On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 5:35 PM, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> The first CFJ deals with the retroactivity of ratification. If
>> ratification is truly retroactive, Rodlen would have held the office
>> since April 26th, and would qualify for the Ribbon. If it merely changes
>> the instantaneous gamestate to b
Rodlen wrote:
> I have to wonder how I got involved in this, though.
> --
> --Rodlen
I just picked a player out of a hat.
I have to wonder how I got involved in this, though.
--
--Rodlen
Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
>> From R1551 (Ratification):
>> � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �Nevertheless, the ratification of a
>> � � �public document does not invalidate, reverse, alter, or cancel
>> � � �any messages or actions, even if they were u
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Benjamin Caplan
wrote:
> Ian Kelly wrote:
>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>>> The second deals with the paradoxability of ratification. Regardless of
>>> the outcome of the first CFJ, the second is potentially paradoxical,
>>> unless the ratific
Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> The second deals with the paradoxability of ratification. Regardless of
>> the outcome of the first CFJ, the second is potentially paradoxical,
>> unless the ratification doesn't consider its own effect part of the
>> things to
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I CFJ {If the next Registrar's report did not list me as a player, and I
> subsequently ratified it using the mechanism specified in R2202
> (Ratification Without Objection), I would be able to go off hold.}
Er. When did you go on hold to begin
7 matches
Mail list logo
