Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week

[Nic Evans]

On 09/23/17 20:35, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>
>> This is Cuddlebeam-esque and I'm ashamed of myself. But I
>> will now copy and paste "Without objection, I intend to win by
>> apathy", until there is thousands of  copies of that text, each of
>> which is a seperate action. Under the precedent of several CFJs,
>
> [snip]
>
> I object - to the horrible formatting.
>
> I am also just not quite tempted enough to register just to propose
> either/both:
>
> * outlawing quoting huge parts of messages when not specifically
> responding to those parts
> * nullifying actions buried after huge quotes or inside published
> documents

If we do either I think it should be the second.

>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:

assigned to _a_ judge, singular, implies or dictates only one judge at 
once.


I don't think it does, especially in the context of the last part of the 
sentence.  It's perfectly readable as just an existential.



   When a CFJ is open and assigned to a judge, that judge CAN
   assign a valid judgement to it by announcement,


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE

[VJ Rada]

assigned to _a_ judge, singular, implies or dictates only one judge at once.

On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> And if there happen to ever to be two judges assigned to a case, the
>> following:
>>At any time, each CFJ is either open (default), suspended, or
>>assigned exactly one judgement.
>> says nothing about, if two judgements are delivered, if the first one
>> prevents the second one from being delivered, or the second one replaces
>> the first one...
>
> Oh never mind on this part, it's here (R591).  First to judgement stops the
> second one from judging - so it turns into a judges' race... (of course
> easily winnable by the Prime Minister by judging when e assigns emself the
> case):
>When a CFJ is open and assigned to a judge, that judge CAN
>assign a valid judgement to it by announcement,
>
>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> And if there happen to ever to be two judges assigned to a case, the 
> following:
>At any time, each CFJ is either open (default), suspended, or
>assigned exactly one judgement.
> says nothing about, if two judgements are delivered, if the first one 
> prevents the second one from being delivered, or the second one replaces
> the first one...

Oh never mind on this part, it's here (R591).  First to judgement stops the 
second one from judging - so it turns into a judges' race... (of course
easily winnable by the Prime Minister by judging when e assigns emself the
case):
   When a CFJ is open and assigned to a judge, that judge CAN
   assign a valid judgement to it by announcement,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE

[Kerim Aydin]

Interestingly, it doesn't say that assigning yourself the judge using 
certiorari removes the previous judge from the case, or relieve the first
judge from the duty of delivering judgement.

There's no explicit indication I can find that cases can't have more than
one judge.  The Arbitor doesn't have any mechanism for assigning a second
judge to a case, but maybe certiorari does...?

And if there happen to ever to be two judges assigned to a case, the 
following:
   At any time, each CFJ is either open (default), suspended, or
   assigned exactly one judgement.
says nothing about, if two judgements are delivered, if the first one 
prevents the second one from being delivered, or the second one replaces
the first one...

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> Yeah, it's for "open cases" not unassigned ones.
> 
> On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:
> > On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> >> Oh sorry, I confused certiorari with the "without 3 objections" method in
> >> R991.
> >>
> >> Folks, if someone end up wanting to call a CFJ on this, make an Agency for
> >> me
> >> with this exact purpose and I can have it called and assigned in the same
> >> message.
> >
> >
> > You'll need to judge it in the same message as well.
> >
> > Greetings,
> > Ørjan.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> From V.J. Rada
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE

[VJ Rada]

Yeah, it's for "open cases" not unassigned ones.

On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>> Oh sorry, I confused certiorari with the "without 3 objections" method in
>> R991.
>>
>> Folks, if someone end up wanting to call a CFJ on this, make an Agency for
>> me
>> with this exact purpose and I can have it called and assigned in the same
>> message.
>
>
> You'll need to judge it in the same message as well.
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:


Oh sorry, I confused certiorari with the "without 3 objections" method in R991.

Folks, if someone end up wanting to call a CFJ on this, make an Agency for me
with this exact purpose and I can have it called and assigned in the same
message.


You'll need to judge it in the same message as well.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE

[Kerim Aydin]

Oh sorry, I confused certiorari with the "without 3 objections" method in R991.

Folks, if someone end up wanting to call a CFJ on this, make an Agency for me
with this exact purpose and I can have it called and assigned in the same
message.

