Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] Letter Of The Rules League Table

2010-10-03 Thread omd
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 8:42 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: > No they aren't, the report is "as of the last PSM's report" which > pre-dated omd's attempts. E's still required to publish an up-to-date list of Allegiances, just not Fan holdings.

DIS: Confession

2010-10-03 Thread Warrigal
I believe that I did not distribute proposals or publish a pool report last week, and thus I am in contravention of the rules requiring me to do so. I will try to get them distributed later today. —Tanner L. Swett

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] Letter Of The Rules League Table

2010-10-03 Thread Ed Murphy
coppro wrote: > On 10/03/2010 06:44 PM, Alex Smith wrote: >> [Note, this report is a week (almost two weeks) out of date due to the >> lack of a recent PSM's report, and thus is basically useless. I doubt I >> have time to figure out what the PSM's report should have said before >> the end of the

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2872 assigned to omd

2010-10-03 Thread Taral
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 12:53 PM, omd wrote: > FALSE.  As G. notes, the last paragraph of Rule 2124 makes this unambiguous. > > Evidence: > >      A person CANNOT support or object to an announcement of intent >      before the intent is announced, or after e has withdrawn the >      same type of r

DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2865 judged FALSE by Taral

2010-10-03 Thread Warrigal
Gratuitous gratuitous evidence: to my knowledge, making a judicial declaration is not a regulated action. —Tanner L. Swett On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2865 > > ===  CFJ 2865 (Interest Index = 1)  ===

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Herald] ambiguous disambiguation?

2010-10-03 Thread Warrigal
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 11:46 PM, omd wrote: > I hereby invoke my R101 right to request formal reconsideration of a > judicial determination that I should be punished, and appeal the > judgement of CFJ 1631, as ruling that I registered three days later > than my original attempt prevents me from t

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Herald] ambiguous disambiguation?

2010-10-03 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Sun, 3 Oct 2010, Ed Murphy wrote: > does the normal appeal mechanism's time > limit "substantially limit or remove" eir right of appeal? Gratuitous: No.

DIS: Re: BUS: Caesaris > Dbftbsjt

2010-10-03 Thread Elliott Hird
Arguments: The amount of hoops you had to go through *clearly* indicates that this is not clear intent. Not only is the cypher not ROT-13 (which I still wouldn't think clear enough, but), it is ROT-1, so one has to, potentially, try every possible ROT- to find it. And then, the text is in freaki