Mostly just throwing fuel on the fire and poking things, for fun :) (That's
why I'm not objecting officially.)
Firstly, "Ownership" takes precedence (by power) over "Promises", and the
actions happen in sequence, so Ownership takes precedence over Promises
which attempts to change the owner of the
On Tue, 2024-04-30 at 09:52 -0700, 4st nomic via agora-discussion
wrote:
> I object.
> Per Rule 2576 "Ownership", the asset goes into abeyance as soon as the
> owner is ambiguous.
> The owner becomes ambiguous at step 2, wherein we are not sure if ais523
> can take the asset due to the ensuing cont
On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 10:03 AM nix via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 4/30/24 11:52, 4st nomic via agora-business wrote:
> > I object.
> > Per Rule 2576 "Ownership", the asset goes into abeyance as soon as the
> > owner is ambiguous.
> > The owner becomes ambiguo
On 4/30/24 11:52, 4st nomic via agora-business wrote:
> I object.
> Per Rule 2576 "Ownership", the asset goes into abeyance as soon as the
> owner is ambiguous.
> The owner becomes ambiguous at step 2, wherein we are not sure if ais523
> can take the asset due to the ensuing contradiction.
> Theref
On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 9:52 AM 4st nomic via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I object.
> Per Rule 2576 "Ownership", the asset goes into abeyance as soon as the
> owner is ambiguous.
> The owner becomes ambiguous at step 2, wherein we are not sure if ais523
> can take
I object.
Per Rule 2576 "Ownership", the asset goes into abeyance as soon as the
owner is ambiguous.
The owner becomes ambiguous at step 2, wherein we are not sure if ais523
can take the asset due to the ensuing contradiction.
Therefore, both CFJs should be FALSE, as neither party can cash a promis
On Sun, 2024-04-28 at 15:38 -0700, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote:
> I was looking for (but couldn't find) one or two other cases that G. was
> involved in, along the lines of:
>
> * A player plays card X which gives em card Y, then plays card Y
> which retroactively negates eir pl
On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 10:25 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business
wrote:
> The only potentially relevant precedent that I was able to find was CFJ
> 3551, on whether a revision could be a duty-fulfilling report. In eir
> arguments, the caller states in eir arguments that "[a] revision is also
> a rep
On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 at 05:52, James Cook wrote:
> The obvious reading of 'Election speech: "X"' is that one
> is announcing X, and also noting that it is one's election speech.
(In case anyone was thinking of arguing that election speeches are
traditionally dishonest and therefore should be consi
On Sat., Jul. 6, 2019, 21:15 Kerim Aydin, wrote:
>
> On 7/5/2019 9:21 PM, James Cook wrote:
> > On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 at 04:18, James Cook wrote:
> >> I judge CFJ 3751 FALSE.
> >
> > However, I think the answer to the question Murphy was trying to ask
> > is TRUE. The message in G.'s gratuitous evi
On 7/5/2019 9:21 PM, James Cook wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 at 04:18, James Cook wrote:
I judge CFJ 3751 FALSE.
However, I think the answer to the question Murphy was trying to ask
is TRUE. The message in G.'s gratuitous evidence makes it very clear
that Murphy intends to place those votes. T
On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 at 04:18, James Cook wrote:
> I judge CFJ 3751 FALSE.
However, I think the answer to the question Murphy was trying to ask
is TRUE. The message in G.'s gratuitous evidence makes it very clear
that Murphy intends to place those votes. This seems to me like common
sense or basic
I think the problem is that you’re taking “only works if” in Murphy’s
original text and turning it into “works if and only if” or perhaps even
“works if”.
Ah, thank you. I did make a wrong assumption about that. Yeah, the rest
of my argument does crumble because of that.
For that would ma
Murhpy’s statement is true, it’s just incomplete. It’s not true that
unregulated actions CAN intrinsically be performed by announcement, but it
is true that regulated actions CANNOT be performed except as the rules
explicitly permit. To put this another way, there may be nothing in the
rules that s
Does this happen to be the thread
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg46478.html ?
If so, what ais523 seems to be saying (please forgive me if I
misunderstand) is what the Rules state about specifically regulated
actions. Obviously (well, maybe not so obviously give
I don't think sending a message saying you flip a switch causes the switch
to flip just because you said it and it's unregulated. I think this is the
"I say I do, therefore I do" (ISIDTID) fallacy someone told me about on
this list recently.
