Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Surveyor

2017-07-10 Thread Edward Murphy
Cuddle Beam wrote: I also believe that its entirely possible for the rules to be faulty and be acted upon via those flaws, as per ais523's withdrawal scam, where the intent was clear, but the result was a mini dictatorship. I doubt becoming a dictator would be "Treating Agora Right Good Forever"

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Surveyor

2017-07-07 Thread Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
I agree that an action is required to occult, I just don't believe that a check is a required action. In my mind, I was thinking of the time as part of the required state. On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 01:06 Owen Jacobson wrote: > > On Jul 6, 2017, at 6:46 AM, Alex Smith wrote: > > On Thu, 2017-07-06 a

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Surveyor

2017-07-06 Thread Cuddle Beam
I am grateful and flattered for your attention given to this Judgement, I believe discussion like this makes for great gameplay. Anyway, onto it: I present the following as counterargument to the argument that "start of the month" should be an instant or "only one point each month" instead of a p

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Surveyor

2017-07-06 Thread Cuddle Beam
R2160: "(...) 3. Either (i) the office is vacant; or (ii) the aforementioned time limit expired more than fourteen days ago; or (iii) the deputy announced between two and fourteen days earlier that e intended to deputise for that office for the purposes of the particular action." "(iii) the deputy

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Surveyor

2017-07-06 Thread Nicholas Evans
You never depitized. You have to announce intent to depitize for occupied offices. On Jul 6, 2017 06:11, "Cuddle Beam" wrote: > This is a bit of a mess I've caused to him really, lol. I'll help tidy it > up a bit so that things are more clear: > > Gratuitous argument for that CFJ: > > There has

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Surveyor

2017-07-06 Thread Cuddle Beam
This is a bit of a mess I've caused to him really, lol. I'll help tidy it up a bit so that things are more clear: Gratuitous argument for that CFJ: There has been a bit of tumbling, but with people's input, the most recent version of my scam goes like this: ▪ In R2491 we have: "At the start of e

DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Surveyor

2017-07-06 Thread Alex Smith
On Thu, 2017-07-06 at 01:57 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote: > I CFJ on the statement “I am the Surveyor.” This is likely to be dismissed due to lack of context. What's the controversy that might affect whether or not you're the Surveyor? -- ais523