Roujo wrote:
> I recuse myself from CFJs 2943 and 2944, since I'm not sure I followed
> all that scam and wouldn't know where to start - let alone find what
> the verdict should be. As the case seems quite complex, I let the II
> of both those CFJs increase to 1.
The II didn't auto-increase due t
Yally wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 22:19, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Elliott Hird
>> wrote:
>>> 2009/5/26 Elliott Hird :
NoV: Yally violated R2143, commiting the Class-6 Crime of Making My
Eyes Bleed, by publishing a report in HTML (which is not plai
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 22:19, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Elliott Hird
> wrote:
>> 2009/5/26 Elliott Hird :
>>> NoV: Yally violated R2143, commiting the Class-6 Crime of Making My
>>> Eyes Bleed, by publishing a report in HTML (which is not plain text).
>>
>> I cont
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> Oops. In case the above failed due to using IADoP instead of Pariah, I
> assume IADoP, resolve the election to decide the holder of Pariah,
> announce that Yally is the only candidate, install him as Pariah,
> resign IADoP, and pay fees to d
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 8:29 PM, Taral wrote:
> Proto-proto:
>
> Office elections start with a player bidding X ergs for the position.
> Other players can bid against them, and lowest bid wins (after a
> certain amount of time? anti-sniping?). The salary for the office is
> the bid value.
Not-Pro
That could be interesting! =)
~ Roujo
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 8:29 PM, Taral wrote:
> Proto-proto:
>
> Office elections start with a player bidding X ergs for the position.
> Other players can bid against them, and lowest bid wins (after a
> certain amount of time? anti-sniping?). The salary for
Proto-proto:
Office elections start with a player bidding X ergs for the position.
Other players can bid against them, and lowest bid wins (after a
certain amount of time? anti-sniping?). The salary for the office is
the bid value.
--
Taral
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I c
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 6:09 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> Amend Rule 2280 (Implicit Votes) by replacing "a number of ballots
>>> equal to eir voting limit on that decision" with "14 ballots".
>>
>>
>> 14? I would understand 12, but...
>
> http://wiki.cepheid.org/index.php/14
Pfft, how about 106?
omd wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
Since the current policy adds unnecessary complexity, amend Rule 2280
(Implicit Votes) by replacing "a number of ballots equal to eir voting
limit on that decision" with "one hundred ballots".
>>
>> Oh, right.
>>
>> Pro
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> Since the current policy adds unnecessary complexity, amend Rule 2280
>>> (Implicit Votes) by replacing "a number of ballots equal to eir voting
>>> limit on that decision" with "one hundred ballots".
>
> Oh, right.
>
> Proposal: Implicit Exce
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Why not propose my not-proposal of a week ago?
>
> Which one was that?
This:
> Since the current policy adds unnecessary complexity, amend Rule 2280
> (Implicit Votes) by replacing "a number of ballots equal to eir voting
> limit on that decis
omd wrote:
> 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 mor
I don't see how that statement is clearly TRUE. From R1789:
The Player is deregistered as of the posting of the Writ, and
the notation in the Registrar's Report will ensure that,
henceforth, all may know said Player deregistered in a Writ of
FAGE.
Referencing you has a playe
Flipping the switch when it's already off, sure, but I figured you
can't be deregistered if you're not a player. R869 states that "the
verb "to be deregistered" means to cease to be a player (i.e., to have
one's citizenship changed from Registered to Unregistered)". The Writ
of FAGE didn't cause hi
Yeah, that's what I meant. I'm sorry if it's not all that clear - I'm
doing my best, but these are my first judgments ever so I'm a bit of a
newbie here. =P I hadn't thought about setting precedent here by
saying it "failed", so I didn't consider my choice of words all that
carefully.
On Mon, Jan
... I don't know how I missed this - I was pretty tired last night -,
but yeah: R1769a) would be the way to go. Is there anything I can do
now that I've judged this? =P
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 11:57 PM, omd wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 10:41 PM, Jonathan Rouillard
> wrote:
>> I judge CFJ 2941
16 matches
Mail list logo
