On Jan 14, 2008 9:58 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Furthermore, even if the judgement of 1860a was inappropriate, Rule
> 911 would have been violated by the panel, not by me; I would have
> instead violated Rule 2157.
>
Ah, drat. I referenced the wrong rule :(
BobTHJ
root wrote:
On Jan 14, 2008 6:40 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I hereby assign the judicial panel of Levi, Murphy, and root as judge
of CFJ 1870a.
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1870a
I intend to cause the panel to judge REMAND, as requested by the prior ju
Zefram wrote:
I hereby assign the judicial panel of comex, Murphy, and root as judge
of CFJ 1863a.
I intend to cause the panel to judge REMAND. Arguments:
In BobTHJ's judgement of CFJ 1860, e explicitly cites the last
paragraph of Rule 2159, and accurately discusses its direct
interpretation
On Jan 15, 2008 12:02 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Iammars wrote:
>
> > Just out of curiosity, is it considered okay to mention the previous
> > judges arguments if you're the second judge on a case?
>
> Yes. There used to be a rule that you weren't allowed to make the
> same decisi
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> I assume that BobTHJ is referring to this comment by Goethe on
> January 10:
>
>> [statement by Goethe]
>
> However, this is a mis-statement of the precedent in CFJ 1804,
I think e was referring to my actual judgement, which was more
precise in its use of
Iammars wrote:
Just out of curiosity, is it considered okay to mention the previous
judges arguments if you're the second judge on a case?
Yes. There used to be a rule that you weren't allowed to make the
same decision using the same reasoning, but nowadays this is covered
by the expectation
Just out of curiosity, is it considered okay to mention the previous judges
arguments if you're the second judge on a case?
--
-Iammars
www.jmcteague.com
On 1/14/08, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Woo, precise message timings have become relevant! This retraction
> message overtook the initiation message in transit on yzma.clarkk.net.
> I received the retraction before the initiation. Per CFJ 1646, however,
> the initiation was definitely the
On Jan 14, 2008 7:09 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> H. woggle, I hereby inform you of criminal case 1868 in which you are
> the defendant, and invite you to rebut the argument for your guilt.
>
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1868
>
> ===
On Monday 14 January 2008 20:36:07 Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Jan 14, 2008 8:26 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I am willing to disregard your contractual obligations to deregister,
> > BobTHJ, if you are willing to end the Vote Market.
>
> I'm willing to disregard your filling of
On Jan 14, 2008 8:26 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am willing to disregard your contractual obligations to deregister, BobTHJ,
> if you are willing to end the Vote Market.
>
I'm willing to disregard your filling of my Buy tickets to deregister
me if you are.
BobTHJ
I am willing to disregard your contractual obligations to deregister, BobTHJ,
if you are willing to end the Vote Market.
On Jan 14, 2008 7:41 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I CFJ on the following: The Vote Market is a contract.
> Arguments against: It was formed by Fookiemyartug and BobTHJ. Fookiemyartug
> has never been a player. Therefore, the Vote Market never formed.
>
Arguments: While Fookiemy
On Jan 14, 2008 7:48 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know, I know. I'm trying to imply that it's a right to cease to be a member
> of a contract, although the rules do not say that much. . .
If everybody had the right to cease to be party to any contract at any
time, contracts
On Jan 14, 2008 7:41 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I CFJ on the following: The Vote Market is a contract.
> Arguments against: It was formed by Fookiemyartug and BobTHJ. Fookiemyartug
> has never been a player. Therefore, the Vote Market never formed.
It didn't need to be a pla
On Jan 14, 2008 7:36 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> iv. Every person has the right to refuse to become party to a binding
> agreement.
>
> I refuse to be party to the Vote Market.
>
Except you already voluntarily became party to the agreement. Were you
to leave you could refuse t
On Monday 14 January 2008 19:43:22 Ed Murphy wrote:
> pikhq wrote:
> > iv. Every person has the right to refuse to become party to a binding
> > agreement.
> >
> > I refuse to be party to the Vote Market.
>
> You have the right to refuse to /become/ party, not the right to refuse
> to /be/ party.
pikhq wrote:
iv. Every person has the right to refuse to become party to a binding
agreement.
I refuse to be party to the Vote Market.
You have the right to refuse to /become/ party, not the right to refuse
to /be/ party. What do you think "binding" means, anyway?
