root wrote:
All the proposals in question were adopted before ID numbers (proposal
5110), so I believe there would be no invalid rule number assignments.
If 5110 had already taken effect, it could have been quite
problematic; if any rules had been created with invalid ID numbers,
then any subse
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Measured from assignment, though, the record is 0 s (set or at least
tied by some CFJ earlier this month, in which you assigned it to
yourself and judged it in a single message).
I don't recall doing such a thing, and I can't find it in my files.
Neither can I
On Sunday 21 October 2007 17:06:38 Zefram wrote:
> Josiah Worcester wrote:
> >I suggest calling a CFJ on "This CFJ is the shortest one in Agoran
> >history.". ;)
>
> It would only end up being appealed.
>
> -zefram
>
So assign yourself, amending that this is also the shortest *appeal*
ever. ;
Josiah Worcester wrote:
>I suggest calling a CFJ on "This CFJ is the shortest one in Agoran
>history.". ;)
It would only end up being appealed.
-zefram
comex wrote:
>If you want to set a record, have the Pineapple Partnership call a CFJ,
>assign it to yourself, and judge it all in the same message.
Heh. But I don't want to set such a meaningless record. I'm much more
interested in how fast our regular processes work, where initiator,
CotC, and
On Sunday 21 October 2007 16:56:38 comex wrote:
> If you want to set a record, have the Pineapple Partnership call a
CFJ,
> assign it to yourself, and judge it all in the same message.
>
I suggest calling a CFJ on "This CFJ is the shortest one in Agoran
history.". ;)
On Sunday 21 October 2007, Zefram wrote:
> Ed Murphy wrote:
> >Measured from assignment, though, the record is 0 s (set or at least
> >tied by some CFJ earlier this month, in which you assigned it to
> >yourself and judged it in a single message).
> I don't recall doing such a thing, and I can't fi
On 10/21/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The VC is pretty insignificant. (It's one of mine, isn't it, and I have
> it iff CFJ 1711 is true? If that's the case and it's ultimately ruled
> that I do have it, I'll donate it to pikhq.) More troublesome is that
> proposals will have been adop
Ed Murphy wrote:
>Measured from assignment, though, the record is 0 s (set or at least
>tied by some CFJ earlier this month, in which you assigned it to
>yourself and judged it in a single message).
I don't recall doing such a thing, and I can't find it in my files.
-zefram
Zefram wrote:
== CFJ 1767 ==
Initiated by pikhq: 21 Oct 2007 19:53:50 GMT
Judge Goddess Eris assigned:21 Oct 2007 20:01:35 GMT
Judged FALSE by Goddess Eris: 21 Oct 2007 20:04:29 GMT
I suspect th
Josiah Worcester wrote:
> This has been a few weeks of argument
>over what amounts to a single VC. Let's just get a ruling on the
>books and *leave it*, shall we?
The VC is pretty insignificant. (It's one of mine, isn't it, and I have
it iff CFJ 1711 is true? If th
On 10/21/07, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 21 October 2007 14:44:22 comex wrote:
> > Then support the OVERRULE and cause the panel to judge so...
> >
>
> I'm not on the panel, I'm merely opining.
>
Oops, I mixed it up with the other appeal.
On Sunday 21 October 2007 14:44:22 comex wrote:
> Then support the OVERRULE and cause the panel to judge so...
>
I'm not on the panel, I'm merely opining.
On Sunday 21 October 2007, Josiah Worcester wrote:
> On Sunday 21 October 2007 14:38:27 comex wrote:
> > > I support OVERRULE, replacing with Eris's original judgement of
> > > FALSE.
> > >
> > > -root
> >
> > I support this.
>
> I still think that AFFIRM is the correct option, but honestly, it
> d
On Sunday 21 October 2007 14:38:27 comex wrote:
> > I support OVERRULE, replacing with Eris's original judgement of
> > FALSE.
> >
> > -root
>
>
> I support this.
>
I still think that AFFIRM is the correct option, but honestly, it
doesn't matter that much. . . This has been a few weeks of ar
On Sunday 21 October 2007 14:36:27 Ian Kelly wrote:
> I interpret that sentence as indicating how to perform an action
> that the rules indicate can be performed "by announcement", and I
> believe that was the intended interpretation. It could stand to be
> clarified, though.
>
> -root
I sug
On Sunday 21 October 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On 10/21/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sunday 21 October 2007, Zefram wrote:
> > > Appellant comex's Arguments:
> > >
> > > I intend, with 2 support, to appeal this as neither CFJs 1451-2 nor
> > > the various arguments in the first appeal
On 10/21/07, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...by rule 478, an
> action may be made via public announcement (that is, announcement in
> a public forum).
I interpret that sentence as indicating how to perform an action that
the rules indicate can be performed "by announcement", and I
On 10/21/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 21 October 2007, Zefram wrote:
> > Appellant comex's Arguments:
> >
> > I intend, with 2 support, to appeal this as neither CFJs 1451-2 nor
> > the various arguments in the first appeal were considered by Judge
> > pikhq.
>
> I suggest eithe
On Sunday 21 October 2007 13:57:13 Zefram wrote:
> What about the agreement to form a R1742 contract? I believe all of
> the currently registered partnerships were formed outside the public
> forum.
