H. Caller ais523, would you like to make any gratuitous arguments as
to why the Court should rule that the text in question ("appropriate
for...") is not merely advisory?On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote: > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2860 > > ============== Criminal Case 2860 (Interest Index = 0) =============== > > omd violated the power-3 rule 2201 by making an inappropriate > Claim of Error, because the nature of the doubt is a matter of > legal interpretation rather than of fact. > > ======================================================================== > > Caller: ais523 > Barred: omd > > Judge: Taral > Judgement: > > ======================================================================== > > History: > > Called by ais523: 12 Sep 2010 19:30:29 GMT > Assigned to Taral: (as of this message) > > ======================================================================== > > Caller's Arguments: > > On Sun, 2010-09-12 at 12:21 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: >> ais523 wrote: >> >> > On Sun, 2010-09-12 at 14:46 -0400, omd wrote: >> >> On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Alex Smith <ais...@bham.ac.uk> wrote: >> >>> I pay a fee to make Distributed Proposal 6830 distributable. >> >> >> >> CoE: You don't have sufficient ergs to perform the action because >> >> performing the action is impossible because it doesn't have an >> >> instance of the Distributability switch. >> > >> > NoV: omd violated the power-3 rule 2201 by making an inappropriate Claim >> > of Error, because the nature of the doubt is a matter of legal >> > interpretation rather than of fact. (This NoV may fail on the basis that >> > "inappropriate" != "illegal", but I can't think of any more sensible >> > interpretation there; "impossible" seems rather implausible.) >> >> I contest this NoV, as "inappropriate" is not explicitly defined as >> illegal, here or anywhere else. It /is/ explicitly defined as >> >> 1) SHOULD NOT, for judgements. (As long as the judge reasonably >> believed eir judgement was appropriate - which e pretty much always >> did - any criminal case would be NOT GUILTY by R1504(d) and/or (e) >> anyway, so allowing such cases at all was generally agreed to be >> more annoying than it was worth.) >> >> 2) CANNOT, in Rule 2288 (Induction), when allowing a player to >> voluntarily perform an action using a higher dependent-action >> threshold than required by the rules. > > ======================================================================== > -- Taral <tar...@gmail.com> "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you." -- Unknown