On Monday 14 January 2008 19:34:45 Ed Murphy wrote:
> pikhq wrote:
> > On Monday 14 January 2008 18:53:13 Ian Kelly wrote:
> >> On Jan 14, 2008 6:49 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> Ah, I missed that clause. In that case, the P2PP fills the Buy Ticket
> >>> quoted below and agrees to
pikhq wrote:
On Monday 14 January 2008 18:53:13 Ian Kelly wrote:
On Jan 14, 2008 6:49 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ah, I missed that clause. In that case, the P2PP fills the Buy Ticket
quoted below and agrees to terminate the Vote Market. I note that
nothing prevents the P2PP fro
On Jan 14, 2008 7:29 PM, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Am I the speaker now?
Yes.
> Who are the MWPs?
Yourself, possibly Human Point Two, myself, and pikhq.
-root
On Monday 14 January 2008 19:21:50 Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Jan 14, 2008 7:01 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Monday 14 January 2008 18:53:13 Ian Kelly wrote:
> > > On Jan 14, 2008 6:49 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Ah, I missed that clause. In that case, t
Josiah Worcester wrote:
You're late.
Sincerely, Minister Without Portfolio (but not Champion) pikhq.
Am I the speaker now?
Who are the MWPs?
I've lost track again :(
Levi
Ian Kelly wrote:
On Jan 14, 2008 6:40 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I hereby assign the judicial panel of Levi, Murphy, and root as judge
of CFJ 1870a.
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1870a
I intend to cause the panel to judge REMAND, as requested by the prio
On Jan 14, 2008 7:01 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Monday 14 January 2008 18:53:13 Ian Kelly wrote:
> > On Jan 14, 2008 6:49 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Ah, I missed that clause. In that case, the P2PP fills the Buy Ticket
> > > quoted below and agrees t
On Monday 14 January 2008 18:53:13 Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Jan 14, 2008 6:49 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Ah, I missed that clause. In that case, the P2PP fills the Buy Ticket
> > quoted below and agrees to terminate the Vote Market. I note that
> > nothing prevents the P2PP from fi
On Jan 14, 2008 8:55 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 14, 2008 6:52 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Naturally, however, if (say) a CFJ is submitted buried in a message
> > that has other concerns, as an officeholder I will notice and process
> > them. In fact, I will prob
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> Ok, so the panel did say that the prior judge's ruling was "clearly
> wrong", which was too strong a phrasing in retrospect. The arguments
> used to support that statement indicated that the prior judge's
> arguments were "clearly wrong", not necessarily ei
On Jan 14, 2008 6:52 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Naturally, however, if (say) a CFJ is submitted buried in a message
> that has other concerns, as an officeholder I will notice and process
> them. In fact, I will probably be somewhat more lenient with what is
> required to submit a CFJ
On Jan 14, 2008 6:49 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ah, I missed that clause. In that case, the P2PP fills the Buy Ticket
> quoted below and agrees to terminate the Vote Market. I note that
> nothing prevents the P2PP from filling the same ticket an additional
> three times so that no
On Jan 14, 2008 8:35 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> comex wrote:
> >As a non-officeholder I don't always read in detail every single
> >public message
>
> That's why I put the judge's name and the CFJ number in the subject line
> of each assignment message. And, for that matter, why each
On Monday 14 January 2008 18:35:20 Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Jan 14, 2008 5:53 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I create the following Buy Ticket:
> > Action: agree to terminate the Vote Market, if a member of the Vote
> > Market Cost: 5 VP
> >
> > The above does not cease to exist w
On Jan 14, 2008 6:40 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I hereby assign the judicial panel of Levi, Murphy, and root as judge
> of CFJ 1870a.
>
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1870a
I intend to cause the panel to judge REMAND, as requested by the prior judge.
-roo
comex wrote:
>As a non-officeholder I don't always read in detail every single
>public message
That's why I put the judge's name and the CFJ number in the subject line
of each assignment message. And, for that matter, why each assignment
is the main topic of a message, rather than buried in a mes
On Jan 14, 2008 5:53 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I create the following Buy Ticket:
> Action: agree to terminate the Vote Market, if a member of the Vote Market
> Cost: 5 VP
>
> The above does not cease to exist while the Vote Market exists.
How does it "not cease to exist"?
On Jan 11, 2008, at 2:00 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
Goethe wrote:
Other thought: "Legal name" in an Agoran CFJ means must refer to
"legal in terms of Agora" and that means "Agoran name" which is
necessarily unique
which is legally trivial and not the statement intent but it's
what it says.
O
On Jan 14, 2008 4:48 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Your recusal does not encourage your role as CotC.
