Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Anyone want to be interim Referee?

On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 at 01:03 Gaelan Steele wrote: I support and do so. This doesn't work as you don't hold the office, however, with o, Aris, and Gaelan's support, I do so. I'm pretty sure Gaelan's action is _intended_ to work by

DIS: Re: BUS: o can be silly now

> On Nov 28, 2017, at 1:33 AM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > >> On Nov 22, 2017, at 4:52 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> I designate o to be next week's silly person. (week starting Nov 27th). > > I designate ATMunn to be the silly person for the week

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [ACU] Bank Statement

NttPF Greetings, Ørjan. On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote: (If I can take game actions) I deposit my shinies, exchanging them w/ ACU for bills. On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: The Agoran Credit Union report Date of this report: Date of last

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

No I think we probably need to sort out what actually happened. I would just rule that the message destroyed just one stamp. On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > On Nov 28, 2017, at 12:30 AM, Aris Merchant > wrote: >

DIS: Re: BUS: [ACU] Bank Statement

(If I can take game actions) I deposit my shinies, exchanging them w/ ACU for bills. On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > The Agoran Credit Union report > > Date of this report: > Date of last report: N/A > > > Chair: o > > Policy: > >Bills are meant to

Re: DIS: Anyone want to be interim Referee?

I’ll take it. Gaelan > On Nov 22, 2017, at 3:55 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > I don't actually.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] CFJ 3607 assigned to G. (and judged with help from ATMunn)

Neither rulesets nor referee reports self-ratify, no. On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 3:01 PM, Madeline wrote: > Wouldn't something something self-ratification? > > > > On 2017-11-28 14:57, Ørjan Johansen wrote: >> >> On Mon, 27 Nov 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >>> Oooh, yes - that's

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] CFJ 3607 assigned to G. (and judged with help from ATMunn)

Wouldn't something something self-ratification? On 2017-11-28 14:57, Ørjan Johansen wrote: On Mon, 27 Nov 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: Oooh, yes - that's very far reaching and precisely the sort of thing that clause is meant to stop.  I need to go do Something Else now and this deserves some

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] CFJ 3607 assigned to G. (and judged with help from ATMunn)

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: Oooh, yes - that's very far reaching and precisely the sort of thing that clause is meant to stop. I need to go do Something Else now and this deserves some thoughts about arguments, but if no one gets to it before me, I'll call it tomorrow-ish. So

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7982-7988

On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, Madeline wrote: The contract doesn't give any limitations on their ownership. The default is to disallow non-player persons (except contract parties) unless the contract explicitly says otherwise. Greetings, Ørjan. On 2017-11-28 14:37, VJ Rada wrote: Can persons own

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7982-7988

The contract doesn't give any limitations on their ownership. On 2017-11-28 14:37, VJ Rada wrote: Can persons own bills? On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: I change my vote to AGAINST on proposal 7988. I pay Ørjan 5 Bills for spotting a significant

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7982-7988

Can persons own bills? On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > I change my vote to AGAINST on proposal 7988. > > I pay Ørjan 5 Bills for spotting a significant error. > > -o > >> On Nov 26, 2017, at 9:27 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus >>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] CFJ 3607 assigned to G. (and judged with help from ATMunn)

Oooh, yes - that's very far reaching and precisely the sort of thing that clause is meant to stop. I need to go do Something Else now and this deserves some thoughts about arguments, but if no one gets to it before me, I'll call it tomorrow-ish. On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > Would

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] CFJ 3607 assigned to G. (and judged with help from ATMunn)

Would like someone to make a challenge on that basis, won't myself bc of uncertainty. On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 2:23 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > It's not just can't register, it's CAN'T TAKE ANY GAME ACTIONS. > > Actually, now that I Think of it, it's probably null and void bc of the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] CFJ 3607 assigned to G. (and judged with help from ATMunn)

It's not just can't register, it's CAN'T TAKE ANY GAME ACTIONS. Actually, now that I Think of it, it's probably null and void bc of the "stopping someone from formally resolving a controversy" clause. On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Tue, 28

DIS: Re: BUS: Unsubscribe

>This email (including any attachments) may include information that is ​>​ confidential or privileged only for the designated recipient. If you are ​>​ not the designated recipient and reading the content of this message, your ​>​ activity is against the sender's will, and the sender reserves

DIS: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] CFJ 3607 assigned to G. (and judged with help from ATMunn)

