Yeah, sorry. Right. I just needed to CoE though to stop self-ratification.
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 at 21:04 VJ Rada wrote:
>
>> A document is only doubted when there's a CoE or a CFJ specifically
>> identifying and disputing the document. A pendi
On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 at 21:04 VJ Rada wrote:
> A document is only doubted when there's a CoE or a CFJ specifically
> identifying and disputing the document. A pending CFJ from before a
> report does not dispute it.
>
No, but it's a reportor's responsibility and prerogative to interpret the
rules
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
You can either deny it or publish a revision. You should do neither,
but note that you will eventually have to choose one if the cfj isn't
judged w/in the next 7 days, which it won't be.
No, point 2.3 of rule 2201 allows em to cite an already existing CFJ.
A doubt is an explicit public challenge via one of the following
methods, identifying a document and explaining the scope and
nature of a perceived error in it:
1. An inquiry case, appropriate for questions of legal
interpretation.
2. A claim o
You can either deny it or publish a revision. You should do neither,
but note that you will eventually have to choose one if the cfj isn't
judged w/in the next 7 days, which it won't be.
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Telnaior wrote:
> I'm pretty sure I have to respond to this by saying this Co
A document is only doubted when there's a CoE or a CFJ specifically
identifying and disputing the document. A pending CFJ from before a
report does not dispute it.
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Madeline wrote:
> No, pending CFJ.
>
>
>
> On 2017-11-27 12:58, VJ Rada wrote:
>>
>> did you do the
No, pending CFJ.
On 2017-11-27 12:58, VJ Rada wrote:
did you do the ones where e used eir favours to bribe every
politician, even ones from other parties?
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Madeline wrote:
I did those.
On 2017-11-27 12:51, VJ Rada wrote:
um i meant aris's actions sure the
_>
On 11/26/2017 8:51 PM, VJ Rada wrote:
um i meant aris's actions sure they're basically the same person right?
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Madeline wrote:
Uh, which one are you referring to?
On 2017-11-27 12:45, VJ Rada wrote:
I don't think ATMunn's actions were super-conditiona
did you do the ones where e used eir favours to bribe every
politician, even ones from other parties?
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Madeline wrote:
> I did those.
>
>
>
> On 2017-11-27 12:51, VJ Rada wrote:
>>
>> um i meant aris's actions sure they're basically the same person right?
>>
>> On
I did those.
On 2017-11-27 12:51, VJ Rada wrote:
um i meant aris's actions sure they're basically the same person right?
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Madeline wrote:
Uh, which one are you referring to?
On 2017-11-27 12:45, VJ Rada wrote:
I don't think ATMunn's actions were super-con
um i meant aris's actions sure they're basically the same person right?
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Madeline wrote:
> Uh, which one are you referring to?
>
>
>
> On 2017-11-27 12:45, VJ Rada wrote:
>>
>> I don't think ATMunn's actions were super-conditional?
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12
Uh, which one are you referring to?
On 2017-11-27 12:45, VJ Rada wrote:
I don't think ATMunn's actions were super-conditional?
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Telnaior wrote:
The two mega-super-conditional actions I'm not gonna count barring a CFJ >_>
I award VJ Rada 3 NPR favours for bein
I don't think ATMunn's actions were super-conditional?
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Telnaior wrote:
> The two mega-super-conditional actions I'm not gonna count barring a CFJ >_>
> I award VJ Rada 3 NPR favours for being the Advisor of the Drunk.
> I award Aris 3 OOS favours for being the Ad
On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 7:25 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On Tue, 21 Nov 2017, ATMunn wrote:
> > > I (or anyone else, really) can invite you to the AgoraNomic GitHub org,
> > but
> > > from there it might be kind of difficult.
> >
> > Have I been invited?
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 7:25 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 21 Nov 2017, ATMunn wrote:
> > I (or anyone else, really) can invite you to the AgoraNomic GitHub org,
> but
> > from there it might be kind of difficult.
>
> Have I been invited? (kaydin).
>
> If I'm already got a github repo of t
On Tue, 21 Nov 2017, ATMunn wrote:
> I (or anyone else, really) can invite you to the AgoraNomic GitHub org, but
> from there it might be kind of difficult.
Have I been invited? (kaydin).
If I'm already got a github repo of the CFJ website up, is it simple matter
to have it show up as agoranom
I really had no idea what I was doing either. I mostly just copied stuff from
the old ADoP repo into a new one, changed some text, and had o help me with
confusing Git stuff. :P
On 11/21/2017 8:29 PM, Madeline wrote:
I would have absolutely no idea what I'm doing, so~
On 2017-11-22 12:25, AT
I would have absolutely no idea what I'm doing, so~
On 2017-11-22 12:25, ATMunn wrote:
I (or anyone else, really) can invite you to the AgoraNomic GitHub
org, but from there it might be kind of difficult.
You'd have to make your own repo for the Clork, make an index.md or
index.html file, an
I (or anyone else, really) can invite you to the AgoraNomic GitHub org, but
from there it might be kind of difficult.
You'd have to make your own repo for the Clork, make an index.md or index.html
file, and then fiddle around with submodules to get the header to work. (if you
do end up doing t
I'm not entirely sure what the deal is with getting my reports published
on the official website, but for now you can see my current upcoming
report over at
https://gist.github.com/Telnaior/9e4f8849878ec9c97eab18b9c7e9a6d9 if you
need to see the status of how things are right now.
On 2017-11
20 matches
Mail list logo