You can unsubscribe through the mailman system at agoranomic.org. On 11/27/2017 10:09 PM, Sawsan Gad wrote: > Please unsubscribe me for the list. Thank you. > > > > This email (including any attachments) may include information that is > confidential or privileged only for the designated recipient. If you are > not the designated recipient and reading the content of this message, your > activity is against the sender's will, and the sender reserves the right to > resort to legal action and seek compensation. If you have received it in > error, please delete it from your system without reading and notify sender. > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 10:06 PM, <agora-business-requ...@agoranomic.org> > wrote: > >> Send agora-business mailing list submissions to >> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ >> agora-business >> >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> agora-business-requ...@agoranomic.org >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> agora-business-ow...@agoranomic.org >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of agora-business digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. Re: CFJ: This time w/ passion (ATMunn) >> 2. [Arbitor] CFJ 3607 assigned to G. (and judged with help from >> ATMunn) (Kerim Aydin) >> 3. Re: [Arbitor] CFJ 3607 assigned to G. (and judged with help >> from ATMunn) (VJ Rada) >> 4. Re: [Arbitor] CFJ 3607 assigned to G. (and judged with help >> from ATMunn) (Kerim Aydin) >> 5. Re: [Arbitor] CFJ 3607 assigned to G. (and judged with help >> from ATMunn) (VJ Rada) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 22:02:26 -0500 >> From: ATMunn <iamingodsa...@gmail.com> >> To: agora-busin...@agoranomic.org >> Subject: Re: BUS: CFJ: This time w/ passion >> Message-ID: <311db3f6-d21d-8715-fb23-36a06621b...@gmail.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed >> >> On 11/27/2017 9:56 PM, Telnaior wrote: >>> (also barring the person who already wrote the judgement is kind of a >> jerk move) >> yeah, I was a kinda wondering why e did that >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 2 >> Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 19:02:39 -0800 (PST) >> From: Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> >> To: Agora Business <agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> >> Subject: BUS: [Arbitor] CFJ 3607 assigned to G. (and judged with help >> from ATMunn) >> Message-ID: >> <alpine.lrh.2.01.1711271902390.20...@hymn03.u.washington.edu> >> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII >> >> >> >> On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote: >>> I use AP to call a CFJ with the statement: The Door cannot be Slammed on >>> V.J. Rada. >>> >>> I bar ATMunn. >> I assign this CFJ to myself and number it 3607. >> >> [Note: I had not read the judgement in full and not really formed an >> opinion on the matter]. >> >> >> I judge CFJ 3607 as follows: >> >> [Note for the record: these arguments were written by ATMunn, who was >> the appropriate judge for this matter, as a matter of courtesy and >> precedent, whenever possible I respect the judgement of "first judges" >> on any matter until overturned. If a motion to reconsider is filed, >> I intend to give ATMunn the option to write a new opinion -the Arbitor] >> >> The Door CAN generally be Slammed on a player after a Black Card is >> awarded to em, provided that eir most recent deregistration took >> place with eir consent. >> >> Rule in question (2507): >> A Black Card is a card appropriate for a person who plays the >> game, not currently a player, who either broke the rules while not >> a player or broke them while a player and then deregistered in bad >> faith. A Black Card CANNOT be issued to current players, and no >> more than 3 Black Cards CAN be issued per week. Any attempt to >> issue a Black Card in violation of these limitations is >> INEFFECTIVE. >> When a Black Card is issued, as a penalty, within the next 7 days, >> any player CAN once, with Agoran Consent, Slam the Door at the bad >> sport. After the Door is Slammed at a person, e CANNOT register or >> take any game actions for 30 days, rules to the contrary >> notwithstanding. Any attempt to Slam the Door on a player or a >> person whose most recent deregistration took place without eir >> consent is INEFFECTIVE, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. >> >> The rule in question here (see above) clearly states that the Door CAN >> be slammed on a bad sport after e has had a Black Card issued to them. >> The problem then is, can it also be slammed on a player, as long as eir >> most recent deregistration took place with eir consent? >> >> This rule strictly states that Black Cards CANNOT be issued to players. >> Rule 2426 says that "It is inappropriate to award a card to a non-player >> person unless the rule defining the card says otherwise." The Black >> Cards rule certainly says otherwise, and "inappropriate" is not a >> binding term. So, it is IMPOSSIBLE to issue a Black Card to a current >> player. >> >> So, this arises the question: What if