If I understand right, the only reason to describe regul
Reading this, I feel like it asserts that (at least) one of these two
things is correct, but I'm not sure which:
- If two different people claim to do the same thing, they are different
"actions" because different people do them. Person A triggering Side
Game Suspension is a different action t
I think the judgment effectively reads into the record this logic from
Trigon's recusal:
- I could judge breathing to be a regulated action, but the rules say
that I SHALL NOT, so I don't
- I could judge that the Rules do not prohibit contract from the parties
breathing, but I think that's c
How about we have a non-binding Agoran decision on this CFJ? To gauge the
will of the populace.
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 2:30 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> Doesn't judging a CFJ based on what we plan to do after it kind of go
> against the idea of "resolve it as if at the time it was created"?
>
> Also,
Doesn't judging a CFJ based on what we plan to do after it kind of go
against the idea of "resolve it as if at the time it was created"?
Also, is it wise to judge CFJs based on political expediency? I do
realize that people just continually voting to overturn judgments isn't
helpful for anyone
I’m for this solution. Moots are kinda lousy at consensus building, due to
the limited number of voting options.
-Aris
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 8:39 PM Rebecca wrote:
> why don't we just judge this cfj irrelevant because no consequences can be
> imposed for any crimes anyway, and nobody would si
why don't we just judge this cfj irrelevant because no consequences can be
imposed for any crimes anyway, and nobody would sign such a stupid contract
as the one at issue here, and then moot the issue by passing a fix proposal
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 1:34 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> Why would this go
Why would this go to moot when we could just endlessly group-file
motions to reconsider?
Jason Cobb
On 6/20/19 11:31 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I feel like we're hitting a binary decision point with a split group of
players so I'm guessing this is Moot-bound regardless (FWIW, I'm with
R. Lee on t
I feel like we're hitting a binary decision point with a split group of
players so I'm guessing this is Moot-bound regardless (FWIW, I'm with
R. Lee on this one so far).
On 6/20/2019 7:45 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
And to think this all could have been avoided if people had just kept my
original
Yeah, I’d agree with that. It doesn’t seem like that’s what the judge is
doing though. The judge seems to be saying that that interpetation is
*correct*, but that e can’t judge the case on that basis.
-Aris
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 7:38 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> I think to consider a forbidden inte
And to think this all could have been avoided if people had just kept my
original judgement and take the fall for interpreting the rules so as to
proscribe unregulated actions as they clearly do.
On 6/20/19 8:38 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
I think to consider a forbidden interpretation and then expli
I think to consider a forbidden interpretation and then explicitly
reject it probably would not run afoul of this SHALL NOT.
Jason Cobb
On 6/20/19 7:56 PM, omd wrote:
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 4:58 AM D. Margaux wrote:
In my opinion, this case is logically undecidable because the facts of the
"The performance of an action" is just a fancy way of saying "doing an
action", "the performance" changes nothing in my opinion. "Limit" is
sufficiently capacious to say "i'm limiting the performance of this action
by saying you are not allowed to be doing that action like that". We do
have to use
I can find more reputable dictionaries but "limit" is certainly capacious
enough to include a prohibition by law. For example if Congress "limits"
campaign finance donations, it doesn't physically stops them, it prohibits
them.
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 12:30 PM Rebecca wrote:
> The definition as
I maintain that a SHALL NOT limits the permissibility of an action, not its
performance. If the rule referred to a limit on an action, rather than the
performance of an action, I might agree with you.
-Aris
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 7:28 PM Rebecca wrote:
> Limit, the first definition off of goog
The definition as verb is to "
set or serve as a limit (the noun) to" so it's just the same
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 12:29 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> That's the definition of "limit" as a noun, not a verb. Rule 2125
> clearly uses it as a verb.
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 6/20/19 10:28 PM, Rebecca wrote:
That's the definition of "limit" as a noun, not a verb. Rule 2125
clearly uses it as a verb.
Jason Cobb
On 6/20/19 10:28 PM, Rebecca wrote:
Limit, the first definition off of google
"a point or level beyond which something does not or may not extend or
pass."
does not = CANNOT, may not = SHA
Limit, the first definition off of google
"a point or level beyond which something does not or may not extend or
pass."
does not = CANNOT, may not = SHALL NOT (or MAY NOT) . It fits directly from
the definition and from common sense. and from what the rule's intent was
and what it means to do.
O
Using your interpretation of "limit" would certainly get us out of this
specific case, but it would set some ugly precendent about the word that
I'm not sure I'm comfortable with.
