root wrote:
> On the other hand, the CotC
> apparently isn't currently required to reproduce the arguments at all,
> so I shouldn't complain too loudly.
Oh, yuck. That's definitely a bug, not a feature. (Still need to re-read
the new judgement system a couple times to know where to fix, I'm se
On 10/27/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> root, since you complain about burdens on judges, how about
> helping to set a precedent of minimal demands of evidence
> (again, I recognize that the ordering of the arguments and
> CFJ were an honest mistake, but the custom of considering the
comex wrote:
On 10/27/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If you're preparing for one specific AI=1 vote and know who will
vote which way, decreasing the opposition VLOP is equally as good as
increasing friendly VLOP. For a specific AI>1 vote, it's more effective
to modify the AGAINST VLOP,
comex wrote:
> I support this, for the quoted reason (and suggest that the appeal
> panel remand it). I reproduce the arguments in question in full
> below, but I suggest you read the entire thread, titled "Reckless", in
> which I tried to initiate the case.
I'm sorry comex, but you screwed up h
On 10/27/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you're preparing for one specific AI=1 vote and know who will
> vote which way, decreasing the opposition VLOP is equally as good as
> increasing friendly VLOP. For a specific AI>1 vote, it's more effective
> to modify the AGAINST VLOP, whether t
On 10/27/07, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Office Holder Since Last R2154 Stability
>
> Speakerroot16 Sep 077 Sep 07 T
With the adoption of "Ministers Without
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
A player SHALL NOT possess VDs for more than one month. When
a sentence of CHOKEY for violating this rule becomes active, all
of the sentenced player's VDs are destroyed.
The sentence becoming active also triggers a black VC loss. Presumably
e'd
Ed Murphy wrote:
> A player SHALL NOT possess VDs for more than one month. When
> a sentence of CHOKEY for violating this rule becomes active, all
> of the sentenced player's VDs are destroyed.
The sentence becoming active also triggers a black VC loss. Presumably
e'd then be left
Ed Murphy wrote:
>Huh. I'd forgotten that the introduction of colored VCs also
>made decreases cheaper.
Yeah, it's now the same cost as increases. I've been pondering the
theory of which one one should use, to get the most bang per buck.
If you're preparing for one specific AI=1 vote and know wh
You may want to subscribe to the official and business lists as well.
On 10/27/07, Ben Zinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can I please become listed as a watcher?
>
> Thanks
> Cubing
>
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unkn
On 10/27/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/27/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >A player SHALL NOT possess VDs for more than one month. When
> >a sentence of CHOKEY for violating this rule becomes active, all
> >of the sentenced player's VDs are destroy
Can I please become listed as a watcher?
Thanks
Cubing
On 10/27/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>A player SHALL NOT possess VDs for more than one month. When
>a sentence of CHOKEY for violating this rule becomes active, all
>of the sentenced player's VDs are destroyed.
"active"? How does this interact with appeals?
-
Zefram wrote:
Josiah Worcester wrote:
He registered 5 minutes previous, making him a first-class player, and
therefore an eligible voter.
R1950:
The eligible voters on a democratic proposal are those entities
that were active first-class players at the start of its voting
p
Zefram wrote:
I hereby spend 1R+1G+1B VCs to decrease AFO's VVLOP by 2.
Huh. I'd forgotten that the introduction of colored VCs also
made decreases cheaper.
Josiah Worcester wrote:
>He registered 5 minutes previous, making him a first-class player, and
>therefore an eligible voter.
R1950:
The eligible voters on a democratic proposal are those entities
that were active first-class players at the start of its voting
period.
R2156:
On Saturday 27 October 2007 02:03:51 Zefram wrote:
> Ed Murphy wrote:
> >5261 AGAINST x 5
> >5262 PRESENT
> >5263 AGAINST
> >5264 AGAINST x 5
> >5265 AGAINST
> >5266 AGAINST
> >5267 AGAINST
> >5268 AGAINST
>
> You're not an eligible voter on any of these.
>
> -zefram
>
He registered 5 minutes p
On Saturday 27 October 2007 06:53:02 Zefram wrote:
> NUM FL AI SUBMITTER TITLE
> 5269 O1 1pikhq
I retract this proposal.
On Saturday 27 October 2007 00:38:47 Ed Murphy wrote:
> I nominate Goethe, pikhq, and root for Notary.
>
I do not consent to my nomination.
I SUPPORT root and Goethe.
I vote AGAINST myself.
If I'm having trouble keeping my CFJs up-to-date, how am I supposed to
handle even a simple office, anywa
Murphy wrote:
> I nominate Goethe, pikhq, and root for Notary.
If elected, I've found a couple nice, juicy CFJs regarding the
Notary's office. I don't know if this is a campaign speech for
or against my election. -Goethe
Pseudo-judgement:
This CFJ was submitted without anything approaching reasonable
standards of arguments, evidence, or even simplest reference to
the activity in question. Judging would set a bad precedent of
Making the Judge Do All the Work, and moreover Annoys the Goddess.
UNDETERMINED.
nex
Anyone want this? Or my others? :D
On 10/22/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I hereby change all sitting players to standing. I hereby assign Goddess
> Eris as judge of CFJ 1769.
>
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1769
>
> == CFJ 1769
22 matches
Mail list logo