a Black Card was issued to a >> non-player person who then became a player? This is certainly possible, >> as long as the Door was not Slammed on em when they were a non-player. >> >> Now we must determine if the Door CAN be Slammed on a player, if that >> player managed to get a Black Card as a non-player and then registered >> within the last 7 days. Rule 2507 says that "any attempt to Slam the >> Door at a *player* or a person whose most recent deregistration took >> place without eir consent is INEFFECTIVE." The answer is right here. >> The rule specifically says a player or a person, so the Door CAN be >> Slammed on players. And, if it is IMPOSSIBLE to Slam the Door on >> someone if eir most recent deregistration took place without eir >> consent, then the reverse is true as well, and it is POSSIBLE to Slam >> the Door on a person whose most recent deregistration took place with >> eir consent. >> >> I judge CFJ 3607 TRUE. >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 3 >> Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 14:05:40 +1100 >> From: VJ Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> >> To: agora-busin...@agoranomic.org >> Subject: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] CFJ 3607 assigned to G. (and judged with >> help from ATMunn) >> Message-ID: >> <CAKNiX_ejmLEvWqvnMVeDZAJ_Yxv1Jj92LpdGa0HxNzabEugE_A@ >> mail.gmail.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" >> >> ttttpf >> >> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 2:05 PM, VJ Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I intend to file a motion to reconsider this CFJ, with 2 support. >>> >>> Arguments to follow. >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 2:02 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote: >>>>> I use AP to call a CFJ with the statement: The Door cannot be Slammed >> on >>>>> V.J. Rada. >>>>> >>>>> I bar ATMunn. >>>> I assign this CFJ to myself and number it 3607. >>>> >>>> [Note: I had not read the judgement in full and not really formed an >>>> opinion on the matter]. >>>> >>>> >>>> I judge CFJ 3607 as follows: >>>> >>>> [Note for the record: these arguments were written by ATMunn, who was >>>> the appropriate judge for this matter, as a matter of courtesy and >>>> precedent, whenever possible I respect the judgement of "first judges" >>>> on any matter until overturned. If a motion to reconsider is filed, >>>> I intend to give ATMunn the option to write a new opinion -the Arbitor] >>>> >>>> The Door CAN generally be Slammed on a player after a Black Card is >>>> awarded to em, provided that eir most recent deregistration took >>>> place with eir consent. >>>> >>>> Rule in question (2507): >>>> A Black Card is a card appropriate for a person who plays the >>>> game, not currently a player, who either broke the rules while not >>>> a player or broke them while a player and then deregistered in bad >>>> faith. A Black Card CANNOT be issued to current players, and no >>>> more than 3 Black Cards CAN be issued per week. Any attempt to >>>> issue a Black Card in violation of these limitations is >>>> INEFFECTIVE. >>>> When a Black Card is issued, as a penalty, within the next 7 >> days, >>>> any player CAN once, with Agoran Consent, Slam the Door at the bad >>>> sport. After the Door is Slammed at a person, e CANNOT register or >>>> take any game actions for 30 days, rules to the contrary >>>> notwithstanding. Any attempt to Slam the Door on a player or a >>>> person whose most recent deregistration took place without eir >>>> consent is INEFFECTIVE, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. >>>> >>>> The rule in question here (see above) clearly states that the Door CAN >>>> be slammed on a bad sport after e has had a Black Card issued to them. >>>> The problem then is, can it also be slammed on a player, as long as eir >>>> most recent deregistration took place with eir consent? >>>> >>>> This rule strictly states that Black Cards CANNOT be issued to players. >>>> Rule 2426 says that "It is inappropriate to award a card to a non-player >>>> person unless the rule defining the card says otherwise." The Black >>>> Cards rule certainly says otherwise, and "inappropriate" is not a >>>> binding term. So, it is IMPOSSIBLE to issue a Black Card to a current >>>> player. >>>> >>>> So, this arises the question: What if a Black Card was issued to a >>>> non-player person who then became a player? This is certainly possible, >>>> as long as the Door was not Slammed on em when they were a non-player. >>>> >>>> Now we must determine if the Door CAN be Slammed on a player, if that >>>> player managed to get a Black Card as a non-player and then registered >>>> within the last 7 days. Rule 2507 says that "any attempt to Slam the >>>> Door at a *player* or a person whose most recent deregistration took >>>> place without eir consent is INEFFECTIVE." The answer is right here. >>>> The rule specifically says a player or a person, so the Door CAN be >>>> Slammed on players. And, if it is IMPOSSIBLE to Slam the Door on >>>> someone if eir most recent deregistration took place without eir >>>> consent, then the reverse is true as well, and it is POSSIBLE to Slam >>>> the Door on a person whose most recent deregistration took place with >>>> eir consent. >>>> >>>> I judge CFJ 3607 TRUE. