Wooble wrote:
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 9:27 AM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
According to the Assessor DB, I gained a Rest on September 1 at
12:41:16 UTC. Did that one get destroyed? Otherwise, the DB
matches the above.
I don't think you actually gained a Rest at that time
Tanner L. Swett wrote:
CoE: I never sent the above message. What I did send was a very
similar message that said = where the above message says =3D.
Admitted, fixed in DB.
Tanner L. Swett wrote:
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 1:44 AM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote:
Proposal: Erratification
Ratify the following incorrect document: { 1 + 1 = 3 }
The definition: When a public document is ratified, the gamestate is
minimally modified so that the ratified document was
Wooble wrote:
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Keba ag...@kebay.org wrote:
An invasion consisting of one player? (Or miss I someone?) Did I do
anything wrong to deal me out?
One player? Blognomic's Riddler took direct action to make you the
Speaker; this conspiracy touches the highest
Wooble wrote:
I submit the following Fragment:
{{
οἵ πίθηκοι ἀλλο-πρόσαλλοι ἔστοι
}}
For the curious, Google Translate interprets this as Greek
for Monkeys are another; prosalloi estoi.
Keba wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Keba wrote:
Keba wrote:
Twice. Tanner L. Swett has now 1 erg left.
Well, no. Tanner L. Swett does not possess any ergs anymore. Sorry.
The quoted message containing Twice hasn't come through (presumably it
also clarified how many of the Pariah's rests omd
omd wrote:
As many times as possible, I pay a fee to destroy an erg in The
Pariah's possession.
H. PSM Keba, how many times did this work? (I need to update rest
counts in the Assessor DB to determine whose votes are nullified.)
Tanner L. Swett wrote:
As many times as possible, I pay a fee
omd wrote:
If the initial NoV was invalid and if this is possible, I pay a fee to
publish a NoV identical to the above, contest it, and initiate a
criminal case on it.
This would be your third NoV in the same week, so a 1-erg fee per
Rule 2230. H. PSM Keba, did omd have at least 1 erg at the
Tanner L. Swett wrote:
On Tuesday, September 7, 2010, Warrigal ihope12...@gmail.com wrote:
Without two objections from members of my team, I intend to change its
name to Confederate.
—Confederator Tanner L. Swett
If possible, I do so.
NttPF
Keba wrote:
Keba wrote:
Twice. Tanner L. Swett has now 1 erg left.
Well, no. Tanner L. Swett does not possess any ergs anymore. Sorry.
The quoted message containing Twice hasn't come through (presumably it
also clarified how many of the Pariah's rests omd destroyed).
I wrote:
If a second decision on Proposal 6796 was initiated, then its outcome
is REJECTED with the following details:
6796 O1 2.0 coppro The Robot
ais523 2A
G. 7P
Keba 5A
Murphy 2A
omd 10P
Wooble 5A
F/A 0/14
VI/AI 0/2
quorum
G. wrote:
On Fri, 10 Sep 2010, com...@gmail.com wrote:
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 10, 2010, at 1:22 PM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
Instruments generally, nowhere. Proposals in particular, the first
paragraph of R106:
When a proposal that includes
such explicit
Warrigal wrote:
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 7:57 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn
jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 September 2010 04:05, Warrigal ihope12...@gmail.com wrote:
So, what shall we do first? I guess I can draft a proposal to create
an accumulable currency that you can turn ergs into. What
Warrigal wrote:
(CotC Murphy, I'm curious what your reasoning is for assigning H.
ais523 to all of these cases.)
Aglets.
Wooble wrote:
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 9:27 AM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, this is broken...
As required by Rule 107, since there is only 1 option, I end the
voting period for the Promotor election.
The option chosen would be FAILED QUORUM. The voting period is
Warrigal wrote:
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 11:23 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Does fungibility break this?
No, because capacitors are not a currency.
