On 24 Jul 2013 21:20, "omd" wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Charles Walker
> wrote:
> > Moreover, most officers are late occasionally and it is definitely not
in
> > the interests of the game to drive them away every time they miss a
report.
> > In fact I think it's almost always a ba
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Charles Walker
wrote:
> Moreover, most officers are late occasionally and it is definitely not in
> the interests of the game to drive them away every time they miss a report.
> In fact I think it's almost always a bad idea to stop someone from playing
> as opposed
On 24 Jul 2013 20:40, "omd" wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 3:38 AM, James Beirne
wrote:
> > Furthermore, it seems
> > to me that failure to publish a report should not be considered a
> > "minor infraction" as (for me, at least), it serves as an important
> > tool to keep up with the game.
>
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 3:38 AM, James Beirne wrote:
> Furthermore, it seems
> to me that failure to publish a report should not be considered a
> "minor infraction" as (for me, at least), it serves as an important
> tool to keep up with the game.
Well, again, even if there are exacerbating circu
>Quite, but there's no point overruling to TIME OUT.
Ideally I'd have preferred to assess a different penalty, but I wasn't
sure whether doing so merely because he had subsequently gone on hold
would have been inappropriate.
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Jonathan Rouillard
wrote:
> On Wed, Ju
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Charles Walker
wrote:
> On 24 Jul 2013 18:11, "James Beirne" wrote:
>>
>> >The panel (and future judges) should consider that the defendant recently
>> > made emself inactive, rendering TIME OUT most likely ineffectual.
>>
>> E was not inactive at the time of the
On 24 Jul 2013 18:11, "James Beirne" wrote:
>
> >The panel (and future judges) should consider that the defendant
recently made emself inactive, rendering TIME OUT most likely ineffectual.
>
> E was not inactive at the time of the original sentencing, though.
Quite, but there's no point overrulin
>The panel (and future judges) should consider that the defendant recently made
>emself inactive, rendering TIME OUT most likely ineffectual.
E was not inactive at the time of the original sentencing, though.
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 7:07 AM, Charles Walker
wrote:
> On 24 Jul 2013 08:39, "James
On 24 Jul 2013 08:39, "James Beirne" wrote:
>
> What follows is not really a direct reply but is an explanation, of
> sorts, for my feelings towards the sentence, particularly as to why I
> feel a time out is appropriate.
The panel (and future judges) should consider that the defendant recently
m
On Wed, 24 Jul 2013, James Beirne wrote:
> If players were compelled to hold offices I'd feel differently, but
> whereas it's entirely voluntary, failure to discharge duties (ie., not
> do something you signed up to do) seems (to me) deserving of a
> stricter punishment. If one wanted to not disc
What follows is not really a direct reply but is an explanation, of
sorts, for my feelings towards the sentence, particularly as to why I
feel a time out is appropriate.
Perhaps this is coming from my lack of experience, but the rules seem
to very clearly permit and encourage appellate panels to p
On Wed, 24 Jul 2013, James Beirne wrote:
> >but that we also wish to avoid making a decision on sentencing on our own
>
> Is that not exactly what the text of rule 911 states we should do?
There's actually a difference of opinion here. I personally think appeals
courts should overrule more tha
>but that we also wish to avoid making a decision on sentencing on our own
Is that not exactly what the text of rule 911 states we should do?
13 matches
Mail list logo
