Ed Murphy wrote:
>Proto-proto: Change the higher-than-previous from CAN to SHALL, but
>change precedence from lowest ID number to earliest date of creation,
>and require a sufficiently informative annotation for rules that broke
>the higher-than-previous requirement.
Sounds cumbersome.
-zefram
root wrote:
On 10/21/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In general, subsequent changes would be successful, as it would be
unambiguous which rule was intended to be amended (especially if the
subsequent proposals referred to them by both number and name).
If that's true, then the system
On 10/21/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In general, subsequent changes would be successful, as it would be
> unambiguous which rule was intended to be amended (especially if the
> subsequent proposals referred to them by both number and name).
If that's true, then the system is useless
comex wrote:
>Proto: Repeal rule 2161.
I think the regulation is useful.
-zefram
On 10/21/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Proto: More pragmatic ID numbers
>
> Amend Rule 2161 (ID Numbers) by appending this text to section (b):
>
> If an ID number is purportedly assigned to an entity that
> is later discovered not to have existed at the time, and
root wrote:
All the proposals in question were adopted before ID numbers (proposal
5110), so I believe there would be no invalid rule number assignments.
If 5110 had already taken effect, it could have been quite
problematic; if any rules had been created with invalid ID numbers,
then any subse
On 10/21/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The VC is pretty insignificant. (It's one of mine, isn't it, and I have
> it iff CFJ 1711 is true? If that's the case and it's ultimately ruled
> that I do have it, I'll donate it to pikhq.) More troublesome is that
> proposals will have been adop
Josiah Worcester wrote:
> This has been a few weeks of argument
>over what amounts to a single VC. Let's just get a ruling on the
>books and *leave it*, shall we?
The VC is pretty insignificant. (It's one of mine, isn't it, and I have
it iff CFJ 1711 is true? If th
On 10/21/07, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 21 October 2007 14:44:22 comex wrote:
> > Then support the OVERRULE and cause the panel to judge so...
> >
>
> I'm not on the panel, I'm merely opining.
>
Oops, I mixed it up with the other appeal.
On Sunday 21 October 2007 14:44:22 comex wrote:
> Then support the OVERRULE and cause the panel to judge so...
>
I'm not on the panel, I'm merely opining.
On Sunday 21 October 2007, Josiah Worcester wrote:
> On Sunday 21 October 2007 14:38:27 comex wrote:
> > > I support OVERRULE, replacing with Eris's original judgement of
> > > FALSE.
> > >
> > > -root
> >
> > I support this.
>
> I still think that AFFIRM is the correct option, but honestly, it
> d
On Sunday 21 October 2007 14:38:27 comex wrote:
> > I support OVERRULE, replacing with Eris's original judgement of
> > FALSE.
> >
> > -root
>
>
> I support this.
>
I still think that AFFIRM is the correct option, but honestly, it
doesn't matter that much. . . This has been a few weeks of ar
On Sunday 21 October 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On 10/21/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sunday 21 October 2007, Zefram wrote:
> > > Appellant comex's Arguments:
> > >
> > > I intend, with 2 support, to appeal this as neither CFJs 1451-2 nor
> > > the various arguments in the first appeal
On 10/21/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 21 October 2007, Zefram wrote:
> > Appellant comex's Arguments:
> >
> > I intend, with 2 support, to appeal this as neither CFJs 1451-2 nor
> > the various arguments in the first appeal were considered by Judge
> > pikhq.
>
> I suggest eithe
On Sunday 21 October 2007, Zefram wrote:
> Appellant comex's Arguments:
>
> I intend, with 2 support, to appeal this as neither CFJs 1451-2 nor
> the various arguments in the first appeal were considered by Judge
> pikhq.
I suggest either AFFIRM or OVERRULE. This case ought to be settled; it's
i
15 matches
Mail list logo
