On Nov 28, 2007 7:42 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 28, 2007 7:38 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Agreed, and nkep may have meaning in the context of a private
> > contract, but my point is that it doesn't make it any less
> > nonsensical. Your narrowing in on one
On Wednesday 28 November 2007 22:08:21 Michael Norrish wrote:
> My Mac is doing a great job of rendering the Japanese; I was very
> pleasantly surprised to find it, Emacs and Thunderbird all coping so
> well.
>
> Michael.
>
>
Now, H. First Speaker, can you *read* it?
Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Nov 28, 2007 8:18 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 死ぬ
>> ころす
>> 人肉
>> 食べる
>> 何
>> する
>> 日本語
> All I see are question marks...
My Mac is doing a great job of rendering the Japanese; I was very
pleasantly surprised to find it, Emacs and Thunderbird all coping
On Nov 28, 2007 8:18 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 死ぬ
> ころす
> 人肉
> 食べる
> 何
> する
> 日本語
All I see are question marks...
-root
On Nov 28, 2007, at 10:36 PM, Josiah Worcester wrote:
On Wednesday 28 November 2007 20:34:22 Benjamin Schultz wrote:
On Nov 28, 2007, at 10:29 PM, Josiah Worcester wrote:
On Wednesday 28 November 2007 20:23:56 Benjamin Schultz wrote:
On Nov 28, 2007, at 10:18 PM, Josiah Worcester wrote:
Have
On Wednesday 28 November 2007 20:34:22 Benjamin Schultz wrote:
>
> On Nov 28, 2007, at 10:29 PM, Josiah Worcester wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday 28 November 2007 20:23:56 Benjamin Schultz wrote:
> >>
> >> On Nov 28, 2007, at 10:18 PM, Josiah Worcester wrote:
> >>
> >>> Have fun with it.
> >
> > Random
On Nov 28, 2007, at 10:29 PM, Josiah Worcester wrote:
On Wednesday 28 November 2007 20:23:56 Benjamin Schultz wrote:
On Nov 28, 2007, at 10:18 PM, Josiah Worcester wrote:
Have fun with it.
Random grab-bag of words:
食べる
eat
I shoulda had that one.
する
to do
日本語
Japanese (language)
Ed Murphy wrote:
Eris wrote:
On 11/28/07, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I spend 2 Green VCs to gain 200 Green Marks
I don't think this works.
Correct. Again, voluntary conversion is one-way in the Marks -> VCs
direction.
Oops. Misread it from the assessors report where I faile
On Wednesday 28 November 2007 20:23:56 Benjamin Schultz wrote:
>
> On Nov 28, 2007, at 10:18 PM, Josiah Worcester wrote:
>
> > Have fun with it.
Random grab-bag of words:
> > 死ぬ
die
> > ころす
kill
> > 人肉
human meat
> > 食べる
eat
> > 何
what
> > する
to do
> > 日本語
Japanese (language)
> > ;)
;)
> >
>
>
Eris wrote:
On 11/28/07, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I spend 2 Green VCs to gain 200 Green Marks
I don't think this works.
Correct. Again, voluntary conversion is one-way in the Marks -> VCs
direction.
comex wrote:
The AFO claims a rule 2134 win.
Might be invalid, because you misspelled "decrease"
I tend to agree with the other two reasons that this will probably
be shot down, but not this one; R754(1) applies, especially coming
hot on the heels of your message.
On Nov 28, 2007, at 10:18 PM, Josiah Worcester wrote:
Have fun with it.
死ぬ
ころす
人肉
食べる
何
する
日本語
;)
Eigo de hanashite kudasai? Boku no Nihongo wa rusty des yo.
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr
On Wednesday 28 November 2007 20:14:41 Benjamin Schultz wrote:
>
> On Nov 28, 2007, at 9:25 PM, comex wrote:
>
> > On Nov 28, 2007 9:22 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Benjamin Schultz wrote:
> >>> The CotC web page has gratuitous arguments by pikhq of a sentence to
> >>> APOLOGY. Am
On Nov 28, 2007, at 9:25 PM, comex wrote:
On Nov 28, 2007 9:22 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
The CotC web page has gratuitous arguments by pikhq of a sentence to
APOLOGY. Am I correct that the only thing I must do on this CFJ is
pick the required words for the
On 11/28/07, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I spend 2 Green VCs to gain 200 Green Marks
I don't think this works.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On Nov 28, 2007, at 9:32 PM, Taral wrote:
On 11/28/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Argh! With this criminal system the punishments are too lenient. I
suggest repealing UNAWARE and EXCUSED, and requiring a minimum
sentence of CHOKEY!
