SnuggleWand could've indeed - the CFJ is indeed in a peculiar mess, which
is why I recently introduced recusal, so if someone gets a case they just
don't wanna deal with (which happened to PuddleGleam here) then ey can
recuse themselves instead of holding up the judicial system.
V.J. - It might be
Apologies for the triple-post, but CB could have just expressed disinterest
in the darn thing.
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 1:01 PM, V.J Rada wrote:
> This message is just for the convenience of those not caught up, as I
> was not.
>
> Oh dear God just read the full mess. CB (this is a valid nickname
This message is just for the convenience of those not caught up, as I
was not.
Oh dear God just read the full mess. CB (this is a valid nickname, don't
even think about it) submitted a message *pledging* not to submit
judgement. Gaelan then attempted to ratify a document stating that 3509
was judg
Is it legal to move for you to reconsider your own judgement and then not
judge it? I feel like this should be counted as a refusal to reconsider and
we should thus count the original judgement (and Moot it if necessary).
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 5:47 AM, CuddleBeam
wrote:
> I'm not going to give
It definitely should be. Good catch.
On 06/12/2017 08:22 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
I like this, but maybe the “10 different players” could be “10 different
persons” to handle stamps granted before deregistration.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gm
I like this, but maybe the “10 different players” could be “10 different
persons” to handle stamps granted before deregistration.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Jun 12, 2017, at 9:20 PM, Nic Evans wrote:
>
> Shinies are a bit tedious right now, a
Shinies are a bit tedious right now, and they aren't getting much usage.
What little usage they are getting isn't really interesting and almost
feels like a punishment for players trying to do good for the game. It's
also difficult to keep track of - I'd hazard that only the Secretary has
any r
>The proposal things
Maybe its just me but I'm not particularly motivated to make proposals. Its
a bit because of Adam Smith-like economics and personal greed I guess.
I know that using my shinies to make proposals myself will likely result in
those shinies being used woefully inefficiently (in c
On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-06-12 at 22:41 +, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > Grr. My fault. Will anyone mind if I ratify this away? Only way I can think
> > of fixing it, so I'm going to try. I intend, without objection, to ratify
> > the following document: {{The proposal
I concur with ais523.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Jun 12, 2017, at 7:16 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2017-06-12 at 22:41 +, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> Grr. My fault. Will anyone mind if I ratify this away? Only way I can think
>> of fixin
The proposal things are meant to be bonuses not penalties; allowing
you to pend w/support where non-newbs would have to pay. It was the
CFJs that prompted it, but I was listing a bigger range of ways we'd
used in the past to *either* encourage or slow down new players.
The CFJ part doesn't have
Thank you for the line break thing; I absolutely remember reading it
before but forgot.
I'm not sure why the Proposal conditions are there when combating
CFJs is the issue. I also think that the "non-newbie support" thing
is OK, but might stop a burst of activity similar to the one we've just
seen
7958? This is good because 7858 is indeed a proposal already, but the out
of order numbering is confusing.
Sorry I didn't catch this earlier.
On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 9:34 PM Quazie wrote:
>
>> ID Author(s) AI Title Pender Pend fee
>> (sh.)
>>
>vexatious CFJs
I think part of the motivation for player to do those CFJs is to get
guaranteed, safe information without any risk of would-be social hurdles.
Its like going to the government office of information for information
which seems that it should be very professional and helpful, instea
On Mon, 12 Jun 2017, CuddleBeam wrote:
> I think this would be good. It might help to note that my main motivation
> for CFJs (and maybe for others) is that while I know I can informally ask
> for help, CFJing just seems to be a strictly better choice as it's the same
> thing, except its now tot
I don't think requiring someone to ask for support is "crippling",
and I think vexatious designations are overly antagonistic.
Especially when we want to consider things like teaching format (e.g.,
when conducting official business, to not post lines as you did below;
rather, put hard line bre
I think this would be good. It might help to note that my main motivation
for CFJs (and maybe for others) is that while I know I can informally ask
for help, CFJing just seems to be a strictly better choice as it's the same
thing, except its now totally official too. I feel pretty vulnerable at
fir
Could we just have vexatious litigant category w/out crippling newbies'
ability to do things for two months? Vested interest here I guess but I
would just have something like
"The Arbitor, without 2 objection from players other than the designee, may
designate a player as a vexatious litigant. Vex
We used to have a "newbie" category that lasted at least a month.
[This is inspired by CuddleBeam's recent CFJ, but not just because
of that, CuddleBeam, there are several instances in the archives
of new players putting forth a lot of CFJs, so not just you...].
Possibilities:
- Newbie is a p
On Mon, 12 Jun 2017, CuddleBeam wrote:
> I retracted it, sorry. I looked through the CFJ history and couldn't find
> anything relevant (maybe I didn't search for the right thing though) but
> I'm glad to know that its alright.
There's not one *combining* nicknames and capitalization that I can
I retracted it, sorry. I looked through the CFJ history and couldn't find
anything relevant (maybe I didn't search for the right thing though) but
I'm glad to know that its alright.
On Mon, 2017-06-12 at 20:28 +, Quazie wrote:
> This is trivially True.
> This is True without the disclaimer, but it's even more True with it.
>
> This isn't an interesting CFJ, but it's still True.
>
> -quazie, Quazie, or quaZie even - it's still obviously me.
It's worth noting that nicknam
On Mon, 2017-06-12 at 22:24 +0200, CuddleBeam wrote:
> I CFJ the following: ""Cuddlebeam" and "CuddleBeam" are both valid ways to
> write the name of the Player that initiated this CFJ."
>
> If it helps, I wish for Cuddlebeam and CuddleBeam to both be valid ways to
> write my Player name, and if n
This is trivially True.
This is True without the disclaimer, but it's even more True with it.
This isn't an interesting CFJ, but it's still True.
-quazie, Quazie, or quaZie even - it's still obviously me.
On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 1:24 PM CuddleBeam
wrote:
> I CFJ the following: ""Cuddlebeam" an
24 matches
Mail list logo
