I consent to a REMAND judgement.
I also consent to a REMAND judgement. The CFJ as called does not
contain the necessary forward-looking statement to be UNDECIDABLE,
since the judgement cannot be made until it assigned, thus pointing to
a judgement of FALSE being appropriate.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROT
for a judgement to result in a win. :D
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
nations. The rules are very clear about
the veracity timing issue that Zefram noted, and an appeal is the
correct place for issues that the judge neglected to consider to come
up.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
ABLE vs. IRRELEVANT. I am
arguing about UNDECIDABLE vs. FALSE. Did I miss something?
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
ler/judge's logic.
>
> We therefore REMAND this judgement for further consideration.
>
> ---
I agree to this.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
failed by a lot more than one vote.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On Nov 13, 2007 5:05 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Um... anyone want to make sure that we aren't being declared war on?
Not yet.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On Nov 13, 2007 5:30 PM, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I intend with Agoran consent to send the message "Chickens" to the
> bnomic-business mailing list on behalf of Agora
Definitely.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there
On Nov 13, 2007 6:18 PM, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I intend, with Agoran Consent, to send the message "Chickens" to the B Nomic
> public forum on behalf of Agora.
I vote SUPPORT.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there
On Nov 13, 2007 7:06 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If that's accurate, whose side are you on, comex?
The fun side, of course.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On Nov 15, 2007 2:41 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Geothe
I would like to quote a very famous* song:
BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM.
* Only famous in my head.
--
Eris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"In Memoriam harvel"
On 11/15/07, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Should we decide to take over B nomic via flooding them with members, we must
> do so quickly. Proposal 176 of B nomic reads as follows:
It's dependent on 173, which is likely to fail.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 11/17/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>A judicial finding is a judgement of a question on veracity
>that is not appealed within the time limit for doing so, or
>that is sustained on appeal.
Spurious comma.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
&
On 11/17/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Then why is, say, an OVERRULE judgement unappealable, while other
> judgements resulting from appeals are not?
I don't see why this is relevant.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's a
of appeal from the case.
No, repeatly appealing the *same* judgement is a loophole. Appealing
the *new* judgement is perfectly reasonable.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On 11/17/07, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Good enough for me at this point. I SUPPORT Pikhq and OPPOSE Wooble.
Um, people, you can't vote yet (Rule 2154).
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
*meaningfully* yet. :D The original nomination
was for two people, so there never was any meaningful voting period.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On 11/17/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Proto-Proposal: Concurring opinions
> (AI = 1.7, please)
Why?
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
ng so, or
> >>that is sustained on appeal.
> >
> > Spurious comma.
>
> Disagree.
It is neither a serial comma nor a separator of independent clauses
(the second clause lacks a subject if taken independently).
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On 11/18/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Because it is nonsensical, UNDECIDABLE is appropriate; see Rule 591.
I think UNDETERMINED is a perfectly appropriate judgement.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
there are several other situations in which the use of a comma is
> appropriate (though those situations may perhaps be dismissed as
> irrelevant to the case above).
I can't find any style guides that support or even mention this
extension of the serial comma.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED
On 11/18/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, there was; they only became meaningless when a second nomination
> was accepted within the four-day window.
Oh, quite right.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On 11/18/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 18 November 2007, Taral wrote:
> > I can't find any style guides that support or even mention this
> > extension of the serial comma.
>
> You're probably right, but if that humongous sentences had no
On 11/18/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 18 November 2007, Taral wrote:
> > A judicial finding is a judgement of a question on veracity
> > that is neither appealed within the time limit for doing so
> > nor sustained on appeal.
>
&
On 11/18/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The original sentence is "has not been appealed, or has been sustained" --
> yours is "not appealed, and not sustained"
Woops. Change sustained to overturned then.
> P.S. Is "purport" the word of th
On 11/24/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> subject of rights and obligations under the rules. An
> biological organism that is capable of communicating by email in
An -> A
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any
y race condition. Right now voting
limits are locked on a weekly basis.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
Can someone post an updated ruleset? I'm lost. :(
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On 11/26/07, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I vote OBJECT.
NTTPF.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
s called.
This is useful.
> The Assessor's report includes the roll call of the most recent
> emergency session.
Once the emergency session is over, this is unnecessary.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
ese groups
> impossible to use as a serious forum.
Do I need a Google Account to use Google Groups?
http://groups.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=46438&topic=9244
How do I subscribe to a group?
http://groups.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=46606&topic=9244
--
Taral <
se, the player who called for appeal is not a member, and none
> of the members is the prior judge.
There may be multiple players calling for the appeal. This could
result in un-assignable appeals. I would vote AGAINST this.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there'
On 11/28/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Same here. I also admonish BobTHJ and Eris for top-posting.
I wasn't replying, I was making a separate action that happens to
re-use some of the text.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's
On 11/28/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Statement: The AFO resolved the Agoran decisions for Proposals 5293 and
>5294 in Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Would anyone have a problem with me recusing myself from this case?