Perhaps we should add EXTERMINATE.
That's always a
On Wednesday 28 November 2007 19:59:26 Levi Stephen wrote:
>
> > Might be invalid, because you misspelled "decrease"
>
> Hmmm... is 'decreating' the AFO's VVLOP regulated? Might be a criminal
> CFJ :P
>
> Lev
>
LMAO.
In my defense: I thought I was decreasing it. ;)
Might be invalid, because you misspelled "decrease"
Hmmm... is 'decreating' the AFO's VVLOP regulated? Might be a criminal
CFJ :P
Lev
On Wednesday 28 November 2007 19:53:35 Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Nov 28, 2007 7:49 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Invalid, since you didn't specify a color.
>
> Color of what? If I have to specify one color to spend VCs of one
> color, and two colors to spend VCs of two different
On Nov 28, 2007 7:49 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Invalid, since you didn't specify a color.
Color of what? If I have to specify one color to spend VCs of one
color, and two colors to spend VCs of two different colors, then it
inductively follows that I have to specify zero c
On Nov 28, 2007 9:49 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 28 November 2007 19:39:31 comex wrote:
> > On Nov 28, 2007 9:29 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > As promised, I hereby spend 1 Blue VC to increase OscarMeyr's VVLOP by 0.
> > (104 identical actions f
On Nov 28, 2007 7:39 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (104 identical actions follow.)
[SNIP]
> The AFO claims a R2134 win.
Nice one, although I can think of a couple reasons a judge might deem
this unsuccessful.
-root
On Nov 28, 2007 7:38 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Agreed, and nkep may have meaning in the context of a private
> contract, but my point is that it doesn't make it any less
> nonsensical. Your narrowing in on one minor point of the much broader
> definition of the word.
Then how wo
On Nov 28, 2007 7:36 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 28, 2007 7:29 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As promised, I hereby spend 1 Blue VC to increase OscarMeyr's VVLOP by 0.
>
> You can't:
>
> a) A player may spend N+1 VCs of different colors to increase
>
On Nov 28, 2007 7:34 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 28, 2007 7:27 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I still don't see why you can't use a nonsensical word to describe an
> > action. Just because it describes an action does not cease to make it
> > nonsensical. Fookie
On Nov 28, 2007 7:29 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As promised, I hereby spend 1 Blue VC to increase OscarMeyr's VVLOP by 0.
You can't:
a) A player may spend N+1 VCs of different colors to increase
another player's VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.
-root
On Nov 28, 2007 7:27 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I still don't see why you can't use a nonsensical word to describe an
> action. Just because it describes an action does not cease to make it
> nonsensical. Fookiemyartug is a nonsensical word, even though it
> describes a partnershi
On 11/28/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Argh! With this criminal system the punishments are too lenient. I
> suggest repealing UNAWARE and EXCUSED, and requiring a minimum
> sentence of CHOKEY!
Perhaps we should add EXTERMINATE.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there
Josiah Worcester wrote:
On Wednesday 28 November 2007 19:22:25 Levi Stephen wrote:
I resolve the decision on the holder of the Scorekeepor office:
The votes are as follows
WOOBLE:
PIKHQ: pikhq, Murphy, AFO, root, zefram
COMEX: Wooble
FOOKIEMYARTUG: BobTHJ, Fookiemyartug, OscarMeyr
The option
On Nov 28, 2007 7:25 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I suspect that the AFO can't vote on this, since he's not a first-class
> player. However, it actually does not *change* the results of this election.
The AFO is an active player, so it can vote in elections (R2154).
What it ca
On Nov 28, 2007 9:24 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ah, so this is why we still need UNAWARE. Thanks!
Argh! With this criminal system the punishments are too lenient. I
suggest repealing UNAWARE and EXCUSED, and requiring a minimum
sentence of CHOKEY!
On Nov 28, 2007 7:19 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 28, 2007 6:54 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > nkep certainly has no meaning as a word, as well as it conveys no
> > intelligible ideas. However, that does not prevent such a nonsensical
> > word from being used as
On Wednesday 28 November 2007 19:22:25 Levi Stephen wrote:
> I resolve the decision on the holder of the Scorekeepor office:
>
> The votes are as follows
>
> WOOBLE:
> PIKHQ: pikhq, Murphy, AFO, root, zefram
> COMEX: Wooble
> FOOKIEMYARTUG: BobTHJ, Fookiemyartug, OscarMeyr
>
> The option selecte
On Nov 28, 2007 9:22 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Benjamin Schultz wrote:
> >The CotC web page has gratuitous arguments by pikhq of a sentence to
> >APOLOGY. Am I correct that the only thing I must do on this CFJ is
> >pick the required words for the apology?
