Ed Murphy wrote:
>>You're removing all the civil remedies. Is that intended?
>
>Yes, they're largely redundant with Rule 1504.
R1504's penalties are of a criminal flavour. R1742 (i) and (ii) are
equity-style civil remedies. Quite different.
>> If so, you may as well drop the "Civil CFJ" termin
Goethe wrote:
Murphy wrote:
> You're removing all the civil remedies. Is that intended?
Yes, they're largely redundant with Rule 1504.
No, they aren't. Punitive damages are in R1504, but you've
deleted a cornerstone of justice, the ability of a judge to assess
compensatory (e.g. non- punit
Murphy wrote:
To clarify: Currently, rule violations are punished by Rule 1504
(and/or Rule 1742 since the Rules are treated as an agreement),
while agreement violations are punished by Rule 1742. Under this
proposal, rule violations would still be punished by Rule 1504,
while agreement vio
Murphy wrote:
> You're removing all the civil remedies. Is that intended?
Yes, they're largely redundant with Rule 1504.
No, they aren't. Punitive damages are in R1504, but you've
deleted a cornerstone of justice, the ability of a judge to assess
compensatory (e.g. non- punitive) damages:
Levi wrote:
I call for judgement on the following statement, barring BobTHJ and
Primo Corporation (not sure if I have to bar em or not):
BobTHJ can vote on behalf of Primo Corporation
This does not affect the outcomes of any past proposals:
* 5010-18 would have passed even without Primo
Levi wrote:
I don't see where a proposal's 'chamber' is defined.
This used to be defined as whether the proposal was Ordinary
or Democratic. It may have been repealed when switches were.
On 6/24/07, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
An Ordinary proposal may be made Democratic by any player during
its voting period With 3 Supporters.
This would overwrite the change made by proposal 5043, assuming that
proposal is adopted. I'm not sure that I like the idea of m
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Activity is a player switch with values Active (syn. "Off Hold")
and Inactive (syn. "On Hold"), tracked by the Registrar.
I see no benefit in bringing back the "Hold" synonyms.
Some players want to use them.
Orientation is a player switch wi
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Amend Rule 1742 (Agreements) to read:
You're removing all the civil remedies. Is that intended? If so,
you may as well drop the "Civil CFJ" terminology.
To clarify: Currently, rule violations are punished by Rule 1504
(and/or Rule 1742 since the Rules are
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
A subject SHOULD NOT be pursued through a new CFJ, but rather
through Appeal.
"An appealable subject".
Amend Rule 1742 (Agreements) to read:
You're removing all the civil remedies. Is that intended?
Yes, they're largely redundant with Rule 1504.
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
I think it's clear enough, but okay, "eir VCs of each color are
set to zero".
That's still a bad wording. The intent is not to modify the VCs
themselves, it's to arrange for em to not have any VCs. No doubt someone
will argue that "setting a VC to zero" is a n
Ed Murphy wrote:
>Create a rule titled "Switches" with this text:
Should have higher power. Should also define the "an X switch" (e.g.,
X = "player") terminology.
> Activity is a player switch with values Active (syn. "Off Hold")
> and Inactive (syn. "On Hold"), tracked by the Registra
Ed Murphy wrote:
> A subject SHOULD NOT be pursued through a new CFJ, but rather
> through Appeal.
"An appealable subject".
>Amend Rule 1742 (Agreements) to read:
You're removing all the civil remedies. Is that intended? If so,
you may as well drop the "Civil CFJ" terminology.
-zefr
Ed Murphy wrote:
>I think it's clear enough, but okay, "eir VCs of each color are
>set to zero".
That's still a bad wording. The intent is not to modify the VCs
themselves, it's to arrange for em to not have any VCs. No doubt someone
will argue that "setting a VC to zero" is a null action, so th
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
When a player registers, eir VCs are set to zero.
You're generally retaining language that's based on a single per-player
count of VCs, whereas your new scheme has four separate VC counts
per player. Also, "eir VCs are set to zero" is a poor expression;
be
15 matches
Mail list logo
