Re: [s-b] [s-d] Proposal: New Rule

[0x44 <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree to this determination.


-- 
0x44


On Friday, March 30, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Elliott Hird wrote:

> Oops, I forgot to include the text of the rules I used as evidence.
> Let's try this again.
> 
> On 30 March 2012 17:41, Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx (mailto:teucer@xxxxxxxxx)> wrote:
> > As there is no obvious restriction on the results of a CfD, I call for
> > determination on the Rules.
> > 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Evidence: Rule 22E4.3 (title "Determination", subrule of 22E4,
> "Resolution"), quoted here:
> 
> The participant with the Burden of Determination is then required to
> pass determination on the matter. The valid determinations are "Yes",
> "No", and "Maybe". If the matter to determine has no obvious answer
> along these lines (for instance, because it is not a coherent statement),
> then any answer is acceptable. Otherwise, the Burdenee should only
> make determinations they believe to be truthful.
> 
> If the Burdenee does not feel they are suitable to determine the matter
> at hand, they may recuse themselves. If no determination is made within
> 3 days, they are automatically recused. (See rule 22E4.5, "Recusing".)
> 
> > Then I do so again, because I'd be
> > disappointed if they hadn't changed in between these two sentences.
> > 
> 
> 
> No (same evidence as previous determination).
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-business mailing list
> spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx (mailto:spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx)
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business
> 
> 


_______________________________________________
spoon-business mailing list
spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business