On Thu, 13 Sep 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
1. The Parliamentary Tradition: "Without Objection" has more dangerous
consequences than win by Apathy (e.g. Ruleset changes). In a legislature,
if you mumbled "any objections?" so only you could hear it, then said
"with no objections I proceed", it would
>>> For what it's worth, I think the only potential reason this could fail
is that it doesn't actually use the word "intend”
I think “plan” is sufficiently synonymous with “intend”, especially because
I expressly invoked the “method” of Rule 1728(1) (that is, the
without-objection-intent method).
On Thu, 2018-09-13 at 13:42 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> I'm G., not Aris (I should remember to sign things, sorry!) :)
>
> I'll add that this covers two very different "good of the game" sort of
> questions for the judge to consider:
>
> 1. The Parliamentary Tradition: "Without Objection" has
Very sorry for misnaming you, G. :-)
Further responses:
>>> I wrote it but initially edited out - it's "reasonably" clear,
but there are other (1)'s in 1728, and I'm also writing after the
fact (when Without Objection has been mentioned), so it may not
be "unambiguously" clear.
The announcement
On Thursday, September 13, 2018 9:22 PM, Kerim Aydin
wrote:
> Working fine for me, but this happened to me 2 months ago and it turned out
> the Agoranomic
> had magically set my preferences on the mailing list info to turn off
> delivery. I think
> that happened to a couple others too, so check
Working fine for me, but this happened to me 2 months ago and it turned out the
Agoranomic
had magically set my preferences on the mailing list info to turn off delivery.
I think
that happened to a couple others too, so check preferences.
On a related note, is there a reason that replying to
Oh, but I did get this one. How bizarre.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Thursday, September 13, 2018 9:15 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey
wrote:
> Just wanted to mention that I haven't actually received copies of any of my
> own messages, to any forum, today - the most recent one was "Re: BU
Just wanted to mention that I haven't actually received copies of any of my own
messages, to any forum, today - the most recent one was "Re: BUS: Land stuff"
yesterday, when I moved to (-2, 2). I have received everyone else's messages,
though. Anyone else having the same thing happen?
-twg
:) Thought you might be pulling our legs, but also realized it hadn't come up
lately so I thought I'd mention the Bad Form thing for people in general.
If I were really concerned, and it was a time issue, I might call the second
CFJ before you delivered the first answer. The judgements would
Oh, I mostly just did that because I thought it was mildly amusing. I'm not
actually expecting it to get through without the required number of objections
(or, indeed, for the CFJ to go 4 days without Murphy assigning it to a
different judge).
Though if I _did_ do that, would it not be more eff
I also object
On Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 14:39 Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> Point of order: You are replying to G., not to Aris.
>
> I favour the CFJ initiated by G. earlier in this thread and intend to
> assign it to myself Without 3 Objections, just in case anyone isn't paying
> attention...
>
> -twg
I'm G., not Aris (I should remember to sign things, sorry!) :)
I'll add that this covers two very different "good of the game" sort of
questions for the judge to consider:
1. The Parliamentary Tradition: "Without Objection" has more dangerous
consequences than win by Apathy (e.g. Ruleset chan
Arg! Sorry :-)
On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 4:39 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> Point of order: You are replying to G., not to Aris.
>
> I favour the CFJ initiated by G. earlier in this thread and intend to
> assign it to myself Without 3 Objections, just in case anyone isn't paying
> attention...
>
>
:-D
>From Aris:
>
> And very specifically, in the above, you must be "(including the value of
> N and/or T for each method)". In eir announcement of intent, e refers to
> 1728(1) which is "without N Objections", and e didn't specify that N=1.
> While "without objection" is "shorthand" for 1, 1 i
14 matches
Mail list logo
