On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 04:02, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 12:46 PM Aris Merchant
> wrote:
> >
> > This is entire message is OOC.
> >
> > I'm not doing very well. I've been having both physical health problems and
> > fairly serious mental health problems, in addition to a bunch
I've already been eliminated, I was just joking pretty much
On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 3:17 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is held in abeyance from its inception to 48 hours after the end of
> the suspension period. You can just act as if it hasn't started till
>
It is held in abeyance from its inception to 48 hours after the end of
the suspension period. You can just act as if it hasn't started till
then.
-Aris
On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 10:09 PM Rebecca wrote:
>
> But does tolling mean to stop the clock or to simply suspend the effects of
> the eliminatio
Take care Aris, I've found over time that sometimes Agora is a good
way to occupy my mind for my health, but sometimes a person just needs
a darned break, too. Even if the tournament stops right here the
entries have been quite enjoyable, so thank you for running it. -G.
On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at
On Sun., Aug. 11, 2019, 13:26 Jason Cobb, wrote:
> On 8/11/19 4:06 PM, James Cook wrote:
> > This rule is dedicated to JUSTICA THE REASONABLE, ENFORCER OF THE
> > RULES: please be assigned that new title, and may Proglet and every
> > other Fugitive of the Old Law be cursed to sin again, that You
On 8/11/19 4:06 PM, James Cook wrote:
This rule is dedicated to JUSTICA THE REASONABLE, ENFORCER OF THE
RULES: please be assigned that new title, and may Proglet and every
other Fugitive of the Old Law be cursed to sin again, that Your
Blotter may smite them under the current law.
Just to be cl
On 8/11/19 4:09 PM, James Cook wrote:
On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 at 20:06, Jason Cobb wrote:
On 8/11/19 3:52 PM, James Cook wrote:
Praise THE AGORAN SPIRIT OF THE GAME.
So, my previous rule was INVALID. However, that doesn't invalidate
Titles and Continual Worship, so I'm not sure if that means that
On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 at 20:06, Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> On 8/11/19 3:52 PM, James Cook wrote:
> > Praise THE AGORAN SPIRIT OF THE GAME.
>
> So, my previous rule was INVALID. However, that doesn't invalidate
> Titles and Continual Worship, so I'm not sure if that means that my new
> AGORAN GOD (STALLMA
On 8/11/19 4:02 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
I submit that this rule is INVALID; it fails to honor ASCIIUS and CANTUS.
Whoops, you're right. They were on my list, but I guess I somehow missed
them.
--
Jason Cobb
On 8/10/19 3:46 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
This is entire message is OOC.
I'm not doing very well. I've been having both physical health problems and
fairly serious mental health problems, in addition to a bunch of real life
responsibilities (TBH, I'm not sure I can even get to all of those at the
we agoran players don't converse about personal matters very often but for
what it's worth as whatever kind of friend i am (maybe more accurately an
Agoran Enemy ;) ) I wish you the very best in your real life, and please
don't let us make our stuff make you feel guilty in any way. it's just a
sill
On 8/10/19 2:46 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
This is entire message is OOC.
I'm not doing very well. I've been having both physical health problems and
fairly serious mental health problems, in addition to a bunch of real life
responsibilities (TBH, I'm not sure I can even get to all of those at the
On 8/8/19 8:32 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
On 8/8/19 10:24 PM, Rebecca wrote:
Sorry, to praise a new god
E praised UNICODE in the final paragraph.
Indeed. UNICODE's name was not placed at the end of the list, which I
assume is what confused you, R. Lee.
--
Trigon
On 8/8/19 10:24 PM, Rebecca wrote:
Sorry, to praise a new god
E praised UNICODE in the final paragraph.
--
Jason Cobb
I humbly submit that by Jason Cobb's previous arguments, that rule was also
invalid, and if it was valid, G's rule is invalid for failing to dedicate
itself to a new god.
