Ed Murphy wrote:
2674a/b - currently, only valid panelists are ais523, c., Murphy, Wooble
2679a - currently, only valid panelists are c., coppro, Murphy, Wooble
You can assign lower-rank judges as they are only poorly qualified,
unless I misunderstand qualification rules (which, admittedly, are
2009/9/20 comex :
> This. If you give notice that you intend to travel to Buffalo by car,
> and you can't get your car out of the driveway, I'm not going to wait
> at the train station.
I would. How else am I going to see Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo
buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo?
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Sep 2009, ais523 wrote:
>> On Sat, 2009-09-19 at 13:13 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> If I say "I intend to take the train to Buffalo" I have not made any
>>> implication, announcement of intent, nor given any notice whatsoever
>>> on
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Sep 2009, Pavitra wrote:
>> I would argue that a player that 101-leaves and later comes back...
>>
ps. For some historical context, please see the very-underappreciated
CFJ 1272; the caller's arguments and the first paragraphs of the judge's
a
2009/9/19 ais523 :
> Points Party requires "4 days notice" for me to be able to amend it (not
> With Notice, but rather the ordinary-language sense); I gave the notice,
> and here's the amendment. As there have now been 4 days of notice (that
> I intended to amend Points Party), I hereby amend Poin
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009, Pavitra wrote:
> I would argue that a player that 101-leaves and later comes back
> retroactively accepts eir back liabilities, as e has changed eir
> decision to wholly ignore the game. This seems fair; it doesn't break
> the right, it doesn't allow exploitation of the mechan
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009, comex wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> And yes I meant to use the "G. is a player" precedent for this; a kibitzer
>> can still be an anti-scammer, c. :) :)
>
> Nice. Did you predict he would do something like that?
>
Can't claim to have predic
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009, ais523 wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-09-19 at 13:13 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> If I say "I intend to take the train to Buffalo" I have not made any
>> implication, announcement of intent, nor given any notice whatsoever
>> on whether I might intend to drive a car to Buffalo should t
ais523 wrote:
> Arguments: With Notice didn't exist when the Points Party was created.
> See also the endless precedents about the First Speaker, and the strong
> implication of rule 1586; that using a rules-undefined term in a way
> that clearly indicates that it isn't meant to be a term in the r
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 4:46 PM, ais523 wrote:
> (/me watches as people turn around their arguments and start claiming it
> isn't a dependent action after all.)
sure it is.
16:47 < comex> without member objection = without 1 objections, with
the eligibility restriction (as allowed by R2124) that
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Sep 2009, Pavitra wrote:
>> Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> And at what moment of time do we apply that and do the recordkeepors
>>> decide e is a non-player? (Making em inactive etc. is different, that's
>>> us making em a non player whether or not e consents).
>>
>> In the
comex wrote:
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Sep 19, 2009, at 12:54 PM, Charles Walker > wrote:
>
>> I change my nickname to Walker.
>
> So, you subtracted me?
Strictly speaking, e subtracted emself from you; eir previous nickname
wasn't C+walker.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital
On Sat, 2009-09-19 at 13:13 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> If I say "I intend to take the train to Buffalo" I have not made any
> implication, announcement of intent, nor given any notice whatsoever
> on whether I might intend to drive a car to Buffalo should the train
> get stuck in the snow.
But I
On Sat, 2009-09-19 at 21:22 +0100, ais523 wrote:
> Rule 1728 does not define With Notice at all; instead, it treats the
> words as a trigger that allow an action to be done in a dependent
> manner. In fact, I can't see any rules or contracts that purport to
> allow a person to perform an action /de
On Sat, 2009-09-19 at 13:16 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Sep 2009, ais523 wrote:
> > I hereby give at least 10 seconds of notice that I intend to audit
> > Murphy.
>
> Not missed at all. R1728 overrides the common definition of giving
> notice. You might as well say that since "vote" h
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009, ais523 wrote:
> I hereby give at least 10 seconds of notice that I intend to audit
> Murphy.
Not missed at all. R1728 overrides the common definition of giving
notice. You might as well say that since "vote" has a common definition
(everyone has a voice and you vote), it o
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009, ais523 wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-09-19 at 08:51 -0400, comex wrote:
>> No you didn't, because (a) your "notice" clearly stated that you
>> intended to amend without objections, and couldn't possibly have
>> qualified as notice that you would do so via another mechanism
>
> Note t
On Sat, 2009-09-19 at 05:20 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> YAFI, YGI. CFJ, disqualifying ais523: ais523 successfully amended
> Points Party in the message quoted in evidence.
>
> Arguments: "with 4 days notice" is close enough to "With Notice" that
> it arguably counts as a synonym, in which case it
c wrote:
> Charles Walker wrote:
>> I change my nickname to Walker.
>
> So, you subtracted me?
Yeah, sorry.
--
Charles Walker
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> And yes I meant to use the "G. is a player" precedent for this; a kibitzer
> can still be an anti-scammer, c. :) :)
Nice. Did you predict he would do something like that?
--
-c.
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009, comex wrote:
>> Points Party requires "4 days notice" for me to be able to amend it (not
>> With Notice, but rather the ordinary-language sense); I gave the notice,
>> and here's the amendment. As there have now been 4 days of notice (that
>> I intended to amend Points Party),
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009, Pavitra wrote:
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> And at what moment of time do we apply that and do the recordkeepors
>> decide e is a non-player? (Making em inactive etc. is different, that's
>> us making em a non player whether or not e consents).
>
> In theory, it takes effect at th
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 19, 2009, at 12:54 PM, Charles Walker > wrote:
I change my nickname to Walker.
So, you subtracted me?
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 9:26 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> For each entity other than myself, I intend with notice to audit that
> entity. I'll likely re-post this intent every 14 days.
That can't possibly work; I demand that you publish a list of every
entity in the universe to prove this wouldn't ta
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 19, 2009, at 5:17 AM, ais523
wrote:
First, here's the scam that was basically guaranteed to work at least
partially, and it did. (The others can wait.)
Points Party requires "4 days notice" for me to be able to amend it
(not
With Notice, but rather the ordinary
Sean Hunt wrote:
> I play Dicsard Picking, indicating Presto!.
> I play Presto!, indicating BobTHJ and Stool Pigeon. (note spelling)
Is the spelling "Dicsard" also significant/deliberate?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
26 matches
Mail list logo
