Gosh! This is all a much more positive reaction than I was expecting.
Aris wrote: > However, you have convinced me to vote on your proposals on their > merits until the loopholes within them are actually located. Thank you. I hope you won't regret your decision. > I assure you that I will be looking through them at some point and > trying to find those loopholes, which I believe almost certainly > exist, myself. Perhaps I'm pushing my luck here, but supposing you _did_ come across such a thing and were willing to disclose it to me privately instead of publicising it, I'm sure some sort of compensation could be arranged... (Sorry. I'll stop with the Bond villain antics for now.) > I apologize for the capitalization error and will make an effort to be > more diligent in the future. Please don't worry too much about it! It's an incredibly small thing, which you had no way of knowing in the first place anyway. I was divided about whether to even mention it. G. wrote: > To me it reads, not like a careful legal analysis, but likw an impassioned > but reasoned plea to a jury of 12 on behalf of the accused, a rare thing > given that our judicial system is not an adversarial one. But it is > definitely a skill very much in keeping with the practice of the law. > > I think I'd defer to twg (choice of J.N or Bachelors) but would support > either. I'm with Aris on this one: the J.N. was supposed to be for seminal CFJ judgements that double as theses, so I don't think it would be appropriate here. Beyond that, I feel it would be uncouth to engage further in the discussion, except to express gratitude for your praise and the titles proffered. ... ...aaaand, maybe, if it please m'lud, to request that at least the degree intent, if not also the separate title, be delayed for a further, oh, say, four to five days? For purely self-serving reasons, I admit. > Oh, and on peer-review: having read it, I can think of no edits. This is a > gem. Well done. Not even to suggest pointing out the Town Fountain and Royal Parade in the part where I talk about honouring interesting/memorable scams? I'm kicking myself for forgetting to mention them, as basically the most prominent memorials of gameplay past. Ah well. ais523 wrote: > > I trusted (and still trust) em not to unnecessarily wreak havoc on > > Agora if and when e is successful at perpetrating one. > > I'm intrigued at the suggestion that there may be times when wreaking > havoc on Agora is necessary. Mostly I included the qualifier on the basis that, without it, some pedant would undoubtedly have complained about the hypothetical existence of such a scenario. I guess I can't win :P -twg
