Main problem is that Assessor and Rulekeepor are really demanding for
different reasons and it may be difficult to get someone to fill a combined
role consistently.
On Jul 8, 2017 16:16, "Cuddle Beam" wrote:
> "Ghost" Rulesets like the one we have now are disorientating.
>
I have a big problem of having too many ideas and not enough time to
actually do all of them so just dumping all of my ideas here.
Anyway:
- RPG Proto (going off Kerim's idea):
Dungeonkeepor Office, generates mobs, an amount of players need to fight it
by announcement and surpass the power of
"Ghost" Rulesets like the one we have now are disorientating.
Proto:
Merge Assesor and Rulekeepor, and have them publish the new ruleset once a
proposal amending it is enacted.
On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Judge's arguments for
You didn't cite which CFJ so I don't know what you actually did in the
quoted message
On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 11:34 AM V.J Rada wrote:
> I call for reconsideration (again) and submit the following judgement of
> FALSE
>
> 1. Facts
> Despite (at the time, at least) not being
I agree I didn't successfully reconsider because I already did so.
However I believe it was not ambiguous, as I am only assigned one CFJ, the
content of which was clearly adressed in the body of the message. This is
pointless quibbling though. If anyone thinks the previous reasoning is
woefully
Okay, I now get it. But, you still didn’t successfully reconsider because it is
ambiguous which CFJ this is for, while you don’t need to state the number, it
needs to be clear and you haven’t even stated the statement.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2017-July/035260.html
is the message relevant here.
Yeah just count the above as unofficial explanation and also note that I
meant
paragraph four to apply only to auctions of Agora's property, not of that
belonging to private
no you're right it can be done once count it as supplementary reasoning.
although i don't think it needs to say the number as CFJ numbering is
totally unofficial. I am judging 1 CFJ right now. It's clear which one I
mean.
e attempted to say that auctions were totally unregulated and e could call
no the deputization was a different thing and a different cfj
On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 7:39 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> You overlook the major point that he was attempting to put them up for
> auction by deputisation not by announcement.
You overlook the major point that he was attempting to put them up for auction
by deputisation not by announcement. Also, you can't motion to reconsider given
that a motion to reconsider has already occurred. Even if you could, you never
state what CFJ this is for, therefore I believe this is
"a person at a car auction grabbing the item they bought"
seems pretty legit imo.
On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 7:34 PM, V.J Rada wrote:
> I call for reconsideration (again) and submit the following judgement of
> FALSE
>
> 1. Facts
> Despite (at the time, at least) not being the
On Sat, 8 Jul 2017, V.J Rada wrote:
I just said the exact same with regard to your second point lmao.
Oops. Me and responding as I read... :P
Greetings,
Ørjan.
To clarify, I am now using the following peer review process:
The thesis will be open for peer review for 14 days and it must receive at
least three unique peers’ (they may be persons) reviews. After which, the
submitter may make revisions and will either resubmit for peer review,
distribute
I just said the exact same with regard to your second point lmao.
On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 7:24 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>
> This is my official submission of my Thesis "Spivak Culture".
>>
>
> Hm. The current thesis process seems to
On Sat, 8 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
This is my official submission of my Thesis "Spivak Culture".
Hm. The current thesis process seems to be very loosely described with
few "official" parts. I guess this is still the peer-review stage (which
the Herald is supposed to coordinate).
gotcha sorry
On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 7:17 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> Gaelan Is Impatient (GII)
> Head: Gaelan
> Agents: All Players
> Powers: Perform any actions Gaelan has listed as Performable By
> Agency, subject to any
Gaelan Is Impatient (GII)
Head: Gaelan
Agents: All Players
Powers: Perform any actions Gaelan has listed as Performable By
Agency, subject to any restrictions e has specified in that
announcement, if Gaelan has not specified more than 24 hours prior
that the action is no longer
So I would publish an SLR but I can't exactly find the place where Gaelan
established a valid agency with the name, the agents etc. Only the place
where e specified rulekeeping as a power. Can someone find it?
Your two uses of "they" in our ruleset are both for plural nouns:
"officers" and "persons". The only use of they as a pronoun is in Green
Cards with "whenever a person receives a Green Card, they are ENCOURAGED to
travel to the United States". Perhaps the next proposal should cursorily
amend this.
On Sat, 8 Jul 2017, Nicholas Evans wrote:
> CFJs aren't really that powerful. They're guidelines, not legally binding. If
> the guideline
> is absurd everyone ignores it.
>
> On Jul 8, 2017 06:25, "Cuddle Beam" wrote:
> Yes, but the Arbitor could then CFJ "I've
On Sat, 8 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> What would happen in the following case (and has it been tried before?)
> I'm Arbitor for example, and then CFJ "I've achieved victory and won every
> ribbon" and then assign it to myself and judge it as TRUE, for bogus reasons.
It was the very very
CFJs aren't really that powerful. They're guidelines, not legally binding.
If the guideline is absurd everyone ignores it.
On Jul 8, 2017 06:25, "Cuddle Beam" wrote:
> Yes, but the Arbitor could then CFJ "I've gotten Pink Slipped" and judge
> it as FALSE.
>
> What would
Ah, nvm, those are really hard to trollmode.
"A public document defined by the rules as self-ratifying is ratified when
it is continuously undoubted for one week." and such
On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Ah, I see. I guess the issue would then be
Ah, I see. I guess the issue would then be what has precedence, CFJs or
Ratified things. (And if it Ratified things, couldn't you just trollmode
via those instead?)
On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> No, because
No, because someone else would have become the arbiter already OR the referee
issues their report and it self-ratifies.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Jul 8, 2017, at 7:24 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>
> Yes, but the Arbitor
Yes, but the Arbitor could then CFJ "I've gotten Pink Slipped" and judge it
as FALSE.
What would happen then?
(I believe CFJs supercede what people percieve things to be - for example,
if you think that something should be interpreted one way and me another,
if a CFJ to solve it appears and it
A pink slip is issued to you and someone takes your spot.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Jul 8, 2017, at 6:24 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>
> What would happen in the following case (and has it been tried before?)
>
> I'm
What would happen in the following case (and has it been tried before?)
I'm Arbitor for example, and then CFJ "I've achieved victory and won every
ribbon" and then assign it to myself and judge it as TRUE, for bogus
reasons.
I'd likely get that challenged and get carded, but what if I then CFJ
28 matches
Mail list logo