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> No no, I was just saying what I want to do or will do. That was not a
> formal statement of intent and it doesn't need to be.
> 
> On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> >> I intend to use certiorari to
> >> >> assign CFJs coming out of this to myself.
> >
> > A side note on this scam:  this part is likely ineffective as "CFJs
> > coming out of this" does not (by R1729) "unambiguously and clearly
> > specify the action", because you're not referring to a specific CFJ.
> >
> > I'll have to dig it up if you try to follow through on this, but the
> > old CFJ precedent is basically that it's not possible to "clearly" or
> > "unambiguously" specify hypothetical future items that do not yet exist.
> >
> > -G.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> From V.J. Rada
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:


I have aimed to make this response as concise as possible.

我反对。我反对。


Like others, I'm doubtful that this works, but possibly for a different 
reason.


Although you may have many enough "我反对"s, _each_ of them is an action 
that is ambiguous as to which intent it is objecting to, thus they all 
fail.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE

[VJ Rada]

No no, I was just saying what I want to do or will do. That was not a
formal statement of intent and it doesn't need to be.

On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>> I intend to use certiorari to
>> >> assign CFJs coming out of this to myself.
>
> A side note on this scam:  this part is likely ineffective as "CFJs
> coming out of this" does not (by R1729) "unambiguously and clearly
> specify the action", because you're not referring to a specific CFJ.
>
> I'll have to dig it up if you try to follow through on this, but the
> old CFJ precedent is basically that it's not possible to "clearly" or
> "unambiguously" specify hypothetical future items that do not yet exist.
>
> -G.
>
>
>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Quazie wrote:


To be honest - I only did it cuz I'm unsure if subject line only actions,
even if noted by the rules, even work.


I really cannot see why giving effect to subject lines shouldn't work when 
a rule (2463) _explicitly_ mentions it.


I still don't think rule 2463 works in the way tried here, though. 
The way we usually interpret dependent actions, the subject line would be 
on the _resolving_ message - the _intent_ still needs to be an ordinary 
announcement.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:


This is Cuddlebeam-esque and I'm ashamed of myself. But I
will now copy and paste "Without objection, I intend to win by
apathy", until there is thousands of  copies of that text, each of
which is a seperate action. Under the precedent of several CFJs,


[snip]

I object - to the horrible formatting.

I am also just not quite tempted enough to register just to propose 
either/both:


* outlawing quoting huge parts of messages when not specifically 
responding to those parts
* nullifying actions buried after huge quotes or inside published 
documents


Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> I intend to use certiorari to
> >> assign CFJs coming out of this to myself.

A side note on this scam:  this part is likely ineffective as "CFJs
coming out of this" does not (by R1729) "unambiguously and clearly
specify the action", because you're not referring to a specific CFJ.

I'll have to dig it up if you try to follow through on this, but the
old CFJ precedent is basically that it's not possible to "clearly" or
"unambiguously" specify hypothetical future items that do not yet exist.

-G.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week

[Gaelan Steele]

I copypasted his message and find-replaced. 

Gaelan

> On Sep 23, 2017, at 2:49 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> 
> If Gaelan has missed out at least one "I object", a win for VJ will slip 
> through the cracks.
> 
>> On Sat, 23 Sep 2017 at 23:34, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>> > > On Sep 23, 2017, at 5:06 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > If you paste the basic 我反对。 string into Google translate, it 
>> > > auto-detects Chinese
>> > > and spits out "I Object."  It's pretty much as clear a translation as 
>> > > you can get
>> > > if you're going to allow that sort of thing at all.
>> >
>> > That explains a lot. I left GT on Japanese and got “I antagonize.” Still 
>> > clear to me,
>> > but probably not clear enough to clear the bar previously established by 
>> > CFJ 1460.
>> 
>> In 3471/3472, I noted that technological changes since CFJ 1460 might merit
>> revisiting it, and if that single ubiquitous tool (Google translate) gave
>> a clear and direct answer, it wasn't too much of a burden for people to
>> cut and past into it - but it has to be painfully exact, in those CFJs I
>> didn't allow something that was pretty close but not exact.
>> 
>> 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week

[Cuddle Beam]

If Gaelan has missed out at least one "I object", a win for VJ will slip
through the cracks.

