On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 2:01 PM, FKA441344 <441...@gmail.com> wrote:
> CoE:The last change to the ruleset was by proposal 7250, at 17:44 UTC Mon 04
> Jun
Context: the judgement that proposals take effect before they're resolved.
As far as I can tell, those out of 7218-7246 that passed would have
On Wed, 6 Jul 2011, omd wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > Not a god, no. An Instrument of the gods.
> >
> >> but, as above, I think the implication is "actions that the President CAN
> >> take".
> >
> > ...as an Instrument.
>
> Well, you said that "CAN take actio
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Not a god, no. An Instrument of the gods.
>
>> but, as above, I think the implication is "actions that the President CAN
>> take".
>
> ...as an Instrument.
Well, you said that "CAN take actions" counts as R105 permission to
take the action of
On Wed, 6 Jul 2011, omd wrote:
> the President was supposed to be a virtual player, not a god.
Not a god, no. An Instrument of the gods.
> but, as above, I think the implication is "actions that the President CAN
> take".
...as an Instrument.
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> R106 says that Proposals can and do
> make changes in general and provide a mechanism (just as the president can
> take actions in general by way of a different mechanism)
Gratuitous: CFJ 2213 is highly relevant. I misremembered the
preceden
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 6:35 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Jul 2011, omd wrote:
>> THE FULL LOGICAL RULESET
>
> CoE: Rule 2344 should include "Murphy CAN cause this rule to make
> arbitrary rule changes by announcement."
I agree with ais523 in eir gratuitous arguments to CFJ 3034, so denied
On 5/25/08, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> comex wrote:
> >CFJ: R101 item i. reads:
> Denied.
It's a CFJ, not a claim of error-- in fact it was judged TRUE. You
are, of course, free to appeal it.
> Per CFJ 1955, there is no general mechanism giving effect to
> announcements of permitted a
comex wrote:
> Of course, that creates a good interest-of-the-game reason to judge
> that R101 i. is just broken for some reason or other, because who
> knows what spurious actions have been announced in the last two
> months.
Well, if anyone can do what e wilt, ehird's Announcement of Chaos
actual
On 5/22/08, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The fact that the Rules that would prevent it are "an explicit, binding
> agreement to the contrary". Unless someone once again broke the part
> that says that the Rules are treated as a binding agreement between
> all players... is that gone
On Thu, 22 May 2008, comex wrote:
> No, what I willed is that Agora's R101 be amended in the manner I
> specified. I had the privilege to amend it and I did. What part of
> the preamble contradicts this?
The fact that the Rules that would prevent it are "an explicit, binding
agreement to the co
On 5/22/08, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A. That's why (i) is a privilege and not a right. Read the R101 preamble.
The rules may define persons as possessing specific rights or
privileges. Be it hereby proclaimed that no binding agreement
or interpretation of Agor
On Thu, 22 May 2008, comex wrote:
> On 5/22/08, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> i. Every person has the privilege of doing what e wilt.
> CFJ: R101 item i. reads:
>i. The map being obviously the most important rule, every
> person has the right to move it back up to
12 matches
Mail list logo
