On Wed, 24 Jul 2013, omd wrote:
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 12:21 AM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote:
I object to this judgement of OVERRULE.
Gratuitous: For the record, I think that scshunt's offense is not even
close to the levels of negligence various officers have shown over
but that we also wish to avoid making a decision on sentencing on our own
Is that not exactly what the text of rule 911 states we should do?
On Wed, 24 Jul 2013, James Beirne wrote:
but that we also wish to avoid making a decision on sentencing on our own
Is that not exactly what the text of rule 911 states we should do?
There's actually a difference of opinion here. I personally think appeals
courts should overrule more than
What follows is not really a direct reply but is an explanation, of
sorts, for my feelings towards the sentence, particularly as to why I
feel a time out is appropriate.
Perhaps this is coming from my lack of experience, but the rules seem
to very clearly permit and encourage appellate panels to
On Wed, 24 Jul 2013, James Beirne wrote:
If players were compelled to hold offices I'd feel differently, but
whereas it's entirely voluntary, failure to discharge duties (ie., not
do something you signed up to do) seems (to me) deserving of a
stricter punishment. If one wanted to not
On 24 Jul 2013 08:39, James Beirne james.m.bei...@gmail.com wrote:
What follows is not really a direct reply but is an explanation, of
sorts, for my feelings towards the sentence, particularly as to why I
feel a time out is appropriate.
The panel (and future judges) should consider that the
On 23 July 2013 15:12, Benjamin Schultz ben.dov.schu...@gmail.com wrote:
Good luck on recording THAT in the reports.
It should be OK; it can be reported as G +/- n for some n, and it
should be easy to tell when it's greater than anyone else's number of
Yaks (always). Of course it would be
The panel (and future judges) should consider that the defendant recently made
emself inactive, rendering TIME OUT most likely ineffectual.
E was not inactive at the time of the original sentencing, though.
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 7:07 AM, Charles Walker
charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 24
On Jul 24, 2013, at 1:11 AM, James Beirne wrote:
I'm not sure that I have introduced anything new to the case, rather
than explaining why I felt the original judgement was inappropriate.
Isn't the idea of a 7-day TIME OUT a new opinion?
—Machiavelli
On Jul 22, 2013, at 4:23 PM, omd wrote:
Proposal 7538 (AI=1, PF=Y0, Ordinary) by Machiavelli
Fencing off
On Jul 24, 2013, at 5:44 AM, Charles Walker wrote:
7538 10 O Machiavelli Fencing off
AGAINST; broken (AI)
CoE: the AI of this proposal is 3.
—Machiavelli
Oh, I misunderstood. Yes, it is, but again, I don't see why the rules
permit overruling if it's considered to be inappropriate.
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote:
On Jul 24, 2013, at 1:11 AM, James Beirne wrote:
I'm not sure that I have introduced anything
On 24 Jul 2013 18:11, James Beirne james.m.bei...@gmail.com wrote:
The panel (and future judges) should consider that the defendant
recently made emself inactive, rendering TIME OUT most likely ineffectual.
E was not inactive at the time of the original sentencing, though.
Quite, but there's
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Charles Walker
charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 Jul 2013 18:11, James Beirne james.m.bei...@gmail.com wrote:
The panel (and future judges) should consider that the defendant recently
made emself inactive, rendering TIME OUT most likely ineffectual.
E
Quite, but there's no point overruling to TIME OUT.
Ideally I'd have preferred to assess a different penalty, but I wasn't
sure whether doing so merely because he had subsequently gone on hold
would have been inappropriate.
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Jonathan Rouillard
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 3:38 AM, James Beirne james.m.bei...@gmail.com wrote:
Furthermore, it seems
to me that failure to publish a report should not be considered a
minor infraction as (for me, at least), it serves as an important
tool to keep up with the game.
Well, again, even if there are
On 24 Jul 2013 20:40, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 3:38 AM, James Beirne james.m.bei...@gmail.com
wrote:
Furthermore, it seems
to me that failure to publish a report should not be considered a
minor infraction as (for me, at least), it serves as an important
tool
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Charles Walker
charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
Moreover, most officers are late occasionally and it is definitely not in
the interests of the game to drive them away every time they miss a report.
In fact I think it's almost always a bad idea to stop someone
17 matches
Mail list logo