On Sat, 23 Sep 2017 at 23:34, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> > > On Sep 23, 2017, at 5:06 PM, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > If you paste the basic 我反对。 string into Google translate, it
> auto-detects Chinese
> > > and spits out "I Object."  It's pretty much as clear a translation as
> you can get
> > > if you're going to allow that sort of thing at all.
> >
> > That explains a lot. I left GT on Japanese and got “I antagonize.” Still
> clear to me,
> > but probably not clear enough to clear the bar previously established by
> CFJ 1460.
>
> In 3471/3472, I noted that technological changes since CFJ 1460 might merit
> revisiting it, and if that single ubiquitous tool (Google translate) gave
> a clear and direct answer, it wasn't too much of a burden for people to
> cut and past into it - but it has to be painfully exact, in those CFJs I
> didn't allow something that was pretty close but not exact.
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> > On Sep 23, 2017, at 5:06 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > If you paste the basic 我反对。 string into Google translate, it auto-detects 
> > Chinese
> > and spits out "I Object."  It's pretty much as clear a translation as you 
> > can get
> > if you're going to allow that sort of thing at all.
> 
> That explains a lot. I left GT on Japanese and got “I antagonize.” Still 
> clear to me, 
> but probably not clear enough to clear the bar previously established by CFJ 
> 1460.

In 3471/3472, I noted that technological changes since CFJ 1460 might merit
revisiting it, and if that single ubiquitous tool (Google translate) gave
a clear and direct answer, it wasn't too much of a burden for people to
cut and past into it - but it has to be painfully exact, in those CFJs I 
didn't allow something that was pretty close but not exact.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 23, 2017, at 5:06 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> If you paste the basic 我反对。 string into Google translate, it auto-detects 
> Chinese
> and spits out "I Object."  It's pretty much as clear a translation as you can 
> get
> if you're going to allow that sort of thing at all.

That explains a lot. I left GT on Japanese and got “I antagonize.” Still clear 
to me, but probably not clear enough to clear the bar previously established by 
CFJ 1460.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week

[Josh T]

I mean, I guess that's helpful, but I was mostly humoring Gaelan on em
questioning my remark about how I don't think VJ Rada's sentence is a
deceleration or successful action because "it doesn't jive with my
understanding of language which Agora recognizes" (especially since Agora
*doesn't* recognize an official language).

To be a little bit more specific, since this is a nomic, and we've had
minutiae determine the outcome or interpretation of actions / documents, I
think the lack of proper formatting nullifies any effect VJ Rada may have
intended with eir post. That being said, we should talk about this because
they (or someone else) can just try this again after proofreading.

天火狐

On 23 September 2017 at 17:06, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> If you paste the basic 我反对。 string into Google translate, it auto-detects
> Chinese
> and spits out "I Object."  It's pretty much as clear a translation as you
> can get
> if you're going to allow that sort of thing at all.
>
> On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Josh T wrote:
> > I can't quite explain it. Could you be so kind as to enlighten me as to
> the meaning of those words,
> > as how it pertains to VJ Rada's sentence?
> > 天火狐
> >
> > On 23 September 2017 at 15:43, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> >   Why not?
> >
> >   Gaelan
> >   > On Sep 23, 2017, at 8:44 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >   >
> >   > I do not believe that this was effective.
> >   > 
> >   > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> >   > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> >   >
> >   >
> >   >
> >   >> On Sep 23, 2017, at 11:42 AM, Gaelan Steele 
> wrote:
> >   >>
> >   >> I have aimed to make this response as concise as possible.
> >   >>
> >   >> 我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。
> >   >> 我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反å
> > [...]
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE

[Kerim Aydin]

I agree it's just as reasonable either way - point is that you want stick
with a consistent interpretation, and the last time it came up, that was
the decision.  Perfectly valid to propose an explicit clarifying line to
R478 and put it to a vote.

I would personally always forget to look for the action in the subject
line, so I would vote for a clarification of "message text only".  But
that's preference not logic.

