On 7/7/2019 9:18 PM, James Cook wrote:
>
Well, G. said e proposed the rule to illustrate a security hole in
R106, which eir "power-limit precedence" proposal, soon to be adopted,
is meant to fix.
That was the inspiration, but now that it's (about to be) nerfed to
working on power=1 things on
On Sun, 7 Jul 2019 at 21:12, Aris Merchant
wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 3:36 PM omd wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 7:52 AM James Cook wrote:
> > > Withdraw Rule 2597 (Line-item Veto).
> >
> > Why that rule? It's only a few months old; there are a lot of other
> > rules that are much
On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 3:36 PM omd wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 7:52 AM James Cook wrote:
> > Withdraw Rule 2597 (Line-item Veto).
>
> Why that rule? It's only a few months old; there are a lot of other
> rules that are much more stale.
It’s never been used, and IMO it’s more annoying tha
Are you looking at Rule 2350 ("Proposals"), which is the only place I
see that wording ("remove (syn. retract, withdraw)")? I was looking at
Rule 105 ("Rule Changes"), which does not define "withdraw".
Jason Cobb
On 7/7/19 5:05 PM, James Cook wrote:
The rule says "remove (syn. retract, withdr
The rule says "remove (syn. retract, withdraw)".
On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 at 15:54, Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> This may be a bit nit-picky, but I don't believe "withdraw" is defined
> for rules, only "repeal".
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 7/6/19 10:52 AM, James Cook wrote:
> > On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 at 14:38, James Co
On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 7:52 AM James Cook wrote:
> Withdraw Rule 2597 (Line-item Veto).
Why that rule? It's only a few months old; there are a lot of other
rules that are much more stale.
This may be a bit nit-picky, but I don't believe "withdraw" is defined
for rules, only "repeal".
Jason Cobb
On 7/6/19 10:52 AM, James Cook wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 at 14:38, James Cook wrote:
I submit a proposal as follows.
Title: Police Power
Actually, to get R. Lee potentially on board,
Does anyone else agree that a "by announcement" is needed here? If so,
someone might want to get a proposal submitted by the next distribution.
Jason Cobb
On 7/3/19 12:38 AM, omd wrote:
Does Proposal 8181 actually fix it? Rule 2557 still needs a "by announcement".
In any case, it seems to be
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 9:42 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> So would I face prejudice if I were to open the exact same CFJs again
> later once we actually get CHoJ fixed?
Fine by me.
No
On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 2:42 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> So would I face prejudice if I were to open the exact same CFJs again
> later once we actually get CHoJ fixed?
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 7/3/19 12:38 AM, omd wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 7:49 PM Jason Cobb
> wrote:
> >> Dang it; you are abs
Dang it; you are absolutely right, and I didn't consider that.
Note to judge omd: this applies just as well to CFJ 3743.
Jason Cobb
On 7/2/19 10:45 PM, James Cook wrote:
Gratuitous argument:
As far as I know, finger-pointing still isn't fixed. CFJ 3736
determined that the Referee CANNOT levy
11 matches
Mail list logo
