Goethe wrote:
> H. CotC, you may wish to enter all of the above conversation as a
> gratuitous argument.
For 2403? 2406? both? other (please specify)?
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> (To stop the above from devolving to further absurdity, it's better to
> assume that actively publishing nothing is legally treated as not doiong
> anything; i.e. not performing). -Goethe
G: "You can't 'not be' on a boat."
R: "I've frequently not been
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 15:15 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Mon, 9 Mar 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 16:13 -0400, comex wrote:
In my opinion, if it had said "all duties", ais523's argument would be
valid; as it is, I think the b
On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 15:15 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Mar 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> > On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 16:13 -0400, comex wrote:
> >> In my opinion, if it had said "all duties", ais523's argument would be
> >> valid; as it is, I think the best interpretation (considering that 'in
>
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 16:13 -0400, comex wrote:
>> In my opinion, if it had said "all duties", ais523's argument would be
>> valid; as it is, I think the best interpretation (considering that 'in
>> a timely manner' is located at the end and vaguely defined)
On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 16:13 -0400, comex wrote:
> In my opinion, if it had said "all duties", ais523's argument would be
> valid; as it is, I think the best interpretation (considering that 'in
> a timely manner' is located at the end and vaguely defined) is that
> the contestmaster is merely requi
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009, comex wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 1:49 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Gratuitous response:
>>
>> The text of Rule 2234 is "performed duties related to the contest in a timely
>> manner". There are two ways to read this. The first (which ais523 argues
>> for) is that "if the c
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009, comex wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 4:04 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Ah, this helps. It answers ais523's CFJ as well, perhaps. Judge Woggle
>> said that a "SHALL", once the time limit has passed, becomes an "open-ended
>> obligation". Which means that if (a) the Officer
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 4:04 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Ah, this helps. It answers ais523's CFJ as well, perhaps. Judge Woggle
> said that a "SHALL", once the time limit has passed, becomes an "open-ended
> obligation". Which means that if (a) the Officer doesn't do it on time
> and (b) the Deputy
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 1:49 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Gratuitous response:
>
> The text of Rule 2234 is "performed duties related to the contest in a timely
> manner". There are two ways to read this. The first (which ais523 argues
> for) is that "if the contest currently mandates no duties, then
Goethe wrote:
> Ok, it may be more broken than that. Recent CFJs have held that a breach
> of the rules related to missing a time limit occurs at the moment a time
> limit is passed. Once that time limit is passed, if the officer does the
> job anyway (late), e still has broken the rule.
>
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> There's another unrelated point to consider here, which might be invoked
> in this situation (which is almost certainly a scam and/or bug that
> needs fixing, but still needs CfJing on). I call for judgement on the
> statement "If an officer violates a time
On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 10:49 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Gratuitous response:
>
> The text of Rule 2234 is "performed duties related to the contest in a timely
> manner". There are two ways to read this. The first (which ais523 argues
> for) is that "if the contest currently mandates no dutie
13 matches
Mail list logo
