Sgeo wrote:
I win by Junta.
Iff this works, and comex has no Rests, and previous assumptions of
wins are correct:
I don't think it worked, but if it did, then comex's Rests were
irrelevant (e amended R2238 to turn off all Losing Conditions).
comex wrote:
6099 D 1 2.0 Pavitra Clean up the deregistration mess
AGAINT
As usual, this is invalid due to ambiguity (CFJs 1260-61).
On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
comex wrote:
6099 D 1 2.0 Pavitra Clean up the deregistration mess
AGAINT
As usual, this is invalid due to ambiguity (CFJs 1260-61).
Really? I seem to remember you've usually treated it as AGAINST.
I cast the following votes as many times as I am allowed
6086 AGAINST
6087 AGAINST
6088 FOR
6089 FOR
6090 AGAINST
6091 FOR
6092 AGAINST
6093 AGAINST
6094 FOR
6095 AGAINST
6096 AGAINST
6097 AGAINST
6098 AGAINST
6099 AGAINST
6100 AGAINST
6101 AGAINST
6102 AGAINST
6103 FOR
6104 FOR
6105 AGAINST
6106
In the matter of CFJ 2378, I judge the question to be undetermined.
According to cfj 1744:
[CFJ 1744 (called 18 September 2007): It is not the job of the judge
to hunt down or request the information that would be required to
render a substantive judgement.]
The callers arguments provided
cdm014 wrote:
In the matter of CFJ 2378, I judge the question to be undetermined.
nttpf. (In other word, you sent to a-d not a-b by mistake, so your
post has no effect.)
Also, Rule 2238 did exist at the time of the CFJ, but has since been
repealed (it was involved in a scam, which meant it moved
cdm014 wrote:
I cast the following votes as many times as I am allowed
Send them to agora-business, not agora-discussion, or they won't
be counted. (It's easy to reply to the wrong list, everyone here's
probably done it several times; the default's agora-discussion, so
you have to change it by
ais523 wrote:
Also, why should comex's scam legislation address the ramifications of its
claim? That's for a judge to do, not for the scam rule itself. (If the scam
rule did state a judgement to be used in any CFJs regarding it, I rather
suspect that would either be considered judicial
ais523 wrote:
Also, Rule 2238 did exist at the time of the CFJ, but has since been
repealed (it was involved in a scam, which meant it moved a lot faster
than other rules; in particular, it had a tendency to self-amend a
lot.) I agree that the CotC, or someone, should have probably given
Proposal: Correction of Typos
(AI = 1, II = 1)
Create a new rule entitle Correction of Proposal Response Typos with power
= 1 and the text:
If in response to a proposal distribution an eligible voter submits a
non-legal response that clearly and obviously resembles an acceptable
response
On Sat, 14 Feb 2009, Chester Mealer wrote:
I cast the following votes as many times as I am allowed
1. Not to the public forum;
2. Arguably, you are allowed an infinite number of votes, they
just aren't all counted. A safer phrase would be up to my
voting limit on each.
-Goethe
On Sat, 14 Feb 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote:
This morning, I find myself more swayed by pro- than anti-. That
changes each time I think about it. The only thing I'm *sure* of is
that I think a judge needs to come right out and say they are weighing
these closely-balanced sides on the interest of
On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
This morning, I find myself more swayed by pro- than anti-. That
changes each time I think about it. The only thing I'm *sure* of is
that I think a judge needs to come right out and say they are weighing
these
On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 8:28 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
Create a new rule entitle Correction of Proposal Response Typos with power
= 1 and the text:
If in response to a proposal distribution an eligible voter submits a
non-legal response that clearly and obviously
On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 7:38 PM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 8:28 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com
wrote:
Create a new rule entitle Correction of Proposal Response Typos with
power
= 1 and the text:
If in response to a proposal distribution an
On 2009-02-15, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
Proposal: Correction of Typos
(AI = 1, II = 1)
Create a new rule entitle Correction of Proposal Response Typos with power
= 1 and the text:
If in response to a proposal distribution an eligible voter submits a
non-legal response
On Sat, 14 Feb 2009, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
Except that rule 754 concerns terminology and grammar. I would consider
those to refer to the selection and definition of words, not a typo.
There are several precedents in the case log (forgive me for not looking
them up right now) that say more or
17 matches
Mail list logo
