On Tue, 2014-11-04 at 20:35 +0100, Luis Ressel wrote:
> I deputize for the Tailor to publish his report:
Was this just to snipe the Ribbon, or do you want the office more
generally?
I'd be willing to take Tailor (although I'm planning a certain large
proposal that will need an officer, and may ne
On Sun, 09 Nov 2014 08:16:59 +
Alex Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-11-04 at 20:35 +0100, Luis Ressel wrote:
> > I deputize for the Tailor to publish his report:
>
> Was this just to snipe the Ribbon, or do you want the office more
> generally?
>
> I'd be willing to take Tailor (although I'm pl
On Sun, 09 Nov 2014 08:00:50 +
woggle wrote:
> > 7721 Tiger 3.0 Restricted distribution
> AGAINST (What is this "IMPOSSIBLE for any player to distribute"
> escape hatch for if you're pragmatizing distributability?)
I think we should keep this escape hatch. For such an essential
conce
> On Tue, 2014-11-04 at 20:35 +0100, Luis Ressel wrote:
> This is a list of all persons with Ribbons, and which ribbons they have:
Random thought:
1. In the Herald's report, all "wins" since 2001 have basically been
under Champion.
2. In the elder days, there were some distinctive othe
On 2014-11-09 01:16, Alex Smith wrote:
>ROGCBMUVIPLWK
> araneaC W
> Sprocklem C
> 04/11/14 aranea+W (new to Ribbons)
> 04/11/14 aranea+C (deputizing for Tailor)
> 06/11/14 Sprocklem +W (new to Ribbons)
These two parts don't agree with each other. (Hint: I sho
On Sun, 2014-11-09 at 11:28 -0700, Sprocklem wrote:
> On 2014-11-09 01:16, Alex Smith wrote:
> >ROGCBMUVIPLWK
> > araneaC W
> > Sprocklem C
>
> > 04/11/14 aranea+W (new to Ribbons)
> > 04/11/14 aranea+C (deputizing for Tailor)
> > 06/11/14 Sprocklem +W (new to
On Sun, 9 Nov 2014, omd wrote:
> A rule which purports to allow a person (a special deputy) to
Haha. This was called "Limited Power of Attorney" 10 years ago.
I only mention it now because it was one mechanism around which
"contracts" could be based. It wasn't limited to Offices, you c
On Sun, 2014-11-09 at 23:53 +, omd wrote:
> Referee Eritivus^ 4 Nov 14 30 Oct 14
> [...]
> ^ Held iff any rule violation occurred between 3 Nov 00:00 and 4 Nov 00:01.
> Otherwise vacant. One possible such violation is under CFJ.
Huh. When I deputised, I intended the relevant p
On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 7:35 PM, Eritivus wrote:
> I was relying on (what I believed to be) the fact that the obligation
> to issue a Card during the week of 27 Oct (because violations occurred
> during that week) converted into an open-ended obligation (CFJs
> 2120/2121) which could be deputised f
On Sun, 9 Nov 2014, omd wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 7:35 PM, Eritivus wrote:
> > I was relying on (what I believed to be) the fact that the obligation
> > to issue a Card during the week of 27 Oct (because violations occurred
> > during that week) converted into an open-ended obligation (CFJ
On Mon, 2014-11-10 at 00:44 +, omd wrote:
> You could have said so. :) But I don't think that works, because
> there was no Referee to be obligated at the time; the deputisation
> rule talks about hypothetical obligations, but the office
> hypothetically being filled at the time of deputisatio
On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 9:03 PM, Eritivus wrote:
> There is always the Referee (as an office), even when there is no
> officeholder. I believe the (real, not hypothetical) obligation was
> the office's, despite its vacancy. E.g. CFJ 2437?
For the record, if the obligation actually belonged to the
On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> CALLER'S ARGUMENTS
>
> It is unclear whether or not G submitted the Proposal: Defining
> Reasonable Review because e does not state that e submits the proposal.
Evidence: http://cfj.qoid.us/1647
13 matches
Mail list logo
