Gaelan Steele wrote:
I judge this as FALSE.
Rule 1698/4:
Agora is ossified if it is IMPOSSIBLE for any reasonable
combination of actions by players to cause arbitrary rule
changes to be made and/or arbitrary proposals to be adopted
within a four-week period.
If, b
On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 1:04 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 26 May 2017, Josh T wrote:
> > > I think the judge's "additional argument" is actually all that's
> needed to find the CFJ false.
> > I really don't have an objection with the outcome. I agree with your
> point that that additional
On Fri, 26 May 2017, Josh T wrote:
> > I think the judge's "additional argument" is actually all that's needed to
> >find the CFJ false.
> I really don't have an objection with the outcome. I agree with your point
> that that additional
> argument is sufficient in ruling this CFJ false. I just
I don't quite get the leap of logic to arrive at the sentence. I would like
to enquire CuddleBeam of clarification on what e means by "The ability of
Agora's system to append a certain value to a certain switch DOES NOT
change whether a certain separate reality is factual or not."
天火狐
On 26 May 2
That’s what I thought, but it seems like a bit of an overreaction and I don’t
understand the third sentence.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On May 26, 2017, at 3:52 PM, Josh T wrote:
>
> On my mail client, it's in reply to my motion to reconsider CF
I can understand that.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On May 26, 2017, at 3:50 PM, Josh T wrote:
>
> > I think the judge's "additional argument" is actually all that's needed to
> > find the CFJ false.
>
> I really don't have an objection with the
On my mail client, it's in reply to my motion to reconsider CFJ 3498
("Every statement is ambiguous") with two support.
天火狐
On 26 May 2017 at 15:45, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> What is this email in reference to?
>
> Publius Scriboniu
> I think the judge's "additional argument" is actually all that's needed
to find the CFJ false.
I really don't have an objection with the outcome. I agree with your point
that that additional argument is sufficient in ruling this CFJ false. I
just think that it serves Agora better Good to not cod
What is this email in reference to?
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On May 26, 2017, at 3:44 PM, CuddleBeam wrote:
>
> I support this.
>
> I'm also pissed.
>
> The ability of Agora's system to append a certain value to a certain switch
> DOES NOT c
I think the judge's "additional argument" is actually all that's needed to find
the CFJ false.
On Fri, 26 May 2017, Josh T wrote:
> I am kind of not comfortable with the argument provided being the official
> one, since it doesn't address the caller's arguments directly, and the main
> argum
I submit the following evidence and recommend AGAINST or DISMISSED:
If "Every statement is ambiguous." is true, then that statement itself
is ambiguous too, and therefore there would be insufficient
information to determine what it is.
So the appropriate judgement would be DISMISSED, even if th
Sorry for not specifying in the text itself, but this is relevant to
gameplay because Gaelan (who, I believe is assigned this CFJ, numbered
3498, by ais523 [1]) is trying to question the validity of my amendment to
the charter of 蘭亭社 with "Translation between any two languages is
inherently ambiguo
Whew. I wasn't excited about that.
Gaelan
> On May 19, 2017, at 12:32 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> wrote:
>
> I would like to judge this.
>
>
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>
>> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Quazie wrote:
>> I explicitly ask to not judge this CFJ
>>
>
13 matches
Mail list logo
