DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Silly Person & Poetry Repeal

who even gets those shinies? agora? On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > I challenge VJ Rada to a POETRY DUEL and pay 10 shinies to this purpose. > > Cuddlebeam is the coolest, and agile like a tortoise > > *drops mic* > > *crowd goes wild* > > > On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 9:17 AM,

DIS: Protosal: Poetry Challenge Fix

Author: PSS AI: 1 Title: Poetry Duel Challenge Writ Fix Amend the rule "Poetry Duel Challenge Writ" to read, in full: A player CAN by announcement issue a poetry duel challenge writ to another player, if they have not yet done so this month. A player SHALL NOT issue a poetry duel

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Initiating Decisions Correctly

On Mon, 2017-11-06 at 05:51 -0500, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > I issue a humiliating public reminder for this proposal and extend > the voting period by 7 days. ISIDTID. That may well be a public reminder (purely based on its form), but it's not particularly humiliating, and stating t

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Initiating Decisions Correctly

How could I make it more humiliating without being rude? On 11/06/2017 05:53 AM, Alex Smith wrote: > On Mon, 2017-11-06 at 05:51 -0500, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > wrote: >> I issue a humiliating public reminder for this proposal and extend >> the voting period by 7 days. > ISIDTID. That may

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Initiating Decisions Correctly

Well the name and shame proposal passed, so calling out the people who don't have a vote recorded is a good start! On 2017-11-06 22:03, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: How could I make it more humiliating without being rude? On 11/06/2017 05:53 AM, Alex Smith wrote: On Mon, 2017-11-06

Re: DIS: [Rulekeepor Candidate] Draft FLR

On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 at 02:24 VJ Rada wrote: > I think you should prune some of these annotations, presuming you get > elected. For example, on "Holidays" (1769), you have three annotations that > refer to a word that no longer appears in the rule. > > Obviously putting the annotations back in is b

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Elections and Proposal 7954-7956

Note that my and G.'s votes will change (I changed mine; eir conditional is different) for rulekeepor On Mon, Nov 6, 2017, 07:58 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, < p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: > Accepted. I will republish the same this evening. > > On 11/06/2017 07:51 AM, Alexis Hu

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Silly Person & Poetry Repeal

I would vote AGAINST this because I like the Silliness rule. I agree that we should repeal the poetry duel challenge writ, though. On 11/6/2017 3:17 AM, VJ Rada wrote: This week I continue with my apparently weekly goal of repealing things. I submit and pend the following (w/ AP) Title: Rhymi

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Initiating Decisions Correctly

Actually, I just realized that the Referee election has already been resolved, so our votes are invalid. The proposal hasn't, though. On 11/6/2017 9:08 AM, Telnaior wrote: There we go :D Is this actually as difficult as people feared? Seemed to me like you'd have a list of who DID vote, so fli

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Initiating Decisions Correctly

Wait, nope, they aren't. There was a CoE. On 11/6/2017 9:25 AM, ATMunn wrote: Actually, I just realized that the Referee election has already been resolved, so our votes are invalid. The proposal hasn't, though. On 11/6/2017 9:08 AM, Telnaior wrote: There we go :D Is this actually as difficul

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Elections and Proposal 7954-7956

My vote for Referee will also change, and Telnaior has voted now. Also, I was going to publish my ADoP report, but I already changed everything to be post-decision-resolution. I'll just wait to publish it. On 11/6/2017 8:13 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote: Note that my and G.'s votes will change (I chang

DIS: Re: BUS: Fine Levying

I mean I can! It just doesn't change anything. (Gotta scam that win already so I can become Speaker) On 2017-11-07 01:16, ATMunn wrote: You can't object to a "with 2 support." I support both intents. On 11/6/2017 2:58 AM, Telnaior wrote: It doesn't really matter, but I object to both of thes

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Elections and Proposal 7954-7956

On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 at 10:08 Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > I change my vote on the Rulekeepor election to Alexis. > This one, I think, missed the voting period by about an hour and a half (though DST always confuses me so I might be wrong. I satisfied your conditional, though so it amounts to the same

DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Elections and Proposal 7954-7956

