2008/5/30 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Perhaps not explicitly, but you never disclaimed authorship either,
> and the message has a From: header with your name on it. What would
> be the inference of a person unfamiliar with the prior CFJ?
>
> -root
>
OK, there may be confusion, but it was uni
2008/5/30 Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Wow, an almost exact copy-paste of my attempt to win by paradox, even
> down to copying the same argument with the names changed.
I must point out that we were talking over IRC when you said that I could do it.
ehird
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I never claimed I authored that cfj anyway
Perhaps not explicitly, but you never disclaimed authorship either,
and the message has a From: header with your name on it. What would
be the inference of a person unfamiliar wit
2008/5/30 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Doubtful. R2149 doesn't offer exemptions just because another player
> gave you permission.
>
> -root
>
I never claimed I authored that cfj anyway
ehird
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/5/30 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> I wonder if outright plagiarism like this could be in violation of
>> R2149 with respect to truthfulness in claim of authorship?
>>
>> -root
>>
>
> Does ais523's consent count?
Do
2008/5/30 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I wonder if outright plagiarism like this could be in violation of
> R2149 with respect to truthfulness in claim of authorship?
>
> -root
>
Does ais523's consent count?
ehird
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 3:32 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I call for judgement on the following statement: {{comex CAN initiate
> an equity case concerning the Gnarlier Contract}}.
>
> [SNIP]
I wonder if outright plagiarism like this could be in violation of
R2149 with respect to
ehird wrote:
> I call for judgement on the following statement: {{comex CAN initiate
> an equity case concerning the Gnarlier Contract}}.
(snip)
Wow, an almost exact copy-paste of my attempt to win by paradox, even
down to copying the same argument with the names changed. We certainly
do need some
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 4:49 PM, Ben Caplan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 29 May 2008 12:41:27 Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> Your ability to create a paradoxical contract without the
>> support of a majority of players which makes information required to
>> judge a case logically
On Thursday 29 May 2008 12:41:27 Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> Your ability to create a paradoxical contract without the
> support of a majority of players which makes information required to
> judge a case logically impossible for the judge to ascertain isn't the
> same as an ability to tric
root wrote:
> On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(snip)
>>
>> But there isn't such a rule, and the whole point of awarding wins by
>> paradox is (or should be, anyway) about paradoxes that are actually in
>> the rules. Your ability to create a paradoxical c
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 1:12 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> my gnarlierness depends on the interpretation of the rules (for
>> instance, if there were a rule "Whenever an exiled entity is ever
>> not a
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 1:12 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> my gnarlierness depends on the interpretation of the rules (for
> instance, if there were a rule "Whenever an exiled entity is ever
> not a player, e is registered", it would cause the same sort of
> trigger loop as this
13 matches
Mail list logo