Huh, and neither are ergs and fans. Was that intentional? Unlike
cards, there's no obvious reason in the existing ruleset
omd wrote:
On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 2:34 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 11:29 AM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2851a
AFFIRM without prejudice
I just remembered that I actually destroyed those 3
G. wrote:
H. Assessor and CotC Murphy,
Would you happen to have a relatively up-to-date NoV and Rest
record I can use as the basis of updating the Herald's report?
I don't have a public-facing web page for Rest history, but here are
all the changes I've recorded since June 1 (the right-hand
Wooble wrote:
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
It strikes me that when an officer ends up unresigned and inactive, the
office gets stuck. Is this right currently? Should we amend deputisation
to allow for inactive offices, not just vacant? (and are
coppro wrote:
On 08/29/2010 12:07 PM, Sgeo wrote:
I don't think I have the willpower to be Chroniclor... I resign from
Chroniclor
You're not allowed to do that.
More specifically, R1006 only allows elected holders to resign. More to
the point, Chroniclor was already repealed by Proposal
coppro wrote:
On 08/28/2010 02:47 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
On 08/27/2010 06:05 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2844
=== CFJ 2844 (Interest Index = 0)
I have CFJed on this exact statement, except with 'United
I wrote:
G. wrote:
I set the II of this case to 1, deliver the judgement of FALSE with
the following arguments, award myself a capacitor, then stand up.
CoE: The standing-up part is ineffective, as the case was no longer
disinterested by that point.
Also, you were standing anyway
ais523 wrote:
On Sat, 2010-08-28 at 02:57 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
For each of these cases, I submit the following gratuitous arguments
(and apologize for not having included them up front), and intend
(with 2 support) to appeal its judgement, recommending REMAND without
prejudice:
I
coppro wrote:
On 08/28/2010 05:34 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
2851: coppro has admitted to eir guilt. The default penalty is
mitigated by the interesting gameplay that has resulted (contrast
the hypothetical example of coppro changing eir nickname to omb,
which would just be annoying). GUILTY
G. wrote:
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010, Ed Murphy wrote:
Proposal: Frankenstein Destroyers rule!
Secret Societies are Treason, Citizen. What's the handshake?
Why, I wouldn't know /that/, I'm a loyal citizen I'll have you know!
Yally wrote:
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 16:15, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 22:09 +0200, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
The shuttle has completed two very short journeys in quick succession.
For each journey, every player who was active and not the enemy at the
start
ais523 wrote:
I note in passing that scams of the type that coppro is attempting atm
could, in future, be resolved by assigning ID numbers to players.
Who is Number One?
Michael Norrish is, Number Six.
omd wrote:
On Aug 27, 2010, at 6:30 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
omd wrote:
NoV: Murphy violated Power-1 Rule 2224 by setting this proposal's
Interest Index to 0, although its effects are not limited to
correcting errors and/or ambiguities.
I contest this NoV. The sole
Wooble wrote:
There's also no way to become Associate Director of Personnel,
although it might be considered a reasonable synonym of its successor
office.
cf. CFJ 1672
Wooble wrote:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 10:19 PM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
I contest this NoV. I initiate a criminal CFJ regarding this NoV and
submit it to the Justiciar.
I assign this CFJ to Murphy, as I think e's the only eligible Judge.
You also need to assign it an ID
Warrigal wrote:
The default penalty for violating a power-1 rule is two rests.
No, it's one rest. Rule 2230, excerpt:
When a NoV becomes Closed, a number of
Rests are created in the possession of the Accused equal to the
Class of the specified Crime,
G. wrote:
The more I think of it, the more surprised I am that I can't remember
anyone trying this scam. We've had plenty of attempted hardcodings of
players into rules/proposals (e.g. G. can amend this rule) or comex
is hereby awarded X) but I can't remember anyone trying to change
omd wrote:
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Michael Norrish
michael.norr...@nicta.com.au wrote:
I think I remember something similar. Â I certainly wrote a judgement that
defeated such an attempt. Â I used the Alice Through the Looking Glass
argument that being called something, and having
omd wrote:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 9:30 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
It's 22-20 and the voting period is over.