On 6/20/19 6:49 PM, Rebecca wrote:
I agree with omd. Once again, the only good solution is to follow my
interpreta
Hey, I do not object to being granted a win by paradox :P.
Jason Cobb
On 6/20/19 8:49 PM, Rebecca wrote:
I agree with omd. Once again, the only good solution is to follow my
interpretation of the word "limit". Additionally, I strongly object to
whoever called this CFJ being granted a win by par
I agree with omd. Once again, the only good solution is to follow my
interpretation of the word "limit". Additionally, I strongly object to
whoever called this CFJ being granted a win by paradox, because they
haven't found an actual paradox!
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:57 AM omd wrote:
> On Thu, J
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 4:58 AM D. Margaux wrote:
> In my opinion, this case is logically undecidable because the facts of the
> case create a legal paradox: the contract states that breathing is
> prohibited, but it's ILLEGAL to interpret it to say that it says what it
> says. That is a parado
Whoops sorry, that was non sens
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 7:16 AM Rebecca wrote:
> omd found th
>
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 3:27 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>>
>> Nice find - thanks!
>>
>> On 6/20/2019 10:19 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
>> > omd pointed out this CFJ [0] that decided that "interpeting the ru
omd found th
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 3:27 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> Nice find - thanks!
>
> On 6/20/2019 10:19 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> > omd pointed out this CFJ [0] that decided that "interpeting the rules"
> means
> > to do it in a formal setting rather than just reading them and thinking,
> a
Nice find - thanks!
On 6/20/2019 10:19 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
omd pointed out this CFJ [0] that decided that "interpeting the rules" means
to do it in a formal setting rather than just reading them and thinking, and
that to interpret the rules in a formal context is a regulated actions.
[0]
omd pointed out this CFJ [0] that decided that "interpeting the rules"
means to do it in a formal setting rather than just reading them and
thinking, and that to interpret the rules in a formal context is a
regulated actions.
[0]:
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/ms
It's all one clause? I don't think it can be subdivided into subclauses
sensibly. (or am I misunderstanding are you talking about other sentences).
On 6/20/2019 9:18 AM, Rebecca wrote:
But of course, the latter clause would override the former in a conflict.
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 2:00 AM
But of course, the latter clause would override the former in a conflict.
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 2:00 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> lol. I just noticed that "The Rules SHALL NOT be interpreted so as to
> proscribe unregulated actions" can be directly interpreted as proscribing
> unregulated action
lol. I just noticed that "The Rules SHALL NOT be interpreted so as to
proscribe unregulated actions" can be directly interpreted as proscribing
unregulated actions.
(because "interpreting rules" is something we all do continuously in an
unregulated fashion, whenever we play the game).
On 6/20
See eg. CFJ 3635 where I held that "allowed" generally means both "CAN" and
"MAY" because "allowed" meant to remove the obstacles placed in the way of
the said action by the rules, which both impossibility and illegality are.
The exact same logic applies to this case, where the rule takes two metho
just hold that to limit encompasses SHALL NOT, that's clearly what it means
and it fits well within the confines of "limit" and doesn't break the game.
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 9:58 PM D. Margaux wrote:
> I offer this proto for comment.
>
> ***
>
> Judge Trigon recused emself believing that no va
I offer this proto for comment.
***
Judge Trigon recused emself believing that no valid judgement could be entered
in this CFJ.[1] As the newly assigned judge, I am required by Rule 591 to
assign to this CFJ a "valid" judgement. The law does not require me to assign
an "appropriate" judgement
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 10:50 AM Aris Merchant
wrote:
> Secondly, yes, there are. Specifically, a SHALL or a SHALL NOT doesn’t
> limit the *performance* of an action, they limit the *permissibility* of an
> action. This interpretation means that there is no superfluous or
> ineffective text in R21
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 10:35 AM D. Margaux wrote:
> > On Jun 18, 2019, at 11:59 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > In eir first judgement,
> > Judge Trigon opined that, in R2125, in this list:
> >
> >> An action is regulated if: (1) the Rules limit, allow, enable, or
> >> permit its performa
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 10:34 AM D. Margaux wrote:
>
>
> > On Jun 18, 2019, at 11:59 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > In eir first judgement,
> > Judge Trigon opined that, in R2125, in this list:
> >
> >> An action is regulated if: (1) the Rules limit, allow, enable, or
> >> permit its per
> On Jun 18, 2019, at 11:59 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> In eir first judgement,
> Judge Trigon opined that, in R2125, in this list:
>
>> An action is regulated if: (1) the Rules limit, allow, enable, or
>> permit its performance;
>
> include synonyms for CAN, CANNOT, and MAY, but no s
I know I said I liked that reasoning before, but I've done some thinking
about some possible counter-points:
I'll point out that Rule 2125 ("Regulated Actions") has higher power
than Rule 1742 ("Contracts"), which might suggest that this bar on such
an interpretation should take precedence ove
There's actually two separate issues raised. In eir first judgement,
Judge Trigon opined that, in R2125, in this list:
> An action is regulated if: (1) the Rules limit, allow, enable, or
> permit its performance;
include synonyms for CAN, CANNOT, and MAY, but no synonyms for SHALL or
S
The reasoning by R. Lee as described by G. below seems sound to me. I plan to
adopt it as the reasons for judgement on 3737, unless someone gives me
persuasive arguments to the contrary.
