8:26 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote:
The below CFJ is 3851. I assign i
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 6:12 PM James Cook via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 16:08, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> > On 6/26/2020 8:49 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> > > On 6/19/20 8:26 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-offi
On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 16:08, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On 6/26/2020 8:49 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> > On 6/19/20 8:26 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote:
> >> The below CFJ is 3851. I assign it to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus.
> >>
> >> status: https://
On 6/26/2020 8:49 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> On 6/19/20 8:26 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote:
>> The below CFJ is 3851. I assign it to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus.
>>
>> status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3851
>>
>> ==
On 6/23/20 10:15 PM, Ed Strange via agora-discussion wrote:
> This is silly for the following reasons. Actions like "With T notice" are
> called, by the ruleset, DEPENDENT ACTIONS. What do these actions depend on?
> They depend on a specific set of conditions being met, in this case 7 days
> passin
This is silly for the following reasons. Actions like "With T notice" are
called, by the ruleset, DEPENDENT ACTIONS. What do these actions depend on?
They depend on a specific set of conditions being met, in this case 7 days
passing. What does it mean to depend on objections? To have, in the
condit
On 6/21/2020 8:15 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> As Trigon points out, my message's subject might be more properly "BUS:
> TRIGON" rather than "TRIGON".
CFJ 3459 suggests we accept the evidence of a message's sender in terms of
what the subject line was when it was sent:
https://fac
On 6/21/20 4:11 PM, nch via agora-business wrote:
> On 6/20/20 9:37 AM, nch via agora-business wrote:
>> === CFJ 3853 ===
>>
>> Within the past week, Jason committed the crime of Uncertain
>> Certification.
>>
>> ===
On 6/20/2020 11:55 AM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 10:36 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On 6/19/2020 10:35 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote:
>>> These judgments are basically drafts. I'm assigning them because I've
>>> got to assign something, but I'm h
On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 10:36 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> On 6/19/2020 10:35 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote:
> > These judgments are basically drafts. I'm assigning them because I've
> > got to assign something, but I'm happy to rec
On 6/19/2020 10:35 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote:
> These judgments are basically drafts. I'm assigning them because I've
> got to assign something, but I'm happy to reconsider as appropriate. I
> think the core of the arguments should be good though.
I think your judgements as-is a
On 6/20/20 9:37 AM, nch via agora-business wrote:
> Also note a gratuitous argument [4] submitted at the time the CFJ was
> called which uses similar reasoning to arrive at a similar conclusion.
This is tacked on at the end because I actually didn't read this
gratuitous until I had written the re
>To be honest, I'm pretty sure
>that most of Agora's interpretative woes could be solved by rigorous
>application of the principle that language means what people think it means
>coupled with rigorous adherence to the text of the rules
Yep, I've always tried to (sometimes covertly) judge CFJs in p
On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 8:13 PM ATMunn via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> Speaking of ribbons, do I have to wait at all or can I immediately claim
> a Blue Ribbon for this?
>
You can do it immediately.
--
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate
Champion, Badge of the
Speaking of ribbons, do I have to wait at all or can I immediately claim
a Blue Ribbon for this?
On 6/13/2020 8:08 PM, ATMunn via agora-business wrote:
Caller's Arguments:
There's seemingly nothing stopping an impure person from Raising a
Banner if eir ribbon ownership allows, even though e's
On 6/12/20 1:44 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote:
>
> I CFJ: If an impure person Raises a Banner, eir Ribbon Ownership becomes
> the empty set but e does not win the game.
>
>
> Arguments:
>
> There's seemingly nothing stopping an impure person from Raising a Banner
> if eir ribbon ownersh
sure i favour this
On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 11:29 AM Jason Cobb via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I CFJ: "The game of Agora will never end."
>
> Evidence:
>
> {
>
> > Rule 101/17 (Power=4)
> > The Game of Agora
> >
> > Agora is a game of Nomic, wherein Persons, acti
Pienso que la declaración está efectiva por qué es probable que una proporción
significativa de los miembros de Agora hablen español y esta acción está
descrita en el texto en inglés. Si la explanación en inglés no está, pienso que
la situación esté diferente.
> On Jun 2, 2020, at 21:34, ATMun
> In order to determine which of these scenarios occurred, we need to look at
> R105, "Rule Changes". First, we can eliminate scenario 1. While Rule 105
> doesn't specifically lay out what occurs during amendment, we can assume
> that the former text of the rule no longer exists because it is fully
On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 7:41 PM Jason Cobb via agora-business
wrote:
> I CFJ: "The entity once known as Rule 2601 is a rule."
Argument: One of the universal principles of modifiable systems of
rules is that once a rule (or portion of a rule) is removed from the
system, that rule (or portion of a
On 4/12/20 8:12 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote:
> Arguments: After extremely careful and definitely not cursory thought, I
> think that the first sentence of R2601 succeeds. We generally accept the
> passive voice as being acceptable for rules to cause actions to occur, so I
> see no re
On Sun, 12 Apr 2020 at 19:41, Jason Cobb via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I CFJ: "The entity once known as Rule 2601 is a rule."
>
Arguments: After extremely careful and definitely not cursory thought, I
think that the first sentence of R2601 succeeds. We generally acc
On 4/6/2020 7:39 AM, Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote:
> And I certainly don't remember that second paragraph. However necessary it
> may be (to avoid AI=1 proposals defining higher powered rules to mean their
> opposite or whatever), it reads like actual nonsense at first glance.
> Although I
On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 12:36 AM Rebecca wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 12:28 AM Kerim Aydin via
> agora-discussiongora-discuss...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 4/6/2020 5:03 AM, Rebecca via agora-official wrote:
>> > I would like to note that I hate the rule 217 factors. I think they
>>
On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 12:28 AM Kerim Aydin via
agora-discussiongora-discuss...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> On 4/6/2020 5:03 AM, Rebecca via agora-official wrote:
> > I would like to note that I hate the rule 217 factors. I think they
> should
> > be abolished. And I think that my grammatical argum
On 4/6/2020 5:03 AM, Rebecca via agora-official wrote:
> I would like to note that I hate the rule 217 factors. I think they should
> be abolished. And I think that my grammatical arguments are enough to
> sustain the judgement.
Personally, I think your first judgement was sufficient (and good)
On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 at 02:04, Rebecca via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I think by whatever dictionary meaning of the word any you use, universal
> or existential, I can at least convince you all that the sentence is so
> ambiguous as to be unsolvable with pure Englis
1 - 100 of 909 matches
Mail list logo