On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > Actually, G, if the CFJ is TRUE, it's not a CFJ because I can't take game > actions. So by judging this CFJ you've implicitly recognized that I can > indeed take game actions. 1. If you're not a player, does the fact that you claimed to use AP to call it

DIS: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] CFJ 3607 assigned to G. (and judged with help from ATMunn)

I made a CFJ so we can figure this out D: On 2017-11-28 14:06, VJ Rada wrote: Yeah, if this is TRUE it's not a CFJ. That needs to be grappled w/. On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 2:06 PM, VJ Rada wrote: Actually, G, if the CFJ is TRUE, it's not a CFJ because I can't take game

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ: This time w/ passion

It could perhaps be considered reasonable normally, but when the reason for the original judgement's invalidation was your own error that's just unreasonably gaming the system. On 2017-11-28 14:03, VJ Rada wrote: (also barring the person who already wrote the judgement is kind of a jerk

DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] (Fixed) Karma Weekly Report

KarmaEntity +4 o <-- SHOGUN +3 ATMunn ​ ​ + ​3 ​ Alexis​ +2 Trigon +2 Telnaior ​ ​ ​ ​ ​+2 ​ G.​ +1 天火狐 +1 Aris ​ 0 Publius

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Karma Report

Word list? On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 at 19:29 Alexis Hunt wrote: > > > I point my finger at V.J. Rada for violating Rule 2143 by publishing a > > document purporting to be a Herald's report containing

DIS: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] CFJ 3607 assigned to G. (and judged with help from ATMunn)

I intend to file a motion to reconsider this CFJ, with 2 support. Arguments to follow. On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 2:02 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > > I use AP to call a CFJ with the statement: The Door cannot be Slammed on > > V.J.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

This is not to the public forum. On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Reuben Staley wrote: > Another notice of honour: VJ loses one for the reasons discussed in this > thread. > > ATMunn gains one because e is generally a really good player. > > -- > Trigon > > On Nov 27,

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ: This time w/ passion

>(also barring the person who already wrote the judgement is kind of a jerk move) Yes but you see I actually like being able to take actions for an entire month unbarred by incorrect textual interpretation. I think that my right to do that should supplant the ettiquete of cfj calling! On Tue,

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Karma Report

I'm reading messages backwards (as is my custom), but I really do look forward to gamma-hood. On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:59 AM, ATMunn wrote: > On 11/27/2017 7:54 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > >> Correct, it's not a report per precedent (grossly negligent and not useful >>

DIS: Re: BUS: Ugh

I recalled the cfj allowing me to do this, but obviously that is not successful if this actually worked, so I suggest that somebody else call the same CFJ again. The dependencies this week have been quite intolerable. On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:54 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote: >

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3607 judged TRUE

Get some series-qualifier principle up in this place. On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I intend, with 2 support, to file a motion to reconsider this > judgement. It fails to consider the fact that all players are persons > under Rule

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > The Gazette is not self-ratifying and CFJ ID numbers are not required. The > only consequence of that failure is that we now have an informal opinion > that the Door cannot be Slammed, not a CFJ stating as such. Before CFJs were paid for, it used to be a

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

Still, the report contains incorrect information. On 11/27/2017 9:46 PM, VJ Rada wrote: The Gazette is not self-ratifying and CFJ ID numbers are not required. The only consequence of that failure is that we now have an informal opinion that the Door cannot be Slammed, not a CFJ stating as such.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

The Gazette is not self-ratifying and CFJ ID numbers are not required. The only consequence of that failure is that we now have an informal opinion that the Door cannot be Slammed, not a CFJ stating as such. On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 1:31 PM, ATMunn wrote: > CoE: CFJ 3607

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, Madeline wrote: > On 2017-11-28 13:05, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, Madeline wrote: > > > Not that it matters in this case, but what happens to the assets held by a > > > contract when it's destroyed? > > "If an asset would otherwise lack an owner, it is

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Contract] MiniNomic

> On Nov 24, 2017, at 12:27 PM, ATMunn wrote: > > I vote YAY on both of these. My understanding of the Notary rules is that I do not have to track instances of private assets, only the existence of whole classes of private assets. As such, I believe nobody actually

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3607 judged TRUE

Actually, as pointed out in another thread, the calling of this CFJ was INEFFECTIVE, so it doesn't even matter. .-. On 11/27/2017 9:28 PM, ATMunn wrote: Ah. On 11/27/2017 9:19 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: It would mean that the door can never be slammed on a player, so the case would be FALSE,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3607 judged TRUE

