On Fri, 20 Feb 2009, comex wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Officers have a duty that they freely choose to undertake.
>
> I nominate Goethe for Rulekeepor.
>
Or that they freely choose not to undertake.
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Gratuitous response:
> Officers have a duty that they freely choose to undertake. It's not the
> responsibility of others to tell them what their duty is, so UNAWARE
> should be a hard(er) defense for an Officer who was elected to a position
>
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Er, was mean to imply rounding to integer *after* setting the
> multiplication level to any real between 1/2 and 2 and multiplying, so
> a default Class 10 crime could be any integer between 5 and 20. Hmm,
> also not sure that a geometric range is desired
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009, comex wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>The judge CAN, with 2 Support, set the fine at a
>>different integral level between one half and double that
>>amount,
>
> Aren't 1 and 2 times the only such integral levels?
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 4:15 PM, comex wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>The judge CAN, with 2 Support, set the fine at a
>>different integral level between one half and double that
>>amount,
>
> Aren't 1 and 2 times the only such integ
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>The judge CAN, with 2 Support, set the fine at a
>different integral level between one half and double that
>amount,
Aren't 1 and 2 times the only such integral levels?
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> If leniency is warranted,
>> the right mechanism would be to say that an Officer should have been
>> aware of the abuse (so UNAWARE is not an option in the culpability) but
>> not aware of the seri
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> If leniency is warranted,
> the right mechanism would be to say that an Officer should have been
> aware of the abuse (so UNAWARE is not an option in the culpability) but
> not aware of the seriousness, and that this lack of awareness was
> rea
comex wrote:
> Nevertheless, point taken, and I
> plead GUILTY as the text was misleading regardless of whether anyone
> is actually misled.
Gratuitous: I would advocate UNAWARE here, as e needed it pointed out to
em before e realized it was potentially misleading.
... oh wait, that's been restru
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009, comex wrote:
> Defendant's arguments: Barring some controversy over regulated actions
> this week (Rule 2125 has not been amended in two months and there are
> no current proposals to amend it), a future observer specifically
> selecting this week's email SLR, missing Wooble's
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn
wrote:
> I read through the AAA contract, and as I understand it it's just for
> me to join and request subsidization, and I will have a couple of
> lands to start with? Anything tricky I should think about?
Not really, unless you consider mod 11
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> 2009/2/20 Geoffrey Spear :
>> Remove Clause 17, and renumber the following clauses sequentially.
>
> Erm, I believe you want the RBoA.
No, auto rate changes based on transactions would remain, just the
midnight auto changes would be eliminat
I read through the AAA contract, and as I understand it it's just for
me to join and request subsidization, and I will have a couple of
lands to start with? Anything tricky I should think about?
2009/2/20 Geoffrey Spear :
> Remove Clause 17, and renumber the following clauses sequentially.
Erm, I believe you want the RBoA.
14 matches
Mail list logo
