On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 7:53 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> I CFJ on the statement “The Warrigal and Zachary Watterson are the same
> person.”
>
> Until this CFJ is resolved, I intend to track eir respective budgets
> separately. This will cause em to receive more Shinies than e otherwise
> should
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 9:00 PM Owen Jacobson wrote:
> On Apr 19, 2017, at 11:55 PM, Aris Merchant gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 8:29 PM Owen Jacobson wrote:
>
>
> Leaving aside that one budget is not fully determinate, it is definitely
>> the case that, if Quazie is a player, t
CFJ 1836 states that a self ratifying report does not ratify
information it incidentally contains, particularly the list of
players. The logic behind that is rather interesting, but anyways, it
applies in this case.
-Aris
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 7:26 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> Interesting. Rule
Interesting. Rule 869 says that “A registered person is a player” and secures
registration (with power=3). Rule 1551 (Ratification) has power 3.1, so it’s
actually possible that ratification could register someone. I don’t think
that’s desireable; if nothing else, someone made a player by ratifi
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> I disagree. It hasn't seen its second drafting yet, and I think we should
> discuss it somewhat more. However, I do believe it is traditionally the
> author's privilege to decide when a proposal is ready for a vote.
I was waiting to see if there was
I disagree. It hasn't seen its second drafting yet, and I think we should
discuss it somewhat more. However, I do believe it is traditionally the
author's privilege to decide when a proposal is ready for a vote.
-Aris
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 3:48 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.
I recommend we try to move this along to a vote.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 8:08 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> It could be scaling where a person purports to have completed a gig and
> are awarded five s
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 1:53 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> While I love the idea and I applaud you for taking the time to do that, it
> seems a tad impractical.
>
>
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 4:29 PM,
While I love the idea and I applaud you for taking the time to do that, it
seems a tad impractical.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 4:29 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>On Thu, 20 Apr 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> > My Copy of RONR11 wou
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> My Copy of RONR11 would also suggest that it is a point of order,
given that it is a custom
> of the Assembly.
>
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>
>> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at
My Copy of RONR11 would also suggest that it is a point of order, given
that it is a custom of the Assembly.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 12:50 PM, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 9:16 AM Benjamin Schultz <
>
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 9:16 AM Benjamin Schultz
wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 1:18 PM, Kerim Aydin
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Minor point of order for new folks:
>>
>> We've historically promoted bottom-posting for replies (with editing of
>> past
>> thread pieces allowed). Unfortunately not well-
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 1:18 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Minor point of order for new folks:
>
> We've historically promoted bottom-posting for replies (with editing of
> past
> thread pieces allowed). Unfortunately not well-supported by current email
> clients. I mildly prefer bottom-posting
13 matches
Mail list logo
