Eris wrote:
On 12/4/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Eris wrote:
I think this was deliberate.
If a judge judges GUILTY and delivers sentence, e gains 1 Blue and
1 Black. If the GUILTY is overturned, e only loses 1 Blue. That's
wrong, whether it was deliberate or not.
I see. Why n
On 12/4/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Eris wrote:
>
> > I think this was deliberate.
>
> If a judge judges GUILTY and delivers sentence, e gains 1 Blue and
> 1 Black. If the GUILTY is overturned, e only loses 1 Blue. That's
> wrong, whether it was deliberate or not.
I see. Why not j
Eris wrote:
I think this was deliberate.
If a judge judges GUILTY and delivers sentence, e gains 1 Blue and
1 Black. If the GUILTY is overturned, e only loses 1 Blue. That's
wrong, whether it was deliberate or not.
I think this was deliberate.
On 12/4/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Proto-Proposal: Fix revocation of judicial salary
> (AI = 2, please)
>
> Amend Rule 2126 (Voting Power) by replacing this text:
>
>(-B) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause
> los
root wrote:
On Dec 4, 2007 10:23 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What reasons are those, again? It's been long enough and busy enough
that I've forgotten.
Regarding the first version, I said:
Primarily because I don't think that impossible actions should
necessarily be considered
Goethe wrote:
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, comex wrote:
H. Notary Goethe, I formally request that you (per R2173) disclose to me
the private contract in question's text and set of parties to the extent
that you have been informed of it.
The following was received by me: complete headers available if n
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, Zefram wrote:
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> I hereby initiate the following criminal case, with comex as the
>> defendent,
> ...
>> I bar BobTHJ.
>
> You (the initiator) can't bar an extra person in a criminal case.
> As the barring would normally be an integral part of initiating t
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, comex wrote:
> The public message in question could be construed such that Goethe was
> accusing me of violating Rule 2149. However, if e wanted me to be found
> INNOCENT, presumably e did not actually believe that I violated the
> rule. ;)
Touche! :)
On Dec 4, 2007 10:23 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What reasons are those, again? It's been long enough and busy enough
> that I've forgotten.
Regarding the first version, I said:
> Primarily because I don't think that impossible actions should
> necessarily be considered regulated.
Proto-Proposal: Fix revocation of judicial salary
(AI = 2, please)
Amend Rule 2126 (Voting Power) by replacing this text:
(-B) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause
loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an
appeal case where a judgem
root wrote:
5348 D1 3Murphy Refactor regulation
AGAINST. Same reasons I voted against all the other versions of this.
What reasons are those, again? It's been long enough and busy enough
that I've forgotten.
On Tuesday 04 December 2007 21:36:30 Ed Murphy wrote:
> pikhq wrote:
>
> > The contract, by my interpretation, was formed when you submitted the
contract
> > to H. Notary Goethe (since I said "I will agree to this if you submit this
> > private contract to the Notary.") By this interpretation,
On Tuesday 04 December 2007 21:21:15 Ed Murphy wrote:
> pikhq wrote:
>
> > I don't. Wait for the proposal adding UNAWARE to pass *succesfully*. ;)
>
> And risk being dinged for late judgement? I think not.
>
>
It should be done a few hours before you need to judge it. . . Of course, you
migh
pikhq wrote:
I don't. Wait for the proposal adding UNAWARE to pass *succesfully*. ;)
And risk being dinged for late judgement? I think not.
On Tuesday 04 December 2007 20:43:33 Taral wrote:
> On 12/4/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I do not consent to this. With consent of the other members, I intend
> > to have the panel judge OVERTURN to EXCUSED, with these arguments (as
> > I wrote earlier today):
> >
> > By the preced
On 12/4/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I do not consent to this. With consent of the other members, I intend
> to have the panel judge OVERTURN to EXCUSED, with these arguments (as
> I wrote earlier today):
>
> By the precedent of CFJ 1804, EXCUSED was appropriate, therefore GUILTY
> w
On Tuesday 04 December 2007 20:00:39 Zefram wrote:
> Ed Murphy wrote:
> >At the time CFJ 1811 was called, I had not violated an agreement to
> >perform the indicated transfer within a given time limit.
