Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1711: assign pikhq

2007-10-21 Thread Ian Kelly
On 10/21/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sunday 21 October 2007, Zefram wrote: > > Josiah Worcester wrote: > > >Any suggestions, other than "this is a horrible proto"? :p > > > > Drop the retroactivity. Just explicate that a message can incorporate > > material from previous messages by

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1711: assign pikhq

2007-10-21 Thread comex
On Sunday 21 October 2007, Zefram wrote: > Josiah Worcester wrote: > >Any suggestions, other than "this is a horrible proto"? :p > > Drop the retroactivity. Just explicate that a message can incorporate > material from previous messages by reference. Explicate what kind of > reference is sufficie

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1711: assign pikhq

2007-10-21 Thread Zefram
Josiah Worcester wrote: >Any suggestions, other than "this is a horrible proto"? :p Drop the retroactivity. Just explicate that a message can incorporate material from previous messages by reference. Explicate what kind of reference is sufficient, and limit how far back the reference can reach.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1711: assign pikhq

2007-10-21 Thread Josiah Worcester
On Sunday 21 October 2007 10:28:35 Zefram wrote: > I still don't like retroactivity. It seems to me that the retroactivity would be useful *if* someone genuinely screws up. . . > CFJ 1711 was about correcting a mandatory publication; in that case > the initial incorrect posting inherently did not

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1711: assign pikhq

2007-10-21 Thread Zefram
Josiah Worcester wrote: >How's about changing that to "within a week" or even "within 24 >hours"? I still don't like retroactivity. CFJ 1711 was about correcting a mandatory publication; in that case the initial incorrect posting inherently did not achieve the game action that it purported to. W

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1711: assign pikhq

2007-10-21 Thread Josiah Worcester
On Sunday 21 October 2007 10:21:08 Zefram wrote: > Josiah Worcester wrote: > > Should anyone wish to make a correction to a previous statement, e > >shall merely need to reply to that statement, and describe whatever > >correction e needs to make. The correction's message shall be > >considered

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1711: assign pikhq

2007-10-21 Thread Zefram
Josiah Worcester wrote: > Should anyone wish to make a correction to a previous statement, e >shall merely need to reply to that statement, and describe whatever >correction e needs to make. The correction's message shall be >considered the message making that action, rather than the previous >