On Nov 28, 2007 5:44 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (Partnerships
> screw it up a bit; never got round to fixing that, but maybe now we're
> going to abolish them altogether.)
At two votes AGAINST and one PRESENT on an AI-2 proposal, it's looking
unlikely. :-(
-root
comex wrote:
>Perhaps the initiators of the appeal could have the option of (at the cost
>of barring themselves) barring two other players. This could be possible
>only if there would be at least X eligible panels afterwards (to prevent
>rigging).
Overcomplicated. I do not think that it is th
On Wednesday 28 November 2007, Zefram wrote:
> comex wrote:
> >But this would be pointless, since you're only barring 1/3 of the
> >people you want to.
>
> If you're going to bar three pro-appeal people, there ought to be
> some balance by barring more anti-appeal people. I think barring one
> pro
On Nov 28, 2007 10:47 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> But this would be pointless, since you're only barring 1/3 of the
> people you want to. All three should be barred unless there is no
> eligible panel that does not include any of the appellants, in which
> case the CotC should have di
comex wrote:
>But this would be pointless, since you're only barring 1/3 of the
>people you want to.
If you're going to bar three pro-appeal people, there ought to be
some balance by barring more anti-appeal people. I think barring one
pro-appeal person is about right: the prior judge, who is pre
On 11/28/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Taral wrote:
> >There may be multiple players calling for the appeal. This could
> >result in un-assignable appeals. I would vote AGAINST this.
>
> I suspect that e intended "the player who initiated the appeal".
> That's always a single player now,
Taral wrote:
>There may be multiple players calling for the appeal. This could
>result in un-assignable appeals. I would vote AGAINST this.
I suspect that e intended "the player who initiated the appeal".
That's always a single player now, usually acting with 2 support.
-zefram
On 11/28/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The entities qualified to be assigned as judge of an appeal case
> are the judicial panels consisting of three members, where each
> of the members is qualified to be assigned as judge of the prior
> case, the player who called
8 matches
Mail list logo
