As herald, I believe this has failed and these have been objected to,
and my reports will reflect this.
I suggest all players leave VJ Rada to call any CFJ otherwise, as the
burden of proof is on the scammer.
On Wed, 27 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> I resolve the fifteenth below intent.
>
> De
On 09/23/17 20:35, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>
>> This is Cuddlebeam-esque and I'm ashamed of myself. But I
>> will now copy and paste "Without objection, I intend to win by
>> apathy", until there is thousands of copies of that text, each of
>> which is a seper
On Sun, 24 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
assigned to _a_ judge, singular, implies or dictates only one judge at
once.
I don't think it does, especially in the context of the last part of the
sentence. It's perfectly readable as just an existential.
When a CFJ is open and assigned to a j
assigned to _a_ judge, singular, implies or dictates only one judge at once.
On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> And if there happen to ever to be two judges assigned to a case, the
>> following:
>>At any time, each CFJ is e
On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> And if there happen to ever to be two judges assigned to a case, the
> following:
>At any time, each CFJ is either open (default), suspended, or
>assigned exactly one judgement.
> says nothing about, if two judgements are delivered, if th
Interestingly, it doesn't say that assigning yourself the judge using
certiorari removes the previous judge from the case, or relieve the first
judge from the duty of delivering judgement.
There's no explicit indication I can find that cases can't have more than
one judge. The Arbitor doesn't
Yeah, it's for "open cases" not unassigned ones.
On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>> Oh sorry, I confused certiorari with the "without 3 objections" method in
>> R991.
>>
>> Folks, if someone end up wanting to call a CFJ on this,
On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Oh sorry, I confused certiorari with the "without 3 objections" method in R991.
Folks, if someone end up wanting to call a CFJ on this, make an Agency for me
with this exact purpose and I can have it called and assigned in the same
message.
You'll need
Oh sorry, I confused certiorari with the "without 3 objections" method in R991.
Folks, if someone end up wanting to call a CFJ on this, make an Agency for me
with this exact purpose and I can have it called and assigned in the same
message.
On Sun, 24 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> No no, I was jus
On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:
I have aimed to make this response as concise as possible.
我反对。我反对。
Like others, I'm doubtful that this works, but possibly for a different
reason.
Although you may have many enough "我反对"s, _each_ of them is an action
that is ambiguous as to which
No no, I was just saying what I want to do or will do. That was not a
formal statement of intent and it doesn't need to be.
On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>> I intend to use certiorari to
>> >> assign CFJs coming out of this to mysel
On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Quazie wrote:
To be honest - I only did it cuz I'm unsure if subject line only actions,
even if noted by the rules, even work.
I really cannot see why giving effect to subject lines shouldn't work when
a rule (2463) _explicitly_ mentions it.
I still don't think rule 246
On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
This is Cuddlebeam-esque and I'm ashamed of myself. But I
will now copy and paste "Without objection, I intend to win by
apathy", until there is thousands of copies of that text, each of
which is a seperate action. Under the precedent of several CFJs,
[snip
On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> I intend to use certiorari to
> >> assign CFJs coming out of this to myself.
A side note on this scam: this part is likely ineffective as "CFJs
coming out of this" does not (by R1729) "unambiguously and clearly
specify the action", because you're not referr
I copypasted his message and find-replaced.
Gaelan
> On Sep 23, 2017, at 2:49 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>
> If Gaelan has missed out at least one "I object", a win for VJ will slip
> through the cracks.
>
>> On Sat, 23 Sep 2017 at 23:34, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Owen
If Gaelan has missed out at least one "I object", a win for VJ will slip
through the cracks.
On Sat, 23 Sep 2017 at 23:34, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> > > On Sep 23, 2017, at 5:06 PM, Kerim Aydin
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > If you paste the basic 我反
On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> > On Sep 23, 2017, at 5:06 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > If you paste the basic 我反对。 string into Google translate, it auto-detects
> > Chinese
> > and spits out "I Object." It's pretty much as clear a translation as you
> > can get
> > i
> On Sep 23, 2017, at 5:06 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> If you paste the basic 我反对。 string into Google translate, it auto-detects
> Chinese
> and spits out "I Object." It's pretty much as clear a translation as you can
> get
> if you're going to allow that sort of thing at all.
That expl
I mean, I guess that's helpful, but I was mostly humoring Gaelan on em
questioning my remark about how I don't think VJ Rada's sentence is a
deceleration or successful action because "it doesn't jive with my
understanding of language which Agora recognizes" (especially since Agora
*doesn't* recogni
I agree it's just as reasonable either way - point is that you want stick
with a consistent interpretation, and the last time it came up, that was
the decision. Perfectly valid to propose an explicit clarifying line to
R478 and put it to a vote.
I would personally always forget to look for the
If you paste the basic 我反对。 string into Google translate, it auto-detects
Chinese
and spits out "I Object." It's pretty much as clear a translation as you can
get
if you're going to allow that sort of thing at all.
On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Josh T wrote:
> I can't quite explain it. Could you be s
Imo its pretty subjective because it's not standardized as other stuff. I
find it just as reasonable for them to count as not.
Maybe we could make a rule/sentence on what constitutes a valid message to
a-b.
On Sat, 23 Sep 2017 at 22:00, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrot
On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> I don't think the rules apply only to content within the body of an
> email: we already know the subject line counts in some cases. I don't
> see which rule contradicts the rules applying to the subject line. I
> do note that the rule does ask for Agoran Cons
I registered with a subject line, but that’s registration.
> On Sep 23, 2017, at 12:50 AM, VJ Rada wrote:
>
> I don't think the rules apply only to content within the body of an
> email: we already know the subject line counts in some cases. I don't
> see which rule contradicts the rules applying
I don't think the rules apply only to content within the body of an
email: we already know the subject line counts in some cases. I don't
see which rule contradicts the rules applying to the subject line. I
do note that the rule does ask for Agoran Consent (2 of it, even), so
you might need to note
This is Cuddlebeam-esque and I'm ashamed of myself. But I
will now copy and paste "Without objection, I intend to win by
apathy", until there is thousands of copies of that text, each of
which is a seperate action. Under the precedent of several CFJs,
shorthand actions do apply, but not when it is
26 matches
Mail list logo