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 12:00 PM Reuben Staley
wrote:
> I humbly submit that this rule is, in fact, valid, as the first mentio
Sorry, to praise a new god
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 12:24 PM Rebecca wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 12:24 PM Rebecca wrote:
>
>> I humbly submit that by Jason Cobb's previous arguments, that rule was
>> also invalid, and if it was valid, G's rule is invalid for failing to
>> dedicate itself
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 12:24 PM Rebecca wrote:
> I humbly submit that by Jason Cobb's previous arguments, that rule was
> also invalid, and if it was valid, G's rule is invalid for failing to
> dedicate itself to a new god.
>
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 12:00 PM Reuben Staley
> wrote:
>
>> I humbly
I humbly submit that this rule is, in fact, valid, as the first mention
of ERIS was actually in nch's rule here:
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg34767.html
On 8/8/19 6:30 PM, Rebecca wrote:
I humbly submit this rule is invalid. It is dedicated to ERIS, who was
men
I humbly submit this rule is invalid. It is dedicated to ERIS, who was
mentioned the first time in this message (in a valid rule). But it is
specifically required that dedications must be to previously mentioned GODS
On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 11:51 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> I submit myself to the A
Bah, sent this without the sacrifice. Will have to correct tomorrow.
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019, 8:37 PM Nich Evans wrote:
> I submit myself to the Agoran Gods!
>
> I submit the following rule to the contest:
>
> {
>
> I dedicate this rule to the LORD. As all gods are jealous, new rules
> cannot be cre
On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 12:01 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> This rule is dedicated to the AGORAN SPIRIT OF THE GAME.
>
>
> Please let it be enacted that, after some contestants have been
> eliminated, each message in which a rule enacted shall contain praise to
> at least one eliminated contestant; the
On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 at 04:55, Aris Merchant
wrote:
>
> On Sun, Aug 4, 2019 at 9:51 PM James Cook wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 14:53, Jason Cobb wrote:
> > > On 8/4/19 2:57 AM, James Cook wrote:
> > > > I submit myself to the Agoran Gods! I submit the following rule to the
> > > > contest:
>
On Sun, Aug 4, 2019 at 9:51 PM James Cook wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 14:53, Jason Cobb wrote:
> > On 8/4/19 2:57 AM, James Cook wrote:
> > > I submit myself to the Agoran Gods! I submit the following rule to the
> > > contest:
> > >
> > > {
> > >
> > > I dedicate this rule to ARCAS.
> > >
>
On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 14:53, Jason Cobb wrote:
> On 8/4/19 2:57 AM, James Cook wrote:
> > I submit myself to the Agoran Gods! I submit the following rule to the
> > contest:
> >
> > {
> >
> > I dedicate this rule to ARCAS.
> >
> > Every new rule must be dedicated to exactly one Agoran God, called
On 8/4/19 2:53 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
This rule is dedicated to INTERCAL, the most esoteric of all the gods.
Fie on thee, 0x44, thou fugitive!
To each new fantasy rule, please allow a file to be attached, which file
shall contain the ASCII art of exactly one animal which shall be sacrificed.
On 8/4/19 11:29 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
Each worshiper must understand that only the AGORAN GODS, and, by
extensions, their PHYSICAL EMBODIMENT, Eir Supreme Eminence, and, that
in order to satisfy the AGORAN GODS enough to enforce their rules,
each Novel Paragraph must once contain the word "PLEA
On 8/4/19 2:57 AM, James Cook wrote:
I submit myself to the Agoran Gods! I submit the following rule to the
contest:
{
I dedicate this rule to ARCAS.
Every new rule must be dedicated to exactly one Agoran God, called the
rule's Patron God. The Patron God must have been mentioned in a previous
On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 04:33, Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> On 8/4/19 12:24 AM, Rebecca wrote:
> > I submit myself to the Agoran Gods! I join the FRC and create the following
> > rule
> >
> > O Hark, the commandments of the LORD are upon us! The LORD demanding the
> > respect he deserves, the LORD hereby d
On 8/4/19 12:56 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
[This is not a challenge, and is not sent to the public forum]
By my reading, by this rule each contest message must contain one
message _per Agoran God_. Is there a defined set of Agoran Gods
anywhere? Because if not, there might be an issue.
