On Thu, 2008-11-20 at 15:41 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> And R754 says "if it says it is, it is"
Very short digest of this disagreement for those watching: as far as I
can tell, it doesn't.
--
ais523
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 6:03 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It was not explicitly specified, as required.
Please point out the word "explicitly" in R1504. It seems to be
absent from my copy.
-root
On 21/11/2008, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 20 Nov 2008, at 23:44, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>
>>> Did you attempt to use your scam powers to take yourself out of
>>> the chokey? Such an attempt would have failed if
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 20 Nov 2008, at 23:44, Ed Murphy wrote:
>
>> Did you attempt to use your scam powers to take yourself out of
>> the chokey? Such an attempt would have failed if your original
>> in-the-chokey status kept your voting limi
On 20 Nov 2008, at 23:44, Ed Murphy wrote:
Did you attempt to use your scam powers to take yourself out of
the chokey? Such an attempt would have failed if your original
in-the-chokey status kept your voting limits below 51.
/me drops bomb of crap gamestate
crim cfjs have to specify the mess
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ehird wrote:
>
>> On 20 Nov 2008, at 22:44, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>
>>> From the CotC's report:
>>
>> Sorry, nope.
>
> Did you attempt to use your scam powers to take yourself out of
> the chokey? Such an attempt would have failed
ehird wrote:
> On 20 Nov 2008, at 22:44, Ed Murphy wrote:
>
>> From the CotC's report:
>
> Sorry, nope.
Did you attempt to use your scam powers to take yourself out of
the chokey? Such an attempt would have failed if your original
in-the-chokey status kept your voting limits below 51.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008, comex wrote:
> Or do you count this as a potential escalator? Seems unlikely to me.
Not really, the conflict is either between two power-2 rules or between
two power-3 rules, so no power-resolved conflicts. The escalator has been
at least partially disabled by the new R754
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008, comex wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 5:56 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'm saying in mathematical definitional terms VL ~ {Caste} by definition.
>> VL is defined as a number in the range {Caste}. Changing Caste changes
>> VL's allowed range and VL can't be
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
> "I just can't find that concept in the rules in a way that would
> overrule R754. Further actions have a lower precedence than
> definitions" seems to be the core of your whole argument. To me, though,
> nowhere does R754 say that definitions take preceden
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 5:56 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm saying in mathematical definitional terms VL ~ {Caste} by definition.
> VL is defined as a number in the range {Caste}. Changing Caste changes
> VL's allowed range and VL can't be changed outside of the range {Caste}.
>
On Thu, 2008-11-20 at 14:11 -0800, Kerim Aydin almost wrote (with rule
number typos corrected):
> I say that VL for a particular OD is a R754(2) Rules-defined term and
> that R2156 clearly defines VLOD. It doesn't say "is set to" or "is
> initially" but it is a Rules-based term definition "VLOD *i
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008, comex wrote:
> So you're arguing that increasing a voting limit means increasing
> caste which is secured? That seems like a stretch to me... "in X case
> the voting limit is caste [in other cases the voting limit is
> something else]" + "increase voting limit" = "increase ca
On 20 Nov 2008, at 22:44, Ed Murphy wrote:
From the CotC's report:
Sorry, nope.
comex wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I support. The judge doesn't even address the issue of whether or not
>> the increases are affected by chokey.
>
> ehird is not in the chokey.
>From the CotC's report:
Sentences (active between dates shown)
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I support. The judge doesn't even address the issue of whether or not
> the increases are affected by chokey.
If they work, they're clearly not. Only the rule defining caste-based
voting limit even mentions the chokey.
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I support. The judge doesn't even address the issue of whether or not
> the increases are affected by chokey.
ehird is not in the chokey.
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 5:11 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
>> There isn't a problem here: R1586 isn't triggered at all. It's to do
>> with things such as Contracts, which are rules-defined and exist outside
>> the rules somehow, and which can
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
> (1) A difference in spelling, grammar, or dialect, or the use of
> a synonym or abbreviation in place of a word or phrase, is
> inconsequential in all forms of communication, as long as
> the difference does not create an amb
On Thu, 2008-11-20 at 14:11 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
> > There isn't a problem here: R1586 isn't triggered at all. It's to do
> > with things such as Contracts, which are rules-defined and exist outside
> > the rules somehow, and which can continue to exist
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
> There isn't a problem here: R1586 isn't triggered at all. It's to do
> with things such as Contracts, which are rules-defined and exist outside
> the rules somehow, and which can continue to exist when the contract
> rules are amended.
As I said, I apologi
On Thu, 2008-11-20 at 13:48 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> It's R754 that says a term defined in the rules is tied to its definition,
> and that its definition takes precedence. So if R2126 causes something to
> take a value outside its defined range, it conflicts with R754. I hope, by
> your curre
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
> Implicit claims don't affect precedence; R1030 explicitly requires
> precedence claims to be explicit. There is definitely no comparison of
> strength of implicit claims! If there is a claim on both sides, or a
> claim on neither side, go numerical; and R21
On Thu, 2008-11-20 at 13:41 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
> > This argument fails utterly: quote the first half of that sentence
> > {{{
> > If the documents defining an entity are amended such that they
> > still define that entity but with different
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
> This argument fails utterly: quote the first half of that sentence
> {{{
> If the documents defining an entity are amended such that they
> still define that entity but with different properties,
> }}}
> and the then clause fails to apply. No way
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
> Imagine R1 saying "Goethe CAN deregister by paying
> 1 Stem" and R2 saying "Goethe CANNOT deregister";
Both of these are claims on what can and can't be done by an action,
and neither defines the state of (de)registration. It's a bad example.
A better e
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008, comex wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 12:00 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I recommend REMAND with instructions to explicitly evaluate the two
>> competing interpretations:
>>
>> +S) 2126 takes precedence, so 2156 implicitly defines the initial
>> limit and
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 12:00 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I recommend REMAND with instructions to explicitly evaluate the two
> competing interpretations:
>
> +S) 2126 takes precedence, so 2156 implicitly defines the initial
> limit and 2126's increases stick.
>
> -S) Even tho
Pavitra wrote:
> I also support. The judgement of these CFJs should at least have
> addressed this line of argument.
I recommend REMAND with instructions to explicitly evaluate the two
competing interpretations:
+S) 2126 takes precedence, so 2156 implicitly defines the initial
limit and
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 10:40 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 11:31 AM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I intend to appeal this with 2 support. Increasing a player's voting
>> limit on a decision causes it to be higher than it otherwise would have
>>
On 20 Nov 2008, at 16:40, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
R2156 says "the voting limit is" not "the voting limit defaults to" or
"begins at, subject to modification"
"is" could be interpreted, and IMO in the prescense of the one-offs
rule,
should be interpreted as "is set to".
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 11:31 AM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I intend to appeal this with 2 support. Increasing a player's voting
> limit on a decision causes it to be higher than it otherwise would have
> been. Eir voting limit was 1, increased by 50 (or however many it was, I
> can't
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 10:36 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 20 Nov 2008, at 16:31, Alex Smith wrote:
>
>> I intend to appeal this with 2 support. Increasing a player's voting
>> limit on a decision causes it to be higher than it otherwise would have
>> been. Eir voting limit was
33 matches
Mail list logo