On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 at 06:24 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: > I resolve the decision(s) to adopt proposal(s) 7954-7956 below. > Note: you also forgot my double votes, which apply in elections (other than Prime MInister) as well as proposals.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Initiating Decisions Correctly

ais523 may want to appeal CFJ 3585 then, as a matter of principle. To quote Judge V.J. Rada: > The text of the rules (2168) say that PSS was obligated to "issue a > humiliating public reminder to the slackers who have not yet cast any > votes on it despite being eligible". PSS literally used t

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Initiating Decisions Correctly

This made me laugh. On 11/6/2017 10:00 AM, Josh T wrote: Apparently, I just need to cast a vote to avoid being given a humiliating reminder, so for all pending proposals whose valid options include FOR and AGAINST, I vote PURPLE. I understand this is effectively "PRESENT", but that's not what

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Initiating Decisions Correctly

On Mon, 2017-11-06 at 06:03 -0500, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > How could I make it more humiliating without being rude? Listing the players who could vote but failed to has been the traditional way in the past. Sometimes they're even described as "slackers" or the like; I don't know h

DIS: Re: BUS: Fine Levying

On Mon, 2017-11-06 at 09:16 -0500, ATMunn wrote: > You can't object to a "with 2 support." IIRC you can, it just doesn't do anything. (Although the distinction is pretty minor, really, it sometimes matters when we have truthfulness rules.) -- ais523

DIS: Re: BUS: Fine Levying

On Mon, 2017-11-06 at 09:16 -0500, ATMunn wrote: > You can't object to a "with 2 support." IIRC you can, it just doesn't do anything. (Although the distinction is pretty minor, really, it sometimes matters when we have truthfulness rules.) -- ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Initiating Decisions Correctly

Slackers is actually the term listed in the rules. On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 8:31 AM, Alex Smith wrote: > On Mon, 2017-11-06 at 06:03 -0500, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > wrote: > > How could I make it more humiliating without being rude? > > Listing the players who could vote but failed to has

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Elections and Proposal 7954-7956

Congrats Alexis. Thanks for electing me folks, thanks o, I'll get right to authoring my pledged Guidelines. On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 8:50 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 at 16:48 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I resolve the election

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Elections and Proposal 7954-7956

On Mon, 2017-11-06 at 16:54 -0500, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > I resolve the election for Rulekeepor as electing Alexis, first we > eliminate PSS who has the fewest third-preference votes, then Alexis > wins with 6 votes. You mean fewest first-preference, right? As far as I can tell t

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Initiating Decisions Correctly

On Mon, 6 Nov 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > On Mon, 2017-11-06 at 06:03 -0500, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > wrote: > > How could I make it more humiliating without being rude? > > Listing the players who could vote but failed to has been the > traditional way in the past. Sometimes they're even

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Initiating Decisions Correctly

My take on this debate is as follows: If there was such thing defined by the rules as a "public reminder" and "humiliating public reminder" was a subset of that, intended to be humiliating, rather than just normal. But since there isn't that, it doesn't seem like it actually is required to be

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Initiating Decisions Correctly

I mean, its just funny lol. I like the name "humiliating public reminder". Having a shiny tax or something would be so annoying lol. On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 11:15 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: > My take on this debate is as follows: > > If there was such thing defined by the rules as a "public reminde

DIS: Re: BUS: A different fear

You can't do that. You can only put yourself as a candidate, not others. On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > I put G. up as a candidate for Fearmongor. > > On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 11:08 PM, Reuben Staley > wrote: > >> I put myself up as a candidate for Fearmongor. >> >> >> On 11

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A different fear

R2154 "After an election is initiated and until nominations close, any player CAN become a candidate by announcement." I read that as kind of equivalent to "by announcement, any player CAN become a candidate" It doesn't mention that it has to be *yourself*. Just any player. On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 a

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A different fear

On a side note, it kind of doesn't matter at all because people will vote for who they want to anyway and you can just step down from your role but I find it funny anyway lol. On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 11:44 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > R2154 "After an election is initiated and until nominations close,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A different fear

That's true, and for some reason people have also read the Victory Election provision that way, which has almost identical language. Call a CFJ. On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > R2154 "After an election is initiated and until nominations close, any > player CAN become a cand

DIS: Re: BUS: Silly Parties

I call an AP CFJ w/ the statement: "Alexis's proposal 'Backed Out the Door' is a 'truly hideous pun' under rule 1650." Pretty self-explanatory. I think it does include puns, but that doesn't mean it IS a pun. On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 8:27 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > Silly Proposal: Backed Out the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Silly Parties