>
> You must pass sentence.
On Nov 28, 2007 7:16 PM, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, I guess after CFJ's 1801 and 1802 it makes sense to do this.
>
> I initiate a criminal case.
>
> The defendant is pikhq
>
> The rule breached is 2172
>
> The action is attempting to register Agora as a B Nomic faction without
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
>The CotC web page has gratuitous arguments by pikhq of a sentence to
>APOLOGY. Am I correct that the only thing I must do on this CFJ is
>pick the required words for the apology?
You must pass sentence. APOLOGY with a set of prescribed words is
one class of valid sen
On Nov 28, 2007 6:54 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> nkep certainly has no meaning as a word, as well as it conveys no
> intelligible ideas. However, that does not prevent such a nonsensical
> word from being used as a descriptor for an action. It doesn't make it
> any less nonsensical
On Wednesday 28 November 2007 19:16:11 Levi Stephen wrote:
> Well, I guess after CFJ's 1801 and 1802 it makes sense to do this.
>
> I initiate a criminal case.
>
> The defendant is pikhq
>
> The rule breached is 2172
>
> The action is attempting to register Agora as a B Nomic faction without
A
On Nov 28, 2007, at 9:03 PM, comex wrote:
On Nov 28, 2007 8:55 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I vote AGAINT
Have you made a private arrangement with the vote collector?
Has BobTHJ made a private arrangment regarding the meaning of nkep...?
And kudos on being the first per
On Nov 28, 2007 8:55 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I vote AGAINT
Have you made a private arrangement with the vote collector?
On Nov 27, 2007, at 12:53 AM, Michael Norrish wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
OscarMeyr wrote:
I just looked over these registration dates. Are they correct --
am I the ONLY player who did not (re)register this year?
Yes. I deregistered so that Michael could keep the record for
longest continuous
On Nov 28, 2007, at 5:45 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
Ho-hum. TTttPF:
On Nov 28, 2007 2:43 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I intend, on behalf of Agora, with Agoran Consent, to
nkeplwgplxgioyzjvtxjnncsqscvntlbdqromyeyvlhkjgteaqnneqgujjpwcbyfrpueo
ydjjk.
BobTHJ
I vote AGAINT
-
On Nov 28, 2007 6:44 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Roger Hicks wrote:
> >Beccause, nkep can be both nonsensical and an action at the same time.
>
> I disagree. It being nonsensical excludes it having any meaning.
> For example, The Collaborative International Dictionary of English define
{{db-nonsense}}
On Nov 28, 2007, at 4:51 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Roger Hicks wrote:
I intend, on behalf of Agora, with Agoran Consent, to
nkeplwgplxgioyzjvtxjnncsqscvntlbdqromyeyvlhkjgteaqnneqgujjpwcbyfrpueo
ydjjk.
I ogltrwqifdentmaoeficbhapqieflwieeadnttoedmbenotgevcni
Goethe wrote:
While I was temporarily unaware of UNAWARE, I still prefer EXCUSED as
a precedent for this. If a Judge is aware of some contrary argument,
e should still be ethically charged to "not avoid" making *what e believes
in good faith* to be an appropriate judgement, even if e is aware
On Nov 27, 2007, at 3:57 PM, comex wrote:
On 11/27/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Unless I left out a different word and am introducing myself as
"swing
the mightily". :-)
Like if I was to introduce myself as "deregister"... :<
Ooh, I hope SOME Watcher tests that statement!
---
Roger Hicks wrote:
>Beccause, nkep can be both nonsensical and an action at the same time.
I disagree. It being nonsensical excludes it having any meaning.
For example, The Collaborative International Dictionary of English defines
"nonsense" as, among related senses, "words, or language, which ha
BobTHJ wrote:
Beccause, nkep can be both nonsensical and an action at the same time.
Just because it is nonsense doesn't mean it can't be an action (and
therefore permissible).
Nonsense. Stuff and. Caddy smelled like trees.
On Nov 27, 2007, at 11:17 AM, Zefram wrote:
I hereby recuse pikhq from CFJ 1783. I hereby assign OscarMeyr as
judge
of CFJ 1783.
