Zefram wrote:
R2133 only applies to a good-faith error.
As an officer, I once had to make an impossible assignment that
was allowed to stand under good faith errors (had to do with
auctioning fractional units). I argued that I could error on
the side of caution, in other words purposefully
Ed Murphy wrote:
(If either #2 or #3 is judged true, and HP3 through HP14 are players,
then by CFJ 1652 they were eligible voters on Proposals 4958-69, which
thus failed quorum. Naturally, the attempt to legislate #1 is part of
the affected batch, specifically Proposal 4964.)
I think we're close
On 5/21/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
comex, what do you make of the present CFJ situation?
There are three ways to resolve it that I can see:
1. No matter what passed or didn't pass, as long as some players
announce that they become sitting down I can publish a Notice of
Rotation
comex wrote:
1. No matter what passed or didn't pass, as long as some players
announce that they become sitting down
We definitely don't have the concept of sitting at the moment, and
until voting results on P4965 are published. At that point we acquire
the concept if the proposal passed and
On Monday 21 May 2007 8:00 pm, comex wrote:
ineligibility depends on
having been turned at the time the CFJ was called.
Actually, I realize this opens another option: a new player was not turned at
the time, and so is certainly eligible. Therefore, a new player (a
partnership that delegated
comex wrote:
Actually, I realize this opens another option: a new player was not turned at
the time, and so is certainly eligible.
Not trivially so. I'm not sure that the turnedness of a non-player
is clear. But I'll go with that plan.
Don't assign anything to Yin Corp or Yang Corp. Their
On 5/21/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
R955 curiously does not simply describe a mathematical recipe
Why is it curious? pythonomic and other formal nomics are that way --
-- _
C. Maud Image (Michael Slone) _/ \_/| - TOWNSVILLE
To read this
7 matches
Mail list logo