On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 at 17:52 VJ Rada wrote: > I call an AP CFJ w/ the statement: "Alexis's proposal 'Backed Out the > Door' is a 'truly hideous pun' under rule 1650." > > Pretty self-explanatory. I think it does include puns, but that doesn't > mean it IS a pun. > Arguments: the proposal contains

DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Notes on Proposals 7931-7947, 7954-7956

On Mon, 2017-11-06 at 18:06 -0500, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > 7940* Alexis, [3]3.0 High Power Cleanup Alexis 1 sh. > > Amends rule 105 (Rule Changes). Note that it erroneously removes "repeal a > rule" from bullet 2. It's my opinion that, however, there isn't a > reasonable way to

DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Notes on Proposals 7931-7947, 7954-7956

On Mon, 6 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > 7934*  天火狐          1.0  Poetry Duel Challenge Writ   天火狐       OP [2] > > This proposal does not make any rule changes (the fact that it is written > as a rule would be is insufficient to effect a rule change). This part doesn't do it? It looks pret

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Notes on Proposals 7931-7947, 7954-7956

On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 at 18:14 Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Mon, 6 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > > 7934* 天火狐 1.0 Poetry Duel Challenge Writ 天火狐 OP [2] > > > > This proposal does not make any rule changes (the fact that it is written > > as a rule would be is insufficient to effect a

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Silly Parties

On 2017-11-07 10:08, Alexis Hunt wrote: On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 at 17:52 VJ Rada > wrote: I call an AP CFJ w/ the statement: "Alexis's proposal 'Backed Out the Door' is a 'truly hideous pun' under rule 1650." Pretty self-explanatory. I think it does include pun

DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Notes on Proposals 7931-7947, 7954-7956

>This proposal does not make any rule changes (the fact that it is written as a rule would be is insufficient to effect a rule change). I ​t literally says at the end "the above text constitutes a new rule, whose title matches this proposal's". That's sufficient in any world.​ On Tue, Nov 7, 2017

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Notes on Proposals 7931-7947, 7954-7956

You're a bit late to the party. Alexis already accepted a similar CoE. Good eye though. On 11/6/2017 5:05 PM, VJ Rada wrote: >This proposal does not make any rule changes (the fact that it is written as a rule would be is insufficient to effect a rule change). I ​t literally says at the end "

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Notes on Proposals 7931-7947, 7954-7956

Quite right, sorry. That's what comes when I check my emails in order of receiving, rather than in reverse order. Not sure what's up with your antivirus software, by the way. On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 11:06 AM, Reuben Staley wrote: > You're a bit late to the party. Alexis already accepted a simila

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Notes on Proposals 7931-7947, 7954-7956

It came with the computer and it adds stupid annotations to the end of all the emails I receive unless I tell it not to. I don't know why it does it but I hate it and wish it would stop. On 11/6/2017 5:07 PM, VJ Rada wrote: Quite right, sorry. That's what comes when I check my emails in order o

DIS: Shiny Supply Level Fact (attn Treasuror!)

The new Shiny Supply Level rule mandates an action made in the first week of an agoran month. Even though there's only one day left, that's still an obligation that you've gotta perform. Not like...red carding you but just a warning. PSS, same. You have one day to deregister inactives. -- >From

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Initiating Decisions Correctly

I always seem to imagine them as Shine Sprites from Mario Sunshine. On 2017-11-07 09:15, Reuben Staley wrote: My take on this debate is as follows: If there was such thing defined by the rules as a "public reminder" and "humiliating public reminder" was a subset of that, intended to be humil

DIS: Proto: 7 is not applicable to all sets of numbers

This makes it so that there will always be Samurai and Gammas. Replace the first item of the unordered list in 2510 with "Any player with a karma greater than or equal to one standard deviation of the set of all karma scores is a Samurai." Replace the second item of the unordered list i

Re: DIS: Proto: 7 is not applicable to all sets of numbers

The point is there's always an Honourless Worm and whatever its counterpart is, but you have to be _really bad_ to be a gamma or _really good_ to be a samurai. This misses the point. On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Reuben Staley wrote: > This makes it so that there will always be Samurai and Ga

