On Sun, 16 Sep 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> Well (2) would be appropriate, but I think (1) is irrelevant until an actual
> reward action happens. Also, I don't think any of this information is
> self-ratifying regardless - I see nothing in the rules and vaguely recall that
> the Herald's stuff
On Sat, 15 Sep 2018, D Margaux wrote:
I think the Herald must timely award the patent title Champion after a
victory per Rule 649:
“... A person permitted and enabled to award (revoke) a Patent Title
SHALL do so in a timely fashion after the conditions authorizing em to
do so are announced,
I think the Herald must timely award the patent title Champion after a victory
per Rule 649:
“... A person permitted and enabled to award (revoke) a Patent Title SHALL do
so in a timely fashion after the conditions authorizing em to do so are
announced, unless there is an open judicial case con
On Sat, 15 Sep 2018, D Margaux wrote:
I CoE this Monthly Report on the ground that twg and I won by Apathy
I don't think this CoE is correct, because Champion is not automatically
awarded and the Herald isn't required to report wins per se.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
This seems to be an argument for replacing (or complementing) "clear" by
"unobfuscated" in the relevant rule text.
Huh, actually, a leading definition of "obfuscated" is "unclear":
'obfuscate: render obscure, u
Fair enough. Note that Trigon's objection was NttPF so there are still only 2
objections.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Saturday, September 15, 2018 6:04 PM, D Margaux
wrote:
> I also object to twg’s stated intent. I know it’s meant in jest, but no
> need to have the intent still
6 matches
Mail list logo