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1783
The CotC web page has gratuitous arguments by pikhq of a sentence to
APOLOGY. Am I correct th
On Nov 28, 2007 6:35 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While I was temporarily unaware of UNAWARE, I still prefer EXCUSED as
> a precedent for this. If a Judge is aware of some contrary argument,
> e should still be ethically charged to "not avoid" making *what e believes
> in good fait
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Nov 28, 2007 5:49 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Since the defendant honestly believed that the judgement that e assigned
>> was appropriate, I think e should be EXCUSED. Under the recent rule
>> change, e could also be found UNAWARE, but EXCU
On Nov 28, 2007 6:13 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BobTHJ wrote:
>
> > nkep would be nonsensical even if it were a defined action either in
> > the rules or a contract. These statements are not contradictory.
>
> Then in what way would the private whatever-it-is impact the
> appropriat
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Josiah Worcester wrote:
> For evidence of this contract, ask H. Notary Goethe.
Actually, ask the judge to ask H. Notary Goethe. Or ask Murphy
to also ask Goethe. That is, if there was anything to ask. On
which I couldn't possibly comment.
-Goethe
pikhq wrote:
I do hereby initiate an equity CFJ on the following:
Murphy is in breach of our contract concerning marks by not sending me 1 blue
mark and 1 black mark.
Murphy and I are parties to the contract in question.
For evidence of this contract, ask H. Notary Goethe.
It's a fair cop.
On Nov 28, 2007 5:44 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> nkep would be nonsensical even if it were a defined action either in
> the rules or a contract. These statements are not contradictory.
Nonsense.
-root
On Wednesday 28 November 2007 18:15:36 Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Nov 28, 2007 5:49 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Since the defendant honestly believed that the judgement that e assigned
> > was appropriate, I think e should be EXCUSED. Under the recent rule
> > change, e could also be foun
On Nov 28, 2007 5:49 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since the defendant honestly believed that the judgement that e assigned
> was appropriate, I think e should be EXCUSED. Under the recent rule
> change, e could also be found UNAWARE, but EXCUSED covers it.
I forgot about that. I chang
BobTHJ wrote:
nkep would be nonsensical even if it were a defined action either in
the rules or a contract. These statements are not contradictory.
Then in what way would the private whatever-it-is impact the
appropriateness of judgement on either CFJ 1799 or CFJ 1805?
On Nov 28, 2007 5:44 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (Partnerships
> screw it up a bit; never got round to fixing that, but maybe now we're
> going to abolish them altogether.)
At two votes AGAINST and one PRESENT on an AI-2 proposal, it's looking
unlikely. :-(
-root
On Nov 28, 2007 5:28 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ian Kelly wrote:
> >One last comment before I get back to work. R591 states regarding the
> >UNDETERMINED judgement that "uncertainty as to how to interpret or
> >apply the rules cannot constitute insufficiency of information for
> >this
comex wrote:
> So, as has been frowned on in the past, you are attempting
>to overrule a judge's choice between appropriate judgements.
No. I am appealing in case, contrary to my contention, "nkep..." is
meaningful, in which case BobTHJ's judgement in CFJ 1799 would have
been inappr
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>This is broken, but I must find GUILTY. [If anyone has a way out,
>please suggest it].
Since the defendant honestly believed that the judgement that e assigned
was appropriate, I think e should be EXCUSED. Under the recent rule
change, e could also be found UNAWARE, but EXCUS
On Wednesday 28 November 2007, Zefram wrote:
> is nonsensical". I suggest that BobTHJ was correct in CFJ 1799, that
> "nkep..." is nonsensical, and that therefore the judge of CFJ 1805a need
> not be troubled by any alleged meaning for "nkep...".
How odd: if it is indeed nonsensical, as you sugges
comex wrote:
>Perhaps the initiators of the appeal could have the option of (at the cost
>of barring themselves) barring two other players. This could be possible
>only if there would be at least X eligible panels afterwards (to prevent
>rigging).
Overcomplicated. I do not think that it is th
On Nov 28, 2007 5:21 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >== CFJ 1799 ==
> >Judged UNDECIDABLE by BobTHJ: 23 Nov 2007 06:17:11 GMT
>
> I intend, with two support, to appeal this judgement. (Please join
> me in appeal on Wednes
BobTHJ wrote:
On Nov 28, 2007 5:18 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
BobTHJ wrote:
Oh, and just to note: The proof already exists. It simply requires
time for me to make it public.
