Oh gosh, I'd completely forgot about that. If anyone else forgets the context,
Rule 105 said (and still says) that "A repealed rule... MUST be reenacted with
the same ID number" - i.e. all repealed rules are guilty of not being reenacted.
If nobody's up for rephrasing it, I think we should at
On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 at 23:01, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> Also, CFJ: "Rule 2571 is guilty of violating Rule 105." This is not really
> relevant in the scheme of things, I just want it to show up in G.'s CFJ
> history to bewilder future historians.
Did this ever get judged? I can't find any more
On Thursday, February 14, 2019 12:16 AM, D. Margaux
wrote:
> So, under this language if you believe no rule violation occurred, I think
> you MUST declare shenanigans. Right?
Yes, and I did!
On Thursday, February 14, 2019 12:27 AM, D. Margaux
wrote:
> Wait... hmm... so you’re saying it’s
Wait... hmm... so you’re saying it’s both shenanigans and you’re imposing a
fine for it? Can you do that? Weird!
> On Feb 13, 2019, at 7:16 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Feb 13, 2019, at 7:01 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>>
>> In this case, I believed no rule violation occurred.
> On Feb 13, 2019, at 7:01 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> In this case, I believed no rule violation occurred. Therefore I COULD, and
> did, announce Shenanigans regardless of whether or not a rule violation
> actually occurred, and doing so discharged my obligations under R2478. (It is
> On Feb 13, 2019, at 6:01 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> Neither of these interpretations imposes any obligation on any player to
> re-enact repealed rules. Therefore, for each player other than Gaelan, I
> announce the below-quoted Pointing of Gaelan's Finger at that player to be
>
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CQeezCdF4mk
On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 at 23:08, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> For each player, I point my finger at that player for failing to reenact
> rule 2452 (“Trust Tokens”) with the same ID number and the next change
> identifier, in violation of rule 105.
>
> Gaelan
>
>
First off, NttPF.
On 2/9/19 10:09 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
8161 Trigon, Ørjan 3.0 Extend "amend" and “reenact”
AGAINST, because “A repealed rule not in the ruleset identified by its most
recent rule number MUST be specified for reenactment” could be interpreted as
imposing an
Votes (and no intents to win by apathy this time) inline.
Gaelan
> On Feb 9, 2019, at 4:04 PM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>
> I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
> Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
> pool. For this decision, the vote
On Sat, 9 Feb 2019, Aris Merchant wrote:
//
ID: 8162
Title: No Contract Reporting Rewards
Adoption index: 2.0
Author: Telnaior
Co-authors: G.
Amend the phrase "Publishing a duty-fulfilling report" in Rule 2496
("Rewards") to
CoE: D. Margaux withdrew the Duumvirate proposal in this thread:
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg33451.html
On 2/9/19 5:04 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it
11 matches
Mail list logo