On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Imo its pretty subjective because it's not standardized as other stuff. 
> I find it just as reasonable for them to count as not.
> 
> Maybe we could make a rule/sentence on what constitutes a valid message to 
> a-b.
> 
> On Sat, 23 Sep 2017 at 22:00, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
>   On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>   > I don't think the rules apply only to content within the body of an
>   > email: we already know the subject line counts in some cases. I don't
>   > see which rule contradicts the rules applying to the subject line. I
>   > do note that the rule does ask for Agoran Consent (2 of it, even), so
>   > you might need to note clearly your intent within the text itself for
>   > that to work in this particular case.
> 
>   There is no rule.  It comes down to what the definition of "message" is
>   in R478.  Is it the message text, or does it include subject line?  
> That's
>   some place where the rules are silent, so it's left up to "game custom,
>   common sense, past judgements, and consideration of the best interests 
> of
>   the game."
> 
>   The general game custom/past judgements are that, for various 
> reasons[1],
>   it is for the good of the game to not count subject lines, unless the
>   message text explicitly refers to the subject line (e.g. says "I take
>   the action in the subject line").
> 
>   That consensus could always be revisited via CFJ, but in the absence of
>   doing so, we'd assume it holds.
> 
>   [1] Some previously-given reasons, not arguing for or against just 
> listing
>   some considerations:
> 
>   1.  Actions in a message happen in order.  Subject line is "out of the
>   order" and not clear where it comes (unless part of the message text
>   explicitly refers to it).
> 
>   2.  If we allow actions in headers, why not hidden headers?  And that
>   then becomes too easy to hide things in.
> 
>   3.  Subject lines rapidly drift away from their original purpose in
>   threads.  It is often not clear (much less so then for quoted parts
>   of the message) when one is an original action versus a reply.
> 
>   4.  It's very useful to have non-action Titles that contain descriptions
>   of actions.  For example "[Arbitor] CFJ XXX assigned to YYY".
>   This is a convenient label, and players shouldn't have to constantly
>   be worried "did I accidentally put an action in my label?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week

[Kerim Aydin]

If you paste the basic 我反对。 string into Google translate, it auto-detects 
Chinese 
and spits out "I Object."  It's pretty much as clear a translation as you can 
get
if you're going to allow that sort of thing at all.

On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Josh T wrote:
> I can't quite explain it. Could you be so kind as to enlighten me as to the 
> meaning of those words, 
> as how it pertains to VJ Rada's sentence?
> 天火狐
>
> On 23 September 2017 at 15:43, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
>   Why not?
> 
>   Gaelan
>   > On Sep 23, 2017, at 8:44 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
>  wrote:
>   >
>   > I do not believe that this was effective.
>   > 
>   > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>   > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >> On Sep 23, 2017, at 11:42 AM, Gaelan Steele  
> wrote:
>   >>
>   >> I have aimed to make this response as concise as possible.
>   >>
>   >> 我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。
>   >> 我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反å
> [...]

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE

[Cuddle Beam]

Imo its pretty subjective because it's not standardized as other stuff. I
find it just as reasonable for them to count as not.

Maybe we could make a rule/sentence on what constitutes a valid message to
a-b.

On Sat, 23 Sep 2017 at 22:00, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> > I don't think the rules apply only to content within the body of an
> > email: we already know the subject line counts in some cases. I don't
> > see which rule contradicts the rules applying to the subject line. I
> > do note that the rule does ask for Agoran Consent (2 of it, even), so
> > you might need to note clearly your intent within the text itself for
> > that to work in this particular case.
>
> There is no rule.  It comes down to what the definition of "message" is
> in R478.  Is it the message text, or does it include subject line?  That's
> some place where the rules are silent, so it's left up to "game custom,
> common sense, past judgements, and consideration of the best interests of
> the game."
>
> The general game custom/past judgements are that, for various reasons[1],
> it is for the good of the game to not count subject lines, unless the
> message text explicitly refers to the subject line (e.g. says "I take
> the action in the subject line").
>
> That consensus could always be revisited via CFJ, but in the absence of
> doing so, we'd assume it holds.
>
> [1] Some previously-given reasons, not arguing for or against just listing
> some considerations:
>
> 1.  Actions in a message happen in order.  Subject line is "out of the
> order" and not clear where it comes (unless part of the message text
> explicitly refers to it).
>
> 2.  If we allow actions in headers, why not hidden headers?  And that
> then becomes too easy to hide things in.
>
> 3.  Subject lines rapidly drift away from their original purpose in
> threads.  It is often not clear (much less so then for quoted parts
> of the message) when one is an original action versus a reply.
>
> 4.  It's very useful to have non-action Titles that contain descriptions
> of actions.  For example "[Arbitor] CFJ XXX assigned to YYY".
> This is a convenient label, and players shouldn't have to constantly
> be worried "did I accidentally put an action in my label?"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> I don't think the rules apply only to content within the body of an
> email: we already know the subject line counts in some cases. I don't
> see which rule contradicts the rules applying to the subject line. I
> do note that the rule does ask for Agoran Consent (2 of it, even), so
> you might need to note clearly your intent within the text itself for
> that to work in this particular case.

