On Fri, 14 Sep 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
This seems to be an argument for replacing (or complementing) "clear" by
"unobfuscated" in the relevant rule text.
Huh, actually, a leading definition of "obfuscated" is "unclear":
'obfuscate: render obscure,
On Sat, 15 Sep 2018, D Margaux wrote:
I CoE this Monthly Report on the ground that twg and I won by Apathy
I don't think this CoE is correct, because Champion is not automatically
awarded and the Herald isn't required to report wins per se.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
I think the Herald must timely award the patent title Champion after a victory
per Rule 649:
“... A person permitted and enabled to award (revoke) a Patent Title SHALL do
so in a timely fashion after the conditions authorizing em to do so are
announced, unless there is an open judicial case
On Sat, 15 Sep 2018, D Margaux wrote:
I think the Herald must timely award the patent title Champion after a
victory per Rule 649:
“... A person permitted and enabled to award (revoke) a Patent Title
SHALL do so in a timely fashion after the conditions authorizing em to
do so are announced,
Fair enough. Note that Trigon's objection was NttPF so there are still only 2
objections.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Saturday, September 15, 2018 6:04 PM, D Margaux
wrote:
> I also object to twg’s stated intent. I know it’s meant in jest, but no
> need to have the intent still
On Sun, 16 Sep 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> Well (2) would be appropriate, but I think (1) is irrelevant until an actual
> reward action happens. Also, I don't think any of this information is
> self-ratifying regardless - I see nothing in the rules and vaguely recall that
> the Herald's
6 matches
Mail list logo