>
> JOOI, are there any parties to the agreement in question other than pikhq
> and you? No one
On Tuesday 04 December 2007 19:55:10 Taral wrote:
> On 12/4/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Prior question: 1812 culpability
> > Prior judgement:GUILTY
> > Prior assignment date: 04 Dec 2007 20:01:00 GMT
>
> With consent of
Zefram wrote:
JOOI, are there any parties to the agreement in question other than pikhq
and you?
No.
Ed Murphy wrote:
>At the time CFJ 1811 was called, I had not violated an agreement to
>perform the indicated transfer within a given time limit.
JOOI, are there any parties to the agreement in question other than pikhq
and you? No one has actually made an explicit statement on this issue,
so I've
Ed Murphy wrote:
>I thought the point of pikhq's attempted scam is that the actual
>definition of "dependent contract" didn't get adopted properly,
Yes.
>hence eir contracts can qualify by public claim.
The point of root's judgement is that they can't, even in this
definitional vacuum. We've hi
On 12/4/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Prior question: 1812 culpability
> Prior judgement:GUILTY
> Prior assignment date: 04 Dec 2007 20:01:00 GMT
With consent of the other members, I intend to have the panel judge
AFFIRM. T
Zefram wrote:
You (the initiator) can't bar an extra person in a criminal case.
As the barring would normally be an integral part of initiating the case,
I'm not sure whether it's separable. Hence I'm not sure whether you've
initiated a criminal case at all. Opinions?
Rule 1504, relevant par
root wrote:
I find that pikhq succeeded in creating several contracts that e deems
to be dependent, but not in creating any contracts that are dependent
as required by Rule 2136. I therefore find CFJ 1816 FALSE; it follows
trivially that CFJ 1817 is FALSE as well.
I thought the point of pikhq
Wooble wrote:
On Dec 1, 2007 11:35 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Wooble wrote:
5339 D0 2Murphy Andre's degree
AGAINST [Suber's Rule 211 solves this paradox, contrary to the thesis'
assertion that no change to the rules could deal with it effectively]
Disagree. Suber's
Josiah Worcester wrote:
>I intend to appeal this sentence with two support.
There are three things wrong with this. Firstly, since you're the
defendant, you don't need any support for an appeal. Secondly, subject
to court decisions, there is no sentence there to appeal, because those
"prescribed
On Tuesday 04 December 2007 13:49:54 comex wrote:
> I hereby initiate the following criminal case, with Goethe as the
> defendant, accusing em of violating Rule 2149 by recklessly (and falsely)
> claiming that I violated Rule 2149. The message-id of this claim is:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Argu
Then I went ahead and checked root's reference to R2136, which
clearly states that the AFO CANNOT award points in a contest.
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr
I think I can split hairs fine enough in CFJ 1818 to make hasenpfeffer.
pikhq said in http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-
business/2007-December/008405.html:
I wish to gain 10 points in Win 1.
I wish to gain 10 points in Win 2.
I wish to gain 10 points in Win 3.
I wis
On Nov 30, 2007 4:10 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I hereby assign BobTHJ as judge of CFJ 1812.
>
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1812
>
> == CFJ 1812 ==
>
> Type: crimi
On Dec 4, 2007 9:27 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> See R1688. Agora has 0 power (by default), and thus cannot make
> changes where a mechanism for those changes is defined in an
> instrument with a power greater than 0 (which would be any instrument,
> by definition).
>
Winning is
On Dec 4, 2007 10:42 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The presence of R2125(a) would indicate that there is a class of
> regulated action which is not prohibited. R101(ii) grants permission
> to players to take actions which are not regulated. However, it does
> not forbid players from
32 matches
Mail list logo
