On 5/16/20 11:20 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote:
>> CFJ 3783 (called 07 Dec 2019): It is not possible to wan an election
>>after it has ended.
> Typo: wan
>
> - Falsifian
*sigh* Typing is hard.
This will be fixed in the next report.
--
Jason Cobb
> CFJ 3783 (called 07 Dec 2019): It is not possible to wan an election
>after it has ended.
Typo: wan
- Falsifian
On 12/29/19 10:30 PM, Ørjan Johansen via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Dec 2019, Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote:
>
>> THE FULL LOGICAL RULESET
> You forgot to strip trailing spaces, so these again have that
> format=flowed problem.
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.
Gah, apparently email is har
On Sun, 29 Dec 2019, Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote:
THE FULL LOGICAL RULESET
You forgot to strip trailing spaces, so these again have that
format=flowed problem.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
If this case isn't withdrawn, it might be worth adding to your
arguments the specific rules-hook: re-enactment in R105 describes
things that can be done to "repealed rules", so they are a category
of entity that have rules-explicit legal significance.
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 9:29 PM Jason Cobb w
Also, even with the correct Rule number, I think the answer is
guaranteed to be TRUE, since the repeal of a Rule does not cause it to
cease to exist, it just causes it to cease to be a rule, its power to be
set to 0, and to relieve the Rulekeepor of the responsibility to
maintain it. As a furth
Ooh! Then I favour this CFJ!
Jason Cobb
On 7/15/19 10:36 PM, James Cook wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 at 02:29, Rebecca wrote:
CFJ: Rule 2157 exists.
It's 2517.
On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 at 02:29, Rebecca wrote:
> CFJ: Rule 2157 exists.
It's 2517.
On Sun, 2019-07-14 at 20:23 -0600, Reuben Staley wrote:
> I have investigated the history of the rule. Rule 2517 was repealed by
> Proposal 8054 on 23 June 2018. Since that is the case, it should have
> been removed from the ruleset; however, it was not. Since then, it has
> been discussed once
I have investigated the history of the rule. Rule 2517 was repealed by
Proposal 8054 on 23 June 2018. Since that is the case, it should have
been removed from the ruleset; however, it was not. Since then, it has
been discussed once or twice despite not actually being in effect,
notably in the D
And now you see why we never ratify the FLR.
-Aris
On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 2:02 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> Okay. I was going to try something nefarious with this, but I guess I can't
> then. On Rule 2517, the annotations list the rule as being enacted, and
> then repealed, without being re-enacted,
Thank you for bringing this to my attention, even if it was for a
self-serving purpose. I will investigate the history of this rule and
report back.
--
Trigon
On Sun, Jul 14, 2019, 12:02 Jason Cobb wrote:
> Okay. I was going to try something nefarious with this, but I guess I can't
> then. On R
Okay. I was going to try something nefarious with this, but I guess I can't
then. On Rule 2517, the annotations list the rule as being enacted, and
then repealed, without being re-enacted, so there might be something off
there.
On Sun, Jul 14, 2019, 12:58 PM Reuben Staley
wrote:
> No part of any
They are not. Nothing in the SLR or FLR is self-ratifying. Customarily, we
ratify the SLR from time to time by proposal in order to ensure we
accurately understand the ruleset. This is done by explicit proposal so
that people have an opportunity to check it and prevent scams. However, the
FLR is ne
No part of any ruleset is self-ratifying.
--
Trigon
On Sun, Jul 14, 2019, 11:57 Jason Cobb wrote:
> Are the historical annotations in the FLR self-ratifying? Asking for a
> friend.
>
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2019, 2:46 AM Reuben Staley
> wrote:
>
> > THE FULL LOGICAL RULESET
> >
> > These rulesets ar
Are the historical annotations in the FLR self-ratifying? Asking for a
friend.
On Sun, Jul 14, 2019, 2:46 AM Reuben Staley wrote:
> THE FULL LOGICAL RULESET
>
> These rulesets are also online at http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/
>
> Date of last official ruleset of this type: 16 Jun 2019
> Date of
The history for R2138 is missing Proposal 8176. That probably means the
version number is wrong too.
On Fri., May 17, 2019, 20:54 Reuben Staley, wrote:
> THE FULL LOGICAL RULESET
>
> These rulesets are also online at http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/
>
> Date of last official ruleset of this type:
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> THE FULL LOGICAL RULESET
I CoE this ruleset, on the basis that it includes Rule 2942, "Scam
Reward". That rule was repealed:
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg28705.html
. I would suggest checking for any other pr
On May 23, 2017, at 6:57 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2017-05-23 at 12:59 -0600, Sprocklem S wrote:
>> Proposal: Ruleset Ratification
>> {{{
>> Amend Rule 1681 ("The Logical Rulesets") by appending the following
>> paragraph at the end:
>>
>> The portions of the SLR and the FLR constituting
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 8:26 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>
>> On May 23, 2017, at 2:09 PM, Aris Merchant
>> wrote:
>>
>> I don't think it is. We don't want people to, for instance, change a
>> rule to open a loophole and let it self-ratify. Report's don't self
>> ratify unless the rules say they do
> On May 23, 2017, at 2:09 PM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>
> I don't think it is. We don't want people to, for instance, change a
> rule to open a loophole and let it self-ratify. Report's don't self
> ratify unless the rules say they do, so I don't think there was any
> real risk.
Then I need to
> On May 22, 2017, at 9:53 PM, Josh T wrote:
>
> Regardless if the Pink Slip is valid, I get the feeling that a Red Card of
> some sort ought to be coming forthwith given the level of ire incited, but my
> gauge on that front may be inaccurate. Personally, I think Gaelan should not
> be trust
Was my intent discovered? My recollection was that I gave myself away; someone
killed all attempts at victory by apathy in response to the Herald’s attempt.
