On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 8:09 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Rule 217 is clear; the text of the rules takes precedence, and the text of
> the rules says that me cashing an infinite promise is equivalent to me
> cashing it; it specifies no termination condition.
If that's what the rules say, then the rul
G. wrote:
Well, sounds like you, I, and Pavitra are on the same page. In re-reading
the thread, I disagree with Murphy that CFJ 2737 was ignored or applied
incorrectly; you're simply saying that "Promises" are more like the "cards"
example in that CFJ than the "Pledges" example, because both pr
On 15 November 2011 23:18, ais523 wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 17:34 -0500, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 13:20, ais523 wrote:
>> >> Promises are very much rules-supported. The rules don't *explicitly*
>> >> allow infinite chains, but they're written in such a way that you have
>>
On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 17:34 -0500, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 13:20, ais523 wrote:
> >> Promises are very much rules-supported. The rules don't *explicitly*
> >> allow infinite chains, but they're written in such a way that you have
> >> to infer an unwritten extra rule to *suppres
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 13:20, ais523 wrote:
>> Promises are very much rules-supported. The rules don't *explicitly*
>> allow infinite chains, but they're written in such a way that you have
>> to infer an unwritten extra rule to *suppress* infinite chains.
>
> Why are people arguing about this, w
On 11/15/2011 02:43 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, 15 Nov 2011, Pavitra wrote:
>> Proto fix: the text of a promise can create, but not cash, a promise.
>
> When written, I envisioned finite chaining should be possible and
> could be fun (think: cascading actions, analogy to the employme
On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 12:43 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 15 Nov 2011, Pavitra wrote:
> > Proto fix: the text of a promise can create, but not cash, a promise.
>
> When written, I envisioned finite chaining should be possible and
> could be fun (think: cascading actions, analogy to the
On Tue, 15 Nov 2011, Pavitra wrote:
> Proto fix: the text of a promise can create, but not cash, a promise.
When written, I envisioned finite chaining should be possible and
could be fun (think: cascading actions, analogy to the employment
round of blognomic here...)
Maybe just "A promise can
On Tue, 15 Nov 2011, ais523 wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 10:16 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > In that case, what do you think happens for the non-conditional case:
> >Promise 1: I sit and cash Promise 2.
> >Promise 2: I lie down and cash Promise 1.
> >I cash promise 1.
> I think i
On 11/15/2011 12:29 PM, ais523 wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 10:16 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> In that case, what do you think happens for the non-conditional case:
>>Promise 1: I sit and cash Promise 2.
>>Promise 2: I lie down and cash Promise 1.
>>I cash promise 1.
>
> Also, that
On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 10:16 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> In that case, what do you think happens for the non-conditional case:
>Promise 1: I sit and cash Promise 2.
>Promise 2: I lie down and cash Promise 1.
>I cash promise 1.
I think it actually leads to an infinite number of posture
On 11/15/2011 12:16 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 15 Nov 2011, ais523 wrote:
>> On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 20:09 -0500, Sean Hunt wrote:
This falls afoul of the precedent in CFJ 2737 (itself an extension of
the precedent in CFJ 1584), for the same reason that CFJ 3121 did.
h
On Tue, 15 Nov 2011, Pavitra wrote:
> On 11/15/2011 12:01 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On Mon, 14 Nov 2011, Sean Hunt wrote:
> >>> This falls afoul of the precedent in CFJ 2737 (itself an extension of
> >>> the precedent in CFJ 1584), for the same reason that CFJ 3121 did.
> >>>
> >>> http://zenith
On Tue, 15 Nov 2011, ais523 wrote:
> Why are people arguing about this, when my judgement was that the
> infinite chain works, but messages containing infinitely many
> conditional actions don't for much the same reason a message containing
> a million conditional actions wouldn't?
I think some
On 11/15/2011 12:20 PM, ais523 wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 12:14 -0600, Pavitra wrote:
>> On 11/15/2011 12:01 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> On Mon, 14 Nov 2011, Sean Hunt wrote:
> This falls afoul of the precedent in CFJ 2737 (itself an extension of
> the precedent in CFJ 1584), for the sam
On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 12:14 -0600, Pavitra wrote:
> On 11/15/2011 12:01 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On Mon, 14 Nov 2011, Sean Hunt wrote:
> >>> This falls afoul of the precedent in CFJ 2737 (itself an extension of
> >>> the precedent in CFJ 1584), for the same reason that CFJ 3121 did.
> >>>
> >>> h
On Tue, 15 Nov 2011, ais523 wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 20:09 -0500, Sean Hunt wrote:
> > > This falls afoul of the precedent in CFJ 2737 (itself an extension of
> > > the precedent in CFJ 1584), for the same reason that CFJ 3121 did.
> > >
> > > http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?c
On 11/15/2011 12:01 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Nov 2011, Sean Hunt wrote:
>>> This falls afoul of the precedent in CFJ 2737 (itself an extension of
>>> the precedent in CFJ 1584), for the same reason that CFJ 3121 did.
>>>
>>> http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1584
>>> http
On Mon, 14 Nov 2011, Sean Hunt wrote:
> > This falls afoul of the precedent in CFJ 2737 (itself an extension of
> > the precedent in CFJ 1584), for the same reason that CFJ 3121 did.
> >
> > http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1584
> > http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?c
On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 20:09 -0500, Sean Hunt wrote:
> > This falls afoul of the precedent in CFJ 2737 (itself an extension of
> > the precedent in CFJ 1584), for the same reason that CFJ 3121 did.
> >
> > http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1584
> > http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/vi
> This falls afoul of the precedent in CFJ 2737 (itself an extension of
> the precedent in CFJ 1584), for the same reason that CFJ 3121 did.
>
> http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1584
> http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2737
I do not believe that the precedent estab
scshunt wrote:
> First I will argue about the infinite sequence of conditional actions.
> ais523's judgment purports that all of the posture changes failed. But
> that makes no sense. By application of the principle of induction,
> certainly the first change succeeded, as it took place when I was
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 4:42 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> Amend Rule 2338 (Cashing Promises) by replacing "MUST" with "must".
>>
> Why not just make the action INEFFECTIVE if there is insufficient context?
I think lowercase "must" is fine (in fact, it's used elsewhere in the
same rule!), although it m
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 19:09, omd wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 2:53 PM, ais523 wrote:
>> Meanwhile, I submit a criminal CFJ: Pavitra broke rule 2338 by cashing a
>> promise with insufficient context.
>
> Proposal: eep (AI=3)
>
> Amend Rule 2338 (Cashing Promises) by replacing "MUST" with "mu
On Sun, 2011-11-13 at 16:06 -0800, omd wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Sean Hunt
> wrote:
> > I intend to file a motion to reconsider the above judgment with 2 support.
>
> I support.
>
> Gratuitous: Since the Rules explicitly prescribe the fake messages
> generated by Promises, it ma
On Sun, 2011-11-13 at 18:15 -0500, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Moreover, the analogy to rules and
> proposals is flawed, as would the following proposal not succeed?
>
> {{
> Enact a new power-4 rule entitled "Superpowers" reading
> This proposal CAN make arbitrary changes to the gamestate, rules
> t
On Sun, 2011-11-13 at 18:15 -0500, Sean Hunt wrote:
> First I will argue about the infinite sequence of conditional actions.
> ais523's judgment purports that all of the posture changes failed. But
> that makes no sense. By application of the principle of induction,
> certainly the first change suc
27 matches
Mail list logo