Not yet confirmed (I need to evaluate several conditionals and add them
to the DB), but even if you're right, it's AI=2 so it would fail.
For what it's worth, I
ais523 wrote:
--- On Tue, 24/8/10, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
In this case, the entity with the name The Robot will be
coppro *at the time of the enaction of the rule*. Also:
A document referring to an entity by name refers to the
entity that had that name when the document first came
ais523 wrote:
--- On Tue, 24/8/10, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
OIC.
Proposal: Mother says not to run on the concrete
(AI = 3, II = 1, co-author = omd, distributable via fee)
Amend Rule 106 (Adopting Proposals) by replacing this
text:
If the Rules do not otherwise
coppro wrote:
On 08/24/2010 12:27 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Well, that's slightly more interesting, but the Proposal was a document
that predated coppro's name change, so there's a case to be made that
the Proposal's referent transfers to the Rules along with the actual
language. -G.
The
coppro wrote:
On 08/24/2010 05:28 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Sean Huntscsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
wrote:
When Distributed Proposal 6808 is resolved and ADOPTED,
s/When/If/
It's 22-20 and the voting period is over.
Not yet confirmed (I need to evaluate
Keba wrote:
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 05:09:12 -0700, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com
wrote:
6783-89 are going to fail quorum about 30 hours from now, as only
four players coppro, Murphy, Wooble, Yally) have voted on them.
Active but not voted:
ais523, ehird, G., Keba, omd, Sgeo, Tanner L
Keba wrote:
Is this similar to the AFO? I have not read the proposal/rule of that
player, because I did not want to get inspirated by it, I want to create
something different.
The AFO was a contract-based legal person that any member of the
contract could control at any time by announcement.
G. wrote:
The physicist is an office and should be held by the PM. Its weekly
report contains how often and by whom the PM has been powered, who is the
Energy Spender and a list of all bot-PM actions of the previous seven days.
If the PM holds this office, no real person would be
Keba wrote:
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 13:53:40 -0400, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Sgeo sgeos...@gmail.com wrote:
CoE: You also do not have enough ergs to do this.
Enough ergs to discuss something?
Well, it was labelled distributable via fee.
Keba wrote:
Sean Hunt wrote:
6805 G 1 1.0 KebaProps should be important!
This decision doesn't exist, but ENDORSE the Captain just in case
Why does this decision not exist? ais523 had payed a fee to make it
distributable?
IIRC, the initial distribution was ineffective
Sgeo wrote:
6806 P 1 3.1 coppro Ratification misstep
PRESENT [What's this for?]
IIRC, ratifying the ruleset is currently rendered ineffective by
Rule 105's Rule changes always occur sequentially.
coppro wrote:
On 08/21/2010 02:32 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
6808 P 1 1.0 coppro Super Robot Powers
AGAINST (I smell a scam consisting of an affordably short sub-message
within a 1000+ word container message)
I sure hope not; that's why I built the Robot rule and the recent
ais523 wrote:
What should I do instead? Resign as Referee and publish unofficial
reports until the computer problems are fixed?
Under the circumstances, you could publish non-plaintext reports and
argue a 1504(e) defense.
ais523 wrote:
Is it even possible to recuse yourself with a case immediately
after judging?
Yes.
R2164: The judge of a judicial case CAN recuse emself from it at any
time by announcement.
R911: REMAND ... the prior question is rendered open again
REMIT ... the judge of the prior case
G. wrote:
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010, comex wrote:
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Warrigal ihope12...@gmail.com wrote:
This, this.
G., if you're going to AFFIRM as well, can you please specify a
substantive set of arguments? In particular, it would help if you
made some reference to my
G.
