That doesn’t make sense. In this case, the number itself is the topping.
The property at issue isn’t something that’s being numbered, it’s the
number itself.
-Aris
On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 7:17 PM Rebecca wrote:
> Well no, you're asking for an impossible number of an existing topping. If
> you we
Well no, you're asking for an impossible number of an existing topping. If
you went into a burger king and said "i want this burger with 1/2 of an
extra pickle" the employee would say "we cannot cut these pickles in half,
but we will give you one extra pickle, the default number of extra pickles"
I thought about this earlier. The problem I have with it is that
there's no time at which the switch would fail to have a possible
value. If the specified value is invalid, you don't create a proposal
that would have an invalid value apart from that provision, you just
fail, at least under my theor
I'm actually coming round to D. Margaux's result now, but for a bit of a
different, more narrow reason. R2162(Switches) says:
If an
instance of a switch would otherwise fail to have a possible
value, it comes to have its
I can see where you’re coming from on this, but I guess I have a different
theory of how the speech act works. As far as I’m concerned, you’re
specifying an entity you want to bring into existence, and then doing so.
If you describe an impossible entity, then the entire thing just fails.
Otherwise,
Instead of being one whole, a part of which we are severing, a proposal's
usual form is implicitly making multiple speech acts like
"I create a proposal with this text"
"I choose to optionally specify this title"
"I choose to optionally specify these co-authors"
"I choose to optionally specify this
Well we're not rewriting the speech act. Textually, if you optionally
specify an AI, you have to specify a valid AI. If you don't do so, you have
failed to correctly optionally specify a valid AI, so that part fails. But
you haven't failed at the proposal itself and the other options, so they
succe
It is possible that you’re correct. However, you have failed to counter my
argument about the way speech acts work and the fact that we’re literally
rewriting statements to make them work at that point. You’re saying that
because something is invalid, it can be removed. Please explain why this
does
I think a proposal with an incorrect AI should be allowed to succeed
because an AI is optional. In my opinion only mandatory requirements should
be made to be met for something to succeed.
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 8:31 AM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I’d propose a d
I’d propose a different theory. Mine is cleaner and simpler, but I’m not
entirely sure which is actually better. Barring someone is a separate
action from calling the CFJ; it just has to be done in the same message. By
contrast, it’s a tad hard to argue that specifying the AI of a proposal is
someh
IANAAL (I am not an Agora lawyer).
I think that a key difference between those two scenarios is whether or
not the invalid action affects the gamestate. For instance, the AI of a
proposal is a key part of the proposal's identity, it will affect
whether or not it gets adopted, what it can do, e
On 6/30/2019 11:32 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
If a player does all that and also specifies that AI=e, I don't see why that
makes the CAN clause fail.
It's impossible to create a Proposal with AI=0.5. If I say "I create the
following proposal with AI=0.5" it's equally reasonably to say "no you
di
> On Jul 1, 2019, at 1:47 AM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>
> I’m strongly tempted to move to reconsider this, and apologize for failing
> to provide arguments earlier (honestly, I totally forgot about this case).
> I really don’t think this opinion adequately considers the other sensible
> possib
I agree that the judgment fails to consider the proposal never existing.
It seems that the Judge came to the conclusion of the proposal getting
the default AI instead of never existing without citing any text or
precedent (or, if e did, e at least failed to write about it).
I think you have a
I’m strongly tempted to move to reconsider this, and apologize for failing
to provide arguments earlier (honestly, I totally forgot about this case).
I really don’t think this opinion adequately considers the other sensible
possibility: that the proposal fails entirely.
To begin with, when someone
One possible interpretation is that the distribution had an AI, it just
happened to not be valid. Therefore it didn't lack an AI, so the
distribution was valid?
I know that's not great, and there's probably precedent on interpreting
Rule 107 that I'm not aware of, but it seems like a reading t
Actually, they are different.
The Proposal Distribution (not the Proposal) was CoE'd on the AI (the
Distribution listed the AI as 0.5, which is wrong regardless). Since AI is
an essential parameter, that means the attempt to distribute the proposal
and create a decision failed, by R107. (using
I created both because I thought that there might be some difference
between the rules for proposals and Agoran Decisions. Apparently not,
though :P.
Jason Cobb
On 6/30/19 8:47 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
Both 3744 and 3745 judged TRUE. Not sure what is the difference between them.
The question in
18 matches
Mail list logo
