Nah that was probably just a fake assertion that's pretty wrong, actually.
It's probably fine.
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 8:10 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 20 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> > o: "cool cool, everything is completely fine *cries*"
> >
> > I think if that rule were interpreted as
On Mon, 20 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> o: "cool cool, everything is completely fine *cries*"
>
> I think if that rule were interpreted as written: to ban any action not
> explicitly specified, it would break a whole lot of things.
The current case aside, what else would it break?
Keep in mind,
On reflection, I think we're fine. I'm going to wait for comments,
but then I'll file a Motion and add the following to my judgement:
The way the Duel is written, "remit" could mean just "quit" but
also "return the funds" (two very different meanings of the word
"remit"). So it's a perfectly v
o: "cool cool, everything is completely fine *cries*"
I think if that rule were interpreted as written: to ban any action not
explicitly specified, it would break a whole lot of things.
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 7:53 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 19 Nov 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > Unfort
On Sun, 19 Nov 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Unfortunately for the cleverness of the rule, I find that Rule 2166 is
> explicit in defining “pay” as transferring “to another entity”. So, “to
> pay” without a recipient isn’t a mechanism explicitly defined in the
> rules. This may have worked in the
5 matches
Mail list logo
