No, you don't. That only applies to Docket #1.
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 9:14 PM Rebecca wrote:
>
> this is patently invalid. forgot everything had to include evidence.
>
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 11:14 AM, Rebecca wrote:
>
> > Your honour, I submit the following argument to d0ket two:
> > This cou
I don't believe that this fulfills the spelling tule as the incorrect
spelling falls outside of the body of the argument, as precedent for
defining the body of the argument, I present the way that they have
been shown in the updates.
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 9:14 PM Rebecca wrote:
>
> Your honour,
this is patently invalid. forgot everything had to include evidence.
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 11:14 AM, Rebecca wrote:
> Your honour, I submit the following argument to d0ket two:
> This court should rule that the purpose of a nomic is to develop into a
> perfect game, and nomics therefore should
A follow-up question to this is which standards we should follow.
Additionally, i realized that I think this is invalid because I
thought that I was following the evidence rule by referencing previous
arguments, but I realized that it said that I must "include" evidence,
which I don't believe such
On Wed, 2018-07-11 at 21:05 -0400, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> The invalid one was the one that I was referencing. As for why I think
> ti can be done after-the-fact, I think that it is different because so
> far, it has been fulfilled outside of the arguments in a preface, so I
> eith
The invalid one was the one that I was referencing. As for why I think
ti can be done after-the-fact, I think that it is different because so
far, it has been fulfilled outside of the arguments in a preface, so I
either think that it should be accepted in this after-the-fact form or
any rule, which
Where is it in the initial (not the first invalid one, but in the
"resubmission with corrections" message)?
"resubmission" is not a formal thing so independence is assumed. And if
SHALLS were allowed to be fulfilled after-the-fact, many corrections
could have been made once they were pointed
I sorted it by docket, both initially and in a subsequent message,
fulfilling the requirement. There is no requirement that an argument
neatly fall onto a single docket.
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 8:50 PM Alex Smith wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2018-07-11 at 20:45 -0400, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> wrote
I classify this as being on the first docket.
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 8:45 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
wrote:
>
> Your Honor, My Fellow Counselor V.J. Rada seems to have made a fatal
> error in the presentation of eir reasons for G.A.N. of Agora's eksallance. In
> eir argument, e stated tha
On Wed, 2018-07-11 at 20:45 -0400, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
wrote:
> Your Honor, My Fellow Counselor V.J. Rada seems to have made a fatal
> error in the presentation of eir reasons for G.A.N. of Agora's
> eksallance. In
> eir argument, e stated that e would present six reasons. However, he
>
A very intriguing contract. It looks like it would probably work as
is, but I have several improvements:
The first sentence of Section 1 is phrased in a misleading way. Try
"Any player CAN become a member of this contract by agreeing to join.
Unambiguously taking an action defined within this cont
Anyone have ore?
Anyone want Coins?
* Refineries have no carrying capacity.
* I'm standing on a Rank-5 refinery that can make 13 Coins from every ore.
* Let's see if we can get people back in the Coins game!
* (yes, this is a last-ditch attempt to diversify land ownership).
This is a prot
(though I encourage Counsellors to respond to invalid arguments that are
interesting
as this one is, as they will be part of the record even if they cannot make any
limitations) Also on this one: More respect for the Most Heroic Suber as per
#6.
On Wed, 11 Jul 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> W
While this public submission to the court is greatly appreciated, entering the
contest was closed 2 days ago, so the Hon. CuddleBeam can no longer become a
contestant. Close reading of the tournament regulations implies this is an
automatically-INVALID rule (as opposed to being "not a rule").
My email from the list keeps intermittently bouncing, and a-d and a-b got
disabled for me. Again. Looking at the archive subject lines, it seems to
happen whenever there's a day with particularly active discussion.
I don't know why, since I cannot see the bounce messages, so I cannot take
step
I intended it to be an indirect quotation, but I'm not sure that will
hold up. If it doesn't I will resubmit the argument with the
correction.
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 1:55 PM Corona wrote:
>
> Possibly INVALID: not referring to Agora properly, though this is an
> indirect speech quotation, so it m
No, e should be "referred to as such", but I was addressing em.
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 1:44 PM Corona wrote:
>
> This isn't related to this rule in particular, but isn't addressing you
> "Your Honor" illegal, given #6: "The Right Honourable
> Judge G. SHALL be referred to as such"?
>
> ~Corona
>
Possibly INVALID: not referring to Agora properly, though this is an
indirect speech quotation, so it may not count.
> error in the presentation of eir reasons for Agora's eksallance. In
>
This isn't related to this rule in particular, but isn't addressing you
"Your Honor" illegal, given #6: "The Right Honourable
Judge G. SHALL be referred to as such"?
~Corona
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 5:57 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> appears VALID (again, formal response later).
>
> On Wed, 11
appears VALID (again, formal response later).
On Wed, 11 Jul 2018, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> I present the following argument on the first docket to the court:
>
> Your Honor, My Fellow Counselor V.J. Rada seems to have made a fatal
> error in the presentation of eir reasons for
This is VALID but I need to further ponder it's effect. In particular,
I'll have to think about whether the construction "ask the court to rule...
shall" directly imposes a shall on later rules (as the court, I can't
directly impose rule conditions other than by style).
On Thu, 12 Jul 2018, R
VALID afaict (sorry for brevity, better judgement when I have time later
but wanted to opine before deadline)
On Wed, 11 Jul 2018, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> I present the following procedural argument to the court:
>
> Your Honor, My Fellow Counselors V.J. Rada and Aris seem to
It's fine.
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 11:16 AM Rebecca wrote:
>
> sorry
>
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 1:15 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "eksallance" is not a quirky spelling?
> > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 11:13 AM Rebecca wrote:
> > >
> > > Th
sorry
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 1:15 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "eksallance" is not a quirky spelling?
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 11:13 AM Rebecca wrote:
> >
> > The above rule is invalid: no quirky spelling
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 1:
"eksallance" is not a quirky spelling?
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 11:13 AM Rebecca wrote:
>
> The above rule is invalid: no quirky spelling
>
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 1:06 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I present the following argument on th
The above rule is invalid: no quirky spelling
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 1:06 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I present the following argument on the first docket to the court:
>
> Your Honor, My Fellow Counselor V.J. Rada seems to have made a fata
Not an argument: Your Honor, I believe that My Fellow Counselor Aris
violated FRC-6, by failing to reference The Most Heroic Peter Suber
with the appropriate style.On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 8:28 PM Kerim Aydin
wrote:
>
>
>
> FRC (Birthday) Tournament Update
>
>
> The ELIMINATION PERIOD begins in jus
27 matches
Mail list logo