> We have historically had a great many game actions that took place
> outside the public forum;
>== CFJ 1767 ==
>Initiated by pikhq: 21 Oct 2007 19:53:50 GMT
>Judge Goddess Eris assigned:21 Oct 2007 20:01:35 GMT
>Judged FALSE by Goddess Eris: 21 Oct 2007 20:04:29 GMT
I suspect that this is our
Josiah Worcester wrote:
>Name to me one method of performing game actions in the rules
>*outside* of public announcement.
To take a recent example, rule 2173/0:
# The parties to a public contract SHALL keep the Notary informed
# of its text and set of parties.
Keeping the notary infor
Josiah Worcester wrote:
>It seems to me that such an agreement would need to be a game
>action. . . And thus need to be in a public forum.
What about the agreement to form a R1742 contract? I believe all of the
currently registered partnerships were formed outside the public forum.
We have histo
On Sunday 21 October 2007 13:35:37 Taral wrote:
> I disagree. Rule 2157 does not require that agreement be public,
only
> that it exists. If you disagree, please, call a CFJ. ;)
It seems to me that such an agreement would need to be a game
action. . . And thus need to be in a public forum.
On 10/21/07, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 21 October 2007 13:03:13 Taral wrote:
> > Having received the consent of the members,
> comex's consent was not given in a public forum, thus it was not an
> actual game action. Therefore, you have *not* received the consent of
>
Josiah Worcester wrote:
>comex's consent was not given in a public forum,
R2157 doesn't require public agreement, merely agreement.
-zefram
On Sunday 21 October 2007 13:03:13 Taral wrote:
> Having received the consent of the members,
comex's consent was not given in a public forum, thus it was not an
actual game action. Therefore, you have *not* received the consent of
all members. If you disagree, please, call a CFJ. ;)
On Sunday 21 October 2007, Zefram wrote:
> Appellant comex's Arguments:
>
> I intend, with 2 support, to appeal this as neither CFJs 1451-2 nor
> the various arguments in the first appeal were considered by Judge
> pikhq.
I suggest either AFFIRM or OVERRULE. This case ought to be settled; it's
i
On 10/21/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 21 October 2007, Zefram wrote:
> > Josiah Worcester wrote:
> > >Any suggestions, other than "this is a horrible proto"? :p
> >
> > Drop the retroactivity. Just explicate that a message can incorporate
> > material from previous messages by
On Sunday 21 October 2007, Zefram wrote:
> Josiah Worcester wrote:
> >Any suggestions, other than "this is a horrible proto"? :p
>
> Drop the retroactivity. Just explicate that a message can incorporate
> material from previous messages by reference. Explicate what kind of
> reference is sufficie
Josiah Worcester wrote:
>Any suggestions, other than "this is a horrible proto"? :p
Drop the retroactivity. Just explicate that a message can incorporate
material from previous messages by reference. Explicate what kind of
reference is sufficient, and limit how far back the reference can reach.
On Sunday 21 October 2007 10:28:35 Zefram wrote:
> I still don't like retroactivity.
It seems to me that the retroactivity would be useful *if* someone
genuinely screws up. . .
> CFJ 1711 was about correcting a mandatory publication; in that case
> the initial incorrect posting inherently did not
Josiah Worcester wrote:
>How's about changing that to "within a week" or even "within 24
>hours"?
I still don't like retroactivity. CFJ 1711 was about correcting a
mandatory publication; in that case the initial incorrect posting
inherently did not achieve the game action that it purported to.
W
On Sunday 21 October 2007 10:21:08 Zefram wrote:
> Josiah Worcester wrote:
> > Should anyone wish to make a correction to a previous statement, e
> >shall merely need to reply to that statement, and describe whatever
> >correction e needs to make. The correction's message shall be
> >considered
Josiah Worcester wrote:
> Should anyone wish to make a correction to a previous statement, e
>shall merely need to reply to that statement, and describe whatever
>correction e needs to make. The correction's message shall be
>considered the message making that action, rather than the previous
>
>Statement: Proposal 5085 was adopted on or about Mon, 23 Jul 2007
> 06:25:41 -0700.
My analysis: this applies to proposals 5081-5087, which were all adopted
with correcting message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 2007-07-23.
Proposal 5080, however, didn't have a complete correction until
the exp
On Sunday 21 October 2007 09:09:51 comex wrote:
> I consent and intend to judge REMAND, with the arguments posted a
while
> back.
>
Care to do so in a public forum?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Tuesday 09 October 2007 11:47:52 Taral wrote:
> On 10/4/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I hereby assign the judicial panel of comex, Goddess Eris, and
pikhq as
> > judge of CFJ 1748a.
>
> I intend, with consent of the other members, to cause the panel to
> judge REMAND, with the foll
On Sunday 21 October 2007, Zefram wrote:
> The judicial panel of comex, Goddess Eris, and pikhq is well overdue
> to judge CFJ 1748a. I would recuse it and assign a different panel,
> but currently there is no other panel qualified to be assigned as judge
> of this case. Please get on and judge i
On Oct 18, 2007, at 1:45 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
The AFO submits this proposal.
Proposal: Trust-busting, again
(II = 0, please)
Upon the adoption of this proposal, Primo Corporation is deregistered.
[Nothing's happened with it for almost three months. The CEO
deregistered earlier this month.]
40 matches
Mail list logo
