On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> I thought it had been determined as part of game custom by now that 4
> days is exactly the length of time required to establish
> notice-to-all-players
Oh, there's one big piece of evidence that slipped my mind. For over
a year in 2011-2012,
On Tue, 30 Sep 2014, omd wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > From my hazy memory, "4 days" was found in an 2002-2003 era judgement to
> > be the shortest time you would reasonably expect someone to respond to
> > something, on the grounds of "you should be able to le
On Tue, 2014-09-30 at 18:47 -0400, omd wrote:
> > Another counterargument: G. posted a message to Agora within the 4 day
> > limit, but not between when you posted the intent and when you tried to
> > resolve it. It's entirely possible e only started actively reading Agora
> > as a result of the re
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 6:42 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> Counterargument: Sprocklem is probably not actively reading the lists.
> I'd explictly attempted to draw eir attention to my intent, but e seemed
> to be offline. Thus, it's entirely possible that a) Sprocklem was
> unaware of the intent, b) Spr
On Tue, 2014-09-30 at 18:33 -0400, omd wrote:
> Those who aren't won't, but they might take
> a week or month to show up, or never do so at all before being
> deregistered for inactivity...
Counterargument: Sprocklem is probably not actively reading the lists.
I'd explictly attempted to draw eir a
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> From my hazy memory, "4 days" was found in an 2002-2003 era judgement to
> be the shortest time you would reasonably expect someone to respond to
> something, on the grounds of "you should be able to leave Agora for a
> weekend at the very leas
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> If we assume that "a reasonably public process" is an objective
> standard that does not depend on the context (such as when the notice
> is given, or the nature of the content of the proposed change),
> perhaps notwithstanding holidays, then the
On Tue, 30 Sep 2014, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-09-30 at 14:00 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > Of if you prefer older history, Lindrum judged "3 minutes" or so as long
> > enough to provide for reasonable public review of the Lindrum World
> > judgement, before e declared that it had worked
On Tue, 30 Sep 2014, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Maybe at the same time, and maybe later, it was loosely linked to the
> "4 Days" of w/o objection, but I don't know if that was just discussion,
> a judgement, or what.
It occurs to me that:
1. The last time we seriously adjudicated this issue, "With
On Tue, 2014-09-30 at 14:00 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Of if you prefer older history, Lindrum judged "3 minutes" or so as long
> enough to provide for reasonable public review of the Lindrum World
> judgement, before e declared that it had worked. -G.
Was that genuinely believed to have worke
On Tue, 30 Sep 2014, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> From my hazy memory, "4 days" was found in an 2002-2003 era judgement to
> be the shortest time you would reasonably expect someone to respond to
> something, on the grounds of "you should be able to leave Agora for a
> weekend at the very least." (I rem
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 4:06 PM, omd wrote:
> I contest the idea that a term such as "a reasonably public process"
> could be interpreted as equivalent to an exact number of hours, as
> opposed to looking at the circumstances of each case.
>
> Also, I don't think there has ever been a case where t
On Tue, 30 Sep 2014, omd wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> > Gratuitous arguments:
> >
> > I thought it had been determined as part of game custom by now that 4
> > days is exactly the length of time required to establish
> > notice-to-all-players; I implicitly assume
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> Gratuitous arguments:
>
> I thought it had been determined as part of game custom by now that 4
> days is exactly the length of time required to establish
> notice-to-all-players; I implicitly assumed it was the case, and it's
> also the case in
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 3:36 PM, omd wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
>> You're a few hours too early.
>
> I know.
>
> CFJ: Rule 2437 contains the text "omd CAN cause this rule to amend
> itself by announcement."
As evidence, I submit the only bits of discussion I coul
15 matches
Mail list logo
