Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Space Alert (D-Proposal)
On 15/06/2010, comex com...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote: On 14 June 2010 19:35, comex com...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 6:02 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote: I submit the following proposal: Space Alert II: 3 AI: 1 General comment: The wording is not very precise, which makes the proposal more wordy and confusing than it needs to be. It seems like some good simple gameplay though. I know, but I really feel like I tried my best. I just hope it's not broken. Well, I think it's possible to initiate a journey right before the start of a week, define a map where there is an object right in front of the shuttle with one more hit point than it, and get a Leadership Token for no work... You're right about the biggest danger being the Enemy winning too easy, I believe any setup example could be circumvented provided the crew has time to react, so the danger here is that the journey starts immediately and not at the start of a day. Can one edit proposals nowadays? -- -Tiger
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Space Alert (D-Proposal)
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 5:51 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote: You're right about the biggest danger being the Enemy winning too easy, I believe any setup example could be circumvented provided the crew has time to react, so the danger here is that the journey starts immediately and not at the start of a day. Can one edit proposals nowadays? Not yet; you'll have to retract and re-submit.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6734 - 6738
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: ID: 6738 TITLE: Fix proposal amendment If Proposal 6728 passed, amend Rule 106 by replacing: It didn't, so no amendment is made.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2805 judged TRUE by coppro
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010, ais523 wrote: On Tue, 2010-06-15 at 12:56 -0400, comex wrote: On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: I intend to appeal this ruling with 2 support. I support. I also support. Appealing a judgement just because you don't like its implications is a bad idea, but I'm not certain that this judgement covers the bases thoroughly enough to set a precedent that people will follow, nor to convince me it's correct. I thought about not appealing and doing a legislative clarification, but codifying basic communications/ common administrative conveniences while keeping them sufficiently flexible is nigh-impossible, versus maintaining sensible precedents. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2805 judged TRUE by coppro
On 06/15/2010 12:16 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: I thought about not appealing and doing a legislative clarification, but codifying basic communications/ common administrative conveniences while keeping them sufficiently flexible is nigh-impossible, versus maintaining sensible precedents. -G. I apologize if you didn't like the judgment, and I'll explain why I made it in detail if it gets remanded to me, but I believe it to be the correct one. -coppro
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2805 judged TRUE by coppro
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Tue, 15 Jun 2010, Sean Hunt wrote: On 06/15/2010 12:16 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: I thought about not appealing and doing a legislative clarification, but codifying basic communications/ common administrative conveniences while keeping them sufficiently flexible is nigh-impossible, versus maintaining sensible precedents. -G. I apologize if you didn't like the judgment, and I'll explain why I made it in detail if it gets remanded to me, but I believe it to be the correct one. No need to apologize... I think ais523's right, some narrowing and a little more detail on a remand makes sense. -G. Or, given that the likely alternative would be affirm with an error rating, maybe if you put more detail into something gratuitous then a straight up affirm would make sense... -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2805 judged TRUE by coppro
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010, Sean Hunt wrote: On 06/15/2010 12:16 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: I thought about not appealing and doing a legislative clarification, but codifying basic communications/ common administrative conveniences while keeping them sufficiently flexible is nigh-impossible, versus maintaining sensible precedents. -G. I apologize if you didn't like the judgment, and I'll explain why I made it in detail if it gets remanded to me, but I believe it to be the correct one. No need to apologize... I think ais523's right, some narrowing and a little more detail on a remand makes sense. -G.
