Ed Murphy wrote:
>There was a "CFJs and judgements must be public" proposal or proto
>at some point. What's the current status of that one?
Proposal 5015, adopted four days ago. CFJs must be by announcement,
but it doesn't address judgements.
-zefram
On 6/27/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
BobTHJ wrote:
> Just to avoid un-needed problems, TTttPF (thanks Murphy!):
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you
think it means.
Which word?
BobTHJ
BobTHJ wrote:
Just to avoid un-needed problems, TTttPF (thanks Murphy!):
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you
think it means.
Just to avoid un-needed problems, TTttPF (thanks Murphy!):
On 6/27/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/27/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I remind BobTHJ that when e was previously pseudo-judge of these CFJs
> a Judicial Order was executed requiring the Pineapple Partnership
On 6/27/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I honestly can't think of any corrections in the last couple years
outside of things that were caught immediately, the abortion scam
is the only potential candidate and I think all associated results
were challenged immediately.
Ok, what was t
BobTHJ wrote:
Oops! I missed that message the first time around, and thus I figured
I was still waiting on the PP.
Based upon the above-referenced message I judge as follows:
Not to the PF, but apparently R591 doesn't require it to be.
There was a "CFJs and judgements must be public" proposa
Goethe wrote:
Murphy wrote:
Currently, the entire process is telescoped into a single Agoran
Consent period, requires a separate slate of support and objections
for each candidate,
One is forgetting the worst aspect of the old system, the continual
stream of nomination periods with no nominee
On 6/27/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I remind BobTHJ that when e was previously pseudo-judge of these CFJs
a Judicial Order was executed requiring the Pineapple Partnership to
disclose its membership, both present and historical, and the Pineapple
Partnership then did so in the message
Murphy wrote:
> Currently, the entire process is telescoped into a single Agoran
> Consent period, requires a separate slate of support and objections
> for each candidate,
One is forgetting the worst aspect of the old system, the continual
stream of nomination periods with no nominee, leaving a
On 6/27/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
CFJs 1661-5 are hereby assigned to BobTHJ.
I pseudo-issued a judicial order (and I beleive The Hanging Judge
officially issued it) to the Pineapple Partnership to reveal its
membership, historical and current. I don't know that it ever complied
with
root wrote:
On 6/27/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The rules do not regulate the numbering of CFJs.
There is clear game custom that purported CFJs are numbered in order of
submission. There have been no recent ambiguities in any part of this
process. (The purported CFJ 1622 is unam
comex wrote:
On 6/27/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Also, OscarMeyr needs to re-judge CFJ 1621.
Not until I reassign it to him, I think. But I am waiting for all
three actions until the CotC database is in a good mood again. :)
Ah, you're right, R1447(c) is pragmatic.
The Cot
root wrote:
On 6/27/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Proto-Proposal: Reinstate Elections
Why? Elections were always unnecessarily complex.
Currently, the entire process is telescoped into a single Agoran
Consent period, requires a separate slate of support and objections
for each
On 6/27/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
root wrote:
> On 6/27/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> CFJ 1677 is hereby assigned to the Pineapple Partnership.
>
> The Pineapple Partnership is not a player, as per CFJ 1684, so it
> can't judge CFJs.
>
> But wasn't there an appeal of CFJ
On 6/27/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The rules do not regulate the numbering of CFJs.
There is clear game custom that purported CFJs are numbered in order of
submission. There have been no recent ambiguities in any part of this
process. (The purported CFJ 1622 is unambiguously a pu
On 6/27/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Proto-Proposal: Reinstate Elections
Why? Elections were always unnecessarily complex.
-root
root wrote:
On 6/27/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
CFJ 1677 is hereby assigned to the Pineapple Partnership.
The Pineapple Partnership is not a player, as per CFJ 1684, so it
can't judge CFJs.
But wasn't there an appeal of CFJ 1684 in progress? I don't recall
There is, yes. The Cot
On 6/27/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
CFJ 1677 is hereby assigned to the Pineapple Partnership.
The Pineapple Partnership is not a player, as per CFJ 1684, so it
can't judge CFJs.
But wasn't there an appeal of CFJ 1684 in progress? I don't recall
I wrote:
> Also, if we so "corrected" illegally, surely time passed after
> the corrections, so now those corrections are similarly safe!
On further reflection, this would be a case of a rule conflicting
with (and claiming precedence over) itself, which if not quite
paradoxical is rather delightf
Murphy wrote:
> Hmm. If this is judged true, are there any other proposals that
> we "corrected" due to CFJs with implicit knock-on effects, when
> in fact we should have stuck with the originally-announced result
> due to R2034?
I honestly can't think of any corrections in the last couple years
On 6/27/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
comex wrote:
> CFJ 1689 is hereby assigined to root.
And here's another conflict of interest. At least with CFJ 1647
I was the only standing judge left (though there's no requirement
to assign judges in increasing order of CFJ number, and in thi
I wrote:
comex wrote:
CFJ 1647 is hereby assigned to Murphy.
To avoid conflict of interest without having to lose time and a VC,
I hereby solicit a pseudo-judgement from any of the following players:
bd_, comex, Levi, Manu, root, Zefram
...of which root and Zefram are the only ones not
Ed Murphy wrote:
>Hmm. If this is judged true, are there any other proposals that
>we "corrected" due to CFJs with implicit knock-on effects, when
>in fact we should have stuck with the originally-announced result
>due to R2034?
I'm pretty sure there are none since the beginning of this year.
We'
comex wrote:
>== CFJ 1688 ==
>
> Murphy is the author of Proposal 4939.
>
>
...
>Unlike Proposal 4963 (see CFJ 1655), the only difference between what
>I submitted and
== CFJ 1690 ==
Caller's Arguments:
A challenge should be direct and specific to
a proposal, or at least specific to the precise votes being challenged,
to prevent the R2034 challenge limit clock from expiring. It is not enough
to cha
comex wrote:
>CFJs 1661-5 are hereby assigned to BobTHJ.
I remind BobTHJ that when e was previously pseudo-judge of these CFJs
a Judicial Order was executed requiring the Pineapple Partnership to
disclose its membership, both present and historical, and the Pineapple
Partnership then did so in the
comex wrote:
CFJ 1689 is hereby assigined to root.
And here's another conflict of interest. At least with CFJ 1647
I was the only standing judge left (though there's no requirement
to assign judges in increasing order of CFJ number, and in this
case the order should arguably have been twiddle
On 6/26/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And now it's up again.
It's still intermittently going down, unfortunately.
28 matches
Mail list logo