> On Jun 17, 2019, at 3:45 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> I think V.J. Rada had it right - the Rules don't
I suppose that makes sense. Though that does make me wonder if contracts
can specify a crime other than a Class 2 Crime, since this clause
doesn't say otherwise.
Jason Cobb
On 6/17/19 3:45 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I think V.J. Rada had it right - the Rules don't punish breathing, they
punish b
I think V.J. Rada had it right - the Rules don't punish breathing, they
punish breach-of-contract. The fact that breach-of-contract comes from
breathing doesn't make the rules "reach into the contract" to regulate
breathing.
In particular this phrase in R1742 is interesting:
Parties to a
Sorry, by the contract not prohibiting breathing, I meant that the
contract can say it prohibits breathing all it wants, but the Rules will
not _enforce_ criminal liability for violations of that, thus the Rules
wouldn't proscribe breathing.
Jason Cobb
On 6/17/19 2:29 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
Both can be easily proven factually incorrect.
Breathing is unregulated because the contract clearly does not allow,
enable, or permit its performance, and the "SHALL NOT" in the contract
does not limit its performance.
The contract does prohibit breathing; one only needs to look in a
dictio
Whoops, modify both of those statements to only apply in the hypothetical.
Jason Cobb
On 6/17/19 2:20 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
You have two options that I can see (without being guilty of a crime).
Either
- Breathing is a regulated action, or
- The contract does not prohibit breathing.
Jason C
You have two options that I can see (without being guilty of a crime).
Either
- Breathing is a regulated action, or
- The contract does not prohibit breathing.
Jason Cobb
On 6/17/19 2:20 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
Ah, indeed! So we have our conflict.
I SHALL NOT interpret the rules so as to p
Ah, indeed! So we have our conflict.
I SHALL NOT interpret the rules so as to proscribe unregulated actions.
The contract mandates a proscription on breathing, which is an
unregulated action.
By these two facts, I cannot come to the obviously correct conclusion
that the contract proscribes a
On 6/17/2019 8:10 AM, Reuben Staley wrote:
Does a "SHALL NOT" really count as "proscription"? I reiterate that,
assuming a player has been given permission elsewhere, e still CAN perform
an action that the rules state e SHALL NOT perform.
From the dictionary I get:
Proscribe -
forbid, espec
Does a "SHALL NOT" really count as "proscription"? I reiterate that,
assuming a player has been given permission elsewhere, e still CAN
perform an action that the rules state e SHALL NOT perform.
On 6/16/19 3:47 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
This judgment is contradictory. By Rule 2125 [0], the Rules c
We just discussed this last week! Yes, the rules CAN proscribe unregulated
actions and do in fact. it's just illegal to formally interpret them that
way, whether or not that interpretation is legally correct.
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 2:27 PM omd wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 5:47 PM Jason Cobb
Remember that the same rule is also what says that if the Rules define
an action, then you can't do it outside of how the Rules say that you
can [0]. I don't think we want to repeal that.
[0]: Excerpt from Rule 2125 ("Regulated Actions")
{
A Regulated Action CAN only be performed as des
But it's a truism that the rules only regulate what they regulate, we don't
need a special rule to say what is already implicit.
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 9:49 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On 6/16/2019 4:28 PM, Rebecca wrote:
> > G., I strongly suspect, very strongly, that there is a body of precede
Simply striking the last sentence of the Rule would suffice...
Jason Cobb
On 6/16/19 7:28 PM, Rebecca wrote:
G., I strongly suspect, very strongly, that there is a body of precedent on
regulated actions. Do you know anything about that before we get too hasty?