Never mi
On 8/4/19 12:49 AM, Reuben Staley wrote:
I create the following Fantasy Rule: {
The final paragraph of each contest message shall contain a message of
praise to each Agoran God mentioned previously in a contest message, plus
one not mentioned previously.
}
[This is not a challenge, and is no
On 8/4/19 12:24 AM, Rebecca wrote:
I submit myself to the Agoran Gods! I join the FRC and create the following
rule
O Hark, the commandments of the LORD are upon us! The LORD demanding the
respect he deserves, the LORD hereby decrees that all references to Agoran
Gods shall refer to em in ALL CA
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 8:12 PM Alex Smith wrote:
>
> Come to think of it, "Champion by Championship" is
an "artless redundancy." Very practical things, those.
--
"At this point, given the limited available data, certainty about only a
very small number of things can be achieved." -- Plato, a
Thank you for running a great tournament!
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 9:36 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> Oh yes, and:
>
> 1t's 0v3r s0 1 haz t4|<3n 0ff mi r0b3s T41s r00l 1nva11d f001.
>
> [ooc: thank you all]
>
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > I submit the following rule:
> >
> > I'd l
I think it would be appropriate.
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 9:31 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> I'm pretty sure it's the first *Birthday* tournament/contest win if that's
> a distinction worth making. The previous ones were more like the "free
> tournaments" rule now, and played out over a longer tim
I'm pretty sure it's the first *Birthday* tournament/contest win if that's
a distinction worth making. The previous ones were more like the "free
tournaments" rule now, and played out over a longer time IIRC, less like an
event.
the inspiration for the "birthday" tournament was the wholly-unof
I think I am going to take the approach of renaming it all as a contest.
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 9:16 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> I'll leave it up the the herald, but "Tournaments" are basically synonymous
> with "championship" (they used to be called "championship contests").
> But "championshi
I'll leave it up the the herald, but "Tournaments" are basically synonymous
with "championship" (they used to be called "championship contests").
But "championship" is completely unintuitive so I'd rename em all to
tournament or maybe the more historically-used "contest"?
On Mon, 16 Jul 2018, A
That sounds like an interesting mechanism to try to recreate.
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 9:12 PM Alex Smith wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2018-07-16 at 18:06 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > Champions by Tournament, huh. I believe that's a new one.
>
> It's a very similar mechanism to Championship (although admi
It is, but I couldn't think of something better.
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 9:07 PM Aris Merchant
wrote:
>
> Champions by Tournament, huh. I believe that's a new one.
>
> -Aris
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 6:03 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> wrote:
> >
> > Okay, that makes sense.
> >
> > As Heral
On Mon, 2018-07-16 at 18:06 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Champions by Tournament, huh. I believe that's a new one.
It's a very similar mechanism to Championship (although admittedly one
of the Championship wins was a scam). It may be different enough to
list it separately, though.
Come to think
Champions by Tournament, huh. I believe that's a new one.
-Aris
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 6:03 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
wrote:
>
> Okay, that makes sense.
>
> As Herald, I grant Aris and myself the patent title Champion.
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 8:58 PM Aris Merchant
> wrote:
> >
> > Re
Regulations 4 and 5 suggest that strikes for invalidity are automatic.
-Aris
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 5:49 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> G., could you declare a strike here? I think you need to before everything
> ends.
>
> Publius Scribon
G., could you declare a strike here? I think you need to before everything ends.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 7:21 PM Aris Merchant
wrote:
>
> I submit the following rule:
>
> I'd like to thank the court for it's service. This tournament was amazing.
> The play was
Assess this, declare that, dude can't take a weekend anymore
Seriously though, maybe I should judge those CFJs on whether
the tournament even exists first? Sorry about not getting to those,
maybe tonight ( -7:00 time), definitely by tomorrow.
On Sun, 15 Jul 2018, Publius Scribonius Schola
G., could you declare the winners, so that I may award the appropriate
patent titles?