Ah. On 11/27/2017 9:19 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: It would mean that the door can never be slammed on a player, so the case would be FALSE, not TRUE. I agree with everything up until the last paragraph of your judgement. -Aris On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 6:15 PM ATMunn

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 at 21:24 Owen Jacobson wrote: > > > On Nov 23, 2017, at 12:07 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > > > > I shiny-CFJ {The Door CAN generally be Slammed on a player after > > a Black Card is awarded to em, provided that eir most recent > deregistration >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

> On Nov 23, 2017, at 12:07 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > > I shiny-CFJ {The Door CAN generally be Slammed on a player after > a Black Card is awarded to em, provided that eir most recent deregistration > took place with eir consent. I’ll note that this was ineffective, as you did

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3607 judged TRUE

It would mean that the door can never be slammed on a player, so the case would be FALSE, not TRUE. I agree with everything up until the last paragraph of your judgement. -Aris On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 6:15 PM ATMunn wrote: > I guess I sort of see what you mean, but I

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Auctions broken (Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7973-7980)

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017, ATMunn wrote: Title: "Un-breaking Auctions" AI: 1 Author: ATMunn Amend the rule titled "Auction End" by replacing the first sentence with An Auction ends 7 days after its initiation, or immediately if no bid has been placed or withdrawn in the last 96 hours and at least

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3608 FALSE

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: There is a possibility that I think was not addressed: that the Proposal, by virtue of being always pending, is thus also always in the Proposal Pool. But there may be an easy resolution to that so I won't support this yet. I actually considered this

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3607 judged TRUE

I guess I sort of see what you mean, but I don't see how that makes my judgement wrong. On 11/27/2017 8:37 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: I intend, with 2 support, to file a motion to reconsider this judgement. It fails to consider the fact that all players are persons under Rule 869, which states

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3608 FALSE

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017, Corona wrote: I judge CFJ 3608 as FALSE, and note that proposals not in the Proposal Pool cannot have an Imminence switch. (What a headache. Hopefully that's right.) That did turn out even more complicated than I thought... thanks for judging! Greetings, Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

What if the asset could not be owned by Agora? On 11/27/2017 09:05 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, Madeline wrote: >> Not that it matters in this case, but what happens to the assets held by a >> contract when it's destroyed? > "If an asset would otherwise lack an owner, it is

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

On 2017-11-28 13:05, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, Madeline wrote: Not that it matters in this case, but what happens to the assets held by a contract when it's destroyed? "If an asset would otherwise lack an owner, it is owned by Agora." And if Agora can't own a given type of

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, Madeline wrote: > Not that it matters in this case, but what happens to the assets held by a > contract when it's destroyed? "If an asset would otherwise lack an owner, it is owned by Agora."

DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

Not that it matters in this case, but what happens to the assets held by a contract when it's destroyed? On 2017-11-28 12:56, Owen Jacobson wrote: On Nov 22, 2017, at 6:50 PM, VJ Rada wrote: I pay one shiny to create the following contract (destroying 10 bills and

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Auctions broken (Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7973-7980)

I wasn't sure exactly how to fix that and was a bit too lazy. On 11/27/2017 8:16 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: Why not go ahead and clarify the first point as well? On 11/27/2017 08:08 PM, ATMunn wrote: On 11/26/2017 9:19 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: On Sun, 26 Nov 2017, Publius

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Auctions broken (Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7973-7980)

Why not go ahead and clarify the first point as well? On 11/27/2017 08:08 PM, ATMunn wrote: > On 11/26/2017 9:19 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: >> On Sun, 26 Nov 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: >> >>> Create a power-1 rule titled "Auction Initiation" >>> { >>>  An entity authorized by a

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Karma Report

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017, ATMunn wrote: > It's alright, we all make mistakes. I think we all have acted too fast before, > and honestly I think we all might have just done that with the amount of > Notices of Honour that were just made. Nice test once the dust settles - comments when I was drafting

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Karma Report

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 at 20:02 Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > > However I take your point, I do take it. I shouldn't have done it, > > probably. I do take your point. I know the way I take this game is less > > than serious, which can be at

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Karma Report

On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > However I take your point, I do take it. I shouldn't have done it, > probably. I do take your point. I know the way I take this game is less > than serious, which can be at times a slap in the face to those who > recognize the decades-long history of the

