coppro wrote:
> Rather than set up a bunch of pledges, wouldn't it be easier to use the
> IBA?
tl;dr. I may get around to grokking it one of these months.
Benjamin Caplan wrote:
> I agree to the following:
>
>
>
> Pavitra
Rather than set up a bunch of pledges, wouldn't it be easier to use the
IBA? which allows these operations to take place platonically and
provides a nice consistent framework (I do believe I have one
outstanding Offer).
Ed Murphy wrote:
> comex wrote:
>
>> Proto: Rests CANNOT be created in a Minister Without Portfolio's
>> possession, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.
>
> A license to break the rules at will? Thank you, no.
>
> Proto: Rests CANNOT be created in a Minister Without Portfolio's
> possession
comex wrote:
> Proto: Rests CANNOT be created in a Minister Without Portfolio's
> possession, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.
A license to break the rules at will? Thank you, no.
Proto: Rests CANNOT be created in a Minister Without Portfolio's
possession to penalize eir inaction, rules t
Pavitra wrote:
> Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Proposal: Referential votes default to PRESENT
>>
>> Amend Rule 2127 (Conditional Votes) by replacing each instance of:
>>
>> that voter's valid votes on that decision.
>>
>> with:
>>
>> that voter's valid votes on that decision, or PRESENT otherwi
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> You mean "affirm based on the arguments of Murphy and Goethe" where
> both appellants argued for a non-affirm? Did that mean that Pavitra
> wasn't paying attention, or that e accepted the arguments of Murphy
> (that the judgement was wrong) but realized from the arguments of
>
Alex Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-05-19 at 19:01 -0400, Warrigal wrote (in spoon-business):
>> On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> > CONTRACTS
>> > -
>> > (none)
>>
>> I agree to all documents as public contracts.
>
> I call for judgement on the statement "Warrigal woul
Ed Murphy wrote:
> Proposal: Referential votes default to PRESENT
>
> Amend Rule 2127 (Conditional Votes) by replacing each instance of:
>
> that voter's valid votes on that decision.
>
> with:
>
> that voter's valid votes on that decision, or PRESENT otherwise.
You should also re
On May 20, 2009, at 5:13 PM, Charles Reiss wrote:
I harvest 1482 (recently repealed rule number) to destroy a random
land
held by OscarMeyr.
As a sage once said:
"Of course you realize this means war!"
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr
coppro wrote:
> - Otherwise, the Justiciar (or, failing that, the CotC) shall choose a
> judgment such that if every undecided panelist chose that judgment, no
> other judgment would have been chosen more often (so in the above
> instance, e could pick REMAND or REASSIGN)
Consider the actual rec
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Proposal: Justiciar has no duty (AI=2)
Aw, I was expecting something much more interesting.
Proto: Rests CANNOT be created in a Minister Without Portfolio's
possession, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.
On Wed, 20 May 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
> 7-man panel:
>
> REMAND
> REMAND
> REMAND
> REASSIGN
> REASSIGN
> OVERRULE
> -no judgment-
>
> the Justiciar picks OVERRULE, and that's the judgment.
*shrug* I thought about making the Justiciar pick only from among the
ones with most votes, but frankly, pa
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> If the time period ends with no majority judgement, then:
> - if the Justiciar has published an opinion on the case
> clearly marked as the Justiciar's Opinion and indicating
> a valid judgement, and that judgement is the same as
> one given
On Wed, 20 May 2009, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
>> - otherwise, the case enters an overtime period, which
>>lasts for four days. The CotC SHOULD publicly remind the
>>Justiciar when an overtime period begins. During
>>this period, if the Justiciar publishes a Justiciar'
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> I withdraw my previous proposal, "Two tiered tiebreaker".
>
> I submit the following proposal, "Two tiered tiebreaker", AI 2.0,
> ais523 coauthor:
>
> -
>
> Amend Rule 911 (Appe
On Wed, 2009-05-20 at 14:19 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Wed, 20 May 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> > On Wed, 2009-05-20 at 11:52 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >> [The Justiciar can just submit an opinion when e feels like it,
> >> and it's used as the tiebreaker when needed].
> >
> > Can you remove the
On Wed, 20 May 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-05-20 at 11:52 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> [The Justiciar can just submit an opinion when e feels like it,
>> and it's used as the tiebreaker when needed].
>
> Can you remove the hot-or-cold thing at the same time? This serves a
> similar purp
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 12:52, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Amend Rule 911 (Appeal Cases) by inserting the following new
> paragraph immediately after the paragraph in which the above
> deletion occurred:
>
> If the time period ends with no majority judgement, then:
> - if the Justiciar has publ
On Wed, 2009-05-20 at 11:52 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 May 2009, Elliott Hird wrote:
> >>> I intend, with two support, to appeal this judgment because remanding
> >>> here was an awful tiebreakre.
>
> I submit the following proposal, "Two tiered tiebreaker", AI 2.0:
>
>
On Wed, 2009-05-20 at 11:37 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Wed, 20 May 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> > On Wed, 2009-05-20 at 18:53 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote:
> >> 2009/5/20 Quazie :
> >>> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj
On Wed, 20 May 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-05-20 at 18:53 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote:
>> 2009/5/20 Quazie :
>>> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2494
>>>
>>> I judge TRUE by my own arguments.
>>>
>>
>> I int
On Wed, 2009-05-20 at 18:53 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote:
> 2009/5/20 Quazie :
> > On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> >> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2494
> >
> > I judge TRUE by my own arguments.
> >
>
> I intend, with two support, to appeal this judgme
On Wed, 20 May 2009, Elliott Hird wrote:
> 2009/5/20 Alex Smith :
>> On Wed, 2009-05-20 at 05:07 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote:
>>> BOTH nicks?
>>>
>>> On 2009-05-20, Ed Murphy wrote:
13 Arnold Bros (est. 1905)
15 ehird
>>
>> Obviously people like your old nick more than your new one...
>
On Wed, 2009-05-20 at 15:00 +0200, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
> 2009/5/20 Alex Smith :
> > On Tue, 2009-05-19 at 17:05 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
> >> Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
> >> > coppro 3 3 6 3 7 0 2 2 1 1 4 2 34
> >>
> >> > 18 May 2009 00:00:00 - coppro +D gained points,
2009/5/20 Alex Smith :
> On Tue, 2009-05-19 at 17:05 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
>> > coppro 3 3 6 3 7 0 2 2 1 1 4 2 34
>>
>> > 18 May 2009 00:00:00 - coppro +D gained points, +D# awarded points, +E
>> > judgment, +F# weekly duties, +C# AI=2 +G#
On Wed, 2009-05-20 at 05:07 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote:
> BOTH nicks?
>
> On 2009-05-20, Ed Murphy wrote:
> > 13 Arnold Bros (est. 1905)
> > 15 ehird
Obviously people like your old nick more than your new one...
--
ais523
26 matches
Mail list logo