On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 3:19 PM Aris Merchant
wrote:
>
> It probably shouldn't have been. My thinking was that tournament is only
> really supposed to last a few weeks (there's a SHOULD to that effect). If
> it g
It probably shouldn't have been. My thinking was that tournament is only
really supposed to last a few weeks (there's a SHOULD to that effect). If
it goes for three months, it's way overtime, perhaps because it's broken or
no one is interested enough to complete the goal condition. Under those
circ
Oh, I missed that rule. One question: Why was the 3-month time limit included?
On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 3:00 PM Aris Merchant
wrote:
>
> R2464, "Tournaments": "If a winner of a tournament is determined within
> within 3 months of its initiation, that person or persons win the game,
> otherwise the
R2464, "Tournaments": "If a winner of a tournament is determined within
within 3 months of its initiation, that person or persons win the game,
otherwise the tournament concludes with no winner."
Who do you think wrote the latest version of the tournament rules. :)
-Aris
On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at
I don't think that you get a win from the Birthday Tournament under
the current rules.
On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 2:52 PM Aris Merchant
wrote:
>
> I agree about the short times as well. Sorry everyone. Now we just have to
> see who wins on points...
>
> If I would be appointed Speaker, I request that
I agree about the short times as well. Sorry everyone. Now we just have to
see who wins on points...
If I would be appointed Speaker, I request that the appointment be deferred
until after the PM election.
-Aris
On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 9:42 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Yah sorry about that, the
Yah sorry about that, the first draft regs used original FRC timing which
seemed far too long - holiday tournaments have sometimes worked best
as blitz versions but this was too short, somewhere in the middle would
have been best.
On Sun, 15 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote:
> damn time limits!! thi
damn time limits!! this would have been more fun with higher
participation/longer time but congrats aris.
On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 11:05 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
wrote:
> Yes. That is my third strike. Now, Aris is the only remaining player,
> assuming eir argument is ruled VALID and
Yes. That is my third strike. Now, Aris is the only remaining player,
assuming eir argument is ruled VALID and e thus wins.
On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 8:59 AM Corona wrote:
>
> > [...] with which Agora would establish relations.
>
> You mean G.A.N. Agora?
>
> ~Corona
>
> On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 1:52
> [...] with which Agora would establish relations.
You mean G.A.N. Agora?
~Corona
On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 1:52 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I submit the below argument on the third docket:
>
> Your Honor,
>
> I agree with My Fellow Counse
OOC: I'd say G.A.N.'s. Otherwise you're dropping number information. The
apostrophe makes it feel a lot more acceptable than G.A.N.s would.
-Aris
On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 5:46 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Nothing wrong that I see Counselor; VALID. A fine idea Style 1.5.
>
> OOC grammar question:
I know it just sounded odd.
On Fri, 13 Jul 2018, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> I was using G.A.N. in those instances as Great and Ancient Nomics.
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 8:46 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Nothing wrong that I see Counselor; VALID. A fine idea Style 1.5.
>
I was using G.A.N. in those instances as Great and Ancient Nomics.
On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 8:46 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> Nothing wrong that I see Counselor; VALID. A fine idea Style 1.5.
>
> OOC grammar question: When the final noun in an acronym that uses full
> stops is pluralized: Do yo
Thanks!
On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 7:27 PM Aris Merchant
wrote:
>
> Receipt acknowledged.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 4:26 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Was this received? I didn't receive it.
> > On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 6:53 PM Pub
Receipt acknowledged.
-Aris
On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 4:26 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Was this received? I didn't receive it.
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 6:53 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> wrote:
> >
> > I hereby submit the below argum
I received it
On Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 17:26 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Was this received? I didn't receive it.
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 6:53 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> wrote:
> >
> > I hereby submit the below argument to the court on
Was this received? I didn't receive it.
On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 6:53 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
wrote:
>
> I hereby submit the below argument to the court on the third docket:
>
> Your honor, I believe that the court should initiate a discussion of
> in what ways the G.A.N. of Agora, th
On Fri, 13 Jul 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Actually, #12 and #20 (by Aris) are suitable different, that I'll address
> #12.
