Oh, and also Corona is still a player (a zombie, but still a player), so
e is not a fugitive.
(This means that Corona was not a player from ~10 June to ~13 June
because ratification.)
Jason Cobb
On 6/17/19 12:57 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
Claim of error: The new judgment in CFJ 3736 [0] states
On Mon, 2019-06-17 at 00:58 -0400, omd wrote:
> CFJ: In Rule 2125, "required to be a recordkeepor" refers only to
> recordkeepors as defined in Rule 2166.
>
> Arguments:
>
> Or is it simply an ordinary-language reference to the act of keeping
> records?
Gratutious: since when was "recordkeepor"
CFJ: In Rule 2125, "required to be a recordkeepor" refers only to
recordkeepors as defined in Rule 2166.
Arguments:
Or is it simply an ordinary-language reference to the act of keeping records?
Evidence:
Rule 2125/10
Claim of error: The new judgment in CFJ 3736 [0] states that it is
IMPOSSIBLE for the Referee to impose the Cold Hand of Justice. Thus,
Aris does NOT have 1 Blot.
[0]: Excerpt from Judgment in CFJ 3736 by omd
Levying a fine is certainly a regulated action, and Rule 2125 takes
precedence
Well, the new judgment for CFJ 3736 [0] renders this trivially FALSE. I
withdraw this CFJ.
[0]: Excerpt from Judgment in CFJ 3736 by omd
Levying a fine is certainly a regulated action, and Rule 2125 takes
precedence over all of the Cold Hand of Justice-related rules due to
higher power, so
On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 10:31 PM omd wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 10:24 PM Aris Merchant
> wrote:
> > I intend with 2 support to group-file a motion to reconsider. This
> > ruling suggests that a person could potentially change a regulated
> > quantity by communicating with its recordkeepor
On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 5:47 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> This judgment is contradictory. By Rule 2125 [0], the Rules cannot be
> interpreted to proscribe (prohibit) unregulated actions. Since you judge
> that breathing would NOT be regulated, then the rules do not prohibit
> breathing, yet you state
I support, and do so (file a Motion to Reconsider CFJ 3737).
On 6/16/2019 7:58 PM, Rebecca wrote:
I support
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 12:55 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
For previous stated reasons, I intend, with 2 support, to group-file a
motion to reconsider for CFJ 3737.
Jason Cobb
On 6/16/19
I support
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 12:55 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> For previous stated reasons, I intend, with 2 support, to group-file a
> motion to reconsider for CFJ 3737.
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 6/16/19 5:47 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> > This judgment is contradictory. By Rule 2125 [0], the Rules
For previous stated reasons, I intend, with 2 support, to group-file a
motion to reconsider for CFJ 3737.
Jason Cobb
On 6/16/19 5:47 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
This judgment is contradictory. By Rule 2125 [0], the Rules cannot be
interpreted to proscribe (prohibit) unregulated actions. Since you
On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 10:24 PM Aris Merchant
wrote:
> I intend with 2 support to group-file a motion to reconsider. This
> ruling suggests that a person could potentially change a regulated
> quantity by communicating with its recordkeepor even if that method
> was not explicitly specified by a
I intend with 2 support to group-file a motion to reconsider. This
ruling suggests that a person could potentially change a regulated
quantity by communicating with its recordkeepor even if that method
was not explicitly specified by a rule. This flatly contradicts Rule
2125, which says in part "A
In conclusion this interpretation is silly and must be reversed.
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 9:35 AM Rebecca wrote:
> indeed it applies to any CAN and SHALL because while the CAN "enables"
> the action, nothing "limits or enables" the action of not doing it, so it
> can't be prescribed
>
> On Mon,
indeed it applies to any CAN and SHALL because while the CAN "enables" the
action, nothing "limits or enables" the action of not doing it, so it can't
be prescribed
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 9:29 AM Rebecca wrote:
> Additionally, this logic doesnt just apply to oaths. It applies to almost
> ANY
Additionally, this logic doesnt just apply to oaths. It applies to almost
ANY SHALL NOT
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 9:28 AM Rebecca wrote:
> G., I strongly suspect, very strongly, that there is a body of precedent
> on regulated actions. Do you know anything about that before we get too
> hasty?
>
G., I strongly suspect, very strongly, that there is a body of precedent on
regulated actions. Do you know anything about that before we get too hasty?
I create and pend the below proposal
Name: Regulated what?
AI: 3
Text: Repeal rule 2125 "Regulated Actions"
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 7:47 AM
I earn 5 coins for the publication of the SLR for the twenty-fourth week
of 2019.
I earn 5 coins for the publication of the FLR for June 2019.
I earn 5 coins for the publication of the judgement of CFJ 3737.
On 6/6/19 3:36 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
I earn 5 coins for the publication of the SLR
My judgement is as follows:
When a player "SHALL NOT" perform an action, e "violates the rule in
question" [Rule 2152 "Mother, May I?"]. Any parties to this theoretical
contract would still be able to breate but to do so would violate the
rule. Whereas this does not constitute a limitation, I
I call this CFJ: A person earns a Cyan Ribbon when e temporarily
deputises for an office.
Arguments:
>From Rule 2438 (Ribbons):
Cyan (C): When a person deputises for an office, that person earns
a Cyan Ribbon.
The question is whether "temporary deputisation" is a sub-category of
Friendly Ribbon request from the Tailor -
Please when announcing give the specific reason (e.g. "for Proposal
" or "Office " or whatever). I double-check the requirements
and it helps a lot if I don't have to guess...
On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 5:17 PM Rance Bedwell wrote:
>
> TTttPF.
>
>
I consent to the following document as a contract:
--- start of document ---
THE RITUAL INQUISITION
1. FEAR. Parties to the Ritual Inquisition are called inquisitors. Any player
CAN become an inquisitor. Players SHOULD become inquisitors.
2. SURPRISE. Any inquisitor CAN act on behalf of any
I also support.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Sunday, June 16, 2019 4:57 AM, James Cook wrote:
> Hooray! I support.
>
> On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 at 14:37, Kerim Aydin ke...@uw.edu wrote:
>
> > I support.
> > On 6/15/2019 5:53 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
> >
> > > > On Jun 15, 2019, at 5:49
22 matches
Mail list logo
