On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 8:46 PM James Cook wrote:
> On Wed, 15 May 2019 at 20:22, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
> wrote:
> > Translated to English, this states that the email should not be
> > considered valid if the Subject fail was modified in transit. Of
> > course, the Subject of the email
On Wed, 15 May 2019 at 20:22, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
wrote:
> Translated to English, this states that the email should not be
> considered valid if the Subject fail was modified in transit. Of
> course, the Subject of the email actually was modified (by the list
> software, inserting the BAK:),
it's to be found in rule 217.
On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 1:25 PM James Cook wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 at 05:49, Rebecca wrote:
> > I suspect that the text is
> > not clear and therefore the four-part test must be applied.
>
> What's the four-part test?
>
--
>From V.J. Rada
On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 at 06:06, omd wrote:
> Sorry about this! Despite the "Attn omd" in the subject, my eyes saw
> the "DIS:" and jumped over the rest; I was putting off reading Agora
> list messages so I didn't see it until now. (Even though you also
> added me directly as a recipient, Gmail
On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 at 05:49, Rebecca wrote:
> I suspect that the text is
> not clear and therefore the four-part test must be applied.
What's the four-part test?
On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 7:36 AM Jason Cobb wrote:
> Given that Rule 2221 ("Cleanliness") permits correcting the
> capitalization of a rule, would that, for example, permit changing a
> rule from saying "shall" to "SHALL" (or vice versa)?
>
> Note: I'm not planning anything, the question just
On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 at 03:27, James Cook wrote:
> Having established that, here is the hypothetical timeline:
>
> * D. Margaux publishes correct Astronomor and Clork reports.
> * omd Points eir Finger at D. Margaux for publishing inaccurate
> information in those reports.
> * D. Margaux
From the beginning, this issue was always going to become a CFJ. I’m not an
interested party in the outcome, in the sense that the decision doesn’t give me
any particular benefit in the game. And the caller of the CFJ isn’t appealing
my reasoning, but instead agrees with it.
I did give my
I’m not sure how I feel about assigning you an appeal against your own
reasoning. I generally intend to respect the favoring of cases, but I'm not
sure that it's appropriate in this instance.
-Aris
On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 7:45 AM D. Margaux wrote:
> I favour this CFJ
>
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at
I favour this CFJ
On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 1:49 AM Rebecca wrote:
> This is an interesting case. Although I believe that the best reading of
> the rule holds all players liable, I call for judgement on the following
> question, barring Aris
> {If no player activates Rule 2596 'The Ritual' in a
Given that Rule 2221 ("Cleanliness") permits correcting the
capitalization of a rule, would that, for example, permit changing a
rule from saying "shall" to "SHALL" (or vice versa)?
Note: I'm not planning anything, the question just crossed my mind.
--
Jason Cobb
Sorry for my lack of participation in recent events. Here's why in a
nutshell:
recent events
-- --
-- --
- my -
head
|
|
/ \
On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 at 02:09, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> [Also: good to see you in the game again Walker, and welcome Jason Cobb!]
Thanks G., and good to see you're still around!
--
Walker
Never mind, this was really 36_6_4.
On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 8:22 PM Rebecca wrote:
> Okay, there are two CFJ 3644s. This one and the one regarding Humiliating
> Public Reminders (which appears as an Annotation in the FLR). Was this
> resolved?
>
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 9:24 PM Timon
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 9:15 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> As a person, you possess one and exactly one Citizenship switch. Sending
> messages from fake emails stating intent to register when you already
> have registered would not change the value of your personal Citizenship
> switch.
For some fun
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 8:21 PM Rebecca wrote:
>
> We do interestingly have a clause that says "The Rules SHALL NOT be
> interpreted
> so as to proscribe unregulated actions.". I suppose under my
> interpretation, anyone who so interprets the rules in any circumstance will
> be criminally liable,
On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 6:54 PM James Cook wrote:
> When I try to load https://mailman.agoranomic.org/, I see a certificate error:
Sorry about this! Despite the "Attn omd" in the subject, my eyes saw
the "DIS:" and jumped over the rest; I was putting off reading Agora
list messages so I didn't
17 matches
Mail list logo
