Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ re "pay"

(how do I always manage to press tab & enter to send a message prematurely?) It should *be* mostly irrelevant though, I made sure *to* construct & upgrade the buildings (to a lower level, however) even for the case the scam didn't work. ~Corona On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 10:18 PM, Corona

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ re "pay"

On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 5:01 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> The ruling isn't unreasonable, and comports with the >> interest of the game. Intend, with both 2 support and Agoran consent, to >> enter this judgement into moot. I object to my own intent. > > What's the Agoran

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ re "pay"

On Mon, 30 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > Well, that's interesting. You're ineligible, but I that isn't a requirement > for using certiorari. Yah I figured that if Cabinet orders are inherently political, having the Prime Minister judge eir own case wasn't outside of the spirit of that so

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ re "pay"

This CFJ doen't answer the question. The question is: If the Rule says you CAN do something by "paying" without specifying a destination, can you do it by paying anyone? (the important thing is triggering the CAN that's tied to the action). On Mon, 30 Apr 2018, Corona wrote: > also in the >

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ re "pay"

also in the ​"​ doesn't THIS apply to "pay" without a destination? ​"​ thread ~Corona On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 10:34 AM, Ned Strange wrote: > > I call a CFJ with the statement "To "pay" assets is to transfer them to anyone" > > many arguments in the recent Setting up