I create and pend the below propo
On 6/16/2019 4:28 PM, Rebecca wrote:
> G., I strongly suspect, very strongly, that there is a body of precedent
> on regulated actions. Do you know anything about that before we get too
hasty?
>
> I create and pend the below proposal
>
First, why the heck would you repeal that as a solution?
This judgment is contradictory. By Rule 2125 [0], the Rules cannot be
interpreted to proscribe (prohibit) unregulated actions. Since you judge
that breathing would NOT be regulated, then the rules do not prohibit
breathing, yet you state otherwise in your judgment:
> Any parties to this theore
I like it. It seems to be a direct logical consequence of the judgment
(although this might get you an IRRELEVANT judgment).
Jason Cobb
On 6/16/19 5:09 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On 6/16/2019 1:45 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
My judgement is as follows:
When a player "SHALL NOT" perform an action,
On 6/16/2019 1:45 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
My judgement is as follows:
When a player "SHALL NOT" perform an action, e "violates the rule in
question" [Rule 2152 "Mother, May I?"]. Any parties to this theoretical
contract would still be able to breate but to do so would violate the rule.
Whe
On Sunday, February 10, 2019 5:08 PM, Edward Murphy wrote:
> Revoking coins isn't an abstract math operation, it's destruction of
> assets. "Revoking negative coins" can't occur, for the same reason that
> "punching the King of England" can't occur right now.
Exactly, thank you.
-twg
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-09-28 at 10:14 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > When I wrote that rule, I (being American) specifically chose the
> > British spelling, it was kind of an experiment to see if people would
> > rigidly stick to it. I've been impressed that it too
On Fri, 2018-09-28 at 10:14 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> When I wrote that rule, I (being American) specifically chose the
> British spelling, it was kind of an experiment to see if people would
> rigidly stick to it. I've been impressed that it took this long to
> raise the question! (and I belie
On Fri, 28 Sep 2018, D Margaux wrote:
> Accordingly, I judge that the spelling of “Honour” as “honor” does not defeat
> the EFFECTIVEness of Trigon’s Notice of Honour.
When I wrote that rule, I (being American) specifically chose the British
spelling,
it was kind of an experiment to see if pe
On Mon, 25 Jun 2018, Rebecca wrote:
> wasn't this overhauled? in a cfj by alexis banning future conditionals
> in votes? i don't know where I am anymore.
Proposal 7922 last October fixed the Rule to make it absolutely clear
that it's evaluated at the end of the voting period. IIRC it was
follo
wasn't this overhauled? in a cfj by alexis banning future conditionals
in votes? i don't know where I am anymore.
Situationally, though, it evaluates as FOR. ais's hypothetical
situation in which infinite people vote that way means only that if
infinite people voted with this conditional, the vote
Nope, votes are the exception to that. Votes are evaluated at the time
of resolution.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 7:40 PM, Rebecca wrote:
> We evaluate votes at the time they are cast (iirc, unless we added
> future conditionals back in). This vote, under the cir
We evaluate votes at the time they are cast (iirc, unless we added
future conditionals back in). This vote, under the circumstances, was
a conditional with sufficient context within the game state. If
somebody made a vote like this without any previous context, it may be
ambiguous. Under these circ
On Mon, 2018-06-25 at 09:22 +1000, Rebecca wrote:
> Corona voted in this way
> "> I vote on these proposals in such a manner that, in a hypothetical
> > alternate gamestate identical to the current one except for me never
> > sending the message immediately before this one, and this message not
> >
On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> I find it funny how IRRELEVANT is a special case of DISMISS lol
>
> It's like: "This is bogus- but a SPECIAL kind of bogus!"
I was inspired to look at a history for this. TRUE and FALSE were
always there, but the rest of the scheme was:
1993 - UNDECI
I find it funny how IRRELEVANT is a special case of DISMISS lol
It's like: "This is bogus- but a SPECIAL kind of bogus!"
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 8:31 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> For something "out of play" IRRELEVANT might be best because distim and
> doshes
> aren't rules defined or describ
For something "out of play" IRRELEVANT might be best because distim and doshes
aren't rules defined or described, so don't have anything to do with earning
shinies, so whether someone distimmed eir doshes is irrelevant to the state of
shinies.
IRRELEVANT is also appropriate for your first asser
But yeah its a fuzzy line tbh. I can see your line of reasoning, it's like
one of those illusions where you can force your eye to make the ballerina
seem to rotate one way or the other.
I just wanted to mention that below lol because my head would feel
constipated otherwise and I think its a cool
To delve a bit further into it because I think its very interesting,
assuming that "Did he distim the doshes?" is judged DISMISS as I suspect it
would, what about "Did the distimming of the doshes per se make him earn a
Shiny?"
