On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 8:02 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 10:56 PM, Aaron Goldfein
> wrote:
> > I bar Wooble
> > from
> > acting as Judge.
>
> I publish an NoV accusing Yally of violating R2215, a Power-1 Rule, by
> announcing that e bars me from acting as Judge with the in
2009/4/20 Geoffrey Spear :
> I publish an NoV accusing Yally of violating R2215, a Power-1 Rule, by
> announcing that e bars me from acting as Judge with the intent to
> mislead H. CotC Murphy into thinking that doing so was possible.
Can you just go away until you decide to take actions other tha
Yally wrote:
> I initiate a criminal CFJ on these two NoVs. While I admit my guilt in this
You can't, you need to initiate two CFJs (one per NoV).
Goethe wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Goethe wrote:
>>
>>> But if it's found that assets that we've treated as fungible are
>>> not in fact fungible, then all attempts to destroy rests, at least,
>>> have failed. Right?
>> The self-ratification of the March 15 report has papere
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 17:35 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> Sean Hunt wrote:
>>> Ed Murphy wrote:
Denied. The history reflects that destruction. (The real discrepancy
is the creation of those rests in the first place; it happened on March
10, bu
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Goethe wrote:
>
>> But if it's found that assets that we've treated as fungible are
>> not in fact fungible, then all attempts to destroy rests, at least,
>> have failed. Right?
>
> The self-ratification of the March 15 report has papered over any
> errors
On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 16:54 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> But if rests are not fungible, the recordkeepor would be required to
> track each rest as a distinct thing, and attempts to destroy rests
> would have to match, e.g. "I hereby destroy the rest that was created
> when I broke rule foo." We don
On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 17:35 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Sean Hunt wrote:
> > Ed Murphy wrote:
> >> Denied. The history reflects that destruction. (The real discrepancy
> >> is the creation of those rests in the first place; it happened on March
> >> 10, but I missed including it in the March 15 rep
Goethe wrote:
> But if it's found that assets that we've treated as fungible are
> not in fact fungible, then all attempts to destroy rests, at least,
> have failed. Right?
The self-ratification of the March 15 report has papered over any
errors earlier than that.
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 7:36 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> They aren't a currency, and the rules very very strongly imply that
> non-currency assets are not fungible.
Imply isn't worth the number of letters to spell it. Game custom
strongly implies that they are fungible.
--
Taral
"Please let me know
Taral wrote:
> What makes you think Rests aren't fungible?
They aren't a currency, and the rules very very strongly imply that
non-currency assets are not fungible.
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I withdraw the CoE, having noticed that the appeals panel can only
> destroy those Rests created with regards to the previous judgment, and
> that those Rests were never created according to the self-ratified March
> 15 Fnord!. Since Rests are no
2009/3/26 Kerim Aydin :
> well yeah, that's why I remember it... do you suppose you still have those
> particular rests?
I think I do. I hope not to in the near future, though.
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Ooh boy.
>
> But if rests are not fungible, the recordkeepor would be required to
> track each rest as a distinct thing, and attempts to destroy rests
> would have to match, e.g. "I hereby destroy the rest that was created
> when I broke rule foo." We don't do that.
>
> Ther
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009, Elliott Hird wrote:
> 2009/3/25 Kerim Aydin :
>> There was a previous time this came up, when some of ehird's rests
>> were judged
>
> ...by you :-)
well yeah, that's why I remember it... do you suppose you still have those
particular rests?
2009/3/25 Kerim Aydin :
> There was a previous time this came up, when some of ehird's rests
> were judged
...by you :-)
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Sean Hunt wrote:
>> Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> Denied. The history reflects that destruction. (The real discrepancy
>>> is the creation of those rests in the first place; it happened on March
>>> 10, but I missed including it in the March 15 report.)
>>
>> CoE:
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009, Taral wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> CoE: No CoE was submitted; the March 15 report has since self-ratified.
>> Taral has two Rests more than e should.
>
> Yay!
I don't mind this at all, but I wonder if self-ratification shouldn't
be slightly l
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> CoE: No CoE was submitted; the March 15 report has since self-ratified.
> Taral has two Rests more than e should.
Yay!
--
Taral
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
19 matches
Mail list logo
