Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] The Police Blotter

2019-02-18 Thread Gaelan Steele
AFAIK that you have no reason not to deny the CoE right now. Gaelan > On Feb 18, 2019, at 11:32 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > On Monday, February 18, 2019 7:17 PM, D. Margaux > wrote: > >> CoE—My blots were ratified to 0 without objection. Of course, intents are >> broken, but I need to

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] The Police Blotter

2019-02-18 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
On Monday, February 18, 2019 7:17 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > CoE—My blots were ratified to 0 without objection. Of course, intents are > broken, but I need to put in this CoE so that ratification of this report > won’t overwrite the retroactive effect of any fix. Can you not just play _normally_

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] The Police Blotter

2019-02-02 Thread Gaelan Steele
Haven’t we had a CFJ about these sorts of apologies? Gaelan > On Feb 2, 2019, at 3:29 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > > [image: image.png] > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] The Police Blotter

2019-02-02 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
NttPF -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Saturday, February 2, 2019 11:29 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet > annoyance persnickety pedantry

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] The Police Blotter

2019-02-02 Thread Cuddle Beam
[image: image.png] annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] The Police Blotter

2019-01-29 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
Oic lol. I thought you were trying to sneakily make it seem to a casual observer as though you _were_ the one with unjustly self-ratified blots, by removing the contextualising quote. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 5:34 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > Oh fuck

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] The Police Blotter

2019-01-29 Thread Cuddle Beam
Oh fuck lmao, I was wrong, I was thinking that I had been inactive but apparently I haven't actually deregistered (and thus been a fugitive) at any point. On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 6:33 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > As I said, it's Kenyon who's the fugitive and ought to have had some of > eir

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] The Police Blotter

2019-01-29 Thread Reuben Staley
I object to that answer, just in case. -- Trigon On Tue, Jan 29, 2019, 10:33 Timon Walshe-Grey As I said, it's Kenyon who's the fugitive and ought to have had some of > eir blots destroyed, not you. > > -twg > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 5:30 PM, Cuddle

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] The Police Blotter

2019-01-29 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
As I said, it's Kenyon who's the fugitive and ought to have had some of eir blots destroyed, not you. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 5:30 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > Why do you object lol > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 6:29 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > On

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] The Police Blotter

2019-01-29 Thread D. Margaux
I object to that question. E doesn’t need to explain emself. Object object object! > On Jan 29, 2019, at 12:30 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > > Why do you object lol > > >> On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 6:29 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: >> >> On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 5:27 PM, Cuddle Beam >> wrote:

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] The Police Blotter

2019-01-29 Thread Cuddle Beam
Why do you object lol On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 6:29 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 5:27 PM, Cuddle Beam > wrote: > > > Ah, no worries. Ratification can be solved with ratification. > > > > I intend to ratify without objection the following document: > > > > The

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] The Police Blotter

2019-01-29 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
You are a player and therefore not a fugitive. However, Kenyon indeed ought to have lost some blots - you're correct that I didn't see that clause in the rules. Eir blots have self-ratified into existence now but I will remember for next quarter. Thank you. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message