So basically, "He distimmed the doshes" => therefore => "he earned a
No it was meant as friendly discussion mainly!
I think the difference is semantic - If a thing is rules-described I tend
to think of "failed things" as still being some version of that thing, so
an "invalid bid" is still something that's there (as opposed to ooga boogas
that aren't there at al
Is this a Motion to Reconsider? I don't mind it if you deem it necessary.
(I personally don't think its too weird to consider "DISMISS" for a
statement like "Could a Ooga Booga have shinies?" or "Did he distim the
doshes?", which even if it can be read and seems to make language sense,
it's absurd
By saying there's insufficient information, you imply that you accept
the bid as POSSIBLE in the first place, because if the bid wasn't a
bid at all, the answer would be FALSE no matter what.
On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Statement: "were Gaelan’s bid of i on Quazie’s zombie auctio
I, unfortunately, can not CFJ on it this week, but I will on Monday.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 1:42 AM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> Interesting.
>
> Your message mail.gmail.com> appears to spend the Shinies, and was correctly sent to
> the public forum. Stripping
If this is the case then there was an error in the last report of the
office tracking shinies, because I was charged the pending fee. Anyways,I
submit the following proposal:
{{{
Title: Agora's To-Do List (v2/ov1)
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
Enact a rule title
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 9:38 PM, Sprocklem S wrote:
> I judge CFJ 3479 FALSE.
>
> Judges arguments:
>
> I'm inclined to agree that “formatting errors” is not an objective
> criteria. Additionally, even if it weren't too ambiguous, it seems like
> it would set a bad precedent to allow such difficul
もう一つの問題をご検討願います。「天火狐」には、不可欠な言葉遊びがあります。「あまつ」＋（「か＋ぎつね」）で、火を統御する天狐の意味であるが、「てんか」＋「ご」と異分析され、落雷を統御する霊狐になります。さらに、「てんか」の読みは「天下」まだは「天花」と書けることがあり、洒落が入り込ませます。「天火狐」の字訳は意味を置き去りにするから、お勧めしません。
しかし、あれこれ考えてみると「あまつかぎつね」と読みのほうが好まれています。別の解決策が見つかないならば、「あまつかぎつね」の字訳まだは翻訳を使てくれます。
天火狐
On 6 January 2017 at 14:08, Kerim A
On Mon, 2014-08-04 at 21:29 -0400, Tanner Swett wrote:
> Gratuitous arguments for CFJ 3424: I would have considered "adoption
> index of a rule" to be an unambiguous synonym of "power of a rule",
> since there's no other actual thing that it could refer to. (I guess
> it could refer to a rule's hyp
Gratuitous arguments for CFJ 3424: I would have considered "adoption index of a
rule" to be an unambiguous synonym of "power of a rule", since there's no other
actual thing that it could refer to. (I guess it could refer to a rule's
hypothetical adoption index, even though there's no such thing.
On Thu, 2 Jan 2014, Sprocklem wrote:
> On 14-01-02 10:45 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > The Speaker SHALL assign judges over time such that all
> > interested players have reasonably equal opportunities to judge.
>
> How would one go about determining how interested players are?
>
> > When a Motion
On 14-01-02 10:45 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
The Speaker SHALL assign judges over time such that all
interested players have reasonably equal opportunities to judge.
How would one go about determining how interested players are?
> When a Motion to Reconsider is so filed, the case is rendered
> ope
On Fri, 3 Jan 2014, omd wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 12:42 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > [This isn't the absolute simplest judgement system, but it's probably
> > the simplest that allows for appeals and such. And it is much simpler
> > than the current.
>
> FOR, although seems odd to keep the
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 12:42 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> [This isn't the absolute simplest judgement system, but it's probably
> the simplest that allows for appeals and such. And it is much simpler
> than the current.
FOR, although seems odd to keep the YES and NO bit.
>During a Moot, any
On Fri, 3 Jan 2014, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-01-02 at 15:42 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > I submit the following Proposal, Mostly Simple Judging, AI-2:
> >
> >
> >
> > [This isn't the absolute simplest judgeme
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 7:10 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> I might go even further by allowing players to just judge any CFJ any
> time they felt like it, and appeals would be handled via piling on
> dissenting opinions. There wouldn't be a hard yes/no answer at the end
> of it, but Agora's judicial syst
1 - 100 of 400 matches
Mail list logo
