Tanner L. Swett wrote:
> CoE: I never sent the above message. What I did send was a very
> similar message that said "=" where the above message says "=3D".
Admitted, fixed in DB.
Wooble wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 9:27 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> According to the Assessor DB, I gained a Rest on September 1 at
>> 12:41:16 UTC. Did that one get destroyed? Otherwise, the DB
>> matches the above.
>
> I don't think you actually gained a Rest at that time. That's when you
>
On Tue, 21 Sep 2010, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Draft 2: Motions to Reconsider
>
> If a non-Appeals judicial question has a judgement in effect, that
> has been in effect for less than seven days, has not been appealed,
> and has not had a Motion to Reconsider filed for it at any time
On Tue, 21 Sep 2010, Ed Murphy wrote:
> G. wrote:
>
> > [most appeals cases end up remanded, the first time at least]
> >
> > Proto: auto-remand
> >
> > Create the following rule: Remand for Clarification
> >
> > If a judicial case:
> > 1) has a judgement, that has been in effect f
On Tue, 2010-09-21 at 16:34 -0400, omd wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> > and appending this paragraph:
> >
> > Casting ballots without explicitly specifying the number of
> > ballots to be cast (e.g. "FOR" instead of "FOR*1" or "FOR*3")
> > is equivalen
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> and appending this paragraph:
>
> Casting ballots without explicitly specifying the number of
> ballots to be cast (e.g. "FOR" instead of "FOR*1" or "FOR*3")
> is equivalent to conditionally casting a number of such ballots
>
Proto-Proposal: Clean up eligibility and limits
(AI = 3, II = 1, please)
Amend Rule 683 (Voting on Agoran Decisions) by prepending this text:
Except as specified by other rules with Power at least 2:
(1) The eligible voters on an Agoran decision are the active
players.
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 9:27 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> According to the Assessor DB, I gained a Rest on September 1 at
> 12:41:16 UTC. Did that one get destroyed? Otherwise, the DB
> matches the above.
I don't think you actually gained a Rest at that time. That's when you
were sentenced to SILENCE
Taral wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Taral wrote:
>> REMAND.
>
> Hm, this doesn't work.
Yes it does, I noticed this problem a while back and got this
added to Rule 911:
If prejudice is not
explicitly specified, then an opinion indic
Wooble wrote:
> I deputize for the Herald to publish the following, which is part of
> eir Weekly Report:
> {{
> Rest Report:
>
> Player Rests
> -- -
> coppro 23
> Murphy 1
> Tanner L. Swett18
> 0
>
> }}
According to the Assessor DB
Taral wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> And no, it doesn't.
>
> How does 2312 not apply to judges?
Presumably the intent was "2312 does not apply to players who are
not the Pariah".
G. wrote:
> [most appeals cases end up remanded, the first time at least]
>
> Proto: auto-remand
>
> Create the following rule: Remand for Clarification
>
> If a judicial case:
> 1) has a judgement, that has been in effect for less than seven days,
>that has not been appealed;
12 matches
Mail list logo
