I don't think we want to waive platonism to that degree. However, it
would seem reasonable for you to issue a ruling on both now, and then
only formalize it once it actually gets assigned to you, given that
you've already gone through the waiting period once. Does anyone else
object to that arraign
I'm glad to hear no one has objected to you personally, I like to
think we're better than that. ;)
-Aris
On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 6:20 PM, Ned Strange wrote:
> I assign this CFJ to myself, being without objections.
>
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 6:33 PM, Ned Strange wrote:
>> I think you intended t
Excuse me, these are 2 CFJs. Would Agora see fit to interpret my
actions as assigning both CFJs to myself?
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 11:20 AM, Ned Strange wrote:
> I assign this CFJ to myself, being without objections.
>
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 6:33 PM, Ned Strange wrote:
>> I think you intended
Perhaps the finger pointing rule should be rewritten to start the time
limit when the legality status of the action first becomes ILLEGAL, so that
there is always enough time to point a finger.
Anyways, even if the Referee decides to levy a fine on me, this is like the
smallest offense imaginabl
At the time when they placed the bid, because the rule is phrased as
happening at that time but depending upon future information. That's the
one thing I can think of which isn't great, and why I said _significantly_
worse.
-Aris
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 10:08 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> For the
For the purposes of the 14-day limit on finger pointing, when does the
violation occur?
On Fri, 20 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Your argument about the definition is complelling in light of the general
> interpretive factors at play. On the merits I think I still disagree
> (though that may
Your argument about the definition is complelling in light of the general
interpretive factors at play. On the merits I think I still disagree
(though that may just be me being stubborn), but common sense and the
interests of the game are clear.
On the future conditional, I disagree. The condition
Counterargument (ignore this one, it probably doesn't work): when Quazie
placed a bid, e essentially stated that "I will have sufficient money to
pay at the end of the voting period. Really. I promise." This is part of
the common language definition of what it means to bid. However, since
bidding i
Fair enough. Though we've used that before with no big crises.
If someone feels like proposing a change, the alternative should be
that crimes by zombies transfer punishment to their masters (which
we've also done before).
On Fri, 20 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote:
> Exactly, nothing should autom
Exactly, nothing should automatically prohibit illegal actions.
On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 10:17 AM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>> At least that was the direct and specific intent when I wrote it - I
>> intended
>> illegal actions on behalf of zombies to fail b
On Thu, 19 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
At least that was the direct and specific intent when I wrote it - I intended
illegal actions on behalf of zombies to fail because they weren't "allowed",
therefore blocking the CAN in R2466. Intent doesn't always mean much, and
I can see that the link to
Indeed:
1} It is only ILLEGAL to *place* unpayable bids, not to hold them.
2) At the point in time when I (well, Quazie) was placing the bid, the
conditional that determines the illegality was INEXTRICABLE. Only when the
auction ended did the conditional became TRUE and the action *became*
ILLEGAL
12 matches
Mail list logo
