On Jan 10, 2007, at 2:10 PM, Michael Slone wrote:
On 1/10/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I register again. :D
You deregistered on 13 December, so rule 869 prohibits you from
registering today.
--
Michael Slone
But you can try again now.
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
Michael Slone wrote:
>Zefram was a Fugitive from Justice for over nine years.
That's funny, I don't recall having any Blots when I deregistered.
Now that Blots and Stain are no longer defined by the Rules, do the
references to them in Rule 1437 mean that they still exist with their
previous seman
On Jan 11, 2007, at 9:01 PM, Michael Slone wrote:
On 1/11/07, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Welcome to the game, Zefram! Heck of a way to jump right in.
Make yourself
at home.
Technically, this ought to be s#Welcome#Welcome back# ... After all,
Zefram was a Fugitive from J
Maud wrote:
Technically, this ought to be s#Welcome#Welcome back# ... After all,
Zefram was a Fugitive from Justice for over nine years.
And so technically, by R1437, e still has a non-zero stain. Hmm,
I guess the common definition of "stain" doesn't imply cardinality,
either.
-Goethe
On 1/11/07, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Welcome to the game, Zefram! Heck of a way to jump right in. Make yourself
at home.
Technically, this ought to be s#Welcome#Welcome back# ... After all,
Zefram was a Fugitive from Justice for over nine years.
--
Michael Slone
Welcome to the game, Zefram! Heck of a way to jump right in. Make
yourself at home.
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
YAFI, YGI.
What does that expand to?
"You asked for it, you got it".
The Clerk of the Courts may, without objection, unlink one or
more of the linked CFJs from the others by announcement. If e
unlinks more than one as a set, then those CFJs
Ed Murphy wrote:
>YAFI, YGI.
What does that expand to?
> The Clerk of the Courts may, without objection, unlink one or
> more of the linked CFJs from the others by announcement. If e
> unlinks more than one as a set, then those CFJs remain linked
> to each other.
There are i
On 1/11/07, Zefram wrote:
Ooh, yes please. Looks like the judicial system makes up a good half or
so of the current ruleset. I came to the tentative conclusion that you'd
decided to centre the whole game on legal process for the time being.
Let's repeal the whole legal system and replace it
Goethe wrote:
ps. if you like the new rule 101, want to try to gut the judicial
system... I ran out of steam on that one and we still need judicial
reform (reform the mechanics to match R101 and the rest).
Something along the lines of this outline?
i. Every person has the right to CFJ
Zefram wrote:
What I like is that there's a procedure to unlink the CFJs,
which would resolve the problem, but you can't do it until a Judge has
been assigned.
YAFI, YGI.
Proto-Proposal: Pre-emptive Unlinking
Amend Rule 2024 (Linked Statements) by appending, after this text:
Linked C
On 1/10/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What started the Great Repeals anyway? They've been monstrously more
successful than any of the Chromatic Repeals ever were.
We got bored.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can't prove anything."
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> The paradox arose because
...
>our judgments so they deferred to each other, thereby invalidating
>themselves as judgments (circularly). That works regardless of the
>validity of the original argument
In a Platonist system this wouldn't be a problem. In the Plat
Zefram wrote:
The CotC's posting of the Writ deregisters the Player, and the
"instructing the Registrar" bit is null. Thus Goethe is not a
Player.
That's certainly a reasonable argument, but it's not what created
the paradox. The paradox arose because Murphy assigned the CFJ
to me before po
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>But what about the utility of calling a CFJ with only one eligible
>judge (of the caller's choosing)? I agree, nice one, Zefram!
Heh. What I like is that there's a procedure to unlink the CFJs,
which would resolve the problem, but you can't do it until a Judge has
been assign
I wrote:
>why no one's sure whether Goethe is a Player...
Ah, found it. It's trivial: game custom is that where part of a Rule
makes no sense then the remainder of it is applied as far as possible.
The CotC's posting of the Writ deregisters the Player, and the
"instructing the Registrar" bit is n
root wrote:
Nice one! Although I'm not sure there's really any utility in calling
a CFJ that can't be assigned, other than to annoy the CotC.
But what about the utility of calling a CFJ with only one eligible
judge (of the caller's choosing)? I agree, nice one, Zefram!
-Goethe
Ian Kelly wrote:
>other than to annoy the CotC.
If e got annoyed by this, wouldn't e be violating 698/15(b)(3) "don't
panic"?
>By the way, no need to bar me: I deregistered in December.
Oops, missed that. It's been a rapid catch-up for me. Now to find out
why no one's sure whether Goethe is a
AWW!
On 1/10/07, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 1/10/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I register again. :D
You deregistered on 13 December, so rule 869 prohibits you from
registering today.
--
Michael Slone
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can't prove anything."
-- G
On 1/10/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I register again. :D
You deregistered on 13 December, so rule 869 prohibits you from
registering today.
--
Michael Slone
Nice one! Although I'm not sure there's really any utility in calling
a CFJ that can't be assigned, other than to annoy the CotC.
By the way, no need to bar me: I deregistered in December.
-root
On 1/10/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I see the ruleset has slimmed down a bit since I wa
21 matches
Mail list logo
