Gratuitous Argument
The Pledge rule states that "N is 2 unless the pledge explicitly states
otherwise". But it doesn't say what N is when the pledge _does_ explicitly
state otherwise. Therefore, N is indeterminate and there is no explicit
Class for this crime, so it defaults to a base value of 2.
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 at 02:36, Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> [As with most things, I have no idea if this has been tried or suggested
> before.]
>
> Seeing the recent issue with the Ritual and how no individual person
> could be assigned blame for the failure got me wondering if it would be
> a viable to i
On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 at 23:01, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> Also, CFJ: "Rule 2571 is guilty of violating Rule 105." This is not really
> relevant in the scheme of things, I just want it to show up in G.'s CFJ
> history to bewilder future historians.
Did this ever get judged? I can't find any more
Looking back at it, you are probably right in your interpretation, and I
think that the judge is likely to agree with you. I didn't withdraw the
CFJ (and I couldn't now, anyway) because I think there could be other
interpretations, and it can't hurt to get it down in writing.
Jason Cobb
On 6/
On 6/15/2019 9:15 AM, Charles Walker wrote:
I was actually thinking of trying the weekend court as a way of
committing to the game more gradually. Either way I won't have much
time until July, so I'll check back in at that point.
Point taken! A couple weeks ago there were only a few judges o
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 23:48, D. Margaux wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 6:39 PM omd wrote:
> > Perhaps simplify to something like:
> >
> > * Publishing an office's weekly or monthly report for the first
> > time in a given week or month (resp.): 5 coins.
> >
> > Though I suppose m
Any particular reason you are against 8182? I meant it as a simple bugfix.
Jason Cobb
On 6/15/19 12:26 PM, Charles Walker wrote:
I vote as follows:
8180 Trigon, D Margaux 1.0 Paying our Assessor
FOR
8181 D Margaux, [1]1.7 Referee CAN Impose Fines (v1.1)
AGAINST
8182 Jas
On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 at 21:32, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> The judicial list (interested judges) I'm working from is:
>
> D. Margaux, G., Murphy, Trigon, Falsifian, V.J. Rada
>
> Any changes/additions, or did I miss anyone?
>
> Thinking of doing away with the "weekend court" distinction... a bit
> too m
On 6/15/2019 8:09 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> - I really like the idea of obiter dicta, there might be a few good ways
> to implement that.
Thinking about this a bit more, our system really requires individual
judges to set broad precedents - sticking to the narrow would really bog
down the game:
-
So a few overall thoughts here.
- I saw your call for a Motion, and mentally thought "I'll come back and
read through the arguments before supporting" then never did. Not so much
Apathy or stigma against filing, but losing track of it, in part because
all the facts weren't immediately at hand.
If I recall correctly, there used to be a thing in rule 2551 that meant the
clause "if the auctioneer CAN transfer the items... at will" didn't apply if
the auctioneer was Agora. That seems to have gotten lost somewhere along the
line - possibly in proposal 8113, which removed a sentence but I'm
11 matches
Mail list logo
