On 6/4/08, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One effect that R1586 might have is in reverse lookups. If no two
> rules-defined entities can have the same name or nickname, then by
> implication, any rule that refers to something by name refers to the
> same entity whenever it uses that name
On Wed, 4 Jun 2008, comex wrote:
> There is no precedent in the CFJ archive. The name clause of rule
> 1586 has been invoked when I deemed Murphy to be my nickname, but even
> then, Judge Zefram abstained from commenting on what would happen if
> Murphy was in fact commonly used as a nickname for
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now, that I look more closely, that part of Rule 1586 is broken
> anyhow. It says "Two Rule-defined entities CANNOT have the same name
> or nickname" where "CANNOT" means "Attempts to perform the described
> action are unsucces
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 3:07 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually, since Rule 1586 is only Power=2, this won't break anything
> if adopted. It will, however, create a conflict between Rule 106 and
> Rule 1586.
Now, that I look more closely, that part of Rule 1586 is broken
anyhow. It s
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 3:00 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What about making OVERLOOKED always be appropriate after (say) 90
> days-- Agora would be terribly bored if a scam lasted that long-- and
> appropriate as in this proposal after 30 days?
Fine by me.
-root
On 6/4/08, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > AGAINST, unless the proposer is willing to compile a list of all
> > proposal titles ever used to avoid future R1586 clashes.
> AAH!
>
> I retract my vote on Proposal 5538.
> I vote AGAINST Proposal 5538.
>
> Fix coming up.
Actually, since Rule
6 matches
Mail list logo