I'd like a separate view taken on the arguments, which u
uting the sense of your former judgement.
Fair enough.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On 11/28/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Argh! With this criminal system the punishments are too lenient. I
> suggest repealing UNAWARE and EXCUSED, and requiring a minimum
> sentence of CHOKEY!
Perhaps we should add EXTERMINATE.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
&
On 11/28/07, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I spend 2 Green VCs to gain 200 Green Marks
I don't think this works.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On 11/29/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> VCs, each of a color distinct from the rest,
What's wrong with "different"?
"VCs, each of a different color,"
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On 11/29/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I judge CFJ 1806 to be UNDECIDABLE due to unclarity.
Isn't this sort of thing what UNDETERMINED was for?
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
nating
messages via SMTP have their Message-IDs generated by their particular
MUA.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On 11/29/07, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We surrendered?
Not that I know of. :)
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On 11/30/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, it would put Eris back on the list, I think! -Goethe
Woot.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On 11/30/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>CARDS Goddess Eris
> CONTEST Goddess Eris
I can't remember how I won these things. It's a bit like this old
golden apple I have...
--
Eris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can gi
11 * (1 + 4X + 2Y + Z) + 1
>
> will produce any of (1,2) (2,3) (3,4) (4,5) (5,6) (6,7) (7,8) (8,9)
> depending on the pattern of inputs.
This assumes you have 0 and 1 farms. But I imagine it can be adjusted
for other farms.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know
tity loses
> eir holdings of each color of Mark, rounded down to the
> nearest multiple of 100; for each 100 Marks of a given color
> that e loses, e gains 1 VC of that color.
What about just having forced conversion? Why two seconds?
--
Taral <[EMA
On 12/1/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Trivially so; if you have M and N farms, then replace X with X-M
> and Y with Y-N.
Not quite. Assuming wlog M
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
hings directly and have them
all happen by announcement?
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On 12/1/07, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1) Every week, the contestmaster shall announce a new task to be implemented
> in Brainfuck.
With finite or infinite tape? With Z cells, Z_n cells, or just bounded
Z cells (that go undefined on overflow)? What's the
contestants.
s/may/can/
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On 12/1/07, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And the difference is?
Sorry, should be CAN, for MMI.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
of the color(s) of eir choice. The ninny is only
> obliged to perform one destruction per question on sentencing,
> even if sentences of this type are assigned more than once or
> go into effect more than once.
Can you arbitrarily destroy Marks?
--
Taral <[EM
? 0 : 1) + 2*(Y == M ? 0 : 1) + (Z == M ? 0 : 1);
> d = t + (t < M ? 0 : t < N-1 ? 1 : 2);
> return 11*d;
What are you smoking, Zefram? See my message before about M and N
being arbitrary (different) digits.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let m
On 12/2/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Per Fookiemyartug's contract, section 8:
>
> Fookiemyartug wins the game.
> BobTHJ wins the game.
> comex wins the game.
This fails for an absurd number of reasons.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Plea
el judge
AFFIRM. The question appealed is on culpability, and the appellant's
arguments support the judgement of GUILTY. Now if you want to appeal
the question on sentencing, that's different.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
ate, therefore GUILTY
> was inappropriate. (UNAWARE would be more directly appropriate, except
> that Proposal 5319 was ineffective due to insufficient Power.)
Ah, I misunderstood. I support this.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
ion on disposition in an appeal case, and either the
> prior question is on sentencing or the prior judgement is
> GUILTY, the prior judge loses one Black VC. When a
> sentence in a criminal case becomes active for the first
> time, the
deliberate or not.
I see. Why not just make the award happen after the judgement becomes
unappealable?
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
hall receive an
> nkeplwgplxgioyzjvtxjnncsqscvntlbdqromyeyvlhkjgteaqnneqgujjpwcbyfrpueoydjjk.
> This is a kind of currency; its recordkeepor is the contestmaster.
Please don't. :P
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
sure someone will come up with the reference.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
Marks and charging a "transfer tax" to
make the rainbow win harder?
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
cted to actions/events prior to the CFJ.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On 12/8/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How about "no later than"? Okay, you can CFJ on "It was possible
> to X one second ago" rather than "It is possible to X", but that's
> an ugly hack.
So long as it disallows forward-looking stat
On 8 Dec 2007 19:45:38 -, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> perl -pe 's/(?:#.*$|[^<>+\-[\],.])//g'
Does that work? Backslashes in [] are not usually quoting operators.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On 12/8/07, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Upon adoption of this proposal, the Mental Health Department shall be filled
> by pikhq.
I totally want this job. :P
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
Agh. Isn't there a better starting ruleset for online nomics than the
(possibly modified) Suber set?
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
of
> eir own proposals by N, where N >= 1.
