>Please tone down the language a wee bit, we like to pretend to be
>genteel. (I'm not saying nichdel wasn't overly snarky emself; this is a
>de-escalation request all around).
Yeah I re-read my thing and found it to be more intense than it should be
lol.
Sorry about that.
On Mon, 29 May 2017, CuddleBeam wrote:
> But yeah. Don't fucking toss me an ad hominem. I'll gladly re-process
> the ideas and re-present it again.
Please tone down the language a wee bit, we like to pretend to be genteel.
(I'm not saying nichdel wasn't overly snarky emself; this is a de-escal
>This response makes me think you didn't read or comprehend my response.
This is a really intense claim, but I'll restate my response again, but
breaking down your exact reply instead of making certain assumptions which
I thought were obvious from dialogue. I believe this is the "practical"
versus
Ok, here's the longer deal on unregulated actions.
The rules neither take from, nor add to, your ability to perform
unregulated actions.
For this, CFJs 2149 and 2150 are instructive. From those two cases:
"Celebrating" is unregulated. Can you celebrate something by
announcement? Sure! By
This response makes me think you didn't read or comprehend my response. And
your recent behavior makes me think you don't attempt to comprehend the
rules before acting.
On May 29, 2017 10:35, "CuddleBeam" wrote:
> >The rules allow withdrawing ballots and proposals explicitly, and explicitly
> me
>The rules allow withdrawing ballots and proposals explicitly, and explicitly
mention what happens, so under those conditions it's clearly regulated.
I disagree.
An action is regulated if:
* (1) the Rules limit, allow, enable, or permit its performance
- There is no limitation, permission or enab
>Although I do think grok's "If I am still an objector, but my objection
>has been withdrawn [by someone else], can I withdraw my objection?" is
>a valid question.
We don't even have a mechanic to *withdraw* in the first place. If you
can pull out of the ether that you can "withdraw", I believe
@Aris: Thank you for putting into words what I had been thinking while
reading over those of CuddleBeam's messages.
天火狐
On 28 May 2017 at 21:51, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 6:39 PM, CuddleBeam
> wrote:
> > Arguably, you can paint your objection blue too. Or dress it as Super
On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 6:39 PM, CuddleBeam wrote:
> Arguably, you can paint your objection blue too. Or dress it as Superman.
>
> Unregulated actions are weird.
No one seems to understand what unregulated means. All it means is
that the rules can't say that an action is impossible or prohibited.
On Mon, 29 May 2017, CuddleBeam wrote:
> >Interesting question: If am still an objector, but my objection has been
> >withdrawn, can I withdraw my my objection?
> Arguably, you can paint your objection blue too. Or dress it as Superman.
>
> Unregulated actions are weird.
It does concern me th
On Sun, 28 May 2017, grok (caleb vines) wrote:
> Interesting question: If am still an objector, but my objection
> has been withdrawn, can I withdraw my my objection?
FOO!
On Sun, 28 May 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Mon, 29 May 2017, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
Note that only withdrawals by the Objector emself count.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
snap!
I feel so redundant. Also, still waiting for you to snap and use the term
ISIDTID.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
On Mon, 29 May 2017, CuddleBeam wrote:
> Cool. I think I'll just tell anyway. I'm not too overly interested in the
> subterfuge of it all. I just care mostly about confirming that it *would*
> work,
> that's good enough trophy for me.
> "Withdrawing" isn't a regulated action apparently (note t
On May 28, 2017 8:30 PM, "Kerim Aydin" wrote:
On Mon, 29 May 2017, CuddleBeam wrote:
> Cool. I think I'll just tell anyway. I'm not too overly interested in the
subterfuge of it all. I just care mostly about confirming that it *would*
work,
> that's good enough trophy for me.
> "Withdrawing" i
>From rule 2124:
> An Objector to
> a dependent action is an eligible entity who has publicly posted
> (and not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of intent
> to perform the action.
Ah, dangit, that verb conjugation. So subtle.
I guess it would've worked if it was "
On Mon, 29 May 2017, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> Note that only withdrawals by the Objector emself count.
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.
snap!
On Mon, 29 May 2017, CuddleBeam wrote:
So I can just do the unregulated action of "I withdraw your objection"
(would my proof of "all actions are regulation actions or not actions" not
work)
From rule 2124:
An Objector to
a depende
Cool. I think I'll just tell anyway. I'm not too overly interested in the
subterfuge of it all. I just care mostly about confirming that it *would*
work, that's good enough trophy for me.
"Withdrawing" isn't a regulated action apparently (note that I, as the
initiator, am not required to track any
18 matches
Mail list logo