Re: DIS: Proto: 7 is not applicable to all sets of numbers

Then how about three standard deviations? You have to be a REAL outlier to get above that threshold. On 11/6/2017 5:23 PM, VJ Rada wrote: The point is there's always an Honourless Worm and whatever its counterpart is, but you have to be _really bad_ to be a gamma or _really good_ to be a samur

Re: DIS: Proto: 7 is not applicable to all sets of numbers

All persons have karma scores. So this would calculate the sd of a handful of players and 7 billion 0's. Maybe restrict it to all players' karma? On Mon, 6 Nov 2017, Reuben Staley wrote: > This makes it so that there will always be Samurai and Gammas. > > > > Replace the first item of t

Re: DIS: Proto: 7 is not applicable to all sets of numbers

That would be bad. It would also include extraterrestrial sentient life, although it doesn't really matter when you get to this kind of discrepancy in scale. -Aris On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 4:27 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > All persons have karma scores. So this would calculate the sd of a > handf

Re: DIS: Proto: 7 is not applicable to all sets of numbers

FWIW, the sd based on the most recent report was 2.38. I don't mind the idea myself, but I'm always a bit leery of calculations that require knowing the whole set to figure out an individual's status. Though happy to try it now since gamma/samurai don't have other game effects. On Mon, 6 Nov 20

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Elections and Proposal 7954-7956

Yay, I can publish my ADoP report now! On 11/6/2017 4:48 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: I resolve the decision(s) to adopt proposal(s) 7954-7956 below. [This notice resolves the Agoran decisions of whether to

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Elections and Proposal 7954-7956

Yo if you resolved the referee election, why did you not resolve the Campaign Proposal? Is there still not enough votes? On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 12:59 PM, ATMunn wrote: > Yay, I can publish my ADoP report now! > > On 11/6/2017 4:48 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > >> I resolve the dec

DIS: Re: BUS: notice of no-honour

The rule actually said "in the 7 days of an Agoran Month" I believe, but the same still holds. On 11/6/2017 9:11 PM, VJ Rada wrote: Shiny CFJ: G. is eligible for a Medal of Honour. The medal of honour rule says "in the week of an agoran month", players can declare themselves eligible for a No

Re: BUS: [Registrar] Monthly Deportations (Was: Re: DIS: Shiny Supply Level Fact (attn Treasuror!))

Did you mean to reply to this or just to create a new thread? (It doesn't really matter, though) On 11/6/2017 8:30 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: I intend to deregister without objection, each of Murphy, Quazie, Ienpw III, omd, Bayushi, and ProofTechnique. On 11/06/2017 07:09 PM, V

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Elections and Proposal 7954-7956

crap, now I'm delaying my ADoP report further .-. I mean, I COULD publish it, but it would be hard to revert everything to before the decision resolutions, and would be unhelpful to anyone. On 11/6/2017 9:06 PM, ATMunn wrote: You know what, you're right. Rule 2154 states "A poll CANNOT be resol

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Elections and Proposal 7954-7956

I extended the period and I don't believe that I can close the votes early. On 11/06/2017 09:02 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > Yo if you resolved the referee election, why did you not resolve the > Campaign Proposal? Is there still not enough votes? > > On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 12:59 PM, ATMunn

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Elections and Proposal 7954-7956

All resolutions were effective, except for the Referee, so just revert the Referee fields. On 11/06/2017 09:29 PM, ATMunn wrote: > crap, now I'm delaying my ADoP report further .-. > I mean, I COULD publish it, but it would be hard to revert everything > to before the decision resolutions, and wou

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Elections and Proposal 7954-7956

On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 at 21:31 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: > I extended the period and I don't believe that I can close the votes early. > You can once quorum is met; R2168.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Elections and Proposal 7954-7956

I know, but a CoE prevents the entire message from self-ratifying. It's fine now that you accepted the CoE. On 11/6/2017 9:34 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: All resolutions were effective, except for the Referee, so just revert the Referee fields. On 11/06/2017 09:29 PM, ATMunn wro

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Elections and Proposal 7954-7956

On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 at 21:35 ATMunn wrote: > I know, but a CoE prevents the entire message from self-ratifying. It's > fine now that you accepted the CoE. > Agoran decisions, if correctly resolved, take effect immediately. They only self ratify that, if they were incorrect, they were correct afte

