Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] The Police Blotter (Weekly Report)
twg wrote: On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 5:38 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: Also, I've read the rule that says what convergences are, but I'm still not really sure exactly what they do and what they should be used for. Would somebody mind clearing that up for me? My understanding is that they are supposed to be declared when we know exactly what (some part of) the gamestate is but it's not clear how it came to be that way. In this case, we know what everyone's blots were immediately after your report (because it's self-ratified) but not exactly how the balances changed to those numbers (because nobody's been keeping a history since G. left the post a few months ago). Relevant officers' reports can then start at the time of the convergence rather than having to try to work out the history by going through the archives with a fine-toothed comb. In practice, convergences only have any mechanical effect when applied to the state of the ruleset, because the Rulekeepor is the only officer actually REQUIRED to keep a permanent history of the things e's tracking - everyone else just does it by convention. So my intent won't actually do anything if enacted, and if it doesn't get any support I'm not going to make a fuss. But, just as a matter of principle, I personally think it's good to be clear about exactly what's going on and why the history of the report is incomplete, for the benefit of anyone looking through the archives in the future. According to the FLR, the only ruleset-related convergence that's ever happened was in March 2018. That was before I registered, so without an archives binge I can't tell you anything about the motivations behind it (or behind introducing the rule in the first place), but most of the other current players were around then and might have hints to add? Having performed said binge myself, I found that convergences were defined by the same proposal that designated that event as being one: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2018-March/038005.html So yes, exactly: "we know the gamestate is X, but it's not clear how it got there, /and/ some report formally includes how it got there".
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] The Police Blotter (Weekly Report)
On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 5:38 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > On 9/11/19 12:51 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > > Blot history does not appear to have been recorded for several months, > > > so I have restarted it from the time of the last report. > > > I intend, with 3 Agoran Consent, to designate the ratification of that > > > report (which was published on 2nd September by Jason Cobb) as a > > > convergence. > > I think the old report has self-ratified by now. Yes. I would be quite nervous of trying to designate a _future_ event as a convergence, and I'm not sure why anyone would want to. :P > Also, I've read the rule that says what convergences are, but I'm still > not really sure exactly what they do and what they should be used for. > Would somebody mind clearing that up for me? My understanding is that they are supposed to be declared when we know exactly what (some part of) the gamestate is but it's not clear how it came to be that way. In this case, we know what everyone's blots were immediately after your report (because it's self-ratified) but not exactly how the balances changed to those numbers (because nobody's been keeping a history since G. left the post a few months ago). Relevant officers' reports can then start at the time of the convergence rather than having to try to work out the history by going through the archives with a fine-toothed comb. In practice, convergences only have any mechanical effect when applied to the state of the ruleset, because the Rulekeepor is the only officer actually REQUIRED to keep a permanent history of the things e's tracking - everyone else just does it by convention. So my intent won't actually do anything if enacted, and if it doesn't get any support I'm not going to make a fuss. But, just as a matter of principle, I personally think it's good to be clear about exactly what's going on and why the history of the report is incomplete, for the benefit of anyone looking through the archives in the future. According to the FLR, the only ruleset-related convergence that's ever happened was in March 2018. That was before I registered, so without an archives binge I can't tell you anything about the motivations behind it (or behind introducing the rule in the first place), but most of the other current players were around then and might have hints to add? > > I cause Jason Arduino to support my intent. > > R2532 says: > > > A zombie's master, if another > > player, is allowed to act on behalf of the zombie (i.e. as the > > zombie's agent), except a master CANNOT act on behalf of a zombie > > to: > > - initiate, support, object to, or perform a dependent action; Oh, so it does. Sorry, I was looking at the general "acting on behalf" rule. -twg
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] The Police Blotter (Weekly Report)
On 9/11/19 12:51 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: Blot history does not appear to have been recorded for several months, so I have restarted it from the time of the last report. I intend, with 3 Agoran Consent, to designate the ratification of that report (which was published on 2nd September by Jason Cobb) as a convergence. I think the old report has self-ratified by now. Also, I've read the rule that says what convergences are, but I'm still not really sure exactly what they do and what they should be used for. Would somebody mind clearing that up for me? I cause Jason Arduino to support my intent. R2532 says: A zombie's master, if another player, is allowed to act on behalf of the zombie (i.e. as the zombie's agent), except a master CANNOT act on behalf of a zombie to: - initiate, support, object to, or perform a dependent action; -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] The Police Blotter
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 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_ for once? :P > > Revision upcoming. > > -twg smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] The Police Blotter