There is no rule.  It comes down to what the definition of "message" is
in R478.  Is it the message text, or does it include subject line?  That's
some place where the rules are silent, so it's left up to "game custom, 
common sense, past judgements, and consideration of the best interests of
the game."

The general game custom/past judgements are that, for various reasons[1],
it is for the good of the game to not count subject lines, unless the
message text explicitly refers to the subject line (e.g. says "I take
the action in the subject line").

That consensus could always be revisited via CFJ, but in the absence of
doing so, we'd assume it holds.

[1] Some previously-given reasons, not arguing for or against just listing
some considerations:

1.  Actions in a message happen in order.  Subject line is "out of the
order" and not clear where it comes (unless part of the message text
explicitly refers to it).

2.  If we allow actions in headers, why not hidden headers?  And that
then becomes too easy to hide things in.

3.  Subject lines rapidly drift away from their original purpose in
threads.  It is often not clear (much less so then for quoted parts
of the message) when one is an original action versus a reply.

4.  It's very useful to have non-action Titles that contain descriptions
of actions.  For example "[Arbitor] CFJ XXX assigned to YYY".
This is a convenient label, and players shouldn't have to constantly
be worried "did I accidentally put an action in my label?"  

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE

[Gaelan Steele]

I registered with a subject line, but that’s registration.
> On Sep 23, 2017, at 12:50 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> 
> I don't think the rules apply only to content within the body of an
> email: we already know the subject line counts in some cases. I don't
> see which rule contradicts the rules applying to the subject line. I
> do note that the rule does ask for Agoran Consent (2 of it, even), so
> you might need to note clearly your intent within the text itself for
> that to work in this particular case.
> 
> On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Quazie  wrote:
>> To be honest - I only did it cuz I'm unsure if subject line only actions,
>> even if noted by the rules, even work.
>> 
>> On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 00:40 VJ Rada  wrote:
>>> 
>>> "MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE"
>>> 
>>> Honestly, you are the funniest Agoran player by far, just in pure
>>> gameplay terms. I object to the motion of no confidence.
>>> 
>>> On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 5:36 PM, Quazie  wrote:
 As the speaker I object to all intents to win by apathy introduced in
 the
 quoted message.  I'll write a python script to object to each
 individually
 later.
 
 
 On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 00:26 VJ Rada  wrote:
> 
> o win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> objection, I intend to win by apathy Without objection, I intend to
> win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE

[VJ Rada]

I don't think the rules apply only to content within the body of an
email: we already know the subject line counts in some cases. I don't
see which rule contradicts the rules applying to the subject line. I
do note that the rule does ask for Agoran Consent (2 of it, even), so
you might need to note clearly your intent within the text itself for
that to work in this particular case.

On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Quazie  wrote:
> To be honest - I only did it cuz I'm unsure if subject line only actions,
> even if noted by the rules, even work.
>
> On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 00:40 VJ Rada  wrote:
>>
>> "MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE"
>>
>> Honestly, you are the funniest Agoran player by far, just in pure
>> gameplay terms. I object to the motion of no confidence.
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 5:36 PM, Quazie  wrote:
>> > As the speaker I object to all intents to win by apathy introduced in
>> > the
>> > quoted message.  I'll write a python script to object to each
>> > individually
>> > later.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 00:26 VJ Rada  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> o win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
>> >> objection, I intend to win by apathy Without objection, I intend to
>> >> win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
>> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
>> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
>> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
>> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
>> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
>> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
>> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
>> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
>> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
>> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
>> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
>> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
>> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
>> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
>> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
>> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
>> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
>> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
>> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
>> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
>> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
>> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
>> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
>> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
>> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
>> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
>> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
>> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
>> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
>> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
>> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
>> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
>> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
>> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
>> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
>> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
>> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
>> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
>> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
>> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
>> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
>> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
>> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
>> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
>> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
>> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
>> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
>> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
>> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
>> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
>> >> objection, I intend