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Elections and Proposal 7954-7956

When a decision is extended, the Resolver may resolve it immediately when quorum is reached, I believe. On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 1:31 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: > I extended the period and I don't believe that I can close the votes early. > > O

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Elections and Proposal 7954-7956

Oh, okay. Makes sense. Publishing now. On 11/6/2017 9:38 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote: On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 at 21:35 ATMunn mailto:iamingodsa...@gmail.com>> wrote: I know, but a CoE prevents the entire message from self-ratifying. It's fine now that you accepted the CoE. Agoran decisions, if corr

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Elections and Proposal 7954-7956

I was right. See rule 2168, which states that you "CAN end its voting period by announcement (resolving it constitutes an implicit announcement that its voting period is first ended) if the result would no longer

DIS: Re: BUS: A silly prize

Support, I give hrmmm. On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 3:14 AM, ATMunn wrote: > I'm bad at poems > Really I just do haikus > My vote is SUPPORT > > > On 11/6/2017 6:44 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> >> >> As Herald I did wait to see >> How Silly we could truly be. >> And now with a few proposals in queue, >

DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Notes on Proposals 7931-7947, 7954-7956

On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 3:06 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > 7941* Alexis 1.0 HTML Scrubbing Alexis 1 sh. > > This does not make any rule changes. I will, however, take it on myself as > Prime Minister to contact the Distributor to make the request. Having received such co

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Rules are repealable now

On Tue, 2017-11-07 at 17:31 +1100, VJ Rada wrote: > I create the following and pend it w/ shinies > > Proposal: Obvious fix > Co-author: Alexis > AI: 3 > Text: In rule 105 (Rule Changes), add the text "repeal a rule" at the > front > of bullet point 2. You're missing a full stop and a capital let

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Notes on Proposals 7931-7947, 7954-7956

> On Nov 7, 2017, at 1:08 AM, omd wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 3:06 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote: >>> 7941* Alexis 1.0 HTML Scrubbing Alexis 1 sh. >> >> This does not make any rule changes. I will, however, take it on myself as >> Prime Minister to contact the Distr

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Rules are repealable now

Better to be fully explicit about a textual change here rather than risking it failing due to ambiguity. On Tue, Nov 7, 2017, 01:42 Alex Smith, wrote: > On Tue, 2017-11-07 at 17:31 +1100, VJ Rada wrote: > > I create the following and pend it w/ shinies > > > > Proposal: Obvious fix > > Co-author

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Rules are repealable now

"You're missing a full stop and a capital letter." I'm not missing a capital actually. It's a cont​inuation of a sentence, and the other bullet points are also sans capital. I'm not spending 2 shinies to fix a full stop, sorry. This is something easily fixable by the rulekeepor via Cleanup Time.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly Report

Some gratuity: > On Nov 4, 2017, at 6:06 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > > I AP CFJ the following: The below document claiming to be the Registrar's > Weekly Report was not a report. > > Arguments: The Registrar is required to track Emotion switches (2514).. E > didn’t. The idea of “a report” as a sing

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly Report

>>The idea of a single “weekly report” or “monthly report" is a convenience for the officer and a modern expectation overlaid by gameplay convention in the last couple of years, not a >>matter of the rules. Uh this is a bit of alternative facts, o. >From rule 2162 "That officer's (weekly, if not

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Notes on Proposals 7931-7947, 7954-7956

*test*

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Notes on Proposals 7931-7947, 7954-7956

On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 10:42 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > Is it possible to configure Mailman to pass through messages with text/html > parts but to strip them, instead of rejecting them outright? Well, that's odd. According to the logs, you had two messages rejected with the message "The message

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Notes on Proposals 7931-7947, 7954-7956

> On Nov 7, 2017, at 2:22 AM, omd wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 10:42 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: >> Is it possible to configure Mailman to pass through messages with text/html >> parts but to strip them, instead of rejecting them outright? > > Well, that's odd. According to the logs, you h

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Notes on Proposals 7931-7947, 7954-7956

yep On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 6:38 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > > On Nov 7, 2017, at 2:22 AM, omd wrote: > > > > On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 10:42 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > >> Is it possible to configure Mailman to pass through messages with > text/html parts but to strip them, instead of rejecting t