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Karma Report

If it matters, I have been planning mine for a few days and just looking for someone to add the karma to. On 11/27/2017 07:59 PM, ATMunn wrote: > On 11/27/2017 7:54 PM, VJ Rada wrote: >> Correct, it's not a report per precedent (grossly negligent and not >> useful >> enough to be a report). I

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Karma Report

Oh sorry I meant Pink Slip! On Mon, 27 Nov 2017, ATMunn wrote: > By the arguments in my most recent CFJ judgement, black cards CANNOT be issued > to players, as intended. > > On 11/27/2017 7:51 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > > On Mon, 27 Nov

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Karma Report

On 11/27/2017 7:54 PM, VJ Rada wrote: Correct, it's not a report per precedent (grossly negligent and not useful enough to be a report). I can't, therefore, claim a reward for it. I did work on referee quite genuinely (which is why I was sad to lose it) and I never scammed w/ any previous

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Karma Report

Correct, it's not a report per precedent (grossly negligent and not useful enough to be a report). I can't, therefore, claim a reward for it. I did work on referee quite genuinely (which is why I was sad to lose it) and I never scammed w/ any previous offices (the most recent one was a

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Karma Report

By the arguments in my most recent CFJ judgement, black cards CANNOT be issued to players, as intended. On 11/27/2017 7:51 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 at 19:29 Alexis Hunt wrote: I point my finger at V.J. Rada for

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Karma Report

On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 at 19:29 Alexis Hunt wrote: > > > I point my finger at V.J. Rada for violating Rule 2143 by publishing a > > document purporting to be a Herald's report containing incorrect > > information. > > > > -Alexis > > >

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] (Fixed) Karma Weekly Report

Yes, the formatting is horrible. On 11/27/2017 7:44 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: Could you explain how to read this? Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com On Nov 27, 2017, at 7:40 PM, VJ Rada wrote: I accept Telnaior and

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] (Fixed) Karma Weekly Report

On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 at 19:40 VJ Rada wrote: > > > I accept Telnaior and PSS's CoE. The following is a fixed report. Sorry > > ​folks. > > > > This fails, you did not announce you were doing it by deputization. > That depends on

DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] (Fixed) Karma Weekly Report

Could you explain how to read this? Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > On Nov 27, 2017, at 7:40 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > > I accept Telnaior and PSS's CoE. The following is a fixed report. Sorry > ​folks. > > > >

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Karma Report

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: > > Civil language please, although I do agree with the general sentiment. > Apologies to all, you're right of course I should let such things fester in my drafts folder...

DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

Another notice of honour: VJ loses one for the reasons discussed in this thread. ATMunn gains one because e is generally a really good player. -- Trigon On Nov 27, 2017 5:33 PM, "ATMunn" wrote: > Notice of Honour: > VJ Rada loses 1 karma for scamming, making

Re: DIS: Anyone want to be interim Referee?

On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 at 19:02 ATMunn wrote: > I certainly don't want it. > > On 11/26/2017 6:53 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > > it's not that hard guys. @trigon @atmunn @telnaior etc. > > > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > >> Anyone at

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Karma Report

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 4:23 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote: >> I deputise for Herald to publish the following weekly report (unless >> PSS is the Herald). > > You should clearly know this to be false. It updates nothing. > > It is

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Karma Report

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 at 19:33 Madeline wrote: > You're still Referee, I don't think that's possible? > > The proposal barring it hasn't passed.

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Karma Report

On 2017-11-28 11:29, Alexis Hunt wrote: On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 at 19:24 Kerim Aydin wrote: On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote: I deputise for Herald to publish the following weekly report (unless PSS is the Herald). You should clearly know this to be false. It updates

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Karma Report

there were indeed. brb. On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Telnaior wrote: > CoE: There were in fact several Notices of Honour IMMEDIATELY after the > previous report. > > > > On 2017-11-28 11:17, VJ Rada wrote: >> >> I deputise for Herald to publish the following weekly report

DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Karma Report

On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > I deputise for Herald to publish the following weekly report (unless > PSS is the Herald). You should clearly know this to be false. It updates nothing. It is questionable whether you can call this the weekly report for the appropriate (missing) week.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Transparent Ribbon

Oh, true. On 11/27/2017 7:17 PM, Madeline wrote: It's worth noting you don't actually have to claim Green and White to be considered qualified for them for the purpose of Transparent. On 2017-11-28 11:13, ATMunn wrote: Ah, right. I don't feel so bad, then. :P On 11/27/2017 7:13 PM, VJ Rada

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CFJ] Judgement in CFJ 1610.

