-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
comex wrote:
> My plan was to do a notification once each day for judges who would
> have violated their time limit by the next notification, though I
> could move that back to notify at five days.
That's reasonable too, with the caveat that the time
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Benjamin Caplan
wrote:
> I'd suggest trying to delay the notifications to send them in batch,
> combining several in a single message. This would require the timeout
> to be defined as a range, a wider range causing fewer automatic messages
> but earlier or later ar
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
comex wrote:
> So, anyone want an automated notification when someone hasn't posted a
> judgement in 6 days? Disadvantages include spamming the list,
> possibly with false positives (if the CotC hasn't updated the
> database, although I could manually
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 2:27 PM, wrote:
> This is a test notification
> This is a test notification
> This is a test notification
> This is a test notification
> This is a test notification
> This is a test notification
> This is a test notification
So, anyone want an automated notification when
This is a test notification
This is a test notification
This is a test notification
This is a test notification
This is a test notification
This is a test notification
This is a test notification
Pavitra wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> E is contesting it's unfairness, not its validity, and e specifically
>> states eir reason; that e thinks a few hours lateness is manifestly
>> unfair to be punished for.
>
> Ah, I see now.
>
>> [Side not
Goethe wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Feb 2009, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
>> E then concludes (without further argument) that, as a result of this
>> unusual balance of priorities, your NoV against em should be invalid.
>> This final leap, in my opinion, is the most dubious part of eir
>> argument.
>
> E is con
On Fri, 6 Feb 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> (3) in addition to deciding something is/is not a breach, we can decide
> the punishment level.
>From the archives (R408/15):
A Judge who Judges a CFJ during eir Overtime Period [week after
deadline] commits the Class 0.5 Infraction of Judgin
On Fri, 6 Feb 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Benjamin Caplan
> wrote:
>> The theory, I think, is that the timing, though not significant in
>> itself, /indicates/ an underlying situation that is significant. (This
>> situation is analogous to how messages sent to a
On Fri, 6 Feb 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> In this case the delay is time critical as it causes an automatic
> remand of the case.
>
> If you don't like the timing rules, vote to remove the damn SHALLs
> from them, or propose changing the meaning of "as soon as possible".
> Why even have rules if
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Benjamin Caplan
wrote:
> The theory, I think, is that the timing, though not significant in
> itself, /indicates/ an underlying situation that is significant. (This
> situation is analogous to how messages sent to a-d can be used as
> evidence of intent or consent.
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Fri, 6 Feb 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 10:20 AM, comex wrote:
>>> I contest these NoVs, which were published mere hours after the time
>>> limit for publishing an opinion had expired. (Compare H. Wooble's NoV
>>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> E is contesting it's unfairness, not its validity, and e specifically
> states eir reason; that e thinks a few hours lateness is manifestly
> unfair to be punished for.
Ah, I see now.
> [Side note: we used to have, in a similar c
On Fri, 6 Feb 2009, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
> E then concludes (without further argument) that, as a result of this
> unusual balance of priorities, your NoV against em should be invalid.
> This final leap, in my opinion, is the most dubious part of eir
> argument.
E is contesting it's unfairness,
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 10:20 AM, comex wrote:
>> I contest these NoVs, which were published mere hours after the time
>> limit for publishing an opinion had expired. (Compare H. Wooble's NoV
>> against Bayes for failing to submit a proposal, which e published
>> eighteen m
15 matches
Mail list logo
