On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 1:03 AM, omd wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 12:22 AM, Sean Hunt
> wrote:
>> I will commit to holding exactly one office, of Agora's choice, and to
>> completing its duties on time, provided that all other offices are
>> held and the duties completed on time.
>
> So, for a
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 12:22 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I will commit to holding exactly one office, of Agora's choice, and to
> completing its duties on time, provided that all other offices are
> held and the duties completed on time.
So, for about a week? ;p
(I'm not up to date on the discussion threads, but H. ais523, please
note that the RCS log linked in the header provides a
comprehensive/continuous log of past rulesets and should be preferred
to grabbing SLRs from email archives. Honestly, I think the lack of
published rulesets has mostly been ba
On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 17:10:18 -0600
Sprocklem wrote:
> On 2014-08-31 17:08, Luis Ressel wrote:
> > On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 22:59:08 +
> > woggle wrote:
> >
> >> [...]
> >
> > Thanks for the background, I hadn't looked up the full CFJ. Perhaps
> > the note referring to it should be removed from
On 2014-08-31 17:06, Luis Ressel wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 16:59:25 -0600
> Sprocklem wrote:
>
>> On 2014-08-31 16:53, Luis Ressel wrote:
>>> Remark: As I noted on the -discussion list, I think the replacement
>>> text represents the current situation anyway.
>>>
>> I believe the rule was chan
On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 23:53:39 +0100
Luis Ressel wrote:
> I'd like to submit the following proposal:
>
> Title: Deputisation clarification
> Adoption index: 3
>
> Change the following text in Rule 2160 (Deputisation)
>
> When a player deputises for an elected office, e becomes the
>
On 2014-08-31 17:08, Luis Ressel wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 22:59:08 +
> woggle wrote:
>
>> [...]
>
> Thanks for the background, I hadn't looked up the full CFJ. Perhaps the
> note referring to it should be removed from the FLR then?
>
On a related note: When was the last FLR published?
On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 22:59:08 +
woggle wrote:
>
>
> On 08/31/14 22:45, Luis Ressel wrote:
> > On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 22:33:13 +
> > woggle wrote:
> >
> >> Rule 2160/12 (Power=3)
> >> Deputisation
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> When a player deputises for an elected office, e becomes the
On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 16:59:25 -0600
Sprocklem wrote:
> On 2014-08-31 16:53, Luis Ressel wrote:
> > Remark: As I noted on the -discussion list, I think the replacement
> > text represents the current situation anyway.
> >
> I believe the rule was changed to how it is currently with the
> intention
On 2014-08-31 16:53, Luis Ressel wrote:
> Remark: As I noted on the -discussion list, I think the replacement
> text represents the current situation anyway.
>
I believe the rule was changed to how it is currently with the intention
that the change be permanent. The deputizing agent could then res
On 08/31/14 22:45, Luis Ressel wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 22:33:13 +
> woggle wrote:
>
>> Rule 2160/12 (Power=3)
>> Deputisation
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> When a player deputises for an elected office, e becomes the
>> holder of that office.
>>
>> - woggle
>
> I disagree.
You disagr
On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 6:45 PM, Luis Ressel wrote:
> I disagree. I also initially thought so when reading that rule some
> days go. (And wrote down an to-do item to fix it.) But then I
> discovered that CFJ:
>
> [CFJ 2400 (called 6 March 2009): Deputisation is generally treated
> as if th
On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 22:33:13 +
woggle wrote:
> Rule 2160/12 (Power=3)
> Deputisation
>
> [...]
>
> When a player deputises for an elected office, e becomes the
> holder of that office.
>
> - woggle
I disagree. I also initially thought so when reading that rule some
days go. (A
On 2014-08-31 15:31, Luis Ressel wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 14:43:08 -0600
> Okay. I had assumed standard practice was to discuss things informally
> before going official.
>
For some things it is, such as when adding features to the game someone
will often post the idea or a proto-proposal to t
On 08/31/14 22:26, Luis Ressel wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 22:12:02 +
> woggle wrote:
>
>> - woggle, Registrar and Clerical Error Generator
>
> I'd appreciate some clarification here. In yesterday's Registrar Report
> you referred to yourself as a Deputy Registrar, but in todays report
>
On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 22:12:02 +
woggle wrote:
> - woggle, Registrar and Clerical Error Generator
I'd appreciate some clarification here. In yesterday's Registrar Report
you referred to yourself as a Deputy Registrar, but in todays report
and also in the above signature you didn't.
--
arane
On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 14:43:08 -0600
Sprocklem wrote:
> If you find what you think to be an error, feel free to post a
> proposal fixing it (or exploit it). Someone will speak up if they
> feel it should be how it is.
Okay. I had assumed standard practice was to discuss things informally
before go
On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 14:50:44 -0600
Sprocklem wrote:
> > --
> > aranea
> If you feel the urge to sign your name like this, feel free to add a
> space after the second dash. Several mail clients chose to strip out a
> signature after (and including) the "-- ".
>
Thanks for the tip! I really didn'
> --
> aranea
If you feel the urge to sign your name like this, feel free to add a
space after the second dash. Several mail clients chose to strip out a
signature after (and including) the "-- ".
--
Sprocklem
On 2014-08-31 14:14, Luis Ressel wrote:
> I interpret paragraph 3 of R103 (The Speaker)
> "
> If the Prime Minister becomes the Speaker, e ceases to hold the
> position of Prime Minister.
> "
> as an badly-worded attempt to declare the Offices of the Speaker and
> the Prime Minster as b
I interpret paragraph 3 of R103 (The Speaker)
"
If the Prime Minister becomes the Speaker, e ceases to hold the
position of Prime Minister.
"
as an badly-worded attempt to declare the Offices of the Speaker and
the Prime Minster as being incompatible -- Badly-worded because is still
all
On 2014-08-31 12:53, Sprocklem wrote:
> On 2014-08-31 06:14, Tanner Swett wrote:
>> CoE: don't forget me!
> What's this in response to?
>
Nevermind, I found it on the archives but, for whatever reason, didn't
receive it.
--
Sprocklem
On 2014-08-31 06:14, Tanner Swett wrote:
> CoE: don't forget me!
What's this in response to?
--
Sprocklem
On Aug 30, 2014, at 5:07 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-08-29 at 09:28 -0400, Tanner Swett wrote:
>> I intend, without objection, to ratify the document consisting of the
>> "Office" and "Holder" columns of the table in the below report.
>
> They're self-ratifying (R1006 defines officeholder
24 matches
Mail list logo
