yea i intentionally used both names all the time to confuse people
On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 2:25 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Next time, just try to communicate a bit more clearly. :)
>
> Notice of Honor:
> -1 G. (unclear communication)
> +1 omd (serving as our
I think we're just interpreting things differently: when a proposal is
"added back" to the proposal pool, you give it the priority of its original
number, while I was assuming that if other proposals were added to the
pool in the mean time, those should have priority.
In this case, it turned
On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> I object. You’ve just stated that you have a strong personal opinion.
Whether or not I judge this, I'm open to discussion and changing my first
impression.
(Obviously I can't make you not object, but using "expressing an opinion"
as a reason
On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 8:28 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 24 Sep 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> > On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> >
> > > I vote, and act on behalf as Tenaior to vote, as follows:
> >
> > Not that it matters, but it's "Telnaior".
>
> It matters if people are
Heh. This sure is a Pandora's Box I've opened up.
On Sep 23, 2018 21:28, "Kerim Aydin" wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
>
> > I vote, and act on behalf as Tenaior to vote, as follows:
>
> Not that it matters, but it's "Telnaior".
On Mon, 24 Sep 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
>
> > I vote, and act on behalf as Tenaior to vote, as follows:
>
> Not that it matters, but it's "Telnaior".
It matters if people are claiming that D. Margaux and D Margaux are
somehow different
On Mon, 24 Sep 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> > 2. In R2510, clause (2) and clause (3) somehow got reversed, in that the
> > "other" in clause (2) is meant to refer to the fact that it can't be the
> > same entity as in clause (3). Does the "other"
On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
2. In R2510, clause (2) and clause (3) somehow got reversed, in that the
"other" in clause (2) is meant to refer to the fact that it can't be the
same entity as in clause (3). Does the "other" mean anything with that
reversal?
Um no, it's meant to
I will challenge/CoE the counting of any vote done in this matter.
It is wholly unreasonable (beyond the bounds of clarity) to require
persons to look back at past decisions to see what vote was cast.
(public voting should communicate not just with the assessor, but
with everyone).
On Sun, 23
Two gratuitous arguments:
1. CFJ 3657 found that the +1 and -1 are simultaneous:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2018-September/039083.html
2. In R2510, clause (2) and clause (3) somehow got reversed, in that the
"other" in clause (2) is meant to refer
CFJ 1361 ("Beverly") is quite relevant here.
On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Sun, 2018-09-23 at 14:02 -0600, Reuben Staley wrote:
> > Therefore, "D. Margaux" and "D Margaux" refer to the same person, a
> > person who registered during April of this year.
> >
> > This ends my
On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 6:00 PM Ørjan Johansen wrote:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
[This is an informal general definition that is helpful for proposals
added again to the pool. The Assessor already has this information,
which means
On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 6:00 PM Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
>
> > [This is an informal general definition that is helpful for proposals
> > added again to the pool. The Assessor already has this information,
> > which means that it's legal under past
On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
I vote, and act on behalf as Tenaior to vote, as follows:
Not that it matters, but it's "Telnaior".
Greetings,
Ørjan.
On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
[This is an informal general definition that is helpful for proposals
added again to the pool. The Assessor already has this information,
which means that it's legal under past precedent to cast a vote that
requires em to retrieve it.]
The obvious
On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Edward Murphy wrote:
Open cases (CFJs)
-
3645 called by Aris 20 June 2018, assigned to V.J. Rada 26 August 2018:
"G. has satisfied eir weekly obligation with regard to the FLR and SLR."
3648 called by G. 24 June 2018, assigned to V.J. Rada 26 August 2018:
On Sun, 2018-09-23 at 13:45 -0700, Edward Murphy wrote:
> This is CFJ 3662. I assign it to D. Margaux.
Doesn't this assignment have the same (alleged) ambiguity in it as the
event that's the subject of the CFJ?
--
ais523
On Sun, 2018-09-23 at 16:09 -0400, D Margaux wrote:
> I favor this CFJ. I suppose I am an interested party, but the general
> principle is more important than its application in this particular
> Notice of Honour.
I don't think there's a conflict of interest. Either it's valid and
your honour
I favor this CFJ. I suppose I am an interested party, but the general
principle is more important than its application in this particular Notice
of Honour.
On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 4:03 PM Reuben Staley
wrote:
> PF
>
> On Sun, Sep 23, 2018, 14:02 Reuben Staley wrote:
>
> > I submit this
On Sun, 2018-09-23 at 14:02 -0600, Reuben Staley wrote:
> Therefore, "D. Margaux" and "D Margaux" refer to the same person, a
> person who registered during April of this year.
>
> This ends my arguments for a frivolous CFJ. I probably did something
> wrong.
Our precedent is basically that
I submit this notice of honor:
-1 to D. Margaux for being a manipulator
+1 to D Margaux for helping debug zombie rules
I call a CFJ: This Notice of Honour causes a player's karma to change by
exactly one and then change back.
Arguments: In standard English, initials can be spelled with periods
Huh. I agree that our usual Agoran method of interpretation would be
(most likely) to treat this literally (i.e. broken).
On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, D Margaux wrote:
> I noticed an issue with the Points proposal.
>
> >> For a player to 'lose' a point is for it to be destroyed (if e has one).
>
I noticed an issue with the Points proposal.
>> For a player to 'lose' a point is for it to be destroyed (if e has one).
There’s a possible bug here. It should say “if e has any,” otherwise (taken
literally) a player can lose points only when e has a single point left
(“one”).
On Sun, Sep 23,
yes
On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> You do realize that, legally, the arguments aren't really part of the
> judgement?
>
> -Aris
> On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 12:01 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I (self-) file a motion to reconsider CFJ 3568. -G.
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 16 Sep
This message has no effect whatsoever until I send it to the public forum.
---
TL;DR: To reiterate your vote on a proposal means to vote and have
your zombie vote the same way you did last time the voting on the
proposal was open.
As a general definition, let "I reiterate my vote on X", where X
You do realize that, legally, the arguments aren't really part of the
judgement?
-Aris
On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 12:01 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> I (self-) file a motion to reconsider CFJ 3568. -G.
>
>
> On Sun, 16 Sep 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > [
> > I got bogged down on this and wrote some
This is the draft for all new proposals. Comments and corrections are,
as always, appreciated.
-Aris
---
I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor,
27 matches
Mail list logo