As a non-officeholder I don't always read in detail every single
public message and it seems I forgot this assignment among a flood of
messages. If Zefram truly wanted to "kee
On Jan 14, 2008 5:42 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The term "to join" may have a different definition. It is neither used nor
> defined in the rules, so the question is what definition it has *in the Vote
> Market*. ;)
The Vote Market agreement doesn't define it anywhere I can
On Jan 14, 2008 5:44 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't see how you jump to that conclusion. SLIPPERY is not appropriate
> if an appeals court rejects the decision. It has.
SLIPPERY is, by definition, "appropriate if the information available
to the judge is insufficient to det
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008, Zefram wrote:
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> That's rich, considering that you're showing a complete and utter
>> misapplication, misapprehension, and misunderstanding of burden of proof
>> in a criminal versus an inquiry trial.
>
> The "beyond reasonable doubt" bit applies only to w
On Monday 14 January 2008 17:39:38 Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Jan 14, 2008 5:19 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I join the Vote Market.
> > If the above was succesful, I leave the Vote Market.
> >
> > I CFJ on the following: it is possible to join the Vote Market while
> > already a
On Jan 14, 2008 5:19 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I join the Vote Market.
> If the above was succesful, I leave the Vote Market.
>
> I CFJ on the following: it is possible to join the Vote Market while already a
> member of the Vote Market.
It seems to me that it is categorica
On Jan 14, 2008 5:34 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I hereby assign the judicial panel of comex, Murphy, and root as judge
> of CFJ 1863a.
Zefram, you're aware that my Default Justice prerogative expired at
the end of December?
-root
On Monday 14 January 2008 17:31:54 Zefram wrote:
> Josiah Worcester wrote:
> >I was assigned MWoP by proposal. Care to explain how a proposal doing so
> > would not apply to me?
>
> Oh, sorry, I didn't remember that. I thought it had been awarded in an
> equally faulty manner.
>
> -zefram
CFJ 185
Josiah Worcester wrote:
>I was assigned MWoP by proposal. Care to explain how a proposal doing so would
>not apply to me?
Oh, sorry, I didn't remember that. I thought it had been awarded in an
equally faulty manner.
-zefram
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>That's rich, considering that you're showing a complete and utter
>misapplication, misapprehension, and misunderstanding of burden of proof
>in a criminal versus an inquiry trial.
The "beyond reasonable doubt" bit applies only to whether the defendant
performed the alleged act
On Jan 14, 2008 5:26 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not sure. If an argument is coincidentally the right judgement
> but for the wrong reasons, and is corrected in arguments either through
> a concurring opinion or a new judgement, the original judgment might be
> considered inap
On Jan 14, 2008 5:05 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I really should have added the issue of burden of proof to the judgement.
> Reading eir arguments that led that way, I would assign the arguments an
> "error rating" of 20-40% (as e made the arguments for "non-nomicness" but
> didn't
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> ...So if IRRELEVANT were ultimately found to be appropriate in
> 1860, then EXCUSED would be inappropriate in 1863 (it can't be true
> that "the defendant could not reasonably avoid breaching the rules in
> a manner at least as serious as that alleged"
On Monday 14 January 2008 17:15:26 Zefram wrote:
> Josiah Worcester wrote:
> >Sincerely, Minister Without Portfolio (but not Champion) pikhq.
>
> No, you're not MWoP either.
>
> -zefram
I was assigned MWoP by proposal. Care to explain how a proposal doing so would
not apply to me?
On Jan 14, 2008 5:05 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I considered whether a reassigned judgement that was also "irrelevant"
> would lead to INNOCENT, but since the arguments were rejected, I felt
> that would still be "EXCUSED", so the excused vs. guilty are appropriate
> choices.
The
Josiah Worcester wrote:
>Sincerely, Minister Without Portfolio (but not Champion) pikhq.
No, you're not MWoP either.
-zefram
pikhq wrote:
Murphy, could you get the Left Hand to bail me out? :p
Not at the moment. (I also have yet to take the time to actually sit
down and grok the darn thing.)
On Jan 14, 2008 5:05 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yeah. . . My point is to get the hell out of the vote market, actually.
Considering that you got so far into debt in the vote market in order
to force another player to deregister, my hope is that you will be
left to actually w
On Monday 14 January 2008 17:05:15 Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Jan 14, 2008 4:59 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I recommend EXILE for anything he is guilty of.
>
> Criminal sentences take a week to become active anyway.
>
> -root
So? :p
On Monday 14 January 2008 17:04:19 Zefram wrote:
> Josiah Worcester wrote:
> >I retract my equity CFJ.