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_ for once? :P Revision upcoming. -twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] The Police Blotter
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 > 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 persnickety pedantry mullet > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet. I made an error because I had an > oversight, I have shame, remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement. > > I expunge 2 blots from myself. > > >> On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 11:59 AM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: >> >> I Impose the Cold Hand of Justice by levying a fine of 2 blots on >> CuddleBeam for Endorsing Forgery by not describing the error in the >> document e intended to ratify. This has been reduced from the base value of >> 8 blots because it was quite obvious from context what the error was, and >> therefore this is a violation of the letter of the rules but not the >> spirit. (It's also arguable that eir explanation of why e was intending to >> ratify it was not "clear and plain", but again this was obvious from >> context and so I won't try to figure it out either way because it doesn't >> affect the fine. CFJ it if you really care.) >> >> This violation is forgivable. CuddleBeam CAN, in a timely fashion, expunge >> 2 blots from emself by publishing a formal apology of at least 200 words >> containing the words "annoyance", "persnickety", "pedantry" and "mullet", >> explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for >> self-improvement. >> >> -twg >> >> >> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ >> On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 5:46 PM, Gaelan Steele >> wrote: >> >>> I point my finger at CuddleBeam for violating 2202/6: >>> >>> A player SHALL NOT knowingly use or announce intent to use Ratification >> Without Objection to ratify a (prior to ratification) document containing >> incorrect or Indeterminate information when a corrected document could be >> produced with reasonable effort, unless the general nature of the >> document's error and reason for ratifying it is clearly and plainly >> described in the announcement of intent. Such ratification or announcement >> of intent to ratify is the Class-8 Crime of Endorsing Forgery. >>> >>> Gaelan >>> On Jan 29, 2019, at 9:27 AM, Cuddle Beam cuddleb...@gmail.com wrote: Ah, no worries. Ratification can be solved with ratification. I intend to ratify without objection the following document: The player Cuddlebeam has 1 Blot. > On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 6:21 PM Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red >> wrote: > 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
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] The Police Blotter
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 persnickety pedantry mullet > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet. I made an error because I had an > oversight, I have shame, remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement. > > I expunge 2 blots from myself. > > On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 11:59 AM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > I Impose the Cold Hand of Justice by levying a fine of 2 blots on > > CuddleBeam for Endorsing Forgery by not describing the error in the > > document e intended to ratify. This has been reduced from the base value of > > 8 blots because it was quite obvious from context what the error was, and > > therefore this is a violation of the letter of the rules but not the > > spirit. (It's also arguable that eir explanation of why e was intending to > > ratify it was not "clear and plain", but again this was obvious from > > context and so I won't try to figure it out either way because it doesn't > > affect the fine. CFJ it if you really care.) > > > > This violation is forgivable. CuddleBeam CAN, in a timely fashion, expunge > > 2 blots from emself by publishing a formal apology of at least 200 words > > containing the words "annoyance", "persnickety", "pedantry" and "mullet", > > explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for > > self-improvement. > > > > -twg > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 5:46 PM, Gaelan Steele > > wrote: > > > > > I point my finger at CuddleBeam for violating 2202/6: > > > > > > A player SHALL NOT knowingly use or announce intent to use Ratification > > > Without Objection to ratify a (prior to ratification) document containing > > > incorrect or Indeterminate information when a corrected document could be > > > produced with reasonable effort, unless the general nature of the > > > document's error and reason for ratifying it is clearly and plainly > > > described in the announcement of intent. Such ratification or > > > announcement of intent to ratify is the Class-8 Crime of Endorsing > > > Forgery. > > > > > > Gaelan > > > > > > > On Jan 29, 2019, at 9:27 AM, Cuddle Beam cuddleb...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > Ah, no worries. Ratification can be solved with ratification. > > > > I intend to ratify without objection the following document: > > > > The player Cuddlebeam has 1 Blot. > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 6:21 PM Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red > > > > > wrote: > > > > > 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 > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] The Police Blotter
