On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 1:43 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Upon a win announcement that a rule allows one or more persons
> to cause it by announcement to make arbitrary rule changes that
> it is otherwise able to make,
I don't think this works; my wording does not satisfy "arbitrary".
(f
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 1:46 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Without 8 objections, I do so. (I think... disclaimer: I might be
>> miscounting.)
>
> CoE: I suspect that there may in fact have been 8 or more objections.
It's not self-ratifying. I might be wrong but I did count twice (and
came up with 8
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 1:58 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> On 6939, I specify that PRESENT counts as a valid option (see Rule
> 693), vote PRESENT, and resolve it as follows:
> * omd voted ADOPTED
> * Murphy voted PRESENT
> * As permitted by Rule 955 (c), I choose PRESENT as the outcome
>
> (Who says
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 1:58 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Another obligatory CFJ, disqualifying omd:
> * Removing a decision's adoption index does not count as "changing" it
> for the purpose of Rule 106, and thus cannot be done except by
> taking precedence over Rule 106.
Gratuitous: If removin
On 10-12-20 02:36 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
I call for judgement on the following statement:
{{
If Agora had no players and no public fora, a person could become a
Player by sending a message, clearly labelled as a public message and
indicating eir wish to become a player, to the null device on
I judge FALSE for CFJ 2931. There is nothing in the rules that says that doing
it once couldn't satisfy multiple different requirements.
I stand up.
-scshunt
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Flameshadowxeroshin
wrote:
> The only possible one, perhaps?
Rule 1728 requires that the intent "unambiguously and clearly specify
the action and method(s)".
The only possible one, perhaps?
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 5:40 PM, omd wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 6:13 PM, Sean Hunt
> wrote:
> > I intend to clean Rule 2314 (The List of Succession)
>
> With what method?
>
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 9:57 PM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> On 20 December 2010 06:55, Taral wrote:
>> For the record: This is (and has always been) my standard practice. If
>> you get a message about your mail being held for moderation, you can
>> expect that it will be rejected unless you have made
9 matches
Mail list logo
