I misremembered: I had everyone win by apathy. But here you go, G. The
textual theory was based on the fact that the rules that make "without
objection" actions have to wait 4 days actually says "with
objections". If that worked, it's been fixed (I believe by Aris). If
it didn't work, my Minor Fixe
That might be so, if the term wasn't defined by the rules. But Rule 1728
and Rule 2124 define the term comprehensively, clearly overriding the
common definition. The question here is how much leeway we have in
interpreting those rules.
-Aris
On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 5:25 PM Publius Scribonius Schol
That’s a very good point.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Aug 4, 2017, at 7:53 PM, V.J Rada wrote:
>
> It could well be textually that "without objection" means without any
> objection *ever* in the future because there's no time limit on that
> an
It could well be textually that "without objection" means without any
objection *ever* in the future because there's no time limit on that
and if anybody objects, there is objection.
On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 1:46 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> The rules arent't entirely silent though, R1728 says that
The rules arent't entirely silent though, R1728 says that without objection
actions can be done if all of the conditions on a list are true, and the list
has no time limit for "without objection".
Now, we might actually get lucky that, as pointed out by CuddleBeam a couple
months ago, the proces
I do think that the rules are inconsistent, but I also believe that if they are
not inconsistent, they are silent on how to do things without objection.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Aug 4, 2017, at 11:19 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> First l
First line of R217: "when interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the
rules takes precedence." Even if 20+ years of custom and precedents have
us playing like X, if someone points out that due to a typo, the rules very
clearly say "not X", then we discard the long custom. Custom only
The general precedent of game custom and behavior around this method.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Aug 3, 2017, at 5:53 PM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>
> Which precedent, where? Also, Agoran precedent isn't really "a reason why
> things happen".
Working on it.
-Aris
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 4:03 PM, V.J Rada wrote:
> My "minor fixes" proposal should be passed w/ all speed though because
> I don't want something actually important like the text of the ruleset
> at issue with this scam. I
>
> On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 8:53 AM, V.J Rada wrote:
My "minor fixes" proposal should be passed w/ all speed though because
I don't want something actually important like the text of the ruleset
at issue with this scam. I
On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 8:53 AM, V.J Rada wrote:
> We'll have to wait for murphy to judge the CFJ regarding this to sort
> out th
We'll have to wait for murphy to judge the CFJ regarding this to sort
out the game state, but if it did work it's fixed and if it didn't
work my pended proposal makes it unambiguous whenever it gets passed
so the only thing at issue is whether or not we're all winners.
On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 7:53
Which precedent, where? Also, Agoran precedent isn't really "a reason why
things happen". It's more a way to decide among the competing rule
interpretations, as people keep pointing out to me when the file motions to
reconsider my CFJs. :)
-Aris
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 2:30 PM Publius Scribonius S
I believe this clearly fails because of precedent.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Aug 3, 2017, at 2:57 AM, V.J Rada wrote:
>
> Sorry sorry sorry. But the rules do textually allow me to do this,
> although I am sure the rules will be construed by t
On Thu, 3 Aug 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-08-03 at 12:57 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 3 Aug 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> > > I'd have attempted to use the scam to close itself if I could think of
> > > a way to do so (either it fails, no big deal, nothing happens; or it
> >
On Thu, 2017-08-03 at 12:57 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Thu, 3 Aug 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> > I'd have attempted to use the scam to close itself if I could think of
> > a way to do so (either it fails, no big deal, nothing happens; or it
> > succeeds and thus there isn't a scam now), but I d
On Thu, 3 Aug 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> I'd have attempted to use the scam to close itself if I could think of
> a way to do so (either it fails, no big deal, nothing happens; or it
> succeeds and thus there isn't a scam now), but I don't think there is a
> way to use the scam to close itself; it
I think we're saying the same thing here - you were talking about an
"Effective counterscam", I was saying why bother, and you replied why
bother :)
Anyway, the best "counterscam" is probably to put out a retroactive
proposal "any without objection action that was performed less than
4 days afte
On Thu, 2017-08-03 at 11:49 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Is anything worth aiming for when anyone can ratify anything by
> announcement?
RWO explicitly can't change the ruleset. That makes it difficult to do
irreversible damage to the gamestate with it, even if it's possible to
RWO arbitrary docume
On Thu, 3 Aug 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-08-03 at 16:57 +1000, V.J Rada wrote:
> > Sorry sorry sorry. But the rules do textually allow me to do this,
> > although I am sure the rules will be construed by the already pending
> > CFJ to obviously not allow me to do this because it would
On Thu, 2017-08-03 at 16:57 +1000, V.J Rada wrote:
> Sorry sorry sorry. But the rules do textually allow me to do this,
> although I am sure the rules will be construed by the already pending
> CFJ to obviously not allow me to do this because it would be silly.
> But I can't not *try*
>
> I intend
20 matches
Mail list logo
