Wooble wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 12:00 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 11:58 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I also support this.
>> With the support to root and Goethe, I appeal the judgment in CFJ 2213.
>
> (This probably failed since I
ais523 wrote:
> Ah, so you think "may"="CAN" in one rule and "may"="MAY" in the other? I
> think that interpretation leads to many even worse scams; it would, for
> instance, allow me to get the Monster to do anything I liked that was
> legal, whether possible or not. (In particular, the ID-number
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008, ais523 wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 09:25 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> I intend to continue being vaguely sloppy about this sort of thing,
>> as a standing object lesson to initiators who forget to disqualify.
> The problem being that comex probably didn't want to disqualify in
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008, ais523 wrote:
> Hmm... I support this. Ideally I'd like an appeals panel to look at it
> and AFFIRM the judgement, so that it's been looked at by someone who
> isn't interested, but if I end up on the appeals panel I'll be
> REASSIGNing for obvious reasons. I think the judgemen
On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 09:25 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> I intend to continue being vaguely sloppy about this sort of thing,
> as a standing object lesson to initiators who forget to disqualify.
The problem being that comex probably didn't want to disqualify in this
case.
Hmm... maybe people should b
root wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 9:58 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I also support this.
>
> By the way, I think ais523's judgement is reasonable; I'm only
> supporting this on the grounds that e really shouldn't have been
> assigned to it in the first place.
I was thinking tha
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008, ais523 wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 10:07 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 10:02 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Well, I did address them during the converation, and Wooble withdrew eir
>>> intent as a result, so the support has no effect.
>>
>> Sur
On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 10:07 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 10:02 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Well, I did address them during the converation, and Wooble withdrew eir
> > intent as a result, so the support has no effect.
>
> Sure it does. What matters is whether Goe
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 10:02 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, I did address them during the converation, and Wooble withdrew eir
> intent as a result, so the support has no effect.
Sure it does. What matters is whether Goethe announces that e
supports it, not the validity of eir reas
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 10:01 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 12:00 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 11:58 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I also support this.
>>
>> With the support to root and Goethe, I appe
On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 08:56 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Oct 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 7:43 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> The Mad Scientist CAN act on behalf of
> >>> the Monster to take any action that the Monster may take, and
> >
>
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 9:58 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I also support this.
By the way, I think ais523's judgement is reasonable; I'm only
supporting this on the grounds that e really shouldn't have been
assigned to it in the first place.
-root
On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 15:06 +0100, ehird wrote:
> On 9 Oct 2008, at 14:59, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> > I withdraw my intent to appeal, and submit the following proposal:
> > Whereas these rules serve only to further scams,
> > Rules 2192 and 2193 are hereby repealed.
>
> They are used fo
On 9 Oct 2008, at 14:59, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
I withdraw my intent to appeal, and submit the following proposal:
Whereas these rules serve only to further scams,
Rules 2192 and 2193 are hereby repealed.
--Wooble
They are used for scams != they are only for scams
--
ehird
On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 09:38 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 9:21 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Ah, so you think "may"="CAN" in one rule and "may"="MAY" in the other? I
> > think that interpretation leads to many even worse scams; it would, for
> > instance, allow m
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 9:21 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ah, so you think "may"="CAN" in one rule and "may"="MAY" in the other? I
> think that interpretation leads to many even worse scams; it would, for
> instance, allow me to get the Monster to do anything I liked that was
> legal, whe
On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 09:17 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 9:09 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So, in other words, the Monster may change the rules, and so I CAN
> > change the rules, but I may not change the rules so R101(i) says I can't
> > change the rules after
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 9:09 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, in other words, the Monster may change the rules, and so I CAN
> change the rules, but I may not change the rules so R101(i) says I can't
> change the rules after all? I'm not entirely certain I follow that
> logic, or that it
On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 14:09 +0100, ais523 wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 09:06 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 8:51 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > It's an action it "may" take, lowercase "may". Lowercase "may" is also
> > > used in the rule that allows the Mad S
On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 09:06 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 8:51 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It's an action it "may" take, lowercase "may". Lowercase "may" is also
> > used in the rule that allows the Mad Scientist to act on behalf of the
> > Monster, so it's a m
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 8:51 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's an action it "may" take, lowercase "may". Lowercase "may" is also
> used in the rule that allows the Mad Scientist to act on behalf of the
> Monster, so it's a match.
"may" should be taken to mean "permitted", not "able to",
On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 08:45 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 7:43 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> The Mad Scientist CAN act on behalf of
> >> the Monster to take any action that the Monster may take, and
>
> > I judge CFJ 2213 TRUE.
>
> I intend, with 2
22 matches
Mail list logo
