Re: DIS: Re: BUS: blah
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: > I'm pretty sure it isn't. In the absence of anyone pointing out any > errors in my unofficial "this is where I think we are" message, I'll > likely catch up on the rest of it tomorrow morning (I suspect 52CP > will require one last round of vote re-evaluation, but probably a > simple "one vote per player" version AFAIR). As far as I can tell: The office was vacant on 26 Dec (CFJ 2951). Murphy assumed the office later on 26 Dec. G. purported to resign the office on 26 January (failed). G. assumed the office on 31 January. P6959 probably had no effect on the office. G. resigned the office on 31 January. Wooble deputized for the office on 3 March. It remains vacant.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: blah
Wooble wrote: > On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: >> I deputize for the Assessor to publish the following: > > Disclaimer: I have no idea whatsoever if the office of the Assessor is > actually vacant; this may have failed. I'm pretty sure it isn't. In the absence of anyone pointing out any errors in my unofficial "this is where I think we are" message, I'll likely catch up on the rest of it tomorrow morning (I suspect 52CP will require one last round of vote re-evaluation, but probably a simple "one vote per player" version AFAIR).
DIS: Re: BUS: blah
Yeah, I was wondering why I wasn't listed here even though I /did/
vote on that Proposal... =P
~ Roujo
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> I deputize for the Assessor to publish the following:
>>
>> {{
>>
>> Voting results for Proposal 6961:
>>
>> [This notice resolves the Agoran decisions of whether to adopt the
>> following proposals. For each decision, the options available to
>> Agora are ADOPTED (*), REJECTED (x), and FAILED QUORUM (!).]
>>
>> *6961 D1 3.0 G. 52-pickup v2
>>
>> 6961
>>
>> BobTHJ A
>> ehird F
>> G. F
>> Murphy P
>> Tiger F
>
> CoE: This definitely failed, as Roujo isn't Tiger.
>
DIS: Re: BUS: blah
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > I deputize for the Assessor to publish the following: Disclaimer: I have no idea whatsoever if the office of the Assessor is actually vacant; this may have failed.
DIS: Re: BUS: blah
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > Rule 2308 (Power=1) Contests Great, there goes my Mafia contest.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: blah, part 2
Geoffrey Spear wrote: On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: I believe this works; Wooble still cannot register for 3 months after comex deregistered em. If I have no Rests, it should be 30 days, no? Is there a rule other than 869 that applies here? Ah, you're right. I thought it was 3 months for some reason. -coppro
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: blah, part 2
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: > I believe this works; Wooble still cannot register for 3 months after comex > deregistered em. If I have no Rests, it should be 30 days, no? Is there a rule other than 869 that applies here?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: blah, part 2
Ed Murphy wrote: Wooble wrote: As allowed by Rule 2166, I transfer 26 Rests from myself to the Lost and Found department. I thought that was ruled not to work? IIRC, my interpretation was that the Dunce Cap case suffered a subtley different set of circumstances that made it not function for Dunce Caps, but such that it did function for Rests. I'm not sure, though, and would welcome a chance to review my arguments (which I haven't actually looked up) by a new CFJ. -coppro
DIS: Re: BUS: blah, part 2
Geoffrey Spear wrote: As allowed by Rule 2166, I transfer 26 Rests from myself to the Lost and Found department. I believe this works; Wooble still cannot register for 3 months after comex deregistered em. -coppro
DIS: Re: BUS: blah, part 2
Wooble wrote: > As allowed by Rule 2166, I transfer 26 Rests from myself to the Lost > and Found department. I thought that was ruled not to work?
DIS: Re: BUS: Blah
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 13:59, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I transfer one 0 crop to the AFO. Fails, you have none. > The AFO transfers one 0 crop to the PBA. Still works. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: blah
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 11:31 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is the contract in question powerful enough to terminate itself? Contractual self-termination is R2198, which is powerful enough to allow the contract change (it is, in fact, the same rule that secures contract changes in the first place). > Also, I > don't think this does anything as the dependent action you tried to > carry out is different from the one you intended to carry out. I smell a CFJ... -root
DIS: Re: BUS: blah
On Mon, 2008-09-15 at 10:27 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 5:44 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I intend, without 3 Objections, to amend the Agoran Civil Service > > contract by replacing its entire text with "This contract immediately > > terminates itself." > > Having received only 1 objection, I terminate the Agoran Civil > Service. All members of the contract are to report for termination as > well at their earliest convenience. Is the contract in question powerful enough to terminate itself? Also, I don't think this does anything as the dependent action you tried to carry out is different from the one you intended to carry out. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: blah
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 2:44 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I intend, without 3 Objections, to amend the Agoran Civil Service > contract by replacing its entire text with "This contract immediately > terminates itself." Hm... -- Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you." -- Unknown
