Goethe wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Goethe wrote:
>>> For buying votes typod by a number, it might depend on whether you quoted
>>> the posted sell ticket or just announced that you bought it without context?
>>> An ID-number mistake, where ID-numbers are the primary means of
On Thursday 20 November 2008 08:34:08 pm comex wrote:
> Sure, Murphy and root obviously
> intended to make the decisions to adopt the proposals Democratic,
> not the proposals themselves, but Agora is not in the habit of
> interpreting messages to mean what the sender meant. In fact,
> quite the o
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Goethe wrote:
>> For buying votes typod by a number, it might depend on whether you quoted
>> the posted sell ticket or just announced that you bought it without context?
>> An ID-number mistake, where ID-numbers are the primary means of identifying
>> propo
Goethe wrote:
> For buying votes typod by a number, it might depend on whether you quoted
> the posted sell ticket or just announced that you bought it without context?
> An ID-number mistake, where ID-numbers are the primary means of identifying
> proposals (CFJ I-forget-which) is in fact a s
comex wrote:
> Maybe this is Agoran custom. Well, B's custom of extremely literal
> interpretations has yielded a culture of conservatism-- scamming is
> considered rude.
I don't know which instance of B you're playing, but the one I'm
playing has been hit with so many scams since the adoption o
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 8:33 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 5:57 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It is unreasonable to extrapolate the chamber of a proposal (as
>> distinguished from its decision) from AI, as AI serves no purpose
>> chamber-wise other than
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008, comex wrote:
> I actually didn't expect that the clause would generate so much
> controversy.
It hasn't really... that's just me. :)
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There are essentially two situations in which an anti-scam judge might
> deliver a pro-scam judgement: when the anti-scam interpretation would
> set a precedent contrary to the best interests of the game, or when
> the scam is
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You know, maybe we're putting a little *too* much weight on precedent
>> over judge's discretion? I think a better way to do it is put more
>> weight on sustaining original judge's arguments (even if we disagree with
>> the
On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 10:33 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
> >> Scams are and have been rendered ineffective for the most trivial
> >> reasons (annotations, decrease by -1), yet anti-scams with glaring
> >> mistakes are considered effective?
> > This is actually
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
>> Scams are and have been rendered ineffective for the most trivial
>> reasons (annotations, decrease by -1), yet anti-scams with glaring
>> mistakes are considered effective?
> This is actually something that annoys me too. I suppose arguably R217
> provide
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008, comex wrote:
> Scams are and have been rendered ineffective for the most trivial
> reasons (annotations, decrease by -1), yet anti-scams with glaring
> mistakes are considered effective?
Burden of proof does tend to lie with scammers against what Agora
generally "intended and
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> People who talk to me informally will know that I often informally refer
> to the AI of a rule, which is equally incorrect.
And equally, a Proposal which purported to set a Rule's AI would be ineffective.
Upon review of the
On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 12:59 -0500, comex wrote:
> I myself was around only during the most recent R106 definition of
> O/P, but yes, I think that the older the concept has existed, the more
> people might have been players while it was defined...
>
> For one thing... I personally actually did get
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 12:26 PM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 4. In a later email, comex used, as eir argument, a version of the
>> Rule by Swann (I think?) that had been out of the ruleset for years.
>> I really, really find it hypocritical that -- if I've been following
>> arguments
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
>> 2. In any case, I was comparing comex's Feb 08 dates with your arrival.
>> I should note that, if some cleanup/fix proposal to remove old language
>> was something you personally had a hand in, shouldn't you personally
>> be well aware of the situation an
On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 09:07 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I was mixing a response to two separate posts by comex, sorry that they
> were muddled, but they weren't lies. Some points/clarifications:
>
> 1. The Feb '08 change predates you and ehird, personally as players, if
> I read the registrati
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008, comex wrote:
> Remember, this is a situation
> where the "old rule" (not really that old, tbh) would have satisfied
> the literal meaning of the intent and the new rule does not.
Overall, I'm happy to go along with your contention that old rules
which are no longer in the
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008, comex wrote:
> And all that has to exist is ambiguity.
We don't use theoretical ambiguity as in "it's possible somewhere
that someone could have misinterpreted it" but practical ambiguity
"a reasonable player would have found it ambiguous". Other than
someone who sees it,
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
> Even more importantly, Rule 2126/52 said "VVLOP" until 21 June 2008;
> that definitely isn't ancient history. I amended it to "VVLOD" in rule
> 2125/53 myself. "*that happened before you registered in the game and
> you never saw*"? I fixed it myself! Of co
On 21 Nov 2008, at 16:01, comex wrote:
(*I* was a player then, and so were Murphy and root, dunno about
ais523)
ais523 = april/may this year
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 10:29 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let me get this straight--- you and ehird honestly and truly believe
> that a change *that happened before you registered in the game and
> you never saw* can be reasonably confused with an old rule? (Apologies
> if I've go
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 11:00 AM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I shouldn't have taken Goethe on trust that it's a very old change,
> either... Goethe, I sort-of would have expected comex to lie about old
> rules, but you?
Wait, what? When have I ever lied about old rules?
(and ffs, I
On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 15:49 +, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 07:29 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
> > > I support. If someone says something not in the rules with an intent to
> > > perform an action, normally it is reasonable to presume they me
On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 07:29 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
> > I support. If someone says something not in the rules with an intent to
> > perform an action, normally it is reasonable to presume they meant the
> > correct version not the incorrect version (per R7
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
> I support. If someone says something not in the rules with an intent to
> perform an action, normally it is reasonable to presume they meant the
> correct version not the incorrect version (per R754); however, if the
> rules in question have recently change
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 8:39 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I object, as Murphy's arguments and my response point out that this is
> unreasonable.
Which arguments? root clarified that the most recent time that this
was defined was not February 2008 but December 2007. Indeed, a
"Democr
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 8:33 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 5:57 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It is unreasonable to extrapolate the chamber of a proposal (as
>> distinguished from its decision) from AI, as AI serves no purpose
>> chamber-wise other than
28 matches
Mail list logo