Well, even if that's true, most ribbons still do exist because of self-ratification. On 11/27/2017 7:13 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Mon, 27 Nov 2017, ATMunn wrote: What's the problem? Apparently it is rule 2125's (Regulated Actions) most recent amendment. That rule now states (in relevant

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Transparent Ribbon

It's worth noting you don't actually have to claim Green and White to be considered qualified for them for the purpose of Transparent. On 2017-11-28 11:13, ATMunn wrote: Ah, right. I don't feel so bad, then. :P On 11/27/2017 7:13 PM, VJ Rada wrote: The ribbon rule itself is broken for all

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Transparent Ribbon

Ah, right. I don't feel so bad, then. :P On 11/27/2017 7:13 PM, VJ Rada wrote: The ribbon rule itself is broken for all ribbons. On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:11 AM, ATMunn wrote: How come? They were seperate actions. (I mean, if it does work that way, then great, but I

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CFJ] Judgement in CFJ 1610.

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017, ATMunn wrote: > > What's the problem? Apparently it is rule 2125's (Regulated Actions) > > most recent amendment. That rule now states (in relevant part) that "A > > Restricted Action CAN only be performed as described by the Rules, and > > only using the methods explicitly

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Transparent Ribbon

The ribbon rule itself is broken for all ribbons. On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:11 AM, ATMunn wrote: > How come? They were seperate actions. (I mean, if it does work that way, > then great, but I don't think it does.) > > > On 11/27/2017 7:10 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote: >> >>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Transparent Ribbon

How come? They were seperate actions. (I mean, if it does work that way, then great, but I don't think it does.) On 11/27/2017 7:10 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote: You still will, because you didn't get your White Ribbon either. On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 at 19:08 ATMunn wrote:

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Transparent Ribbon

Yeah, nobody has got any ribbons for rather a while now. On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > You still will, because you didn't get your White Ribbon either. > > On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 at 19:08 ATMunn wrote: > >> That's quite

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

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 at 19:08 Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Mon, 27 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 at 18:53 ATMunn wrote: > > > > > When? I couldn't find the message. > > > > > > > E purported to deputize for Herald to award

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Transparent Ribbon

You still will, because you didn't get your White Ribbon either. On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 at 19:08 ATMunn wrote: > That's quite unfortunate, because now I no longer have the option to claim > a White Ribbon to obtain a Transparent Ribbon in the future. :( > > On 11/27/2017

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Transparent Ribbon

That's quite unfortunate, because now I no longer have the option to claim a White Ribbon to obtain a Transparent Ribbon in the future. :( On 11/27/2017 7:06 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote: On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 at 14:28 ATMunn wrote: Ok, here goes nothing. In the last 7

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

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 at 18:53 ATMunn wrote: > > > When? I couldn't find the message. > > > > E purported to deputize for Herald to award Champion, but whether or not > that worked is dependent on the CFJ currently assigned to

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CFJ] Judgement in CFJ 1610.

God, I really need to stop making so many typos. On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 at 18:59 VJ Rada wrote: > >> The statement in CFJ 1610 is "G. owns a Black Ribbon.". I judge that e >> does not, this CFJ is FALSE

DIS: Re: BUS: Transparent Ribbon

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 at 14:28 ATMunn wrote: > Ok, here goes nothing. > > In the last 7 days, I earned a Black Ribbon, and qualified for Blue and > Orange (I just judged a CFJ, and my Auctions proposal was unanimously > adopted) > > I also have the ability to claim a White

DIS: Re: OFF: [CFJ] Judgement in CFJ 1610.

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 at 18:59 VJ Rada wrote: > The statement in CFJ 1610 is "G. owns a Black Ribbon.". I judge that e > does not, this CFJ is FALSE > 3610, surely?

DIS: Re: OFF: [CFJ] Judgement in CFJ 1610.

