Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

Which is the summary and which is the main though? On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 3:34 AM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > The list of changes may be a summary that is ignored ("if such a document > can be divided into a summary section and a main section, where the only > purpose of the summary section is to s

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

The list of changes may be a summary that is ignored ("if such a document can be divided into a summary section and a main section, where the only purpose of the summary section is to summarize information in the main section, and the main section is internally consistent, ratification of the do

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

Alternate alternate: a document purporting to be values from a year ago is no more purporting to hold the actual report then if someone published "Here's what the switches were last year" On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Alexis Hunt wrote: > Or, alternate argument: such a document would fail to be "the valu

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

Or, alternate argument: such a document would fail to be "the value of each instance of that switch whose value is not its default value;" and therefore fail to even satisfy the reporting requirement. On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 at 21:22, Alexis Hunt wrote: > I don't think self-ratification would work

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

I don't think self-ratification would work that way, though. Self-ratification is clearly limited in scope to the listings themselves. I don't think any surrounding disclaimers or the like are included. On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 at 21:21, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > The ratified report in man also has 2

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

The ratified report in man also has 2017. I'm sure that ratification works that way if you explicitly write "The following holding were true on 'date'" because we've done that before. The question in my mind is whether a less directed "Date of this report" has the same effect. On Mon, 12 Feb 2

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

The transaction dates aren't self-ratifying, just the ribbon holdings I think? On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote: > I'm pretty sure that the date of the report is part of the report. > > But, you do have information from the future in that report, which seems > absurd, but we have ratifie

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

Reports as a whole don't ratify, though. Only parts of them do, and the date is, as far as I know, not a part of it. On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 at 21:16, Cuddle Beam wrote: > I'm pretty sure that the date of the report is part of the report. > > But, you do have information from the future in that rep

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

I'm pretty sure that the date of the report is part of the report. But, you do have information from the future in that report, which seems absurd, but we have ratified (deliberately!!!) absurdities before, so I don't think it matters. What's there is there. On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 3:14 AM, Madel

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

It... might be the case, but then I'm pretty certain it'd override the previous self-ratifications and just make it so that everyone's had these ribbons for a year. Also, the rules are very strict on "nothing self-ratifies unless we explicitly say it does", and nowhere does it say the date of th

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

> Remember, we apply very strict scrutiny to scams and tiny errors are enough to stop it. To further support this, I believe scams rely precisely on a pedantic reading of the rules and content, to have your "scam content" be impervious to it would be special pleading. To support Tel's Ribbon, we

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

The ratified report was correct though, wasn't it? In any case, I'm not sure ratification works that way, but I'm not sure it can't either. I don't recall any precedent about it, though. On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 at 21:07, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > When you ratify a report that includes a specific "t

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

When you ratify a report that includes a specific "this is the date this report is for", my understanding is that this modifies the values for that date. Just like my recent attempt to ratify "On (date) there were no elections". In this case, you would have ratified everyone's ribbon holdings f

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

Occasional profanity is PG-13 so no worries lol On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 2:41 AM, ATMunn wrote: > pls no swearing kthxbye > > > On 2/11/2018 7:19 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > >> Oh shit, true. Well, OK. >> >> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:17 AM, Aris Merchant < >> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrot

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

The way the rule is written, I don't think it is a relative duration...? On 2018-02-12 12:40, Alexis Hunt wrote: "These definitions do not apply to relative durations (e.g. "within days after ")." On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 at 20:39, Madeline wrote: I put in a CFJ earlier, I think right now self-

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

pls no swearing kthxbye On 2/11/2018 7:19 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote: Oh shit, true. Well, OK. On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:17 AM, Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: It was in eir previous report. -Aris On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 4:15 PM Cuddle Beam wrote: CoE: 2018-02-12

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

"These definitions do not apply to relative durations (e.g. "within days after ")." On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 at 20:39, Madeline wrote: > I put in a CFJ earlier, I think right now self-ratification requires a > full Agoran week (which is why I waited this long). > > On 2018-02-12 12:37, Alexis Hunt

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

I put in a CFJ earlier, I think right now self-ratification requires a full Agoran week (which is why I waited this long). On 2018-02-12 12:37, Alexis Hunt wrote: The date is still off, though---it happened one week after the previous report. On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 at 19:19, Cuddle Beam wrote:

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

The date is still off, though---it happened one week after the previous report. On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 at 19:19, Cuddle Beam wrote: > Oh shit, true. Well, OK. > > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:17 AM, Aris Merchant < > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > It was in eir previous report. > >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

Oh shit, true. Well, OK. On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:17 AM, Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > It was in eir previous report. > > -Aris > > On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 4:15 PM Cuddle Beam wrote: > > > CoE: > > > > 2018-02-12 Telnaior+K (self-ratification) > > > > Yo

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

Check the last report. On 2018-02-12 11:15, Cuddle Beam wrote: CoE: 2018-02-12 Telnaior+K (self-ratification) You haven't earned it YET, self-ratification is after its undoubted for a week, as per R2201. On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:06 AM, Telnaior wrote: TAILOR'S RIBBON REPORT ---

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

It was in eir previous report. -Aris On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 4:15 PM Cuddle Beam wrote: > CoE: > > 2018-02-12 Telnaior+K (self-ratification) > > You haven't earned it YET, self-ratification is after its undoubted for a > week, as per R2201. > > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:06 AM, Telnaio

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

That statement does not self-ratify. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > On Dec 3, 2017, at 4:17 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > > coe i'm not a player > > On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 5:01 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote: >> TAILOR'S RIBBON REPORT >> -- >> >

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

On Sun, 3 Dec 2017 at 16:18 VJ Rada wrote: > coe i'm not a player > Ah true, that's not part of the report though so I'm not treating this as a formal CoE.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

Does saying "tracked by the Registrar" mean they have to be in e's report, or e just has to, well, keep track of them? On 11/4/2017 5:59 PM, VJ Rada wrote: You also aren't tracking player's emotion switches, which as you should know, must be tracked by the Registrar. On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 5:

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 at 18:24 VJ Rada wrote: > Yeah but the upshot is I think you get your green ribbon, because even if > your recent weekly report was not a report, you're not late yet, and you're > not late on the deregistrations either > E missed the deadline on October 8; that is fewer than 3

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

An obligation to perform a duty is violated at the deadline, not before or after. On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 at 18:03 VJ Rada wrote: > You know though, Publius, the rules don't require you to do it in your > monthly report, they require it in the first WEEK of every month. So you > can do it now. > > On

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

You know though, Publius, the rules don't require you to do it in your monthly report, they require it in the first WEEK of every month. So you can do it now. On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 8:59 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > You also aren't tracking player's emotion switches, which as you should > know, must be

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

You also aren't tracking player's emotion switches, which as you should know, must be tracked by the Registrar. On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 5:37 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: > No, so you are correct this fails. > > On 11/04/2017 02:31 PM, Alexis Hun

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

No, so you are correct this fails. On 11/04/2017 02:31 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 at 06:19 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > > wrote: > > I award myself a green ribbon for Registrar. > > > Did you attempt to deregister players per R

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 at 06:19 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: > I award myself a green ribbon for Registrar. > Did you attempt to deregister players per R2139? I can't find the message.