Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5358-5372

pikhq wrote: On Friday 14 December 2007 20:36:19 comex wrote: On Friday 14 December 2007, Josiah Worcester wrote: Do you even pay *attention* to the weekly report on VVLOPs? At the top of the message I gave the AFO a VVLOP. I suppose overvoting is annoying; I might need to get out of the hab

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5358-5372

On Friday 14 December 2007, Josiah Worcester wrote: > On Friday 14 December 2007 20:36:19 comex wrote: > > On Friday 14 December 2007, Josiah Worcester wrote: > > > Do you even pay *attention* to the weekly report on VVLOPs? > > > > At the top of the message I gave the AFO a VVLOP. I suppose > > o

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5358-5372

On Friday 14 December 2007 20:36:19 comex wrote: > On Friday 14 December 2007, Josiah Worcester wrote: > > Do you even pay *attention* to the weekly report on VVLOPs? > > At the top of the message I gave the AFO a VVLOP. I suppose overvoting is > annoying; I might need to get out of the habit of

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5358-5372

On Friday 14 December 2007, Josiah Worcester wrote: > Do you even pay *attention* to the weekly report on VVLOPs? At the top of the message I gave the AFO a VVLOP. I suppose overvoting is annoying; I might need to get out of the habit of it. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signe

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5358-5372

On Dec 14, 2007 3:07 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > root wrote: > > > The advantage to being a party to a contract is the security granted > > by that contract. I've never supported granting players extra rights > > just for making contracts, which is effectively what partnerships do.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5358-5372

On 12/14/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alternative: continue to allow partnerships to initiate CFJs, thereby > not creating conflict with R101. But make their entire bases > inelegible to judge. > My quality judge assignment proposal would have handled this elegantly without revokin

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5358-5372

root wrote: The advantage to being a party to a contract is the security granted by that contract. I've never supported granting players extra rights just for making contracts, which is effectively what partnerships do. What was/is your take on Groups?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5358-5372

On Dec 14, 2007 2:23 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > R101 is worded (IMO) such that the change would not be blocked, but > non-first-class persons would be able to CFJ anyway, making the rule > broken. Overruled, not broken. > Plus, I support partnerships' rights. :) If partnerships are "n

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5358-5372

On Friday 14 December 2007, Ed Murphy wrote: > comex wrote: > > But I seem to be in the minority with this opinion... I suppose you > > could argue that the only advantages partnerships ought to have are > > those that occur only when the members are in agreement, such as being > > able to more eff

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5358-5372

comex wrote: But I seem to be in the minority with this opinion... I suppose you could argue that the only advantages partnerships ought to have are those that occur only when the members are in agreement, such as being able to more efficiently spend VCs. Hmm... Requiring even passive agree

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5358-5372

On Friday 14 December 2007, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Dec 14, 2007 12:02 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > comex wrote: > > >It purports to limit the R101 right of persons to initiate CFJs. > > > > A partnership can still effectively initiate CFJs via its first-class > > person members. I beli

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5358-5372

On Dec 14, 2007 12:02 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > comex wrote: > >It purports to limit the R101 right of persons to initiate CFJs. > > A partnership can still effectively initiate CFJs via its first-class > person members. I believe this satisfies the R101 right. That's what I was thi

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5358-5372

comex wrote: >It purports to limit the R101 right of persons to initiate CFJs. A partnership can still effectively initiate CFJs via its first-class person members. I believe this satisfies the R101 right. -zefram

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5358-5372

On 12/14/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A proposal that fixes several judicial loopholes and does nothing else > is terrible? It purports to limit the R101 right of persons to initiate CFJs. I don't mind the rest of the fixes, if they are proposed separately.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5358-5372

On Dec 14, 2007 10:51 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 5358 D1 2Murphy 1 is 1 > AGAINST - what is an associated number? A number associated with the player. The proposal makes perfect sense if you read it in the context of the rule it is amending. > > 5371 O1 1.7 Zefram

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5358-5372

Iammars wrote: On Dec 11, 2007 9:47 PM, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: TTttPF What's that for? This Time to the Public/Proper Forum -- -Iammars www.jmcteague.com

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5358-5372

On Dec 11, 2007 9:47 PM, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > TTttPF > > > What's that for? -- -Iammars www.jmcteague.com

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5358-5372

On Dec 11, 2007, at 9:36 PM, Nick Vanderweit wrote: I dance the dance of NTTPF. - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5358-5372

In case any record keepers are confused, yes, I am avpx. On Dec 11, 2007 7:36 PM, Nick Vanderweit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 5358:FOR > 5359:AGAINST > 5360:FORx4 > 5361:FORx4 > 5362:FORx4 > 5363:FOR > 5364:FOR > 5365:AGAINSTx4 > 5366:AGAINSTx4 > 5367:AGAINSTx4 > 5368:AGAINSTx4 > 5369:AGAINSTx4 >

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5358-5372

5358:FOR 5359:AGAINST 5360:FORx4 5361:FORx4 5362:FORx4 5363:FOR 5364:FOR 5365:AGAINSTx4 5366:AGAINSTx4 5367:AGAINSTx4 5368:AGAINSTx4 5369:AGAINSTx4 5370:FOR 5371:FORx4 5372:FORx4 On Dec 11, 2007 6:05 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 5358 D1 2Murphy 1 is 1 > FOR > > > 5359 D