Needs a minimum.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
(after
> > the weekly Depth decrease).
>
> The delay seems pointless. I suppose the intended point is the
> opportunity for someone else to nobble the proposal by increasing its
> depth, but that possibility seems like a bad idea.
What if the proposer's first proposal e
e fact that someone without a flash player
would never see the SUPPORT part.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On 12/11/07, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With the consent of H. Goddess Eris and H. root, I intend to have the
> panel judge OVERRULE with a replacement judgement of IRRELEVANT,
Is there a reason you prefer this to REMAND with instructions?
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROT
eals panels should be.
Given that a judgement of OVERRULE penalizes the original judge and
prevents further appeals, I prefer to reserve it for a lock-out in
cases where the appeals court needs to cut the Gordian Knot.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if th
ructions as above. I still don't think
this is hairy enough to justify OVERRULE.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On 12/11/07, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I end the voting period.
> Valid votes are:
> SUPPORT
> OBJECT
> The decision made by Agora is APPROVE.
Don't you need more support than object?
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if t
n is probably ineffective anyway.
True.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
ing "Valid votes are", which
sounds like you're listing vote options.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On 12/14/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 7. Any player may join the Vote Market by announcement. Upon joining
> the Vote Market, 50 VP are created in the possession of that player.
First class?
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there'
's no obligation outstanding, so nothing for an equity court to rule on.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
re the same as was
> specified by the party who filled the Sell Ticket.
Ambiguous parse. Meaning depends on the attachment of phrase "at the
end of its voting period".
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
ce MMI doesn't define
permission anymore, are these things regulated?
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On 12/17/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 16, 2007 11:08 AM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > (Spending 7 colors to zero someone's VLOP? Well, you could win the
> > game instead.)
>
> Not quite. There are currently 12 defined VC colors,
On 12/16/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Welcome to Eris's 17-digit monstrosities.
I really don't know why I get blamed for this idea. It was only
incidentally mine... :D
--
Eris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
*snicker*
--
Eris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On 12/17/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It also removes the rationale of win by voting power, since a player
> can at most exert full control over only a single party. Which I
> think is a good thing.
Partnerships get around this.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
&
On 12/18/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12/14/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 12/14/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > If the voting period on that
> > > decision does not end within the next 48 hours,
agreement.
Needs fixing, as per previous decisions. Must describe a method by
which the obligations devolve upon the partners.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On 12/18/07, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Having received at most one objection I flip the stability of Rulekeepor
> to Perpetual.
I don't think this is a valid resolution of the decision.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there'
On 12/18/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 18, 2007 5:46 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 12/18/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 3. The P2PP may incur obligations, rights, and privileges under the
> > > Rules of
On 12/18/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 5374 D1 2Goddess Er Flexible VLOP options
FOR
--
Eris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On 12/17/07, Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh wait, I'm not playing this Nomic...
Easily fixed.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On 12/18/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 5. The Partners shall ensure that the P2PP obeys the Rules of Agora to
> the maximum possible extent.
Ah, okay. Missed that one then.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any fu
*giggle*
On 12/18/07, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> WALRUS registers.
> WALRUS calls for judgement on the following (and ask for linked assignment):
> It is possible for a game action to take effect retroactively.
> It is possible for a contract change to take effect retroactively.
On 12/18/07, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You'll be giggling more if you know why I founded WALRUS. ;)
I suggest you look more closely at the current Registrar's report.
--
Eris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknow
On 12/18/07, David Nicol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm stunned to see Agorans discussing playability.
I'm stunned to see that name on this list. :) Lurking much?
--
Eris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On 12/20/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 10. When the VP of a first-class party falls below 50, e is OBLIGATED to
> increase it to 50 or above within 60 days.
There's no deterministic way to increase one's VP. :(
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"
On 12/20/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Taral wrote:
> >Having received support of Zefram and root, I appeal Murphy's
> >judgement in CFJ 1840.
>
> This is not a complete tally of votes. You must include your own
> implicit vote. (See thread re CF
On 12/20/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> VP can be increased by posting Sell tickets and/or filling Buy tickets.
That's not deterministic. There is no guarantee that anyone will be
interested in one's Sell tickets or that Buy tickets will be
available.
--
Tara
On 12/21/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I nominate myself for Scorekeeper. I consent to this nomination.
I vote OBJECT.
--
Eris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
eepors, the Assessor should be
taking the VLOP into account when recording votes to prevent
accidental over-voting.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
n
> light of obvious falsehoods? -Goethe
That's a slightly different argument, though.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
With agreement, I would like to have the panel judge REASSIGN. I think
a fresh look on this would be valuable
On 12/20/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I hereby assign the judicial panel of Goddess Eris, Levi, and root as
> judge of CFJ 1840a.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&
On 12/26/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (A#) If Y > X = 0, then e gains an A# Note.
This is usually written Bb, not A#.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
201 - 300 of 851 matches
Mail list logo
