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,
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
Fascinating.
In US law, courts sometimes require a "clear statement" that the
legislature intended a particular outcome before it will interpret a
statute in a particular way. See, e.g., Seminole Tribe v. Florida,
517 U.S. 44 (1996) (rejecting a particular interpretation unless
congress "mak[es]
Followup after quick rules search: we use "clear" a heck of a lot in the
rules, for things we have varying standards for (and for which standards
have varied over time). It *may* be a pretty weak standard the way we're
currently using it, so maybe that's not a scam-killer.
On Fri, 14 Sep
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, unclear, or unintelligible.'
I don't
^serious challenge
-Aris
On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 12:39 AM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Whether or not this actually works, I think we all feel like it’s an
> unusually interesting and clever attempt, and it raises a serious to our
> current rules around clarity.
Whether or not this actually works, I think we all feel like it’s an
unusually interesting and clever attempt, and it raises a serious to our
current rules around clarity. If it didn’t work, what would people think of
awarding a win by proposal?
-Aris
On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 12:21 PM D Margaux
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
>>> 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"
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
:) 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
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...
>
>
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
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
17 matches
Mail list logo