This means my Transparent Ribbon attempt failed, didn't it? :( On 11/27/2017 6:59 PM, VJ Rada wrote: The statement in CFJ 1610 is "G. owns a Black Ribbon.". I judge that e does not, this CFJ is FALSE A proposal passed named "Plain Old Bribery" (7979) which had the text "Every Player who cast a

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

You can simply defer the CoE to the CFJ. On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 at 19:03 ATMunn wrote: > Ah. Can I request that that CFJ be judged in the next 7 days so I can know > whether to deny or accept the CoE? > > On 11/27/2017 6:59 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 at

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

Ah. Can I request that that CFJ be judged in the next 7 days so I can know whether to deny or accept the CoE? On 11/27/2017 6:59 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote: On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 at 18:53 ATMunn wrote: When? I couldn't find the message. E purported to deputize for

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

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 at 18:53 ATMunn wrote: > When? I couldn't find the message. > E purported to deputize for Herald to award Champion, but whether or not that worked is dependent on the CFJ currently assigned to me.

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

When? I couldn't find the message. On 11/27/2017 4:47 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: CoE: I am Herald. On 11/27/2017 01:48 PM, ATMunn wrote: As per my weekly duties as ADoP, I hereby publish the following report. =Metareport= You can find all my most recent reports online

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3608 FALSE

Oh wow, I didn't realize that. You had quite the matter on your hands here. On 11/27/2017 5:46 PM, Corona wrote: The Judge's Arguments are below the Caller's Arguments. On 11/27/17, VJ Rada wrote: Imminence switches are power 1, the thing that states OPs shall always be

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3608 FALSE

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 at 17:39 VJ Rada wrote: > Imminence switches are power 1, the thing that states OPs shall always > be pending is power 1 but claims precedent over all rules to the > contrary. This judgement does not speak to that issue or indeed any > issue. I intend with

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7982-7988

We're talking about non-players here. There's no harm in saying "if you really can't wait a week for your next two, register, because if you're doing that many you're playing" IMO. In my mind, non-player CFJs aren't for asking general inquiry questions, the only reason it's there at all is

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7982-7988

Eh just keep it as it is imo. Until and unless a non-player abuses their status by calling 5 CFJs a week, there's no reason to stop it. On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 9:56 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > I've frequently called more. Two is in my opinion not enough. > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017,

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7982-7988

I've frequently called more. Two is in my opinion not enough. On Mon, Nov 27, 2017, 17:52 Kerim Aydin, wrote: > > > Ah, gotcha. I was racking by brain for any situation in the last N years > where 1/week for non-players would have been a hardship for em, and I >

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7982-7988

Ah, gotcha. I was racking by brain for any situation in the last N years where 1/week for non-players would have been a hardship for em, and I couldn't think of one - so doubling that for absolute safety seemed ok. On Mon, 27 Nov 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > > Oh, I

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3608 FALSE

Oh sorry! I object to my own intent (obviously, this does nothing). On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Corona wrote: > The Judge's Arguments are below the Caller's Arguments. > > On 11/27/17, VJ Rada wrote: >> Imminence switches are power 1, the

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3608 FALSE

The Judge's Arguments are below the Caller's Arguments. On 11/27/17, VJ Rada wrote: > Imminence switches are power 1, the thing that states OPs shall always > be pending is power 1 but claims precedent over all rules to the > contrary. This judgement does not speak to that

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Favouritism

This shouldn't be a CoE but a finger-point for illegal awarding. On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 8:47 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > CoE: I am Herald. > > On 11/27/2017 01:49 PM, ATMunn wrote: >> I award the following Efficiency favours: >> >> 7 to

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7982-7988

The Arbitor ban is because the Arbitor can take over the investigation of fingers pointed at the Referee. On 11/27/2017 03:16 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > I vote: > >> 7982* V.J. Rada 1.7 Referee Reform Fix V.J. Rada 1 sh. > AGAINST. Don't understand logic of Arbitor ban. > >>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7982-7988

Oh, I misunderstood what you meant the compromise was. On 11/27/2017 01:01 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > "Compromise - an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by > each side making concessions." > > On Mon, 27 Nov 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: >> No, currently they

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7982-7988

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 at 15:20 Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > I vote: > > > 7982* V.J. Rada 1.7 Referee Reform Fix V.J. Rada 1 > sh. > AGAINST. Don't understand logic of Arbitor ban. > Because the Arbitor can take over investigations at the Referee.

DIS: Re: BUS: I iniitiate a clork election

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 at 15:15 VJ Rada wrote: > I initiate an election of the type mentioned in the title. > This fails; you did not become a candidate.

  1   2   >