Sadly, I must concur with G. in his assessment of your scams. I appreciate his willingness to engage with evidence in response to your scams as I considered referencing the definition, but thought better of it. ---- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Jul 20, 2017, at 2:33 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>> I feel like a lot of the shielding is going to be invisible meta-rules
>> ("public means
>> that it needs to be sent to the public fora", "the pledge needs to be public
>> itself and
>> understandable", etc). Is there an Agoran slang term for invisible
>> meta-rules? Something
>> neutral and easy to use. Game convention? Cultural rules?
>
> Oh, and on this: reading comprehension is nice. You should try it. Public
> is explicitly
> defined in R478 - if there's something missing for you after reading that
> rule, let us
> know what in specific. And the Pledge question is exactly what I'm
> contesting in my
> CFJ, as that one isn't clear and there's no past precedent/custom.
>
> Your scams seem to miss a lot of plain and clearly-written rule text. That's
> not to say
> there aren't "customs". These customs, hopefully traceable back to past
> precedents,
> only function where, by R217, the rules are "silent, inconsistent, and
> unclear." And
> if those customs are based on old rules, and no longer apply in the new
> rules, we follow
> the rules when we discover that via CFJ.
>
> But so far a good 90% of your scams just trace back to poor or limited
> reading of the
> rules.
>
>
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
