Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution 6209 - 6222 & Report

coppro wrote: > Ed Murphy wrote: >> AGAINST (ending the voting period early would be simpler and less >> bug-prone) > > No it would not as the vote collector would then be required to resolve > the decision. If the decision is closed but not resolved, then the > Decision is perpetually in a weird

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Grand Poobah] Plaster Report

On Sun, 19 Apr 2009, Sean Hunt wrote: > Kerim Aydin wrote: >> On Sun, 19 Apr 2009, Sean Hunt wrote: >>> Those castes are at their correct values, despite some of the flips I >>> made being illegal. >> >> I agree that they are the accurate current values. But you are required >> to un-do any flips

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Grand Poobah] Plaster Report

On Sun, 19 Apr 2009, Aaron Goldfein wrote: > Oh Goethe, you should have just gone on hold. Ah, it's more fun to sit on top of a high horse and chunter.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Grand Poobah] Plaster Report

Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Sun, 19 Apr 2009, Sean Hunt wrote: >> Those castes are at their correct values, despite some of the flips I >> made being illegal. > > I agree that they are the accurate current values. But you are required > to un-do any flips that you performed illegally, in that sense

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Insulator] Fnord!

Yally wrote: > I initiate a criminal CFJ on these two NoVs. While I admit my guilt in this You can't, you need to initiate two CFJs (one per NoV).

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Grand Poobah] Plaster Report

On Sun, 19 Apr 2009, Sean Hunt wrote: > Those castes are at their correct values, despite some of the flips I > made being illegal. I agree that they are the accurate current values. But you are required to un-do any flips that you performed illegally, in that sense they are not what would be "

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution 6209 - 6222 & Report

Ed Murphy wrote: > AGAINST (ending the voting period early would be simpler and less > bug-prone) No it would not as the vote collector would then be required to resolve the decision. If the decision is closed but not resolved, then the Decision is perpetually in a weird state that should be avoid

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Grand Poobah] Plaster Report

Kerim Aydin wrote: >> Apr 1, 2009: Caste flips for April. >>Wooble -> Beta >>Murphy -> Gamma >>Yally -> Delta > > I directly and specifically inform coppro that the above caste flips were > performed illegally, and that e is in clear and direct violation of R2211 > for failure to corre

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Grand Poobah] Plaster Report

On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 10:05 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Apr 1, 2009: Caste flips for April. > >Wooble -> Beta > >Murphy -> Gamma > >Yally -> Delta > > I directly and specifically inform coppro that the above caste flips were > performed illegally, and that e is in clear and direct v

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution 6209 - 6222 & Report

Aaron Goldfein wrote: > > > On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 9:19 PM, Ed Murphy > wrote: > > Yally wrote: > > > 6211 Refactor appeals opinions O 1.7 1 comex > > FOR, FOR > > Your voting limit is 1 due to rests. > > > When was I awa

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution 6209 - 6222 & Report

On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 9:19 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: > Yally wrote: > > > 6211 Refactor appeals opinions O 1.7 1 comex > > FOR, FOR > > Your voting limit is 1 due to rests. > When was I awarded rests?

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution 6209 - 6222 & Report

Yally wrote: > 6211 Refactor appeals opinions O 1.7 1 comex > FOR, FOR Your voting limit is 1 due to rests.

DIS: Re: BUS: NoV, obnoxious intents

comex wrote: > On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 7:32 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: >> On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 6:57 PM, comex wrote: >>> As has been noted, these NoVs are all incorrect. I would be surprised >>> if Wooble didn't know this. Therefore, >>> >>> I publish a NoV accusing Wooble of violating R2230

DIS: Re: OFF: [Notary] Contract list

Alex Smith wrote: > Private contracts publically tracked by the Notary (this information may > be inaccurate, as there may have been non-public developments that > therefore cannot be reported, and that I may not even have been informed > of): Vote Market II

DIS: Re: BUS: [Deputy IADoP] IADoP Election

Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: >> I deputize for the IADoP to end the voting period on the Agoran Decision >> to choose the holder of the IADoP office as it has only one valid >> option. I deputize for the IADoP to resolve that same decision. > > I CFJ o

DIS: Re: BUS: NoV, obnoxious intents

Each of these is incorrect. Rule 1789 states that The Registrar shall note the method of deregistration for that Player in subsequent Registrar Reports, as long as the Player remains deregistered. However, while Andre did deregister in a Writ of FAGE on 13 February 1999, he registered on 18 Augus

DIS: Re: BUS: NoV, obnoxious intents

I support all of these. 2009/4/20 Geoffrey Spear : > Bring back the history, dammit. > > I publish an NoV accusing Yally of violating > R1789, a Power-2 rule, by publishing a Registrar's Report > that failed to ensure that all know that Andre deregistered > in a Writ of FAGE. > > I intend, with 1 S

DIS: Re: BUS: NoV, obnoxious intents

On Sun, 2009-04-19 at 18:00 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > I intend, with 100 Support Classic. -- ais523

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Census

On Sun, 2009-04-19 at 17:53 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Aaron Goldfein > wrote: > > > DEREGISTERED IN WRIT OF FAGE (1) > > > > Nickname > > - > > Kelly > > CoE: more than one player has deregistered in a Write of FAGE. What about nonpersons, I wo

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Herald Election Fails Quorum

Wooble wrote: > On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 1:11 AM, Aaron Goldfein > wrote: >> when the election was initiated. Furthermore, Wooble's "vote" does not >> appear to count towards Quorum because it is not a valid ballot as it did >> not clearly define the option it is selecting. > > I CFJ on: {{Woobl