just deregister halian and abolish space
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 12:50 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> On 7/29/19 10:46 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > On 7/29/2019 7:39 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> >>
> >> Make the Office of Astronomor vacant.
> >>
> >
> > Y'all do that and I'll likely resign Arbitor (& PM)
On 7/29/2019 7:39 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
Make the Office of Astronomor vacant.
Y'all do that and I'll likely resign Arbitor (& PM) instead of resolving all
the space battles. then it's just omd to do it all and e's got no choice
about it. sorry.
-G.
On 7/29/19 10:41 PM, James Cook wrote:
* It be dangerous, e.g. make backup lists less effective if things go
wrong. R1698 might calim that the agora-proposal changing into a
broken list never happened because it would have caused Agora to
become ossified, but that wouldn't fix the problem that
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 at 22:45, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> On Sunday, July 28, 2019 8:45 PM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
> > [This is one of the most complicated distributions in my time in office.
> > There will be errors; CoE and I'll try to correct. I've been working at this
> > for well over 4
Jason Cobb
On 7/29/19 10:26 PM, James Cook wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 at 03:37, Jason Cobb wrote:
A Rule that designates a switch as "secured" (at a given power
level) designates changes to that switch's value as secured (at that
power level).
...
Amend Rule 869 as follows:
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 at 22:08, Jason Cobb wrote:
> On 7/28/19 6:04 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > I'm willing to try this voluntarily for Proposals and it might be
> > interesting to broach the idea of requiring Subject format (that we've
> > never
> > done before).
>
>
> Rule 2463 ("Motion of No
On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 at 03:37, Jason Cobb wrote:
> A Rule that designates a switch as "secured" (at a given power
> level) designates changes to that switch's value as secured (at that
> power level).
...
> Amend Rule 869 as follows:
>
> Delete the text "Changes to citizenship are
On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 at 03:00, Rebecca wrote:
> I deregister. Sad!
>
> --
> From R. Lee
We'll miss you!
--
- Falsifian
> "The CFJ becomes unassigned" is covered in R991 as synonymous with being
> Recused, so it wasn't needed (I think?):
>
...
>
> Fine on putting the SHOULD back, hopefully that's not a deal-killer in terms
> of voting for this one... (in the few self-recusals I've seen in the past
> few months I
On 7/29/2019 4:30 PM, James Cook wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 at 00:08, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Amend Rule 2492 (Recusal) to read in full:
>>
>> A judge CAN recuse emself from a CFJ e is assigned to, by
>> announcement.
>>
>> The Arbitor CAN recuse a judge from a case by
Whoops, that's my fault. twg copied most of my proposal. Sorry, twg.
Jason Cobb
On 7/29/19 7:52 PM, James Cook wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jul 2019 at 10:27, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
Amend Rule 2595 by replacing the text "Any player CAN, by
announcement, spend a coin to increase the Armour of a
On Tue, 23 Jul 2019 at 10:27, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> Amend Rule 2595 by replacing the text "Any player CAN, by
> announcement, spend a coin to increase the Armour of a Pilotable
> Spaceship e owns by 1." with the text "Any player CAN pay a fee of 1
> coin to increase the Armour of a Pilotable
On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 at 00:08, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Amend Rule 2492 (Recusal) to read in full:
>
>A judge CAN recuse emself from a CFJ e is assigned to, by
>announcement.
>
>The Arbitor CAN recuse a judge from a case by announcement, if that
>judge has violated a
G. responded to my original finger-pointing message with some
convincing reasons it might not work. I'm not inclined to re-try, but
others are welcome to of course.
On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 at 04:54, Rebecca wrote:
>
> Someone just point another finger, and assign it to the arbitor.
>
> On Monday,
Sorry, I misread the comments and thought the first attempt was inextricable
rather than failed (i.e. the conditional "If [past inextricable] then X" is
itself inextricable).
On 7/28/2019 10:22 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
Really?
If the first attempt worked, then the second attempt didn't, so the
Actually, minimum possible change would make that fine. Sorry about that.
On Mon, Jul 29, 2019, 1:21 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> Doing a similar ratification is probably fine, but for that text
> specifically, it might nuke everything that has happened in the game
> since then.
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On
Doing a similar ratification is probably fine, but for that text
specifically, it might nuke everything that has happened in the game
since then.
Jason Cobb
On 7/28/19 6:45 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
If it's proving complicated to work out which proposals were actually
distributed, would
17 matches
Mail list logo