[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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet. I made an error because I had an oversight, I have shame, remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement. I expunge 2 blots from myself. On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 11:59 AM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > I Impose the Cold Hand of Justice by levying a fine of 2 blots on > CuddleBeam for Endorsing Forgery by not describing the error in the > document e intended to ratify. This has been reduced from the base value of > 8 blots because it was quite obvious from context what the error was, and > therefore this is a violation of the letter of the rules but not the > spirit. (It's also arguable that eir explanation of why e was intending to > ratify it was not "clear and plain", but again this was obvious from > context and so I won't try to figure it out either way because it doesn't > affect the fine. CFJ it if you really care.) > > This violation is forgivable. CuddleBeam CAN, in a timely fashion, expunge > 2 blots from emself by publishing a formal apology of at least 200 words > containing the words "annoyance", "persnickety", "pedantry" and "mullet", > explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for > self-improvement. > > -twg > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 5:46 PM, Gaelan Steele > wrote: > > > I point my finger at CuddleBeam for violating 2202/6: > > > > A player SHALL NOT knowingly use or announce intent to use Ratification > Without Objection to ratify a (prior to ratification) document containing > incorrect or Indeterminate information when a corrected document could be > produced with reasonable effort, unless the general nature of the > document's error and reason for ratifying it is clearly and plainly > described in the announcement of intent. Such ratification or announcement > of intent to ratify is the Class-8 Crime of Endorsing Forgery. > > > > Gaelan > > > > > On Jan 29, 2019, at 9:27 AM, Cuddle Beam cuddleb...@gmail.com wrote: > > > Ah, no worries. Ratification can be solved with ratification. > > > I intend to ratify without objection the following document: > > > The player Cuddlebeam has 1 Blot. > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 6:21 PM Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red > wrote: > > > > 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 ‐‐‐ > > > > On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 5:18 PM, Cuddle Beam > cuddleb...@gmail.com > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > "At the beginning of each quarter, half (rounded down) of each > > > > > fugitive's
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] The Police Blotter
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 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 > > 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 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 player Cuddlebeam has 1 Blot. > > > > > > > > I object, but nicely done. > > > > > > > > -twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] The Police Blotter
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 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 Tuesday, January 29, 2019 5:27 PM, Cuddle Beam < > cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Ah, no worries. Ratification can be solved with ratification. > > > > > > > > I intend to ratify without objection the following document: > > > > > > > > The player Cuddlebeam has 1 Blot. > > > > > > I object, but nicely done. > > > > > > -twg >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] The Police Blotter
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 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 < > cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Ah, no worries. Ratification can be solved with ratification. > > > > > > > > I intend to ratify without objection the following document: > > > > > > > > The player Cuddlebeam has 1 Blot. > > > > > > I object, but nicely done. > > > > > > -twg >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] The Police Blotter
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 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 player Cuddlebeam has 1 Blot. > > > > I object, but nicely done. > > > > -twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] The Police Blotter
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: >> >>> Ah, no worries. Ratification can be solved with ratification. >>> >>> I intend to ratify without objection the following document: >>> >>> The player Cuddlebeam has 1 Blot. >> >> I object, but nicely done. >> >> -twg >>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] The Police Blotter
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 player Cuddlebeam has 1 Blot. > > I object, but nicely done. > > -twg >
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] The Police Blotter
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 ‐‐‐ On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 5:18 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > "At the beginning of each quarter, half (rounded down) of each > fugitive's blots are destroyed." > > "4. Agoran quarters begin when the Agoran months of January, April, > July, and October begin." > > Why do I still have 3 Blots? > > I expunge 1 Blot from myself > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 6:11 PM Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote: > > > Date of this weekly report: 2019-01-29 > > Date of last weekly report: 2019-01-21 > > > > BLOT HOLDINGS > > > > == > > > > This section self-ratifies. > > Blots Person > > > > 10Corona > >7Kenyon > >5V.J. Rada > >3CuddleBeam > >3Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > >1G. > >1L. > > > > > > RECENT HISTORY > > > > === > > > > This section is purely informational and does not self-ratify. > > Key: > > f Forgivable > > S Summary Judgement > > D Loses monthly salary for relevant office > > > > Person Change fSD Date (UTC) Reason Office > > > > --- > > > > -- time of last report -- > > Murphy - 1 2019-01-13 Expunged > > Murphy - 1 2019-01-06 Expunged > > Murphy - 1 2018-12-27 Expunged > > G. + 1 2018-12-17 Self-ratification > > Murphy - 1 2018-12-02 Expunged > > Murphy - 1 2018-11-25 Expunged > > Murphy - 1 2018-11-05 Expunged > > Murphy - 1 2018-11-04 Expunged > > V.J. Rada - 1 2018-11-01 Expunged > > CuddleBeam + 1 f 2018-11-01 Faking > > twg - 1 2018-10-23 Expunged > > Murphy + 2 D 2018-10-20 Late judge removal Arbitor > > twg + 1 2018-10-20 Late CFJ judgement > > L. + 1 2018-10-20 Late CFJ judgement > > CuddleBeam + 2 2018-10-20 Late CFJ judgement > > ATMunn - 1 2018-10-11 Expunged > > Trigon - 1 2018-10-09 Expunged > > Trigon - 1 2018-10-04 Expunged > > Kenyon - 1 2018-09-28 Expunged > > Corona + 2 S 2018-09-28 Late CFJ judgement > > Aris - 1 2018-09-24 Expunged > > Aris - 1 2018-09-20 Expunged > > Kenyon - 1 2018-09-17 Expunged > > Kenyon - 1 2018-09-16 Expunged > > Corona + 1 f 2018-09-16 Late CFJ judgement > > V.J. Rada + 1 f 2018-09-16 Late CFJ judgement > > P.S.S. + 2 SD 2018-09-14 Tardiness Herald > > Murphy + 2 S 2018-09-09 Late CFJ judgement > > V.J. Rada + 2 S 2018-09-09 Late CFJ judgement > > Aris + 2 SD 2018-09-09 Tardiness Promotor > > Trigon + 2 SD 2018-09-01 Tardiness Cartographor
