On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 11:56 PM, Jonathan Rouillard
wrote:
> In any case, omd did publish a Cantus Cygneys, but his deregistration
> wasn't a Writ of FAGE but rather his own doing. I thus judge CFJ 2955
> FALSE.
But the rules clearly say that the statement is TRUE, whether or not I
actually dereg
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 11:33 PM, Jonathan Rouillard
wrote:
> I do not think that this was a scam, since I do not believe it was
> expected to succeed. I also do not see how this is an "abuse of other
> player's time and efforts" for that same reason. So, I think CFJ 1774
> isn't actually relevant
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 10:41 PM, Jonathan Rouillard
wrote:
> I judge CFJ 2941 TRUE. Having read the relevant rules, I agree with G.
> that R2282(b) through R2282(d) are to be executed /after/ R2282(a),
> so I also think they're "future events" as far as R1769 is concerned -
> and thus, it happens
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 9:48 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> One of the great things of being deregistered is not being an eligible
>> voter, but I'll say that I'm strongly AGAINST.
>> Post-end-of-voting-period voting limit manipulations are fun.
>
> Oh, sure, try being Assessor (for more than one message)
omd wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
Amend Rule 2156 (Voting on Ordinary Decisions) by replacing "resolution"
with "end of the voting period".
>>
>> No, it takes away precisely that power. Â The advantage to the Assessor
>> is that it eases bookkeeping (once the
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> Amend Rule 2156 (Voting on Ordinary Decisions) by replacing "resolution"
>>> with "end of the voting period".
>
> No, it takes away precisely that power. The advantage to the Assessor
> is that it eases bookkeeping (once the Herald reports the
Wooble wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 7:02 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Proposal: Moving targets are hard
>> (AI = 2, II = 1, distributable via fee)
>>
>> Amend Rule 2156 (Voting on Ordinary Decisions) by replacing "resolution"
>> with "end of the voting period".
>
> against; gives the Assessor way
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 7:02 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Proposal: Moving targets are hard
> (AI = 2, II = 1, distributable via fee)
>
> Amend Rule 2156 (Voting on Ordinary Decisions) by replacing "resolution"
> with "end of the voting period".
against; gives the Assessor way too much power. although
Roujo wrote:
> Okay then, I'll sit (in another message ttPF), but why wasn't it
> effective? I don't recall someone telling me it wasn't - mind you, my
> memory isn't all that good right now. =P
1) Rule 1871 requires the Clerk of the Courts to track postures.
2) Due to #2, Rule 2125 (e) prevents
"Not to the proper forum, and standing is never possible by
announcement, but even sitting wouldn't be because we're currently in
Emergency Session.
-scshunt"
Nevermind, found it. Thanks for the heads-up. =)
~ Roujo
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 7:44 PM, Jonathan Rouillard
wrote:
> Okay then, I'll si
Okay then, I'll sit (in another message ttPF), but why wasn't it
effective? I don't recall someone telling me it wasn't - mind you, my
memory isn't all that good right now. =P
~ Roujo
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Roujo wrote:
>
>> Aren't I already standing? One of my first
Roujo wrote:
> Aren't I already standing? One of my first game actions was to stand,
> and I haven't been assigned a case since. I thought it was only
> because I'm considered poorly qualified to judge anything since I'm a
> new player. =P
No, one of your first /attempted/ game actions was to sta
Aren't I already standing? One of my first game actions was to stand,
and I haven't been assigned a case since. I thought it was only
because I'm considered poorly qualified to judge anything since I'm a
new player. =P
~ Roujo
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Roujo wrote:
>
>>
Roujo wrote:
> I stand if I'm not already standing, which I think I am. =P
You can't stand directly. You can sit, then you'll be flipped to
standing when no more currently-standing judges can be assigned.
Roujo wrote:
> Why Bucky? Was that his address? =P
Yeah, I think so.
Why Bucky? Was that his address? =P
If so, I'll do it - I had forgotten about Co-Authors anyway.
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Roujo wrote:
>
>> I submit the following Proposal (with Adoption Index 1.0 and Interest
>> Index 1), titled "A person by any other name is still a
Proposal 6915 (Ordinary, AI=2.0, Interest=0) by omd
Psychohistorical accuracy
Amend Rule 2255 (The Court) by replacing "Head Gardener" with "Chief
Gardener".
No, it didn't.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 9, 2011, at 1:05 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Yally wrote:
>
>> If possible, I rubberstamp propos
On Sun, 2011-01-09 at 10:18 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
> 2 Jan 22:45:57 5 ais523
> 3 Jan 07:37:06 Tanner crowned (possibly ineffective due to Holiday)
> 3 Jan 07:37:53 "first player on the List of Succession" crowned
> 5 Jan 20:58:06 if ais523 is Speaker and not otherwise prevented
> 6 Jan 0
There are about two dozen cases waiting to be assigned, and currently
only three standing/sitting judges. Anyone want to sit up before I
start assigning these?
> 6944 O 0 1.0 omd There are FIVE CFJs!
FOR
> 6945 O 0 3.0 Murphy Fix Urgency, Part Deux
FOR
> 6946 O 0 3.0 Murphy Fix Urgency
FOR
> 6947 O 1 1.0 Wooble New Forum
AGAINST
2 Jan 22:45:57 5 ais523
10 ehird
7 Roujo
5 scshunt
5 Murphy (or Sgeo if Murphy's swap failed)
0 Sgeo(or Murphy)
3 Yally
2 others
3 Jan 07:37:06 Tanner crowned (pos
Wooble wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 6:29 PM, Aaron Goldfein
> wrote:
>> If possible, I rubberstamp proposals 6944, 6945, and 6946 and veto
>> proposal 6947.
>
> If possible, I rubberstamp all 4 of them.
This is possible iff ais523's recent Bestowing Favors was effective
(it might not have b
Roujo wrote:
> I submit the following Proposal (with Adoption Index 1.0 and Interest
> Index 1), titled "A person by any other name is still a person":
I recommend removing this from the pool and re-submitting it, this time
specifying Bucky as co-author.
23 matches
Mail list logo