Amend R107 by replacing:
Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the
voting period for a decision with at least two options cannot be
shorter than seven days.
with:
The voting period for a decision with at least two options is
secured
coppro wrote:
Nah, Chamber doesn't work that well anyways.
What about that change that ehird suggested, where you got 5 votes
on some chamber other than your own?
Yally wrote:
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 15:51, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Proposal: Energize new players
(AI = 2, II = 1, co-author = Keba)
Amend Rule 2282 (Energy) by inserting this text before the
paragraph beginning The Power Station Manager (PSM) is:
When a player
Keba wrote:
Does anyone saved all (or at least the most recent) theses? First,
theses should not only be written just to gain Degrees, but to be useful
as well. Second, if ais523 fix eir thesis, I am not sure which Degree
it's worth, because I don't have any comparison.
Blob's archive
coppro wrote:
Proposal: Low altitude
(AI = 1, II = 0, distributable by fee)
Keba is a co-author of this proposal, unless e announces within a
week after the publication of this proposal that e is not.
Amend Rule 2287 (Props) by replacing this text:
The Air Traffic Controller is
comex wrote:
Well, I disagree with that. It is unreasonable to allow X as an
administrative convenience shorthand for Y if nobody, not even the
administrators, know what Y is.
...How do fungible assets fit into this scheme?
Depends whether the rules require one to specify or merely
Wooble wrote:
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Warrigal ihope12...@gmail.com wrote:
This.
I'm treating this as effective if no one CFJs it.
Yeah, seems reasonably similar to TTttPF.
ais523 wrote:
On the other hand, I don't really understand why Space Alert exists at
all...
It has to exist! Where would all the fragments go?
comex wrote:
I stand up.
Ineffective, you can't directly stand (except in conjunction with
judging or sommat, which you didn't).
ais523 wrote:
Also, I intend, with notice, to initiate a new journey; I intend, with
notice, to initiate a new journey; I intend, with notice, to initiate a
new journey; I intend, with notice, to initiate a new journey; I intend,
with notice, to initiate a new journey; I intend, with notice,
ais523 wrote:
On Thu, 2010-08-12 at 08:55 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
ais523 wrote:
Also, I intend, with notice, to initiate a new journey; I intend, with
notice, to initiate a new journey; I intend, with notice, to initiate a
new journey; I intend, with notice, to initiate a new journey; I
comex wrote:
[I've complained repeatedly about the length of time currently
required to adopt proposals, which can have a significant negative
effect on the game. Since the current proposal volume really isn't
all that high, I think that BlogNomic-style immediate distribution is
not only
coppro wrote:
On 08/09/2010 12:03 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
G. ke...@u.washington.edu 29 Oct 09 S
I intend, without objection, to flip activity to inactive.
Yours? G.'s? Wooble's?
comex wrote:
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 7:22 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
comex wrote:
[I've complained repeatedly about the length of time currently
required to adopt proposals, which can have a significant negative
effect on the game. Since the current proposal volume really
comex wrote:
Yo dawg.
I was /just about to say/.
G. wrote:
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010, Alex Smith wrote:
Assuming that Taral eventually approves the message, the thesis counts
as being submitted already. So people can see what it is, I've attached
a compressed version of the email I sent, to get around the size
filters.
Nice start, but I think
ais523 wrote:
If possible, I become Purple.
It isn't, you already became Purple in April and haven't changed since.
coppro wrote:
Proposal: All's Well on the ID Front (AI=1, II=1, Distributable via fee)
{{{
Amend Rule 2161 by removing bullets (c) and (e) from the list, and
relettering the rest accordingly, and amending bullet (b) to read
(b) Such an assignment is INVALID unless the number is a
Wooble wrote:
Have the quorum numbers been considering Yally active all this time?
