>but that we also wish to avoid making a decision on sentencing on our own
Is that not exactly what the text of rule 911 states we should do?
On Wed, 24 Jul 2013, omd wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 12:21 AM, Tanner Swett wrote:
> > I object to this judgement of OVERRULE.
>
> Gratuitous: For the record, I think that scshunt's offense is not even
> close to the levels of negligence various officers have shown over the
> years; alth
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 12:21 AM, Tanner Swett wrote:
> I object to this judgement of OVERRULE.
Gratuitous: For the record, I think that scshunt's offense is not even
close to the levels of negligence various officers have shown over the
years; although this has largely been during lulls, as exce
My ruling was based on rule 911, which states, in part:
>OVERRULE with a valid replacement judgement for the prior
>case, appropriate if the prior judgement was inappropriate in
>the prior case and the replacement judgement is appropriate
>for the prior case; the re
I object to this judgement of OVERRULE. I think that since OVERRULE is not
subject to oversight, it should not be used to introduce new opinions, but
rather only to affirm existing opinions (presumably implementing the judgement
suggested by the appellant, or some such), or to effect a judgement
I haven't gotten very far into the ruleset, so this proto will
probably grow a bit. (I sure hope it does.)
--
Protoproposal h0140 (AI=2)
Tyop O Increment
I had started writing a Proposal fixing *all* the "spelling
errors", thinking I would be the MIGHTY CLEANER of the
Rule
On 23 Jul 2013 15:09, "Benjamin Schultz" wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Charles Walker <
charles.w.wal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> SENSEI'S STONE REPORT
>>
>> This report: 20 Jul 2013
>> Last report: 12 Jul 2013
>>
>> RECENT EVENTS
>> ...-
>
>
>>
>> Mon, 15 Jul 2013 00:00:
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Elliott Hird <
penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I nominate myself, with a salary of Graham's number G Yaks.
>
Good luck on recording THAT in the reports.
--
OscarMeyr
On 22 Jul 2013 21:39, "omd" wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 4:23 PM, omd wrote:
> > [18 proposals]
>
> So what are we really trying to achieve in limiting proposals to MI?
> Is it largely just a cash sink, or are we really trying to delay a
> potentially large number of proposals for a week in
9 matches
Mail list logo