Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
The parties to the contract are all unqualified to be assigned
as judge of the case, unless the contract is the rules.
I still reckon the rules are not amenable to the use of an equity-like
process. Can you give some examples of judgements that you im
On 11/10/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> b) A claim of error, appropriate for matters of fact. The
Perhaps state that this must be made publically.
Proto-Proposal: Claims of error, redux
(AI = 3, please)
Amend Rule 1551 (Ratification) by replacing this text:
Any public document defined by the rules as self-ratifying is
ratified one week after its publication, unless explicitly
challenged during that period.
with this tex
On Nov 10, 2007 3:15 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I accept the caller's arguments and judge UNDECIDABLE.
I intend to appeal this Judgement with two support. I still believe
that a judgement of "IRRELEVANT" is appropriate in this instance,
since CFJs cannot and should not be allowed t
Proto-Proposal: Named methods of winning
This proposal has no effect unless the text of Rule 2110 (Win by
Paradox) contains "wins the game by paradox".
Amend Rule 2136 (Contests) by replacing "win the game" with "win the
game on points".
Amend Rule 2134 (Voting Limits are Limited) by replacing
Ed Murphy wrote:
>The judgement of CFJ 1773 goes beyond merely declaring its own statement
>false, and also declares CFJ 1772's statement true.
Actually the judgement itself is only "FALSE". The judge's arguments did
declare the statement of CFJ 1772 to be true, but without considering
any of the
root wrote:
On Nov 10, 2007 12:24 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I interpret the statement of CFJ 1778 as "Judging UNDECIDABLE is
permissible in all circumstances in which a judgement is to be
rendered". Judging UNDECIDABLE is permissible in some such
circumstances, but not all of th
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
5295 AGAINST (the pool should remain part of the report)
Why? The promotor is obliged to distribute everything in the pool each
week, so separate reporting of the pool is redundant.
A few different reasons. Retaining the obligation increases the
Promotor's i
proto-proposal: tighten paradox condition
AI: 3
{{{
Amend rule 2110 by replacing the words "permissibility of an action"
with "permissibility of a specific action that has already occurred".
[This avoids paradox wins from vague statements and forward references.]
}}}
-zefram
root wrote:
On Nov 10, 2007 11:55 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I intend, with 2 support, to appeal the judgement of CFJ 1772.
Appelant's argument:
This judgement is inconsistent with the judgement of CFJ 1773.
They don't seem inconsistent to me.
CFJ 1773: comex did not initiate
On Nov 10, 2007 1:22 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * A judgement of IRRELEVANT is not appropriate, because the veracity
> of the statement determines whether the initiator wins the game, per
> Rule 2110.
Hm, sounds like the definition of IRRELEVANT needs clarification. The
veracity of
On Nov 10, 2007 12:24 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I interpret the statement of CFJ 1778 as "Judging UNDECIDABLE is
> permissible in all circumstances in which a judgement is to be
> rendered". Judging UNDECIDABLE is permissible in some such
> circumstances, but not all of them. The
Ed Murphy wrote:
>5295 AGAINST (the pool should remain part of the report)
Why? The promotor is obliged to distribute everything in the pool each
week, so separate reporting of the pool is redundant.
-zefram
On Nov 10, 2007 11:55 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I intend, with 2 support, to appeal the judgement of CFJ 1772.
>
> Appelant's argument:
>
> This judgement is inconsistent with the judgement of CFJ 1773.
They don't seem inconsistent to me.
CFJ 1773: comex did not initiate a crimin
14 matches
Mail list logo