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> From V.J. Rada >>> >> >> >> -- >> >From V.J. Rada >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 4 >> Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 19:05:24 -0800 (PST) >> From: Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> >> To: Agora Business <agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> >> Subject: BUS: Re: [Arbitor] CFJ 3607 assigned to G. (and judged with >> help from ATMunn) >> Message-ID: >> <alpine.lrh.2.01.1711271905240.20...@hymn03.u.washington.edu> >> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII >> >> >> >> Oops, I didn't notice the reversal of direction in the statement. >> >> I self-file a Motion to Reconsider this CFJ. >> >> ATMunn, can I just change the last statement to FALSE, or is more >> massaging needed? If you want to submit an edited version, I will >> post that. >> >> >> On Mon, 27 Nov 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >>> >>> On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote: >>>> I use AP to call a CFJ with the statement: The Door cannot be Slammed >> on >>>> V.J. Rada. >>>> >>>> I bar ATMunn. >>> I assign this CFJ to myself and number it 3607. >>> >>> [Note: I had not read the judgement in full and not really formed an >>> opinion on the matter]. >>> >>> >>> I judge CFJ 3607 as follows: >>> >>> [Note for the record: these arguments were written by ATMunn, who was >>> the appropriate judge for this matter, as a matter of courtesy and >>> precedent, whenever possible I respect the judgement of "first judges" >>> on any matter until overturned. If a motion to reconsider is filed, >>> I intend to give ATMunn the option to write a new opinion -the Arbitor] >>> >>> The Door CAN generally be Slammed on a player after a Black Card is >>> awarded to em, provided that eir most recent deregistration took >>> place with eir consent. >>> >>> Rule in question (2507): >>> A Black Card is a card appropriate for a person who plays the >>> game, not currently a player, who either broke the rules while not >>> a player or broke them while a player and then deregistered in bad >>> faith. A Black Card CANNOT be issued to current players, and no >>> more than 3 Black Cards CAN be issued per week. Any attempt to >>> issue a Black Card in violation of these limitations is >>> INEFFECTIVE. >>> When a Black Card is issued, as a penalty, within the next 7 >> days, >>> any player CAN once, with Agoran Consent, Slam the Door at the bad >>> sport. After the Door is Slammed at a person, e CANNOT register or >>> take any game actions for 30 days, rules to the contrary >>> notwithstanding. Any attempt to Slam the Door on a player or a >>> person whose most recent deregistration took place without eir >>> consent is INEFFECTIVE, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. >>> >>> The rule in question here (see above) clearly states that the Door CAN >>> be slammed on a bad sport after e has had a Black Card issued to them. >>> The problem then is, can it also be slammed on a player, as long as eir >>> most recent deregistration took place with eir consent? >>> >>> This rule strictly states that Black Cards CANNOT be issued to players. >>> Rule 2426 says that "It is inappropriate to award a card to a non-player >>> person unless the rule defining the card says otherwise." The Black >>> Cards rule certainly says otherwise, and "inappropriate" is not a >>> binding term. So, it is IMPOSSIBLE to issue a Black Card to a current >>> player. >>> >>> So, this arises the question: What if a Black Card was issued to a >>> non-player person who then became a player? This is certainly possible, >>> as long as the Door was not Slammed on em when they were a non-player. >>> >>> Now we must determine if the Door CAN be Slammed on a player, if that >>> player managed to get a Black Card as a non-player and then registered >>> within the last 7 days. Rule 2507 says that "any attempt to Slam the >>> Door at a *player* or a person whose most recent deregistration took >>> place without eir consent is INEFFECTIVE." The answer is right here. >>> The rule specifically says a player or a person, so the Door CAN be >>> Slammed on players. And, if it is IMPOSSIBLE to Slam the Door on >>> someone if eir most recent deregistration took place without eir >>> consent, then the reverse is true as well, and it is POSSIBLE to Slam >>> the Door on a person whose most recent deregistration took place with >>> eir consent. >>> >>> I judge CFJ 3607 TRUE. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 5 >> Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 14:06:26 +1100 >> From: VJ Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> >> To: agora-busin...@agoranomic.org >> Subject: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] CFJ 3607 assigned to G. (and judged with >> help from ATMunn) >> Message-ID: >> <CAKNiX_fAEa4bVojDb0X-9smo4+O6zB0p4V2kevHwCgc1AZi3fg@mail. >> gmail.