Sgeo, but yes. I never caught it before because Sgeo always objected
before (so there was nothing for me to record), and only caught it this
time because the draft CotC report disagreed (at which point I checked
comex wrote:
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 8:46 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Proposal 6761 (Purple, AI=2.0, Interest=None) by coppro
Admitted. It's listed correctly at the top, this part was just
copy+pasted from the Promotor's initiation message.
I was wondering if Python
On 8/2/2010 8:19 PM, comex wrote:
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 11:09 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
comex wrote:
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 8:46 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Proposal 6761 (Purple, AI=2.0, Interest=None) by coppro
Admitted. It's listed correctly at the top
Yally wrote:
On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 13:51, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com
mailto:ride...@gmail.com wrote:
in case of a tie then the first of those players alphabetically
Oh, I see how it is.
You could always change your nickname to Adams...
G. wrote:
But these sort of CANNOTs have been overridden by proposals in the past
without blinking an eye! When we install an officer by Proposal, or
reset currencies or points directly, that's something we also generally
CANNOT do, but we've taken it to work, even in a power-1 proposal...
The difficulty in ALL win conditions, that 2186 specifies one set
of conditions for calling something a win announcement, and that other
rules say that it has to be a winning announcement with different
(not additional) information (a win announcement that Proposal X has
been adopted in
G. wrote:
The problem now is (if we accept that it's circular to say that
one or more people won in order to cause those one or more people
to win) that:
Rule 2215 (Truthiness) suggests (albeit weakly) that such
bootstrapping is allowed.
Yally wrote:
I support and appeal this case.
I'm interpreting this intent/support/appeal as reasonable
shorthand for doing so for each of CFJs 2821 and 2822.
ais523 wrote:
On Tue, 2010-07-27 at 08:22 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
I doth herebye annonce that coppro do hath winneth the Game, that e be
nowe awardede Champion, ande that heartofore e be Speaker of Agora!
I find it very interesting that nobody's made the win announcement for
the
Tiger wrote:
I'm sorry about that, and I think I knew beforehand that I wouldn't be
able to create something that big that stood up to Agora's standards
of rigour. Still, it was adopted, and now I'm just unsure about
whether to view the inevitable CFJs as hindering the gameplay, or as a
ais523 wrote:
On Sun, 2010-07-25 at 18:44 -0500, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
I press the Record the Captain's Log button.
I intend, with 2 support, to initiate a mutiny.
(Basically: if nobody succeeds in getting the support, then Yally gets a
bonus, and wins if he manages it twice in a month. If
Wooble wrote:
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 7:16 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com
wrote:
I initiate an election to decide the holder of the Ship Computer office. I
assume the office of Ship Computor.
I CFJ on: Yally is a candidate for Ship Computor.
Arguments: This is another CFJ
NUM C I AI SUBMITTER TITLE
6756 P None 1.0 coppro Ribbon Sweeper
6761 P None 2.0 coppro I Postulate an Assumption
Per Rule 2153, these have a default interest index of 1.
Yally wrote:
There is no active journey.
There are no objects In Space.
There are no charges.
There are no threat points.
There is no difficulty.
There is no shuttle.
There are no missles.
Rumors of missiles are treason. Report all rumors.
coppro wrote:
Proposal: Waitaminute (AI=2, II=1, Distributable by fee)
{{{
Award ais523 the Patent Title Scamster.
}}}
Not that e doesn't likely deserve it, but this should cite some
notable examples of eir scams.
Proposal: They're dumb (AI=1, II=1, Distributable by fee)
{{{
Destroy all
ais523 wrote:
On Sat, 2010-07-17 at 00:21 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
LEFT IN A HUFF
Waggie, Gecko, Kelly (x3!), Swann, KoJen, Zefram,
Vlad, Andre, G., BobTHJ, P1-P100
Warrigal*
I CFJ on the statement P1 has a
ais523 wrote:
I opine REMAND on CFJ 2809a; everyone, including the original judge,
seems to want more detail in the judgement.