I don't buy it. Provide an outline of the proof and I may change
my mind.
Here's a possibility:
The
On Nov 28, 2007 5:18 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BobTHJ wrote:
>
> > Oh, and just to note: The proof already exists. It simply requires
> > time for me to make it public.
>
> I don't buy it. Provide an outline of the proof and I may change
> my mind.
>
>
Here's a possibility:
The i
Zefram wrote:
Too late, I already assigned a judge (root). I would have given you more
time, but CFJ 1810 came up and I wanted to get it processed promptly.
(And I wanted to avoid out-of-sequence CFJ numbering.)
I previously assumed that the retraction was successful, so the CotC
database cur
Ian Kelly wrote:
>One last comment before I get back to work. R591 states regarding the
>UNDETERMINED judgement that "uncertainty as to how to interpret or
>apply the rules cannot constitute insufficiency of information for
>this purpose". This could arguably be extended to include uncertainty
>a
BobTHJ wrote:
Oh, and just to note: The proof already exists. It simply requires
time for me to make it public.
I don't buy it. Provide an outline of the proof and I may change
my mind.
Goethe wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Nov 28, 2007 3:23 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is broken, but I must find GUILTY. [If anyone has a way out,
please suggest it]. I also submit the following [proto-proposal]:
I concur, and I suggest that DISCHARGE is
Ed Murphy wrote:
>Rule 911 (Appeal Cases) measures appropriateness as follows:
Appropriateness in an inquiry case internally involves considerations of
what information was available at particular times. It is intended that
appropriateness of a judgement doesn't change after a judgement is given.
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Thus this phrase could be an inaction
>rather than an action. This argument shows that even if we accept that it's
>a verb phrase (which we don't necessarily accept), it is UNDETERMINED if it is
>about an action.
You're presupposing th
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Nov 28, 2007 3:23 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> This is broken, but I must find GUILTY. [If anyone has a way out,
>> please suggest it]. I also submit the following [proto-proposal]:
>
> I concur, and I suggest that DISCHARGE is the on
On Nov 28, 2007 3:26 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Roger Hicks wrote:
> > I believe I can furnish such proof, although it may take me several
> > days to have it ready. Would you be willing to extend the window?
>
> No. I can't think of a valid reason why legi
comex wrote:
If I *right now*, to the PF, defined nkep as "deregister" (not claiming to
have defined it beforehand), would TRUE then become appropriate for this
appeal?
Rule 911 (Appeal Cases) measures appropriateness as follows:
AFFIRM - past
REMAND - unspecified
REASSIGN - unspecified
OVER
Goethe wrote:
For example, nkep could be a contract action in a private contract, which
is permissible or not permissible by the contract (and thus answerable to
in Agoran courts).
[snip]
A compromise offer: nkep is clearly not understandable to most Agorans,
and thus the burden falls onto th
BobTHJ wrote:
I intend, on behalf of Agora, with Agoran Consent, to
nkeplwgplxgioyzjvtxjnncsqscvntlbdqromyeyvlhkjgteaqnneqgujjpwcbyfrpueoydjjk.
NttPF, you schlemiel!
On Nov 28, 2007 3:26 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Roger Hicks wrote:
> > I believe I can furnish such proof, although it may take me several
> > days to have it ready. Would you be willing to extend the window?
>
> No. I can't think of a valid reason why legi
On Nov 28, 2007 3:23 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is broken, but I must find GUILTY. [If anyone has a way out,
> please suggest it]. I also submit the following [proto-proposal]:
I concur, and I suggest that DISCHARGE is the only appropriate sentence.
> Amend Rule 2158 by r
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Roger Hicks wrote:
> I believe I can furnish such proof, although it may take me several
> days to have it ready. Would you be willing to extend the window?
No. I can't think of a valid reason why legitimate evidence (that
existed at the time, no retconning) can't be produce
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Zefram wrote:
> Action: assigning an inappropriate judgement to the question on veracity
>in CFJ 1711
proto-judgement:
This is a very unfortunate case. I'm a very strong believer in "no
compulsion of judges." Incorrect judgement should be dealt with by
appeals, wi
On Nov 28, 2007 2:49 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For example, nkep could be a contract action in a private contract, which
> is permissible or not permissible by the contract (and thus answerable to
> in Agoran courts).
One last comment before I get back to work. R591 states rega
On Wednesday 28 November 2007, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > Additionally, wouldn't a finding of UNDETERMINED cause a split in the
> > gamestate around the question of whether or not comex wins?
