On Dec 19, 2007 11:18 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> T1 = first time at which pikhq claimed to register WALRUS
> T2 = second time at which pikhq claimed to register WALRUS
>
> Based on information known to pikhq at the time, and without resorting
> to retroactivity, WALRUS was a person
I wrote:
I agree with pikhq that, in context, WALRUS clearly referred to a
partnership with then-undisclosed basis.
Actually, I think this was comex's argument. Blah. Things get
rough when the message backlog gets this large and complex.
Anyway, the CotC DB is caught up now (except for a co
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Josiah Worcester wrote:
> As H. Notary Goethe can confirm, it is a distinct partnership.
> If you really *must* know, its basis consists of myself and avpx.
Is this permission for me to confirm or deny this publicly? (One
might think the fact that I am asking if I have perm
Zefram wrote:
If WALRUS is a person, and was a person at the time that you originally
attempted to register it, then it was capable of submitting CFJs then.
It failed only because you failed to make a suitable announcement.
I agree with pikhq that, in context, WALRUS clearly referred to a
part
pikhq wrote:
If WALRUS was not a player before this message, it submits the CFJs that it
would have submitted if it were a player before this message.
Since I have to track whether this series of alleged actions created any
Blue Marks, I interpret matters as follows, pending clear and convinci
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> Finally, Rule 2156 defines circumstances under which VVLOP is
> specifically set to an integer value. Each week, EVLOP is explicitly
> "rounded to an integer", making it clearly an integer, and VVLOP is
> then "set to the same rounded value", not to an equ
On Wednesday 19 December 2007 22:50:03 Ed Murphy wrote:
> pikhq wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday 19 December 2007 15:54:10 Zefram wrote:
> >> I hereby assign pikhq as judge of CFJ 1836.
> >>
> >> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1836
> >>
> >> == CFJ
pikhq wrote:
On Wednesday 19 December 2007 15:54:10 Zefram wrote:
I hereby assign pikhq as judge of CFJ 1836.
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1836
== CFJ 1836 ==
Type: inquir
pikhq wrote:
On Tuesday 18 December 2007 13:38:42 comex wrote:
The AFO and I create the following contract:
{{
1. This is a contract governed by the rules of Agora. Its parties are the
AFO and comex. Its set of parties CANNOT be changed.
Invalid partnership. You're part of the basis of
Ian Kelly wrote:
On Dec 19, 2007 8:45 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It is reasonable to assume that there was evidence of the act when Agora's
Child submitted that CFJ. . .
Considering that I myself caused Agora's Child to do so. ;)
Speculation about motive is poor evidence.
Zefram wrote:
APPROX DATE (UTC) CASE SUBJECTAWD EVENT
[snip]
> 02 Dec 2007 23:39:06 1818 pikhq +1b call for judgement
This didn't happen, due to 2176 (+b)'s "except as noted below" clause.
> 05 Dec 2007 16:15:56 1812 BobTHJ -1B judgement overturned
> 05 Dec 2007 17:47
Apparently, this test case is testing whether an assertion that an action
happened outside of the public forum can even be evidenced in the game. . .
Intriguing.
An assertion on whether an action happened on the public forum IMO
wouldn't be sufficient evidence either, but the archives wo
On Wednesday 19 December 2007, Zefram wrote:
> Statement: It is possible for a game action to take effect
> retroactively.
> Statement: It is possible for a contract change to take effect
>retroactively.
Gratuitous arguments: I would argue that both are possible by means of a
rule, pro
On Dec 19, 2007 8:45 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It is reasonable to assume that there was evidence of the act when Agora's
> Child submitted that CFJ. . .
> Considering that I myself caused Agora's Child to do so. ;)
Speculation about motive is poor evidence. Agora's Child
On Wednesday 19 December 2007, Josiah Worcester wrote:
> On Wednesday 19 December 2007 20:43:10 Levi Stephen wrote:
> > I'm happy that SLIPPERY was the appropriate decision. The defandant's
> > assertion/admittance that the alleged act occured was not available at
> > the time that judgement occure
comex wrote:
>On Dec 19, 2007 10:35 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Initiator: comex
>CoE: pikhq is the initiator.
Admitted: CFJ 1831 was initiated by pikhq. I made a similar error
regarding CFJ 1828a, also initiated by pikhq. I've corrected my case
files.
Josiah Worcester wrote:
On Wednesday 19 December 2007 20:45:51 Steve Gardner wrote:
H. Promotor root,
Please list me as a Watcher. Hello, Agorans.
