Working on it. -Aris
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 4:03 PM, V.J Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote: > My "minor fixes" proposal should be passed w/ all speed though because > I don't want something actually important like the text of the ruleset > at issue with this scam. I > > On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 8:53 AM, V.J Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote: >> We'll have to wait for murphy to judge the CFJ regarding this to sort >> out the game state, but if it did work it's fixed and if it didn't >> work my pended proposal makes it unambiguous whenever it gets passed >> so the only thing at issue is whether or not we're all winners. >> >> On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 7:53 AM, Aris Merchant >> <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Which precedent, where? Also, Agoran precedent isn't really "a reason why >>> things happen". It's more a way to decide among the competing rule >>> interpretations, as people keep pointing out to me when the file motions to >>> reconsider my CFJs. :) >>> >>> -Aris >>> >>> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 2:30 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus >>> <p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> I believe this clearly fails because of precedent. >>>> ---- >>>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus >>>> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> > On Aug 3, 2017, at 2:57 AM, V.J Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > Sorry sorry sorry. But the rules do textually allow me to do this, >>>> > although I am sure the rules will be construed by the already pending >>>> > CFJ to obviously not allow me to do this because it would be silly. >>>> > But I can't not *try* >>>> > >>>> > I intend in the next sentence to have every player win by apathy, >>>> > without objection. >>>> > >>>> > Every player wins by apathy. >>>> > >>>> > -- >>>> > From V.J Rada >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> From V.J Rada > > > > -- > From V.J Rada