That killed mine as well, presumably by accident, so I responded with a “darn
it all.” I’m unsure of any discovery before I mentioned it.
> On May 22, 2017, at 9:30 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>
> I don’t think the Pink Slip is valid.
>
> Rule 2476/0: "A Pink Slip is a type of Card that is appropriate for abuses of
> official power for personal gain. A Pink Slip CANNOT be issued unless the
> reason indicates the specific office or
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 3:57 PM Alex Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-05-23 at 12:59 -0600, Sprocklem S wrote:
> > Proposal: Ruleset Ratification
> > {{{
> > Amend Rule 1681 ("The Logical Rulesets") by appending the following
> > paragraph at the end:
> >
> > The portions of the SLR and the FLR consti
On Tue, 2017-05-23 at 12:59 -0600, Sprocklem S wrote:
> Proposal: Ruleset Ratification
> {{{
> Amend Rule 1681 ("The Logical Rulesets") by appending the following
> paragraph at the end:
>
> The portions of the SLR and the FLR constituting the substantive
> aspects of the rules, as defined in Rule
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 1:27 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
wrote:
> Why not just make it explicitly not ratifying, but a SHALL NOT to falsify
> it.
The intent is that if some error finds its way in accidentally and it's
not caught, it should be ratified, so that the latest ruleset always
re
Why not just make it explicitly not ratifying, but a SHALL NOT to falsify
it.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Sprocklem S wrote:
> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
> > I don't think it is. We don't want people to, for instance, chan
I don't think it is. We don't want people to, for instance, change a
rule to open a loophole and let it self-ratify. Report's don't self
ratify unless the rules say they do, so I don't think there was any
real risk.
-Aris
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
wrote:
>
If it is like most reports it would be, but I didn't find anything specific.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 1:04 PM, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 8:52 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> wrote:
> > Then, you
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 8:52 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
wrote:
> Then, you failed to publish a report that you intended to be ratified.
>
Where exactly do the rules make the rulekeepor's report self
ratifying? I can't find anything to that effect, but I might be
missing something.
-Aris
Agreed. E did something wrong, and should probably be punished, but we
need em as Rulekeepor.
-Aris
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 9:15 AM, Nic Evans wrote:
> Removing Gaelan from office, or punishing em enough that e's unwilling to
> continue, is a good way to shoot ourselves in the foot during a time
Removing Gaelan from office, or punishing em enough that e's unwilling
to continue, is a good way to shoot ourselves in the foot during a time
of good momentum.
On 05/22/17 20:53, Josh T wrote:
> Regardless if the Pink Slip is valid, I get the feeling that a Red
> Card of some sort ought to be co
Then, you failed to publish a report that you intended to be ratified.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> I still don't buy this. I surrounded the apathy attempt in "this section
> is not part of the report"/"the report resumes below." R
I still don't buy this. I surrounded the apathy attempt in "this section is not
part of the report"/"the report resumes below." Regardless of whether that
worked, I think that makes it pretty clear I did not intend to ratify that into
the ruleset.
Gaelan
> On May 23, 2017, at 3:50 AM, Publius
You were attempting to add text to the ruleset by ratification for your own
personal gain.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 10:20 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> I CFJ on these statements:
>
> “Any player may take the office of Rulekeepor with 2 support.” [i.e. I got
> a
You also have not yet published a revised version of the report in response
to the CoE. I think an appropriate solution would be to have Gaelan
generate the reports but have someone else check them and publish them.
Regardless, I believe that Gaelan should be issued a red card and or
further punish
Regardless if the Pink Slip is valid, I get the feeling that a Red Card of
some sort ought to be coming forthwith given the level of ire incited, but
my gauge on that front may be inaccurate. Personally, I think Gaelan should
not be trusted with the office of Rulekeepor, and should be removed from
I don’t think the Pink Slip is valid.
Rule 2476/0: "A Pink Slip is a type of Card that is appropriate for abuses of
official power for personal gain. A Pink Slip CANNOT be issued unless the
reason indicates the specific office or offices whose power was abused.”
The only reason being Rulekeepor
One could lead to the other, at least with our ruleset now. An unknown public
forum is an excellent place to win by apathy!
I think we need a rule against deliberately hidden announcements.
Gaelan
> On May 22, 2017, at 12:37 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 2017-05-22 at 01:46 -0400, Owen
On Mon, 2017-05-22 at 01:46 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> On May 21, 2017, at 1:37 AM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>
> > The following section is not a portion of the report:
> > For the purposes of this section, The Sentence is “I intend,
> > without objection, to declare [word], specifying myself.”
>
On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 13:27:51 -0700
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Rule 106/36 (Power=3)
> Adopting Proposals
>
> [...]
>
> Amended(36) by Proposal 7778 (scshunt), 14 August 2014
The last cited line contains a typo: s/2014/2015/
The same error also occurs in the histories of several other rules.
Just gre
On Tue, 2015-12-22 at 13:17 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> THE FULL LOGICAL RULESET
Assuming the organization gets fixed, you might want to take aranea's
bet about that :-)
Or maybe not, with the wording as it is at the moment it might well
backfire.
--
ais523
On Sat, 18 Apr 2015, Luis Ressel wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 18:31:55 -0700 (PDT)
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> > Rule 2446: The Agoran Newspaper
> > Rule 2437/1 (Power=1)
>
> First of all, thanks for taking care of this! But could you please try
> and avoid superfluous whitespace such as
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 18:31:55 -0700 (PDT)
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Rule 2446: The Agoran Newspaper
> Rule 2437/1 (Power=1)
First of all, thanks for taking care of this! But could you please try
and avoid superfluous whitespace such as the trailing spaces in lines
96, 97 and 1329? It's not too
45 matches
Mail list logo