>
> Unfortunate perhaps, but I prefer not to judge based on convenience of
> implications.
Undetermined is a r
On Nov 28, 2007 3:09 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> > The way I see it, if part of a clause is nonsense, then the whole
> > clause is nonsense.
>
> Were you around for that particular moment in the UNDEAD, where we posted
> nonsense that looke
On Nov 28, 2007 2:56 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 28, 2007 2:49 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > A compromise offer: nkep is clearly not understandable to most Agorans,
> > and thus the burden falls onto the users of the term to show it is
> > an action. If th
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> The way I see it, if part of a clause is nonsense, then the whole
> clause is nonsense.
Were you around for that particular moment in the UNDEAD, where we posted
nonsense that looked like sense to hide the sense that looked like nonsense?
-G.
On Nov 28, 2007 2:49 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm afraid I disagree. I know nothing of the kind. We don't have enough
> information to determine what it means. (By the way, the "to" is not part
> of the nonsense phrase, that's important in construing a possible verb).
You're
On Nov 28, 2007 2:49 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm afraid I disagree. I know nothing of the kind. We don't have enough
> information to determine what it means. (By the way, the "to" is not part
> of the nonsense phrase, that's important in construing a possible verb).
>
> For
On Wednesday 28 November 2007, Zefram wrote:
> comex wrote:
> >But this would be pointless, since you're only barring 1/3 of the
> >people you want to.
>
> If you're going to bar three pro-appeal people, there ought to be
> some balance by barring more anti-appeal people. I think barring one
> pro
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> A compromise offer: nkep is clearly not understandable to most Agorans,
> and thus the burden falls onto the users of the term to show it is
> an action. If they can provide evidence in four days that nkep is an
> action (e.g. a copy of a contract, with
On Nov 28, 2007 2:49 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 28, 2007 2:43 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I intend, on behalf of Agora, with Agoran Consent, to
> > nkeplwgplxgioyzjvtxjnncsqscvntlbdqromyeyvlhkjgteaqnneqgujjpwcbyfrpueoydjjk.
>
> In the event that the above i
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> I'm not comfortable with this. We know that the nonsense phrase means
> neither "to act" nor "to not act". This leads to a judgment of FALSE,
> not UNDETERMINED.
I'm afraid I disagree. I know nothing of the kind. We don't have enough
information to det
On Nov 28, 2007 2:38 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 28, 2007 2:34 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Of course, on behalf of Agora. I would be embarrassing to
> > nkeplwgplxgioyzjvtxjnncsqscvntlbdqromyeyvlhkjgteaqnneqgujjpwcbyfrpueoydjjk
> > for myself.
>
> Then I thi
On Nov 28, 2007 2:34 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Of course, on behalf of Agora. I would be embarrassing to
> nkeplwgplxgioyzjvtxjnncsqscvntlbdqromyeyvlhkjgteaqnneqgujjpwcbyfrpueoydjjk
> for myself.
Then I think that you need to specify that in your notice of intent.
-root
On Nov 28, 2007 2:30 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 28, 2007 2:24 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I intend, with Agoran Consent, to
> > nkeplwgplxgioyzjvtxjnncsqscvntlbdqromyeyvlhkjgteaqnneqgujjpwcbyfrpueoydjjk.
>
> What rule defines that as a dependent action? Or
On Nov 28, 2007 2:24 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I intend, with Agoran Consent, to
> nkeplwgplxgioyzjvtxjnncsqscvntlbdqromyeyvlhkjgteaqnneqgujjpwcbyfrpueoydjjk.
What rule defines that as a dependent action? Or did you mean on
behalf of Agora?
-root
On Nov 28, 2007 2:00 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alternatively, I intend, with the consent of Justices Goethe and root,
> to have the board of appeals for CFJ 1805 (1805a) post the following
> message to the public forum:
>
> (For brevity, the board adopts Judge BobTHJ's abbreviation
On Nov 28, 2007 1:43 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The board hereby overrules to UNDETERMINED. The various gratuitous arguments
> center around whether we can infer noun vs. verb phrases in the nonsense
> statement. But trivially, the rules distinguish "actions" from "inactions"
>
On Nov 28, 2007 11:31 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BobTHJ wrote:
>
> > Proto-Proposal: Quality Judge Assignment
>
> I suspect that this would be a PITA to add to the CotC DB. Would it
> be a big deal if it failed to reflect this stuff?
>
I think as long as it was included in the regu
1 - 100 of 119 matches
Mail list logo
