On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 11:50:28 -0700 (PDT)
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Haven't made a list from latest Assessor's report. Only opt-out
> was aranea for specified vacation dates but those dates have passed
> (I think!)
Yes, those have long passed. However, I also probably won't have time
for judging fro
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I announced a couple months ago that I was defining "interested" by
> "voted at least once in the last couple weeks of Assessor's reports,
> and hasn't explicitly said they *weren't* interested." In other
> words, being interested enough to pl
On Tue, 21 Jul 2015, omd wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > no worries! I'll deputize to assign the CFJ if no one jumps into the
> > Arbitor role by tomorrow. -t.
>
> I'm willing to do it, but do you have a copy of the current state of
> your interested judge lis
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> no worries! I'll deputize to assign the CFJ if no one jumps into the
> Arbitor role by tomorrow. -t.
I'm willing to do it, but do you have a copy of the current state of
your interested judge list?
(t.?)
On Jul 21, 2015 14:01, "Kerim Aydin" wrote:
> no worries! I'll deputize to assign the CFJ if no one jumps into the
> Arbitor role by tomorrow. -t.
I'll revoke the proclamation if it turns out to be wrong.
-scshunt
On Tue, 21 Jul 2015, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 Jul 2015, Sean Hunt wrote:
> >> WHEREAS, new research indicates that Rule 106 in fact set the power
> >> Proposal 7448 to 4 prior to its taking effect;
> >
> > When an unproven counterfact
On 06/01/2010 05:01 PM, comex wrote:
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 6:14 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
The Speaker is now woggle! All hail Speaker woggle!
I hail Speaker woggle.
I intend, without objection, to make Speaker woggle inactive (eir last
mess
On 05/29/2010 02:19 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 3:58 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
wrote:
On 29 May 2010 14:34, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 3:02 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn
wrote:
Okay, I come off hold. Maybe just until I'm out of office, but maybe longer.
You were
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 3:58 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
wrote:
> On 29 May 2010 14:34, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 3:02 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn
>> wrote:
>>> Okay, I come off hold. Maybe just until I'm out of office, but maybe longer.
>>
>> You weren't on hold. If you had been, you wo
On 29 May 2010 14:34, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 3:02 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn
> wrote:
>> Okay, I come off hold. Maybe just until I'm out of office, but maybe longer.
>
> You weren't on hold. If you had been, you wouldn't have been eligible
> to be Speaker at all.
>
> However, i
On Sun, 2010-04-25 at 15:39 -0400, comex wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> > Each player who satisfied the Winning Condition of Dictatorship
> > on or before 15 Mar 2010 00:00:00 UTC thereby won the game at
> > most once, at the first moment at which e satisfied that
coppro wrote:
> On 04/25/2010 11:40 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>Each player who satisfied the Winning Condition of Clout
>>on or before 15 Mar 2010 00:00:00 UTC thereby won the game at
>>most once, at the first moment at which e satisfied that Winning
>>Condition and did not satisfy any
On 04/25/2010 01:39 PM, comex wrote:
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
Each player who satisfied the Winning Condition of Dictatorship
on or before 15 Mar 2010 00:00:00 UTC thereby won the game at
most once, at the first moment at which e satisfied that Winning
Condition
On 04/25/2010 11:40 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
Each player who satisfied the Winning Condition of Clout
on or before 15 Mar 2010 00:00:00 UTC thereby won the game at
most once, at the first moment at which e satisfied that Winning
Condition and did not satisfy any Losing Conditions.
[
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Each player who satisfied the Winning Condition of Dictatorship
> on or before 15 Mar 2010 00:00:00 UTC thereby won the game at
> most once, at the first moment at which e satisfied that Winning
> Condition and did not satisfy any Losing Cond
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> It destroys the ribbons, but it doesn't explicitly turn off the
> Winning Condition. R2186(b) does /now/, but only since it was
> fixed last month. But, hmm, there was another proposal that
> deactivated Winning Conditions as a one-off; can som
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Re-reading Rule 2186, I think the second paragraph has to be
> interpreted as "When [it becomes true that] one or more persons...",
> or else the players who satisfied Renaissance would thereafter win
> at *each moment* during which they didn't
17 matches
Mail list logo
