On Thu, 12 Mar 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
I CFJ the following statement:
{
If a rule requires a player to perform an action without making it
possible for em to do so, and there is a rule forbidding em from doing
so, e can take no action that is not in violation of a rule.
}
This is, I think,
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2411
== CFJ 2411 ==
If a rule requires a player to perform an action without making
it possible for em to do so, and there is a
On Thu, 2009-03-12 at 23:02 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
Since it seems
unreasonable to add an obligation retroactively due to changing
circumstances, it seems equally unreasonable to remove one.
I judge case 2403 to be TRUE.
I wrote:
I wrote:
Consultation: After an External Force forfeits the game, does the
Outsider associated with them continue to exist and retain any of its
Attributes and Properties not explicitly removed by the rules?
This is Consultation 223. I assign it to Priest ais523 (who has about
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
(Note that since this is still a clause in a rule, you might still
avoid criminal prosecution due to being EXCUSED if you have conflicting
contracts, but you wouldn't avoid an unfavorable equity settlement
which could
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
So how does that translate for SHALL-CAN?
Gratuitous: SHALL and CAN are supposed to be orthogonal, and it's
perfectly reasonable to require someone to perform an action by a
certain mechanism without actually allowing
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009, comex wrote:
The special case of a simple 'X SHALL do Y by
mechanism was established in CFJs 1765 and 1890 to imply the
mechanism, but I'd argue that's just an archaic linguistic shortcut,
not a necessary side-effect of the SHALL.
Sorry, you're right; but the CFJ
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009, comex wrote:
The special case of a simple 'X SHALL do Y by
mechanism was established in CFJs 1765 and 1890 to imply the
mechanism, but I'd argue that's just an archaic linguistic shortcut,
not a
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009, comex wrote:
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009, comex wrote:
The special case of a simple 'X SHALL do Y by
mechanism was established in CFJs 1765 and 1890 to imply the
mechanism, but I'd argue that's just an
On Fri, 2009-03-13 at 14:19 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
G1
G2
G3
I terminate the above 3 pledges (assuming they're the ones that are mine,
which I believe can be terminated by my announcement). -Goethe
Yep, that succeeds.
--
ais523
Notary
ehird wrote:
Herald: Sgeo, Yally, Goethe
G to tha oe to tha t-h-e
Tailor: Wooble, ais523
ais to tha 5 to tha 23
Anarchist: ehird, Yally, Tiger
e to tha hird
You kids get off my lizawn!
11 matches
Mail list logo
