On Sat, 21 Feb 2009, Warrigal wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 7:32 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Feb 2009, comex wrote:
>> The phrase "deregister rather than continue to play" only makes sense
>> if "deregister" stops you from playing; deregistration as a process
>> is defined elsewhere,
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 7:32 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Feb 2009, comex wrote:
>> I'm interpreting "player" using the R869 definition, but "continue to
>> play" using the ordinary-language definition.
>>
>> Arguably this is a bad idea.
>
> Fair enough, but how are you defining "deregister
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009, comex wrote:
> I'm interpreting "player" using the R869 definition, but "continue to
> play" using the ordinary-language definition.
>
> Arguably this is a bad idea.
Fair enough, but how are you defining "deregister", which is the only
actual right?
The phrase "deregister
comex wrote:
> By the way, sorry for the late judgement:
>
> [13:21] comex: you're 39 years late to judge CFJ 2387
> [13:22] my guess is that Murphy's database accidentally
> thinks it was assigned to you at the epoch
Yeah, I copy+pasted the wrong thing into the Date Assigned field; I
caught a
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Hmm, there's an awful lot of contradictions in CFJs 1709, 1754, and
> your proto, surrounding the definition of "player". The word "player",
> *when used in R101*, can either means player in the R869 sense ("someone
> registered") or player in
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009, comex wrote:
> According to that proto-judgement, you can still deregister normally
> if you want to stop being a player but continue to play, as R101
> creates a separate mechanism that must be invoked explicitly. People
> who deregistered but continued to play Werewolves, o
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> Is there a reference for this? Don't remember it.
CFJs 1709 and 1753 are somewhat relevant.
> It seems that we've gone full circle from the days when we wanted non-
> players to be able to participate in contracts. In fact, there's
> prob
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009, comex wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 2:45 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Proto-judgement: I am going to go against the judgement of CFJ 2380
> here. Indeed, as long as the Rules provide a specific mechanism for
> upholding a right, we should defer to that mechanism and not invent
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 2:31 PM, comex wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 2:45 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2387
>>
>> == CFJ 2387 ==
>>
>>Warrigal is a party to The Small Partial Mous
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 2:45 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2387
>
> == CFJ 2387 ==
>
>Warrigal is a party to The Small Partial Mousetrap.
>
> ===
10 matches
Mail list logo
