It would appear so, my apologies.
Jason Cobb
On 6/18/19 1:47 AM, James Cook wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 05:04, Jason Cobb wrote:
(This means that Corona was not a player from ~10 June to ~13 June
because ratification.)
I don't think the "fugitive" vs. "player" distinction in the Referee
we
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 05:04, Jason Cobb wrote:
> (This means that Corona was not a player from ~10 June to ~13 June
> because ratification.)
I don't think the "fugitive" vs. "player" distinction in the Referee
weekly report is self-ratifying. It would be self-ratifying in a
Registrar's report si
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 2:51 PM omd wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 2:56 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > It won't self-ratify even then. The resolution of a CFJ doesn't
> > "cause it to cease to be a doubt" the way a denial of claim does. The
> > only way to make it undoubted post-CFJ is to either
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 2:56 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> It won't self-ratify even then. The resolution of a CFJ doesn't
> "cause it to cease to be a doubt" the way a denial of claim does. The
> only way to make it undoubted post-CFJ is to either just publish a
> "new" document, or re-CoE the old on
It won't self-ratify even then. The resolution of a CFJ doesn't
"cause it to cease to be a doubt" the way a denial of claim does. The
only way to make it undoubted post-CFJ is to either just publish a
"new" document, or re-CoE the old one (which gives the publisher an
opportunity to deny the clai
No, report won't self ratify unless the CFJ says players CAN expunge blots
> On Jun 12, 2019, at 4:40 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> So does this just mean that you will publish an updated report after the
> resolution of the CFJ? Can this self-ratify before the CFJ gets a judgment?
>
> Jason Cobb
So does this just mean that you will publish an updated report after the
resolution of the CFJ? Can this self-ratify before the CFJ gets a judgment?
Jason Cobb
On 6/12/19 4:35 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
I resolve this by reference to CFJ 3734
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 4:24 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
Un
You failed to judge a CFJ on time a few months ago when you were
leaving. The current justice system has a tendency to continue to punish
you for crimes that happened in the distant past.
On 10/11/2018 07:17 PM, ATMunn wrote:
I expunge 1 blot from myself. (when did I get that, anyways?)
On 10
Oh, yes, you're correct, actually. Thank you.
In that case the tally would look like this:
++
|8089|
+--++
|Aris | FF |
|G.| P |
|Murphy||
|Trigon| F |
|twg | F |
+--++
|Kenyon||
+--++
|FOR
On Sun, 16 Sep 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> I would like to request that nobody CoE the resolution of proposal 8089,
> because it wouldn't change the outcome of the decision and would have a
> knock-on effect on this distribution's quorum which I would much rather
> not have to think about
Whups! If nothing else, this sure puts em at the bottom of the pile for the
next
auction! (I'll try to remember to include blot info when doing auctions in
future).
On Sun, 16 Sep 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> On Sunday, September 16, 2018 3:42 PM, D Margaux
> wrote:
> > Person
Two things:
-You need to announce this as intent unless there was an earlier intent
you announced.
-Unfortunately, the way the Rule is written, "destroy" can mean either
to retract/withdraw or to call in. You definitely don't want to call in.
(that's another of those bug fix needed for clarit
On Sun, 22 Apr 2018, ATMunn wrote:
> I still have that pledge?
>
> I intend, without objection, to withdraw all pledges that I own.
>
> [I think I might have done this before and just forgotten to actually follow
> through with the intent.]
For the record (for everyone), those older pledges we
Luckily they're not meaningfully different and the 2nd version will
ratify minutes after the first then!
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 1:49 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>
>> I made a fixed version. CoE denied.
>
>
> This too may cause the original version to self-rati
On Tue, 21 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
I made a fixed version. CoE denied.
This too may cause the original version to self-ratify, since there's no
longer a doubt tied to it.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
I destroy each of my own pledges except for the one which begins "I
pledge not to make thread titles". Obviously any pledges I have made
since my intent are not destroyed.
On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 8:54 AM, VJ Rada wrote:
> I also intend to destroy o's Dawsburgen pledge without objection.
>
>
> On
> On Oct 23, 2017, at 5:50 PM, VJ Rada wrote:
>
> I intend without objection to destroy PSS's following pledge
> "I pledge to deputize for the rulekeepor on October 19, 2017, if it is
> still possible.”.
I don’t believe this to be possible. Rule 2450 (“Pledges”):
> To "retract" (syn "withdraw"
17 matches
Mail list logo
