On 11/5/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> root wrote:
>
> > Fatigue is a standing player switch, the possible values of
> > which are the natural numbers, and the default of which is the
> > maximum fatigue value ever set. Fatigue is tracked by the Clerk
> > of the
root wrote:
Fatigue is a standing player switch, the possible values of
which are the natural numbers, and the default of which is the
maximum fatigue value ever set. Fatigue is tracked by the Clerk
of the Courts, as is the maximum fatigue value ever set. A
standi
comex wrote:
On 11/5/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I hereby assign pikhq as judge of CFJ 1784.
You're a very efficient CotC. Nevertheless...
I nominate AFO, Pineapple Partnership, Human Point Two, myself, and
Goethe for the office of CotC.
PP and HP2 are inactive. Rule 2154 only al
On Monday 05 November 2007 10:54:24 comex wrote:
> On 11/5/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I hereby assign pikhq as judge of CFJ 1784.
> You're a very efficient CotC. Nevertheless...
> I nominate AFO, Pineapple Partnership, Human Point Two, myself, and
> Goethe for the office of CotC.
>
On 11/5/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> H. BobTHJ, I hereby inform you of criminal case 1785 in which you are
> the defendant, and invite you to rebut the argument for your guilt.
>
I hereby end the pre-trial phase.
BobTHJ
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>It is conceivable (though unlikely), that
>if the Promotor changed hands at the last minute, than the punishment
>could be applied to the new officeholder.
This would not be legal. R1504 is clear that the defendant is a
specific person. While "the
On Monday 05 November 2007, Roger Hicks wrote:
> Defendant: myself, BobTHJ
> Breached rule: R1504, Criminal Cases
> Alleged Action: Failing to issue an Apology within 72 hours
> Notes: I fully admit to my guilt in this case and throw myself upon
> the mercy of the courts. I submit the above apology
On Monday 05 November 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On 11/5/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 11/4/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 11/4/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > I hereby assign comex as judge of CFJ 1779.
> > >
> > > Pseudo-judgement: UNDETERMINED, per th
Proto-proposal: Fairer judge rotation (AI=2)
Amend Rule 1868 (Judge Assignment Generally) by appending the text:
A player is well qualified to be assigned as judge of a judicial
case if and only if e is neither unqualified nor poorly
qualified to be assigned as its judge.
Amen
root wrote:
> Since August 2, registration has been performed "by announcing", which
> R478 also defines only for players, so actually the registrations
> since then are in the same uncertain state as those before August 2.
For this case, since announcing is not defined for non-players, we
use th
[I am still on the fence on this one. This is how I'm leaning.
counter-arguments welcomed].
CFJ statement: pikhq initiated a criminal case in Message-id:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Proto-judgement:
The message in question contains two parts.
The first part of this message, prior to the
On 11/5/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A player performs an action "by announcement" by announcing that
> e performs it. Any action performed by sending a message is
> performed at the time date-stamped on that message.
>
> I just noticed: "A player", not "A person"?
A player performs an action "by announcement" by announcing that
e performs it. Any action performed by sending a message is
performed at the time date-stamped on that message.
I just noticed: "A player", not "A person"?
This implies that non-player persons cannot perform acti
On 11/5/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/4/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 11/4/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I hereby assign comex as judge of CFJ 1779.
> >
> > Pseudo-judgement: UNDETERMINED, per the clear precedent set by CFJ 1744.
>
> In CFJ 1744, there
On 11/4/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/4/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I hereby assign comex as judge of CFJ 1779.
>
> Pseudo-judgement: UNDETERMINED, per the clear precedent set by CFJ 1744.
In CFJ 1744, there was no evidence one way or another whether Big
Brother was a
On 11/5/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/5/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I hereby assign pikhq as judge of CFJ 1784.
> You're a very efficient CotC. Nevertheless...
> I nominate AFO, Pineapple Partnership, Human Point Two, myself, and
> Goethe for the office of CotC.
>
Fook
On 11/5/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [Mainly just added precedents cited by Zefram].
>
> JUDGEMENT in CFJ 1774
>
Fookiemyartug intends (with 2 Support) to Appeal the Judgment of CFJ
1774, if it fact it has already occurred.
BobTHJ
On 11/5/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> poing!
Uh... piong?
-root
poing!
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, Zefram wrote:
> I find the FLR is pretty effective for this, due to its collation
> of relevant precedents.
Ah, yes, I keep forgetting the fine effort you've put into the FLR
annotations in the past few months. Just another reason to keep you
on (both) jobs. Okay comex, R
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>*Sigh* Subject lines may give some guidance, but they are not
>a substantive part of the message. (I'd say RTF case archive but
>I can't find the case in question myself,
CFJ 1631.
> we need a more effective
>case archive or a way to
On 11/5/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> *Sigh* Subject lines may give some guidance, but they are not
> a substantive part of the message. (I'd say RTF case archive but
> I can't find the case in question myself, we need a more effective
> case archive or a way to search case texts h
On 11/5/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/5/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > BUS: I say I pseudo-judge (fwd)
>
> CFJ: The message with subject "BUS: I say I pseudo-judge (fwd)",
> message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> that purported to judge CFJs 1774 and 1775) had the effect o
comex:
> - This message was sent to a Public Forum.
> - Labels in this message contained JUDGEMENT instead of PSUEDO-JUDGEMENT.
Um, sounds like two rather substantive differences to me.
> Nevertheless, the title would, to someone who had not been paying
> attention to the Discussion Forum, appea
Murphy wrote:
> Rule 478 has only defined "by announcement" since February 2003, when
> it was quietly introduced as a side effect of Proposal 4456 (which
> introduced Switches for the first time, and defined one for fora).
Historical note: This was a result of Maud's concerns expressed in
CFJ
Ed Murphy wrote:
> * DEPENDS, appropriate if the statement describes a general class
>of hypothetical situations satisfying the following conditions:
This seems cumbersome. We already handle such situations OK, with the
judge having the option to describe the logic of the dependency.
26 matches
Mail list logo
