Kerim Aydin wrote:
>Balderdash. This depends on your reading of what "required" applies to.
"Required" has a pretty clear meaning in this context, obviously referring
to rule-imposed obligations. The assessor is required to publish the
results of voting on proposals. There is no requirement to
On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, Zefram wrote:
> In the present case, we have the voting period on proposals. There's
> nothing in CFJ 1434 to support the holiday rule altering voting periods
> that end within a holiday.
Balderdash. This depends on your reading of what "required" applies to.
"Required to
comex wrote:
>If the expiration of a voting period is an event, and the start of the
>voting period is certainly an event, then
> If some Rule bases the time of a future event upon the time of
> another event,
>applies.
"... and that other event occurs during a Holiday,". The start of t
On 1/2/08, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> comex wrote:
> >* At least one of the votes in root's message with message-id
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is
> >valid.
>
> Rubbish. CFJ 1434 is about using the expiration of the grace period
> as the event that starts a time-limited obligation.
If the exp
comex wrote:
>* At least one of the votes in root's message with message-id
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is
>valid.
Rubbish. CFJ 1434 is about using the expiration of the grace period
as the event that starts a time-limited obligation. If that expiration
occurs during a holiday then the holiday rule ext
On Tue, 1 Jan 2008, comex wrote:
> Arguments:
> See CFJ 1434. The relevant portion of CFJ 1769 (If some Rule
> requires... if some Rule bases) is unchanged from the time of CFJ 1434
> (evidence (2)) to now (evidence (3)).
Well-spotted! Seems like a pretty good precedent there. -Goethe
Completely missed that. Meh. Back to working on the blog proposal.
On Jan 1, 2008 3:08 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 1, 2008 1:03 PM, Iammars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Shouldn't that be a logical extension of the holiday period though? The
> > holiday period seems like a
On Jan 1, 2008 1:03 PM, Iammars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Shouldn't that be a logical extension of the holiday period though? The
> holiday period seems like a time for everyone to take a break from the game
> and enjoy the holidays.
>
> *gets idea for a proposal*
This is what Murphy's "Symmetr
Shouldn't that be a logical extension of the holiday period though? The
holiday period seems like a time for everyone to take a break from the game
and enjoy the holidays.
*gets idea for a proposal*
On Jan 1, 2008 2:55 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ian Kelly wrote:
> >(Some or all of t
Ian Kelly wrote:
>(Some or all of these votes may be too late to be valid.)
Holidays don't extend voting periods. A quorum problem would, however.
-zefram
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> I'm sorry, but this is absolutely ridiculous. If this argument passes
>> muster, I will personally lie and exaggerate about every game event and
>> let you sort it out. -Goethe
>
> I'm not saying that it's good, merely that it could be worse. And if
> yo
Goethe wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
2) 1048576 is such a huge number in context that it could be interpreted
as an implicit "most of these will be invalid" disclaimer. (A player
who intentionally casts just a few more votes than eir voting limit
would be more likely to sl
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
> 2) 1048576 is such a huge number in context that it could be interpreted
> as an implicit "most of these will be invalid" disclaimer. (A player
> who intentionally casts just a few more votes than eir voting limit
> would be more likely to slip it pa
On Sunday 23 December 2007 09:24:27 comex wrote:
> On Dec 23, 2007 1:24 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Arguments: comex has stated specifically in the past that e does not
> > believe that e has huge numbers of ordinary votes, nor would any
reasonable
> > person. So e has made a
On Dec 23, 2007 1:24 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Arguments: comex has stated specifically in the past that e does not
> believe that e has huge numbers of ordinary votes, nor would any reasonable
> person. So e has made a false representation of eir voting power with
> a demonstr
Goethe wrote:
I CFJ on the following statement (criminal case): comex has violated
Rule 2149 in his communication of voting on proposal 5375.
Arguments: comex has stated specifically in the past that e does not
believe that e has huge numbers of ordinary votes, nor would any reasonable
person
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007, Taral wrote:
> On 12/22/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Of course e should. It's still misrepresentation. What about any/every
>> player who tries to keep some kind of reasonable tally on how voting is
>> going? Should they be constantly required to check agai
On 12/22/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Of course e should. It's still misrepresentation. What about any/every
> player who tries to keep some kind of reasonable tally on how voting is
> going? Should they be constantly required to check against the report in
> light of obvious fal
> On 12/22/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With all due respect to the recordkeepors, the Assessor should be
> taking the VLOP into account when recording votes to prevent
> accidental over-voting.
Of course e should. It's still misrepresentation. What about any/every
player who tr
On Saturday 22 December 2007 23:24:16 Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> I CFJ on the following statement (criminal case): comex has violated
> Rule 2149 in his communication of voting on proposal 5375.
>
> Arguments: comex has stated specifically in the past that e does not
> believe that e has huge numbe
On 12/22/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Arguments: comex has stated specifically in the past that e does not
> believe that e has huge numbers of ordinary votes, nor would any reasonable
> person. So e has made a false representation of eir voting power with
> a demonstrated lack of
21 matches
Mail list logo
