The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
> 6111 AGAINST
About a day too late.
Taral wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 1:10 AM, Benjamin Caplan
> wrote:
>> As do I. I feel, as a matter of general principle, that overturning
>> the obvious interpretation of a passage of ruletext requires arguments.
>
> What obvious interpretation?
The one I cited in my intent to appeal. It
Proto-Proto: Proper advocacy
Make the gratuitous argument system official. Augment the judgement
rules to indicate that a judge is not required (but can if e wants) to
take into account arguments not submitted to the CFJ. Add a Motion for
Reconsideration that requests that the judge reopen a quest
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> I intend (with 2 support) to appeal this judgement on culpability. At
> least explain /why/ you're going against my intent that SHOULD/should
> would be recursively non-binding.
What intent?
You know, it's funny. There's no arguments on this C
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 1:10 AM, Benjamin Caplan
wrote:
> As do I. I feel, as a matter of general principle, that overturning
> the obvious interpretation of a passage of ruletext requires arguments.
What obvious interpretation?
--
Taral
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Wed, 25 Feb 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> It was not; the AI of the proposal itself was
>> increased to 3, but the AI of the decision to adopt it was never
>> increased.
>
> Is this a bug or a feature? -G.
Well, the whole ability to ch
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 2:52 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> On or about Wed, 18 Feb 2009 22:28:36 +, a rule was created
>> or amended to contain the text "comex and ais523 were here".
I'm not doing this, because the win is fine and all, but since w
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009, comex wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 9:09 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> I judge CFJ 2386 TRUE.
>
> You know, I've never won the game before :)
Congratulations! :)
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> It was not; the AI of the proposal itself was
> increased to 3, but the AI of the decision to adopt it was never
> increased.
Is this a bug or a feature? -G.
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 9:09 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> CFJ2376 established that the text of Proposal 6072 was changed to a
> form that would insert the required language in R2238; the only
Looking back over the history, it appears that the reference to R2238
might be a factual error; as far as
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 9:09 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> I judge CFJ 2386 TRUE.
You know, I've never won the game before :)
11 matches
Mail list logo