You need to specify with/without prejudice.
ais523 wrote:
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 23:37 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
On 07/14/2010 11:07 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2811
=== CFJ 2811 (Interest Index = 0)
Warrigal is a Player
Yally wrote:
Perhaps we should have a contest. Each player can submit a new player's
guide. Thereafter, Agora votes on which guide is the best and that
player is awarded a win. Then we can combine the best parts of each
guide to create one truly excellent guide.
Fragment:
Q. What do I do
G. wrote:
It was Murphy that wrote a good FAQ I think a while back? Be nice to
see that up-front. In particular, perhaps a re-organization/update of
the agoranomic.org front page with such a FAQ front and center?
Here's the last version. Obviously it needs some updating, as well as
I wrote:
The context of proposal awarding a win to one or more persons
comes from Rule 2188 (Win by Proposal), where it is most naturally
interpreted as proposal that, if it took effect, would thereby
award a win to one or more persons. Proposal 6745 is such a
proposal; in particular, in
Yally wrote:
I opine REMAND as the Justicar's Opinion. I lean.
The opinion was ineffective because with/without prejudice was
not specified.
No CFJs yet, but some problems with Space Alert:
1) Only objects In Space should be warped and disappear due to
invalid position.
2) The Shuttle shouldn't always exist, it should be created at the
start of a journey after all objects In Space are destroyed.
3) The Reload buttons
coppro wrote:
On 07/01/2010 09:10 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
[Yally's favoring can't be honored at this time because e is
sitting, not standing.]
I thought e was leaning?
E was for a few days, but e sat immediately before favoring this case.
Yally wrote:
1. What if a team has only two players? One player could just remove the
other player who could do nothing about it as there would be nobody else
to provide a second objection.
It requires em to move the other player to another team, which can
also block it with 2 objections.
ehird wrote:
On 26 June 2010 21:12, Elliott Hird penguinoftheg...@gmail.com wrote:
I assume the office of Mary; and prior to doing so, Godot registers.
Godot is me, as of before the previous line.
As of this line, however, Godot is not me. Godot must therefore be waited
for.
And a
ais523 wrote:
A Team is a sort of entity defined by the rules; creation and
destruction of Teams is secured. Each Teams have a name, which if not
Each Team has a name
If there is ever simultaneously one or more empty Teams, and one or more
Independent players, then the any player CAN by
comex wrote:
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 3:59 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
twist to avoid that. Maybe the metaphor can be the Federation of
International Federated Associations with leagues, trades, captains, etc.
The Association of Federated Organizations?
I was just about
ais523 wrote:
On Sun, 2010-06-13 at 15:54 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
Judge coppro's Arguments:
Tiger's message clearly and unambiguously specifying that he was
submitting a fragment with the following text, immediately followed by
three lines of text. Per Rules 217 and 478, he did submit
coppro wrote:
On 06/13/2010 05:07 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
coppro wrote:
I hereby resolve the election for Registrar; votes were as follows:
Murphy E Wooble = Wooble
Wooble = Wooble
Wooble wins with 2 votes to whatever and remains Registrar.
CoE: Either it failed quorum or the voting
Wooble wrote:
I intend, without objection, to deregister each of the following players:
ehird
Ienpew III
Phoenix
Sgeo
Taral
I object to deregistering Taral.
ais523 wrote:
(By the way, do we actually have a rule that
allows actions to fail due to ambiguity?)
Rule 478:
Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed by
announcement, a person performs that action by unambiguously
and clearly specifying the action...
comex wrote:
(1) A difference in spelling, grammar, capitalization, or
dialect, or the use of a synonym or abbreviation in place of
a word or phrase is inconsequential in all forms of
communication, except for the the purpose of reporting on or
comex wrote:
On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
comex wrote:
(1) A difference in spelling, grammar, capitalization, or
dialect, or the use of a synonym or abbreviation in place of
a word or phrase is inconsequential in all forms
501 - 600 of 3133 matches
Mail list logo
