OscarMeyr wrote:
> I'll bite. What was CFJ 1290?
Basically that contest regulations stating "publically insulting
a player constitutes implicit consent to be a contestant" were
effective. (This presumably prompted legislation to the contrary.)
On 1 Dec 2008, at 23:25, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
I'll bite. What was CFJ 1290?
http://cfj.qoid.us/1290
BTW, I find GOETHE'S ORIGINAL REMARK rude, not comex's reaction.
On Nov 30, 2008, at 9:51 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
I intend to deputise for the CotC to assign a qualified entity to be
the judge of each of these CFJs.
I refuse to preside over anything ruder than CFJ 1290. Either you
retract these CFJs or you can find yourself a new Clerk.
I'll bite. What
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 9:04 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1 Dec 2008, at 13:14, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> That reminds me. I intend, with 2 support, to initiate a criminal
>> case alleging that ehird violated R1742 by taking actions e knew would
>> lead to P99 violating R2144 by
On 1 Dec 2008, at 03:17, comex wrote:
Anyway-- Goethe strongly implied that ehird and/or I am a "sniveling
little rules-breaking shit": this is extreme. I prefer to treat games
as games, but I will not ignore the comment. Though I would be
delighted to pretend the message was never sent if e w
On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 10:10 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> CFJ 1776.
>
> Ironically, I /just/ came across that CFJ while starting to write up
> the next version of the AWJ. Still, the effective time limit for
> rotation is the time limit for assigning a case, so you can't do it
> un
comex wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 9:51 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> comex wrote:
>>
>>> I intend to deputise for the CotC to rotate the bench.
>> You can't, because it's not directly required.
>
> CFJ 1776.
Ironically, I /just/ came across that CFJ while starting to write up
On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 9:51 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> comex wrote:
>
>> I intend to deputise for the CotC to rotate the bench.
>
> You can't, because it's not directly required.
CFJ 1776.
comex wrote:
> I intend to deputise for the CotC to rotate the bench.
You can't, because it's not directly required.
> I intend to deputise for the CotC to assign a qualified entity to be
> the judge of each of these CFJs.
I refuse to preside over anything ruder than CFJ 1290. Either you
retra
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 12:06, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I call for judgement on the following statements, and request that, if
> CotC Murphy obliges, they be assigned in linked fashion to Goethe
> after a rotation (according to the CotC website, no judges are
> currently standing):
>
> *
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 2:21 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> * comex is a sniveling little rules-breaking shit
>> * ehird is a sniveling little rules-breaking shit
>> * Goethe is a sniveling little rules-breaking shit
>
> Please retract these.
Let Goethe retract his comment first.
comex wrote:
> I call for judgement on the following statements, and request that, if
> CotC Murphy obliges, they be assigned in linked fashion to Goethe
> after a rotation (according to the CotC website, no judges are
> currently standing):
>
> * comex is a sniveling little rules-breaking shit
>
On 28 Nov 2008, at 19:06, comex wrote:
I call for judgement on the following statements, and request that, if
CotC Murphy obliges, they be assigned in linked fashion to Goethe
after a rotation (according to the CotC website, no judges are
currently standing):
* comex is a sniveling little rules
13 matches
Mail list logo