(correction: #11 by V.J. Rada, not #12. Is this your handwriting, Bernard?)
Actually, #12 and #20 (by Aris) are suitable different, that I'll address
#12.
Rule #6 is very precise. Counselors must "address each other" in a certain
way and everyone must "address each other" with respect.
"Us" (unlike "you") is not a form of address - in fact it's the opposite,
it's spe
Just a reminder for everyone, if this is ruled INVALID, Corona and
Aris are both eliminated.
On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 3:00 AM Aris Merchant
wrote:
>> Your Honor, I respectfully submit the following argument on Docket #2:
>
> A model longstanding Nomic is the G.A.N. of Agora, under the auspices
> of
Also in the tournament-bug category: I deeply regret not making a 24-hour
limit on all challenges, not just impossibility-based ones.
I'm tempted (in character) to find some kind of statute-of-limitations
appropriate.
Be that as it may, I'll opine on our Pronoun Trouble (both in this one
and
I believe that this should have been ruled INVALID as the "us"
references other Counselors and thus should have referenced them with
appropriate respect. Additionally, I ask the court whether INVALID
arguments will be counted towards the 10 non-procedural arguments.
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 11:03 AM
Counselor, the Court is moved by your arguments (not now, Bernard) and
their appeal to "fun" as an underlying human principle (not NOW,
Bernard), and therefore finds this VAL... hold on.
(what IS it, Bernard?! I'm judging here, you'd better... ok ok I'll
read it... where did I say that befor
Thank you!
On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 6:05 AM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> "the isqueal purpose of Nomic play".
>
> -twg
>
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
>
> On July 13, 2018 9:53 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I'm sorry, this is probably there, but I can't find it
"the isqueal purpose of Nomic play".
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On July 13, 2018 9:53 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
wrote:
>
>
> I'm sorry, this is probably there, but I can't find it. Where is the spelling?
>
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 3:00 AM Aris Merchant
>
> thoug
I'm sorry, this is probably there, but I can't find it. Where is the spelling?
On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 3:00 AM Aris Merchant
wrote:
>
> Your Honor, I respectfully submit the following argument on Docket #2:
>
> A model longstanding Nomic is the G.A.N. of Agora, under the auspices
> of which we now
On Thu, 12 Jul 2018, Alex Smith wrote:
> 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
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
>
(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").
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
oh yah it's pretty obvious - no (0) style for invalid rules.
On Tue, 10 Jul 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> hm can't remember what I intended I'll ponder and respond.
>
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2018, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> > While not explicitly stated in the rules, I read them as sugges
VALID, and a set of intriguing arguments that would take some refuting
Counsellor. Style +2.0.
On Mon, 9 Jul 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> I humbly submit the following Docket #1 argument:
>
> Eff-arr-quee should be considered vastly superior to all other games.
> I will refute the arguments o
hm can't remember what I intended I'll ponder and respond.
On Tue, 10 Jul 2018, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> While not explicitly stated in the rules, I read them as suggesting
> that an INVALID rule can not have style points awarded.
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 11:43 AM Kerim Aydin
While not explicitly stated in the rules, I read them as suggesting
that an INVALID rule can not have style points awarded.
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 11:43 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> This is INVALID As per #6: "for you" doesn't address anyone with "deserved
> respect" (while #6 doesn't supply ev
This is INVALID As per #6: "for you" doesn't address anyone with "deserved
respect" (while #6 doesn't supply every grammatically appropriate address
in the explicit list of titles, the first clause makes it clear that all
forms of address need similar levels of respect - "you" needs to be "your
[I'm going to send my initial judgement to Discussion each time to keep
chatter in BUS down - will finalize in BUS ~once a day.]
The Court finds this VALID and instructs the Clerk to number it FRC-1.
Fits the style - be it hereby noted that this is granted +1 Style as a
baseline for future en
1 - 100 of 108 matches
Mail list logo
