Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE

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: >>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE

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

DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE

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,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE

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