On 2/8/08, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does this mean that a single player can indefinitely delay the
> ratification of any document without violating rule 2149 simply by
> making claims of error that are themselves true statements but that
> are completely irrelevant to the documen
Wooble wrote:
> Does this mean that a single player can indefinitely delay the
> ratification of any document without violating rule 2149 simply by
> making claims of error that are themselves true statements but that
> are completely irrelevant to the document in question? (e.g., claim of
> error
On Feb 8, 2008 12:04 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/8/08, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I hereby initiate a criminal case, alleging
> > that comex violated rule 2149 by claiming in message
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> that proposal
> > 5419 passed while not believing that to be true
On Feb 8, 2008 10:17 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So your claim of error is that the report of the voting results
> erroneously did not report your claim of error, which itself isn't
> part of the voting results?
>
> Does this mean that a single player can indefinitely delay the
On Feb 8, 2008 10:04 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/8/08, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I hereby initiate a criminal case, alleging
> > that comex violated rule 2149 by claiming in message
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> that proposal
> > 5419 passed while not believing that to be true
On 2/8/08, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I hereby initiate a criminal case, alleging
> that comex violated rule 2149 by claiming in message
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> that proposal
> 5419 passed while not believing that to be true.
I did not claim that the proposal passed; rather, I claimed
(corr
pikhq wrote:
On 19:42 Sat 02 Feb , comex wrote:
On Feb 2, 2008 2:24 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Voting results for Proposals 5418-5422:
x5419 D1 3comex Generalize Game Actions
CoE: P5419 passed. Well, I think it passed, and I'm not sure a second
CFJ on this is ne
On 19:42 Sat 02 Feb , comex wrote:
> On Feb 2, 2008 2:24 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Voting results for Proposals 5418-5422:
> > x5419 D1 3comex Generalize Game Actions
>
> CoE: P5419 passed. Well, I think it passed, and I'm not sure a second
> CFJ on this is nece
8 matches
Mail list logo
