On Wed, 12 May 2010, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> You can stand up if you judge a disinterested case in the same message.
>
> Which means that the CotC can pretty much judge every case.
If e abuses it we can submit our cases as Interested. -G.
Wooble wrote:
> On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> You can stand up if you judge a disinterested case in the same message.
>
> Which means that the CotC can pretty much judge every case.
Until people start specifying a non-zero interest index and/or
submitting cases to the Ju
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> You can stand up if you judge a disinterested case in the same message.
Which means that the CotC can pretty much judge every case.
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 7:27 AM, Alex Smith
wrote:
> --- On Tue, 11/5/10, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> coppro wrote:
>> > I sit up.
>> ITYM "I stand up".
> Last I checked, players couldn't stand by announcement;
> has that changed? (However, given that we're apparently
> in an emergency session, it's unli
--- On Tue, 11/5/10, Ed Murphy wrote:
> coppro wrote:
> > I sit up.
> ITYM "I stand up".
Last I checked, players couldn't stand by announcement;
has that changed? (However, given that we're apparently
in an emergency session, it's unlikely to make much of a
difference given that the CFJ judging po
coppro wrote:
> I sit up.
ITYM "I stand up".
> I award myself two capacitors.
This should be reasonably unambiguous, as the only other CFJ you've
attempted to judge this month was 2790 (II=0) on the 4th.
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I interpreted it 'null-amend' as 'an amendment with no substantiative
> change', which would still be prohibited if it could exist.
Ah, I disagree with you on this point. Power Controls Mutability
explicitly does not prohibit an unsubstantive
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 9:26 AM, comex wrote:
> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 2:02 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>>> === CFJ 2797 (Interest Index = 0)
>>>
>>> If the proposal entitled "Reassign the name" passed, it would
>>> successfully null-amend a Rule with Powe
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 2:02 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> === CFJ 2797 (Interest Index = 0)
>>
>> If the proposal entitled "Reassign the name" passed, it would
>> successfully null-amend a Rule with Power> 1.7.
>>
>> ==
9 matches
Mail list logo
