On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I withdraw my support. Cite R478 instead, and I'll reinstate it.
I withdraw my intent to initiate a criminal CFJ.
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 9:57 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-10-07 at 11:55 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> I intend, with 2 support, to initiate a criminal CFJ alleging that
>> tusho violated Rule 101 by kicking me out of the #really-a-cow
>> channel.
> E kicked out someone wit
On Tue, 2008-10-07 at 11:55 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> I intend, with 2 support, to initiate a criminal CFJ alleging that
> tusho violated Rule 101 by kicking me out of the #really-a-cow
> channel.
E kicked out someone with the nick 'tusho'. Also, is it possible to
violate rule 101?
--
ais523
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008, Josiah Worcester wrote:
>> PS. For those of you suggesting the use of R101, I thought y'all decided
>> in opposition to its original intent, that the Rules weren't an agreement
>> for the purposes of R101(v). Can't have it both ways...
>
> *I* think that that judgement was mi
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008, Josiah Worcester wrote:
>> My point being, if e broke a Rule e should be convicted of it, but surely
>> showing such Agoran Spirit(tm) is not worthy of a sentence of exile.
>
> I cited the rule he broke.
I know you did. And e should be found GUILTY if appropriate. I was
dis
On 18:12 Thu 07 Feb , Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Thu, 7 Feb 2008, comex wrote:
> > Hmm. Here is the rule at the time of CFJ 1314
> > Any communication which has been sent via a Public Forum shall
> > be considered to have been made publicly.
> > Same wording. The only difference is
comex wrote:
On Feb 7, 2008 8:48 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
R478 defined a message as public if it is sent *via* the public forum,
or sent *to* all players separately. Something that is sent *to* the PF,
but rejected by the software, is not sent *via* the PF to anyone at all,
s
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008, comex wrote:
> Hmm. Here is the rule at the time of CFJ 1314
> Any communication which has been sent via a Public Forum shall
> be considered to have been made publicly.
> Same wording. The only difference is that while in that case the list
> moderator got it, here
On 17:54 Thu 07 Feb , Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Tu, 7 Feb 2008, Josiah Worcester wrote:
> > When comex intended to ratify his Full Logical Ruleset, rule did
> > not, at the time, exist.
> >
> > I recommend EXILE.
>
> You know, at least once someone ran a contest to actually *award* whoev
On Feb 7, 2008 8:48 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> R478 defined a message as public if it is sent *via* the public forum,
> or sent *to* all players separately. Something that is sent *to* the PF,
> but rejected by the software, is not sent *via* the PF to anyone at all,
> so is not
On Tu, 7 Feb 2008, Josiah Worcester wrote:
> When comex intended to ratify his Full Logical Ruleset, rule did
> not, at the time, exist.
>
> I recommend EXILE.
You know, at least once someone ran a contest to actually *award* whoever
came up with the best scam during Read The Ruleset Week.
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Because it didn't clearly demonstrate intent to submit a proposal. I
> think self-ratification can only be defused by finding that the message
> wasn't sent to the PF, thus wasn't public, thus is not a candidate for
^^
Welcome to Read the Rule
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>I have to stick up for comex here. E sent it. That's what's required.
>The filter is outside of eir control, I've had long messages stuck there
>in the past, while those messages are still messages by the Rules.
E did send the *second* message to the PF (presuming that e's be
root wrote:
On Feb 7, 2008 4:02 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008, Zefram wrote:
As e didn't expect that message to be distributed, e wasn't sending it
to the PF, so eir lie was not public.
I have to stick up for comex here. E sent it. That's what's required.
The
On Feb 7, 2008 4:02 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 7 Feb 2008, Zefram wrote:
> > As e didn't expect that message to be distributed, e wasn't sending it
> > to the PF, so eir lie was not public.
>
> I have to stick up for comex here. E sent it. That's what's required.
> The
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008, Zefram wrote:
> As e didn't expect that message to be distributed, e wasn't sending it
> to the PF, so eir lie was not public.
I have to stick up for comex here. E sent it. That's what's required.
The filter is outside of eir control, I've had long messages stuck there
in th
On 17:56 Thu 07 Feb , comex wrote:
> On Feb 7, 2008 5:53 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I hereby initiate a criminal CFJ:
> > Defendant: comex
> > Rule violated: Rule 2149/8, Truthfulness
> > Action: Falsely claiming that there exists a rule
>
> Making false statement
On Feb 7, 2008 5:53 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I hereby initiate a criminal CFJ:
> Defendant: comex
> Rule violated: Rule 2149/8, Truthfulness
> Action: Falsely claiming that there exists a rule
Making false statements is not proscribed by Rule 2149.
On Nov 28, 2007, at 9:32 PM, Taral wrote:
On 11/28/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Argh! With this criminal system the punishments are too lenient. I
suggest repealing UNAWARE and EXCUSED, and requiring a minimum
sentence of CHOKEY!
Perhaps we should add EXTERMINATE.
That's always a
On 11/28/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Argh! With this criminal system the punishments are too lenient. I
> suggest repealing UNAWARE and EXCUSED, and requiring a minimum
> sentence of CHOKEY!
Perhaps we should add EXTERMINATE.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there
On Nov 28, 2007 9:24 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ah, so this is why we still need UNAWARE. Thanks!
Argh! With this criminal system the punishments are too lenient. I
suggest repealing UNAWARE and EXCUSED, and requiring a minimum
sentence of CHOKEY!
On Nov 28, 2007 7:16 PM, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, I guess after CFJ's 1801 and 1802 it makes sense to do this.
>
> I initiate a criminal case.
>
> The defendant is pikhq
>
> The rule breached is 2172
>
> The action is attempting to register Agora as a B Nomic faction without
On Wednesday 28 November 2007 19:16:11 Levi Stephen wrote:
> Well, I guess after CFJ's 1801 and 1802 it makes sense to do this.
>
> I initiate a criminal case.
>
> The defendant is pikhq
>
> The rule breached is 2172
>
> The action is attempting to register Agora as a B Nomic faction without
A
23 matches
Mail list logo