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" >> >> Actually, G, if the CFJ is TRUE, it's not a CFJ because I can't take game >> actions. So by judging this CFJ you've implicitly recognized that I can >> indeed take game actions. >> >> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 2:05 PM, VJ Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> ttttpf >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 2:05 PM, VJ Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I intend to file a motion to reconsider this CFJ, with 2 support. >>>> >>>> Arguments to follow. >>>> >>>> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 2:02 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote: >>>>>> I use AP to call a CFJ with the statement: The Door cannot be Slammed >>>>> on >>>>>> V.J. Rada. >>>>>> >>>>>> I bar ATMunn. >>>>> I assign this CFJ to myself and number it 3607. >>>>> >>>>> [Note: I had not read the judgement in full and not really formed an >>>>> opinion on the matter]. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I judge CFJ 3607 as follows: >>>>> >>>>> [Note for the record: these arguments were written by ATMunn, who was >>>>> the appropriate judge for this matter, as a matter of courtesy and >>>>> precedent, whenever possible I respect the judgement of "first judges" >>>>> on any matter until overturned. If a motion to reconsider is filed, >>>>> I intend to give ATMunn the option to write a new opinion -the Arbitor] >>>>> >>>>> The Door CAN generally be Slammed on a player after a Black Card is >>>>> awarded to em, provided that eir most recent deregistration took >>>>> place with eir consent. >>>>> >>>>> Rule in question (2507): >>>>> A Black Card is a card appropriate for a person who plays the >>>>> game, not currently a player, who either broke the rules while not >>>>> a player or broke them while a player and then deregistered in bad >>>>> faith. A Black Card CANNOT be issued to current players, and no >>>>> more than 3 Black Cards CAN be issued per week. Any attempt to >>>>> issue a Black Card in violation of these limitations is >>>>> INEFFECTIVE. >>>>> When a Black Card is issued, as a penalty, within the next 7 >>>>> days, >>>>> any player CAN once, with Agoran Consent, Slam the Door at the bad >>>>> sport. After the Door is Slammed at a person, e CANNOT register or >>>>> take any game actions for 30 days, rules to the contrary >>>>> notwithstanding. Any attempt to Slam the Door on a player or a >>>>> person whose most recent deregistration took place without eir >>>>> consent is INEFFECTIVE, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. >>>>> >>>>> The rule in question here (see above) clearly states that the Door CAN >>>>> be slammed on a bad sport after e has had a Black Card issued to them. >>>>> The problem then is, can it also be slammed on a player, as long as eir >>>>> most recent deregistration took place with eir consent? >>>>> >>>>> This rule strictly states that Black Cards CANNOT be issued to players. >>>>> Rule 2426 says that "It is inappropriate to award a card to a >> non-player >>>>> person unless the rule defining the card says otherwise." The Black >>>>> Cards rule certainly says otherwise, and "inappropriate" is not a >>>>> binding term. So, it is IMPOSSIBLE to issue a Black Card to a current >>>>> player. >>>>> >>>>> So, this arises the question: What if a Black Card was issued to a >>>>> non-player person who then became a player? This is certainly possible, >>>>> as long as the Door was not Slammed on em when they were a non-player. >>>>> >>>>> Now we must determine if the Door CAN be Slammed on a player, if that >>>>> player managed to get a Black Card as a non-player and then registered >>>>> within the last 7 days. Rule 2507 says that "any attempt to Slam the >>>>> Door at a *player* or a person whose most recent deregistration took >>>>> place without eir consent is INEFFECTIVE." The answer is right here. >>>>> The rule specifically says a player or a person, so the Door CAN be >>>>> Slammed on players. And, if it is IMPOSSIBLE to Slam the Door on >>>>> someone if eir most recent deregistration took place without eir >>>>> consent, then the reverse is true as well, and it is POSSIBLE to Slam >>>>> the Door on a person whose most recent deregistration took place with >>>>> eir consent. >>>>> >>>>> I judge CFJ 3607 TRUE. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> From V.J. Rada >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> From V.J. Rada >>> >> >> >> -- >> >From V.J. Rada >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Subject: Digest Footer >> >> _______________________________________________ >> agora-business mailing list >> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org >> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/agora-business >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> End of agora-business Digest, Vol 48, Issue 130 >> *********************************************** >>
-- ---- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
