On Thu, 2011-06-30 at 17:00 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> There's nothing to stop someone from calling the same CFJ over and over
> again, hoping for the opposite answer. Sometimes people have done that
> in the past... once or twice. We deal with that by saying "once an
> answer is given, you shou
On Fri, 1 Jul 2011, Elliott Hird wrote:
> On 1 July 2011 00:09, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> > Except that it's not, because in common law jurisdictions the rulings
> > actually have legitimate power, while in Agora you're just allowed to
> > possibly consider them in interpreting the rules.
>
> Yea
On 1 July 2011 00:09, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> Except that it's not, because in common law jurisdictions the rulings
> actually have legitimate power, while in Agora you're just allowed to
> possibly consider them in interpreting the rules.
Yeah, but is that power actually codified anywhere, or ju
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> On 30 June 2011 23:50, Joshua Murphy wrote:
>> People refer to some CFJs like they were rules, but they aren't
>> really rules. If there isn't any particular reason for this, can we make
>> them actual rules?
>
> It's a similar situation to
On 30 June 2011 23:50, Joshua Murphy wrote:
> People refer to some CFJs like they were rules, but they aren't really rules.
> If there isn't any particular reason for this, can we make them actual rules?
It's a similar situation to common law.
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 17:50, Joshua Murphy wrote:
> People refer to some CFJs like they were rules, but they aren't really rules.
> If there isn't any particular reason for this, can we make them actual rules?
CFJ procedure is codified in the rules. A CFJ itself can be called by
any player to
On Thu, 2011-06-30 at 15:50 -0700, Joshua Murphy wrote:
> People refer to some CFJs like they were rules, but they aren't
> really rules. If there isn't any particular reason for this, can we
> make them actual rules?
They aren't binding; rather, they're a reflection of what most players
think the
People refer to some CFJs like they were rules, but they aren't really rules.
If there isn't any particular reason for this, can we make them actual rules?
From: Ed Murphy
To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 9:38 PM
Subject: DIS: Re: BUS: Registration
Ed Murphy wrote:
>No relation.
-
Agreed. No relation (as far as we know).
Joshua Murphy wrote:
> I hereby register with the nic
On 30 June 2011 03:52, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I left self-ratification in as Walker had it in eir draft I was trying to fix,
> don't really mind! I'd vote for either. I'll leave it up to Walker.
I don't particularly mind either, I just added it in because I
remember wins being self-ratified in th
On 30 June 2011 06:18, omd wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 12:30 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> I prefer the old version where the Champion was partial pragmatic;
>> awarded by the Herald (hopefully when e's pretty sure the dust has
>> settled) but the award fails if the win failed.
>
> Wasn't e tech
11 matches
Mail list logo
