forum shopping tbh. On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 8:23 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Why did you bar me and not o? > ---- > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > > > >> On Sep 23, 2017, at 2:47 AM, VJ Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I call a CFJ with the following statement: "The Green card o. issued >> emself in the below message was illegally issued, as the green card e >> issued nichdel was legally issued". >> >> I think the most natural reading of "that reason" is the act itself, >> not the particular rule breached. That is, someone can be carded twice >> for breaking the same pledge on two totally seperate occasions. There >> is also a question as to the interpretation of the pledge rule itself. >> It says "a pledge is considered broken if...", which may mean that the >> pledge is permanently broken, and cannot be broken more than once. >> >> I bar Publius and use AP. >> >> On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Owen Jacobson <o...@grimoire.ca> wrote: >>> On Sep 22, 2017, at 11:45 PM, Nic Evans <nich...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> As for the gerontocracy argument: Money is an inherently gerontocratic >>>> system. It abstracts value from labor in a way that allows arbitrary >>>> allocation. >>>> >>>> I'm about 95% sure this is the gist of my partner’s argument when she said >>>> “inventing money is _rude_” about the original Shinies proposal. >>>> >>>> I’m not sure I fully appreciated Spending Power while we had it. The debate >>>> and adoption predates me. I’ve long had a fascination with throughput-based >>>> monetary systems like Total Annihilation’s metal economy, where the driving >>>> numbers are the amount of money in per time, not the amount of money in the >>>> pile, and SP is as close as I’ve ever seen to that in a political system. >>> >>> On Sep 23, 2017, at 12:30 AM, VJ Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I point the finger at nichdel. He replied to CB in discussion again. >>> >>> As recently discussed, this is over a pledge under rule 2450, made by >>> nichdel, which reads: >>> >>>> I pledge to not acknowledge any messages Cuddle Beam sends to a-d, or to >>>> respond in a-d to anything CB does. >>> >>> This pledge was previously broken, and punishment for that breach issued >>> from this office on Sep 20, 2017, at 1:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time. >>> >>> The message quoted above is, indeed, in response to a message from >>> Cuddlebeam, and violates the above-quoted pledge. Issuing a second card for >>> the same pledge appears to violate rule 2426, which reads in part: >>> >>>> A person SHALL NOT issue a Card unless: >>>> >>>> … >>>> >>>> * there has not already been a Card issued for that reason; and >>> >>> Therefore, as issuing a card would be ILLEGAL, I find this finger-pointing >>> to be Shenanigans. >>> >>> I issue nichdel a green card by summary judgement, as required by rule >>> 2478, for violating rule 2450. >>> >>> I issue myself a green card by summary judgement for violating rule 2426, >>> as cited above. >>> >>> I’ll note that I’ve now issued nichdel a card by summary judgement twice in >>> a week, and myself a card twice in a week. It is no longer possible for me >>> to card either of us for the remainder of the week, rules requiring me to >>> do so notwithstanding. >>> >>> -o >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> From V.J. Rada >
-- >From V.J. Rada
