On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 15:08 -0800, Taral wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
> > Note that the intent of the proposal was that contesting NoVs due to a
> > belief that their punishment is unjust is valid, and a reasonable use of
> > contestment. There is also precedent, in
On Jan 26, 2009, at 1:08 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
On Sun, 2009-01-25 at 23:26 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
Wooble wrote:
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 8:28 PM, comex wrote:
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 5:54 PM, Geoffrey Spear
wrote:
comex violated R2158 (power 2) by failing to assign a judgement
to CFJ
2
On Jan 26, 2009, at 6:08 PM, Taral wrote:
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Alex Smith
wrote:
Note that the intent of the proposal was that contesting NoVs due
to a
belief that their punishment is unjust is valid, and a reasonable
use of
contestment. There is also precedent, in OscarMeyr p
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
> Note that the intent of the proposal was that contesting NoVs due to a
> belief that their punishment is unjust is valid, and a reasonable use of
> contestment. There is also precedent, in OscarMeyr punishing ehird with
> APOLOGY rather than SI
On Sun, 2009-01-25 at 23:26 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Wooble wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 8:28 PM, comex wrote:
> >> On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 5:54 PM, Geoffrey Spear
> >> wrote:
> >>> comex violated R2158 (power 2) by failing to assign a judgement to CFJ
> >>> 2316 as soon as possible af
On Sun, 2009-01-25 at 20:28 -0500, comex wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 5:54 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> > comex violated R2158 (power 2) by failing to assign a judgement to CFJ
> > 2316 as soon as possible after e become assigned to it as Judge.
> >
> > comex violated R2158 (power 2) by failing
Wooble wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 8:28 PM, comex wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 5:54 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>>> comex violated R2158 (power 2) by failing to assign a judgement to CFJ
>>> 2316 as soon as possible after e become assigned to it as Judge.
>>>
>>> comex violated R2158 (po
comex wrote:
> I become sitting.
This was a no-op, you already were sitting.
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 10:10 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 10:01 PM, comex wrote:
>> I contest these and initiate criminal cases regarding the
>> above-contested NoVs. You could have easily reminded either me or the
>> CotC to achieve the necessary support.
>
> Note to jud
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 10:01 PM, comex wrote:
> I contest these and initiate criminal cases regarding the
> above-contested NoVs. You could have easily reminded either me or the
> CotC to achieve the necessary support.
Note to judge: the fact that comex is initiating criminal CFJs for
violating
ehird wrote:
> On 25 Jan 2009, at 23:55, Ed Murphy wrote:
>
>> If you judged this, then I missed it; point out the message containing
>> your judgement for a straightforward NOT GUILTY.
>
> I just wasn't aware I was an eligible judge/
Rule 1871/25 (Power=1.5)
The Standing Court
Posture i
On 25 Jan 2009, at 23:55, Ed Murphy wrote:
If you judged this, then I missed it; point out the message containing
your judgement for a straightforward NOT GUILTY.
I just wasn't aware I was an eligible judge/
ehird wrote:
> On 25 Jan 2009, at 22:54, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>
>> ehird violated R2158 (power 2) by failing to assign a judgement to CFJ
>> 2333 as soon as possible after e become assigned to it as Judge.
>
> Wait WTF?
Seems clear-cut to me:
http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=
On 25 Jan 2009, at 22:54, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
ehird violated R2158 (power 2) by failing to assign a judgement to CFJ
2333 as soon as possible after e become assigned to it as Judge.
Wait WTF?
14 matches
Mail list logo
