Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Clork] Weekly Report

Yeah, sorry. Right. I just needed to CoE though to stop self-ratification. On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 at 21:04 VJ Rada wrote: > >> A document is only doubted when there's a CoE or a CFJ specifically >>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Clork] Weekly Report

On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 at 21:04 VJ Rada wrote: > A document is only doubted when there's a CoE or a CFJ specifically > identifying and disputing the document. A pending CFJ from before a > report does not dispute it. > No, but it's a reportor's responsibility and prerogative to

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Clork] Weekly Report

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote: You can either deny it or publish a revision. You should do neither, but note that you will eventually have to choose one if the cfj isn't judged w/in the next 7 days, which it won't be. No, point 2.3 of rule 2201 allows em to cite an already existing CFJ.

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Clork] Weekly Report

A doubt is an explicit public challenge via one of the following methods, identifying a document and explaining the scope and nature of a perceived error in it: 1. An inquiry case, appropriate for questions of legal interpretation. 2. A claim

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Clork] Weekly Report

You can either deny it or publish a revision. You should do neither, but note that you will eventually have to choose one if the cfj isn't judged w/in the next 7 days, which it won't be. On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Telnaior wrote: > I'm pretty sure I have to respond to

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Clork] Weekly Report

A document is only doubted when there's a CoE or a CFJ specifically identifying and disputing the document. A pending CFJ from before a report does not dispute it. On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Madeline wrote: > No, pending CFJ. > > > > On 2017-11-27 12:58, VJ Rada wrote:

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Clork] Weekly Report

No, pending CFJ. On 2017-11-27 12:58, VJ Rada wrote: did you do the ones where e used eir favours to bribe every politician, even ones from other parties? On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Madeline wrote: I did those. On 2017-11-27 12:51, VJ Rada wrote: um i meant

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Clork] Weekly Report

_> On 11/26/2017 8:51 PM, VJ Rada wrote: um i meant aris's actions sure they're basically the same person right? On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Madeline wrote: Uh, which one are you referring to? On 2017-11-27 12:45, VJ Rada wrote: I don't think ATMunn's actions

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Clork] Weekly Report

I did those. On 2017-11-27 12:51, VJ Rada wrote: um i meant aris's actions sure they're basically the same person right? On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Madeline wrote: Uh, which one are you referring to? On 2017-11-27 12:45, VJ Rada wrote: I don't think ATMunn's

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Clork] Weekly Report

um i meant aris's actions sure they're basically the same person right? On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Madeline wrote: > Uh, which one are you referring to? > > > > On 2017-11-27 12:45, VJ Rada wrote: >> >> I don't think ATMunn's actions were super-conditional? >> >> On

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Clork] Weekly Report

Uh, which one are you referring to? On 2017-11-27 12:45, VJ Rada wrote: I don't think ATMunn's actions were super-conditional? On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Telnaior wrote: The two mega-super-conditional actions I'm not gonna count barring a CFJ >_> I award VJ Rada 3

DIS: Re: OFF: [Clork] Weekly Report

I don't think ATMunn's actions were super-conditional? On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Telnaior wrote: > The two mega-super-conditional actions I'm not gonna count barring a CFJ >_> > I award VJ Rada 3 NPR favours for being the Advisor of the Drunk. > I award Aris 3 OOS

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Clork] Weekly Report

On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 7:25 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Tue, 21 Nov 2017, ATMunn wrote: > > I (or anyone else, really) can invite you to the AgoraNomic GitHub org, > but > > from there it might be kind of difficult. > > Have I been invited? (kaydin). > > If I'm

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Clork] Weekly Report

On Tue, 21 Nov 2017, ATMunn wrote: > I (or anyone else, really) can invite you to the AgoraNomic GitHub org, but > from there it might be kind of difficult. Have I been invited? (kaydin). If I'm already got a github repo of the CFJ website up, is it simple matter to have it show up as

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Clork] Weekly Report

I really had no idea what I was doing either. I mostly just copied stuff from the old ADoP repo into a new one, changed some text, and had o help me with confusing Git stuff. :P On 11/21/2017 8:29 PM, Madeline wrote: I would have absolutely no idea what I'm doing, so~ On 2017-11-22 12:25,

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Clork] Weekly Report

I would have absolutely no idea what I'm doing, so~ On 2017-11-22 12:25, ATMunn wrote: I (or anyone else, really) can invite you to the AgoraNomic GitHub org, but from there it might be kind of difficult. You'd have to make your own repo for the Clork, make an index.md or index.html file,

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Clork] Weekly Report

I (or anyone else, really) can invite you to the AgoraNomic GitHub org, but from there it might be kind of difficult. You'd have to make your own repo for the Clork, make an index.md or index.html file, and then fiddle around with submodules to get the header to work. (if you do end up doing