On 4/24/14 at 10:03am, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> > > On Thu, 24 Apr 2014, x1122334455 wrote: > > On 4/24/14 at 7:52am, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Thu, 24 Apr 2014, Alex Smith wrote: > > > > On Wed, 23/4/14, Jonathan Rouillard wrote: > > > > > > > > > Well, it looks like hazing isn't a crime anymore so... I CFJ on > > > > > x1122334455, putting forth tradition as my main argument. > > > > > > > > > Also: Welcome! =D > > > > > > > > I CFJ on whether that is a CFJ. Arguments against: it doesn't > > > > clearly specify a statement. Arguments for: most experienced > > > > players can deduce the statement from context. > > > > > > FALSE. It was sent to Discussion. > > > > > Sorry? I'm new and don't know all of the rules off the top of my head yet. > > In the past, we have a minor "tradition" of Calling for Judgement on > whether a new player's registration succeeded. > > In this case, Roujo sent the message to the discussion forum (not > public), so e didn't really CFJ, so it was just a minor joke. > > ais523 didn't notice that the message was sent to discussion, > noticed that the phrasing of the supposed CFJ was confusing, and > called eir own CFJ on whether the first one worked or failed, due > to the confusing phrasing. But the first one didn't work for a > trivial reason: it wasn't public. > > Sometimes this is what passes for "fun" around here :). > > -G. > > > > > I don't understand but I'm going to try to. _ LiberonScien
