OscarMeyr wrote:
> You're right. Cases SHALL NOT be assigned or judged during a
> holiday. That's overly strong.
You're right, the time limits for reacting to them (via judgement and
appeal, respectively) are extended due to the holiday anyway. (I hadn't
thought of this when publishing the N
On Dec 26, 2008, at 1:23 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 25 Dec 2008, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
My suggestion: holidays: The time between Dec 24 and Jan 2 Just
Does
Not Exist. Anything happening during that time is deemed to happen
on Jan 3 (though in the order it was sent over the holidays
On Thu, 25 Dec 2008, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
>> My suggestion: holidays: The time between Dec 24 and Jan 2 Just Does
>> Not Exist. Anything happening during that time is deemed to happen
>> on Jan 3 (though in the order it was sent over the holidays), and
>> for duration-based-spells, er, rules
On 25 Dec 2008, at 19:43, comex wrote:
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 7:14 PM, Geoffrey Spear
wrote:
I preemptively object to all dependent actions attempted between now
and Dec. 31, 2012.
I CFJ on the following:
{{
It is possible for a private contract to create an ability of one
party to act on
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 7:14 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> I preemptively object to all dependent actions attempted between now
> and Dec. 31, 2012.
>
> I CFJ on the following:
> {{
> It is possible for a private contract to create an ability of one
> party to act on behalf of another party.
> }}
T
On Dec 23, 2008, at 7:41 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Wed, 24 Dec 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
On 24 Dec 2008, at 00:00, Kerim Aydin wrote:
2. Having received no Objections, I ratify the following report
with a
scope of the SLR:
I see "win and fix" is a long-forgotten mantra.
I should expla
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Goethe wrote:
>
>> [Murphy, I told you we should have specifically disabled dependent actions
>> altogether for the duration... :) Though I guess you didn't disagree...
>> looks like a fun two weeks to wait for the CFJs]
>
> Is there any remaining ambiguity
ehird wrote:
> On 24 Dec 2008, at 17:25, comex wrote:
>
>> You retracted it.
>
> Not that I recall.
http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2317
On 24 Dec 2008, at 17:25, comex wrote:
You retracted it.
Not that I recall.
On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> CoE: I have an outstanding objection to everything, maybe
You retracted it.
On Tue, 2008-12-23 at 19:14 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> I preemptively object to all dependent actions attempted between now
> and Dec. 31, 2012.
Note that ehird had a standing preemptive objection. If the other
preemptive objections work, so did this one, and Goethe's scam failed
all along. (No
On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
>
> On 24 Dec 2008, at 00:00, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>> 2. Having received no Objections, I ratify the following report with a
>> scope of the SLR:
>
> CoE: I have an outstanding objection to everything, maybe
You withdrew it, almost certainly.
Goethe wrote:
> I personally didn't believe it possible without legislation, but then
> I found Zefram's judgement in CFJ 1719 to be extraordinarily thorough
To save a lookup, this was the CFJ that found that Peekee's "anyone can
send e-mail on my behalf via an unprotected web form" worked.
> an
Goethe wrote:
> [Murphy, I told you we should have specifically disabled dependent actions
> altogether for the duration... :) Though I guess you didn't disagree...
> looks like a fun two weeks to wait for the CFJs]
Is there any remaining ambiguity that would warrant violating the
prohibition
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 7:37 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Didn't we figure this particular one out back in that first CFJ
>> on whether this was possible? -G.
>
> CFJs can be decided wrongly. It's not in the best interests of the
> game for players to a
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 7:37 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Didn't we figure this particular one out back in that first CFJ
> on whether this was possible? -G.
CFJs can be decided wrongly. It's not in the best interests of the
game for players to act on behalf of others using a mechanism that
recordk
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 7:54 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> If some Rule requires that an action be done prior to a given
> time, and that given time falls during a Holiday, or within the
> 72-hour period immediately following that Holiday, then that
> action need not be done until 72
Goethe wrote:
> My suggestion: holidays: The time between Dec 24 and Jan 2 Just Does
> Not Exist. Anything happening during that time is deemed to happen
> on Jan 3 (though in the order it was sent over the holidays), and
> for duration-based-spells, er, rules, that time is just subtracted out
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008, comex wrote:
> I claim that this works because (a) preemptive objections don't work,
> and (b) I am not allowed to make arbitrary rule changes by
> announcement, merely to cause Rule 9843 to do so, so any restrictions
> imposed by Rule 9842 do not apply.
But did the ratificat
On Wed, 24 Dec 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
> On 24 Dec 2008, at 00:00, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>> 2. Having received no Objections, I ratify the following report with a
>> scope of the SLR:
>
> I see "win and fix" is a long-forgotten mantra.
I should explain that. holiday timing is an annual screwup
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> I preemptively object to all dependent actions attempted between now
> and Dec. 31, 2012.
>
> I CFJ on the following:
> {{
> It is possible for a private contract to create an ability of one
> party to act on behalf of another party.
> }}
Didn't we fig
On 24 Dec 2008, at 00:00, Kerim Aydin wrote:
2. Having received no Objections, I ratify the following report
with a
scope of the SLR:
I see "win and fix" is a long-forgotten mantra.
22 matches
Mail list logo
