On Mon, 26 May 2014, omd wrote:
I support, because I said I would. If re-elected, I promise to
continue to follow the guideline of the third paragraph of Rule 991,
and in particular to never use a random number generator or any
clearly specified procedure for selecting judges. (However,
On Sat, 24 May 2014, x1122334455 wrote:
So what just happened?
You went way over time on delivering a judgement, so the Arbitor removed
you from the case and reassigned it to someone else.
By doing so, you have broken Rule 591.
From my brief search of the rules, there seems no longer to
On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
Though not before snarking about a process that supposedly gives all
interested players reasonably equal opportunities to judge.
If you'd like a demonstration of how assigning uninterested players
generally does not affect this
On Sat, 2014-05-24 at 17:01 -0400, omd wrote:
On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
Though not before snarking about a process that supposedly gives all
interested players reasonably equal opportunities to judge.
If you'd like a demonstration of how assigning
On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 9:33 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
Wrong as usual :)
Go on, I dares ya...
Unfortunately, I believe you have just marked yourself as interested,
so I am no longer permitted to.
Incidentally, I'm considering the possibility that the only legal
strategy to assign
5 matches
Mail list logo
