And I didn't fix my typo of dependent, twice. Goddamn.
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 4:47 PM, V.J Rada wrote:
> I pend the following two proposals: the 1st with AP &
> the 2nd with Shinies.
>
> Title: Cards are appealable, kinda
> AI: 2
> In Rule 2426 entitled "Cards"
> replace the text
> {{A person SHA
If you're pondering this, It might be worth pondering how deputization plays in
here.
If an Officer misses "last week's" report, but then publishes "this week's"
report, can someone else still deputize to publish "last week's " report?
If you say " no, because it's impossible to go back in ti
Totally agree, the CoE part is an unforeseen loophole!
I suppose up you could argue that the R2201 duty is to publish a "revision"
which isn't the same thing as a report?
On Wed, 2 Aug 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Just to clarify my original argument, it's my belief that duty
> fulfilling repo
I intend to at least try to establish some precedent around when, precisely, a
periodic duty such as a weekly report is “due,” and to do so in a way that
allows it to come due with sufficient time for the officer to fulfil it before
it becomes overdue and a card may be issued. We’ll see how succ
The "duty" in that rule
is to perform the "task" at least once. If you do it more times, it's still
only
the singular duty of doing the task "at least once" in the given time period.
On Thu, 3 Aug 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> I considered that, at least superficially, but note the “at least”
Just to clarify my original argument, it's my belief that duty
fulfilling report is one that fulfills an official obligation (you
could be punished for not doing that job, and now you can't). A CoE
revision fulfills the duty to handle the CoE, and it is a report,
so... Basically, I agree with the c
FWIW, the use of the term duty-fulfilling was a specific edit precisely to
avoid the multiple-report issue:
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 17:36:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: Kerim Aydin
To: "Agora Nomic discussions (DF)"
Subject: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Granular Payd
I considered that, at least superficially, but note the “at least” in the
definition of “weekly duties.” Even considering the common term “duty,” that
“at least” appears to make any weekly report duty-fulfilling, regardless of how
long it’s been since the previous report.
The other option I cou
The rules define official duty as "any duty..." but do not the word duty in
general.
Seems worthy of reconsideration as it misses this basic definition. The
definitition
of Duty (in dictionary) is something required to be performed, and once a shall
is satisfied, there is no requirement (ie
I would appreciate if you separated the change to Cards into a separate
proposal. It is not minor, though it is a fix.
Beyond that, this is grand. Thank you for undertaking this. I suspect that fix
to 1728, in particular, is urgent.
-o
> On Jul 31, 2017, at 12:37 AM, V.J Rada wrote:
>
> Titl
> On Aug 1, 2017, at 8:32 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2017-07-31 at 15:37 -0400, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> wrote:
>> CFJ: babelian has pended eir most recently submitted proposal.
>
> This is CFJ 3552, and was paid for (in a subsequent message) using AP.
> I assign it to o. (Sorry
> On Aug 2, 2017, at 9:47 PM, Nic Evans wrote:
>
> On 07/30/2017 02:06 PM, Nic Evans wrote:
>> Everything in the last attempt failed because I never had any shinies,
>> stamps did not exist, and the mechanisms of ASaAA refered to were void at
>> that time. So here they are again:
>>
>> Since
12 matches
Mail list logo