A funny thing happened to me a few days ago: a man from California who
is writing a book about the role cockpit automation systems in airline
On Wednesday 19 December 2007 20:54:31 Levi Stephen wrote:
> Josiah Worcester wrote:
> > On Wednesday 19 December 2007 20:43:10 Levi Stephen wrote:
> >> I'm happy that SLIPPERY was the appropriate decision. The defandant's
> >> assertion/admittance that the alleged act occured was not available at
Josiah Worcester wrote:
On Wednesday 19 December 2007 20:43:10 Levi Stephen wrote:
I'm happy that SLIPPERY was the appropriate decision. The defandant's
assertion/admittance that the alleged act occured was not available at
the time that judgement occured. Is REMAND appropriate if new evidence
On Wednesday 19 December 2007 20:45:51 Steve Gardner wrote:
> H. Promotor root,
>
> Please list me as a Watcher. Hello, Agorans.
>
> A funny thing happened to me a few days ago: a man from California who
> is writing a book about the role cockpit automation systems in airline
> crashes, wrote t
On Wednesday 19 December 2007 20:43:10 Levi Stephen wrote:
> I'm happy that SLIPPERY was the appropriate decision. The defandant's
> assertion/admittance that the alleged act occured was not available at
> the time that judgement occured. Is REMAND appropriate if new evidence
> is available?
It
I'm happy that SLIPPERY was the appropriate decision. The defandant's
assertion/admittance that the alleged act occured was not available at
the time that judgement occured. Is REMAND appropriate if new evidence
is available?
Levi
On Dec 19, 2007 10:35 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Initiator: comex
CoE: pikhq is the initiator.
On Wednesday 19 December 2007, Josiah Worcester wrote:
> Also, I create the following inquiry case:
> Statement: WALRUS is a player.
> Arguments for: It registered as such.
> It is a private contract.
> It qualifies as a partnership.
> There is no requirement for it to be declared *as* a partnershi
On Wednesday 19 December 2007 18:05:54 Zefram wrote:
> Josiah Worcester wrote:
> >I cannot judge this, since the H. CotC Zefram seems to think a different
case,
> >which WALRUS initiated, is not a case.
>
> I don't see the link between these cases. There is no doubt regarding the
> identity of
Josiah Worcester wrote:
>I cannot judge this, since the H. CotC Zefram seems to think a different case,
>which WALRUS initiated, is not a case.
I don't see the link between these cases. There is no doubt regarding the
identity of the initiator of CFJ 1836, and "Fookiemyartug" has a clear
referen
On Dec 19, 2007 5:24 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Your beliefs on WALRUS are irrelevant. It is a non-first-class player, and
> WALRUS is its name.
Eir beliefs are not relevant, but eir context is. If you don't define
WALRUS, how are we to know whether you're referring to a pr
On Wednesday 19 December 2007 16:02:43 Zefram wrote:
> Josiah Worcester wrote:
> >WALRUS registers.
>
> "WALRUS" does not adequately identify any particular entity, so I believe
> that this attempted registration is ineffective.
>
> >WALRUS calls for judgement on the following (and ask for linked
On Dec 19, 2007, at 12:39 AM, Josiah Worcester wrote:
The following proposals are submitted by WALRUS (note: 100 proposals).
As the current point of contact for Human Point Two, I am tempted to
have Human.2 declare war against WALRUS -- but I'd have to get an
updated list of the Human.2 m
On 12/19/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Roger Hicks wrote:
> >I was careful to ensure my statements
> >regarding Fookiemyartug were in truthful (at least I believed them to
> >be).
>
> In the message in which you announced Fookiemyartug's existence and
> registr
Roger Hicks wrote:
>I was careful to ensure my statements
>regarding Fookiemyartug were in truthful (at least I believed them to
>be).
In the message in which you announced Fookiemyartug's existence and
registration, you claimed that it was a partnership (you used the t
On 12/18/07, David Nicol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm stunned to see Agorans discussing playability.
I'm stunned to see that name on this list. :) Lurking much?
--
Eris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On Dec 19, 2007 6:03 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12/18/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The judgement of CFJ 1719 (http://cfj.qoid.us/1719) states that Peekee can
> > allow players to act on behalf of em through a webform, but what about a
> > plain old contract?
>
> I've gott
On 12/19/07, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> mark repealing stuff
I will probably vote FOR this, but submit a proposal sometime this
weekend to reintroduce marks with some more useful rewards and ways to
spend them.
34 matches
Mail list logo
