On Wed, 28 Jan 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 2:04 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Um, what about an officer's weekly duties which are clearly linked
>> to particular obligations? -Goethe
>
> You get a note for completing the weekly duties of any office, not one
> per office. T
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 2:04 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Um, what about an officer's weekly duties which are clearly linked
> to particular obligations? -Goethe
You get a note for completing the weekly duties of any office, not one
per office. The same argument applies; I'd be better off ignoring
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 10:14 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Why? If the two are in the same currency (+1 note versus -2 notes), what's
>> the difference for R101, which must consider any sort of penalty (note:
>> "penalty" not "punishment"). If I don't ge
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 10:14 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Why? If the two are in the same currency (+1 note versus -2 notes), what's
> the difference for R101, which must consider any sort of penalty (note:
> "penalty" not "punishment"). If I don't get my note I've certainly been
> penalized.
The n
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009, Warrigal wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 10:14 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Having such an explanation laid out and discussed was the purpose of this
>> CFJ, but you can't (or at least shouldn't) dismiss it quite so simply.
>
> Sorry, I was under the impression that I was agree
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 10:14 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Having such an explanation laid out and discussed was the purpose of this
> CFJ, but you can't (or at least shouldn't) dismiss it quite so simply.
Sorry, I was under the impression that I was agreeing with you when I said that.
I have nothin
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009, Warrigal wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 7:23 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> Gratuitous argument: If withholding a reward for an action not
>>> performed is a punishment, we're all constantly being punished for
>>> doing something we are not obligated to not do.
>>
>> You're mis
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 7:23 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Gratuitous argument: If withholding a reward for an action not
>> performed is a punishment, we're all constantly being punished for
>> doing something we are not obligated to not do.
>
> You're missing the key point that I'm not talking about
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009, Warrigal wrote:
>> I CFJ on the following statement: If the Rules specify that a player is
>> to receive a Note for performing a required (i.e. a SHALL) action, and e
>> fails to perform it, the withholding of the Note is, for the purposes of
>> R101(vi), a penalty for breaki
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 11:27 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> [Been meaning to call this since Rests were enacted. Seems to be suddenly
>> more pressing]
>>
>> I CFJ on the following statement: If the Rules specify that a player is
>> to receive a Note for per
On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 11:27 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> [Been meaning to call this since Rests were enacted. Seems to be suddenly
> more pressing]
>
> I CFJ on the following statement: If the Rules specify that a player is
> to receive a Note for performing a required (i.e. a SHALL) action, an
11 matches
Mail list logo
