On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 11:50:28 -0700 (PDT)
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Haven't made a list from latest Assessor's report. Only opt-out
> was aranea for specified vacation dates but those dates have passed
> (I think!)
Yes, those have long passed. However, I also probably won't have time
for judging fro
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I announced a couple months ago that I was defining "interested" by
> "voted at least once in the last couple weeks of Assessor's reports,
> and hasn't explicitly said they *weren't* interested." In other
> words, being interested enough to pl
On Tue, 21 Jul 2015, omd wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > no worries! I'll deputize to assign the CFJ if no one jumps into the
> > Arbitor role by tomorrow. -t.
>
> I'm willing to do it, but do you have a copy of the current state of
> your interested judge lis
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> no worries! I'll deputize to assign the CFJ if no one jumps into the
> Arbitor role by tomorrow. -t.
I'm willing to do it, but do you have a copy of the current state of
your interested judge list?
(t.?)
On Jul 21, 2015 14:01, "Kerim Aydin" wrote:
> no worries! I'll deputize to assign the CFJ if no one jumps into the
> Arbitor role by tomorrow. -t.
I'll revoke the proclamation if it turns out to be wrong.
-scshunt
On Tue, 21 Jul 2015, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 Jul 2015, Sean Hunt wrote:
> >> WHEREAS, new research indicates that Rule 106 in fact set the power
> >> Proposal 7448 to 4 prior to its taking effect;
> >
> > When an unproven counterfact
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jul 2015, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> WHEREAS, new research indicates that Rule 106 in fact set the power
>> Proposal 7448 to 4 prior to its taking effect;
>
> When an unproven counterfactual argument goes against the dominant
> current rec
On 06/01/2010 05:01 PM, comex wrote:
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 6:14 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
The Speaker is now woggle! All hail Speaker woggle!
I hail Speaker woggle.
I intend, without objection, to make Speaker woggle inactive (eir last
mess
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 6:14 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> The Speaker is now woggle! All hail Speaker woggle!
>
> I hail Speaker woggle.
>
> I intend, without objection, to make Speaker woggle inactive (eir last
> message to a forum was a month ag
On 05/29/2010 02:19 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 3:58 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
wrote:
On 29 May 2010 14:34, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 3:02 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn
wrote:
Okay, I come off hold. Maybe just until I'm out of office, but maybe longer.
You were
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 3:58 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
wrote:
> On 29 May 2010 14:34, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 3:02 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn
>> wrote:
>>> Okay, I come off hold. Maybe just until I'm out of office, but maybe longer.
>>
>> You weren't on hold. If you had been, you wo
On 29 May 2010 14:34, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 3:02 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn
> wrote:
>> Okay, I come off hold. Maybe just until I'm out of office, but maybe longer.
>
> You weren't on hold. If you had been, you wouldn't have been eligible
> to be Speaker at all.
>
> However, i
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 3:02 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn
wrote:
> Okay, I come off hold. Maybe just until I'm out of office, but maybe longer.
You weren't on hold. If you had been, you wouldn't have been eligible
to be Speaker at all.
However, it's fairly unlikely you're actually Speaker despite being
On Sun, 2010-04-25 at 15:39 -0400, comex wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> > Each player who satisfied the Winning Condition of Dictatorship
> > on or before 15 Mar 2010 00:00:00 UTC thereby won the game at
> > most once, at the first moment at which e satisfied that
coppro wrote:
> On 04/25/2010 11:40 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>Each player who satisfied the Winning Condition of Clout
>>on or before 15 Mar 2010 00:00:00 UTC thereby won the game at
>>most once, at the first moment at which e satisfied that Winning
>>Condition and did not satisfy any
On 04/25/2010 01:39 PM, comex wrote:
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
Each player who satisfied the Winning Condition of Dictatorship
on or before 15 Mar 2010 00:00:00 UTC thereby won the game at
most once, at the first moment at which e satisfied that Winning
Condition
On 04/25/2010 11:40 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
Each player who satisfied the Winning Condition of Clout
on or before 15 Mar 2010 00:00:00 UTC thereby won the game at
most once, at the first moment at which e satisfied that Winning
Condition and did not satisfy any Losing Conditions.
[
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Each player who satisfied the Winning Condition of Dictatorship
> on or before 15 Mar 2010 00:00:00 UTC thereby won the game at
> most once, at the first moment at which e satisfied that Winning
> Condition and did not satisfy any Losing Cond
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> It destroys the ribbons, but it doesn't explicitly turn off the
> Winning Condition. R2186(b) does /now/, but only since it was
> fixed last month. But, hmm, there was another proposal that
> deactivated Winning Conditions as a one-off; can som
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Re-reading Rule 2186, I think the second paragraph has to be
> interpreted as "When [it becomes true that] one or more persons...",
> or else the players who satisfied Renaissance would thereafter win
> at *each moment* during which they didn't
On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 11:26 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> coppro wrote:
>
>> On 04/16/2010 03:31 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>>> As Herald of this grand and mighty Nomic, Iy do hearby proclame that
>>> Murphy haft won the Game by Renaissance, as was Todaye declared by Judge
>>> Comex inne the Nayme of owr Cou
21 matches
Mail list logo