>
> Woo, precise message timings have become relevant! This retraction
> message overtook the initiation message in transit on yzma.clarkk.net.
> I received the retraction before the initiation.
On Jan 14, 2008 4:59 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I recommend EXILE for anything he is guilty of.
Criminal sentences take a week to become active anyway.
-root
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Jan 14, 2008 4:24 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The appeals court has rejected BobTHJ's arguments given for CFJ 1860,
>> so there are two choices; EXCUSED (following the precedent in CFJ 1804)
>> or GUILTY.
>
> Not quite. We determined th
Josiah Worcester wrote:
>I retract my equity CFJ.
Woo, precise message timings have become relevant! This retraction
message overtook the initiation message in transit on yzma.clarkk.net.
I received the retraction before the initiation. Per CFJ 1646, however,
the initiation was definitely the fi
On Jan 14, 2008 4:43 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I post the following sell ticket 27 times:
> Action: Vote on a proposal.
> Cost: 1VP
So to fulfill the obligations created by these tickets, you just have
to vote on some proposal? It doesn't matter on which proposal or on
how
You're late.
Sincerely, Minister Without Portfolio (but not Champion) pikhq.
On Monday 14 January 2008 16:56:28 Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Jan 14, 2008 4:49 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You are obligated to deregister. Please, do not make any further game
> > actions before I sic the equity court on you.
>
> An obligation which I have the next seven days
On Jan 14, 2008 4:53 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
> > Arguments: As H. Goethe pointed out, there was no serious doubt over
> > the appropriateness of the judgment in CFJ 1860. Instead the decision
> > to REASSIGN was made based upon the appe
On Jan 14, 2008 4:49 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You are obligated to deregister. Please, do not make any further game actions
> before I sic the equity court on you.
>
>
An obligation which I have the next seven days to fill.
BobTHJ
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
> Arguments: As H. Goethe pointed out, there was no serious doubt over
> the appropriateness of the judgment in CFJ 1860. Instead the decision
> to REASSIGN was made based upon the appeal panel's distaste for the
> bribery involved in my original judgment. R
On Monday 14 January 2008 16:43:10 Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Jan 14, 2008 4:24 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As BobTHJ states, if a claim is made to something which is not a nomic,
> > it is fairly reasonable to call the truth of the claim IRRELEVANT to
> > R2159 ("false" might also
On Jan 14, 2008 4:24 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The appeals court has rejected BobTHJ's arguments given for CFJ 1860,
> so there are two choices; EXCUSED (following the precedent in CFJ 1804)
> or GUILTY.
Not quite. We determined that BobTHJ's arguments concerning
irrelevance we
Charles Reiss wrote:
>I'm tempted to just rule IRRELEVANT because, as far as I can tell,
>'partner' is not a term used or defined by the rules.
We've historically been quite liberal in what we're willing to judge on.
You're never obliged to judge IRRELEVANT, and in this case you have
relevant thin
On Jan 14, 2008 6:28 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 14, 2008 4:24 PM, Iammars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Uh, I'm not even in the Vote Market.
> >
> But this does not preclude you from becoming party to it to fill this
> Buy Ticket.
I know.
>
>
> > Besides, the Vote Marke
On Jan 14, 2008 4:24 PM, Iammars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Uh, I'm not even in the Vote Market.
>
But this does not preclude you from becoming party to it to fill this
Buy Ticket.
> Besides, the Vote Market is for votes, not judgings.
>
There are certain elements that would want you to believe
Uh, I'm not even in the Vote Market.
Besides, the Vote Market is for votes, not judgings.
And yeah, another controversial CFJ! I'll get around to a proojudgement as
soon as my glasses get fixed.
On Jan 14, 2008 6:18 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 14, 2008 4:05 PM, Zefram <[
On Jan 14, 2008 10:51 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I hereby recuse comex from CFJ 1855. I hereby assign woggle as judge
> of CFJ 1855.
>
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1855
>
> == CFJ 1855 ==
>
> Type
On Sunday 13 January 2008 20:16:18 Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Jan 13, 2008 6:39 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Certain patent titles are of the Order of Agora. These patent titles are:
> > - Knight Grand Officer of the Order of Agora
> > - Knight Commander of the Order of Agora
> >
Ian Kelly wrote:
On Jan 14, 2008 3:51 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Levi wrote:
Is it worth considering the decision that was almost made before for
this appeal?
Yes, I had forgotten about this. (I wasn't on the panel at the time,
so I just filed it away in case it led to an actua
On Jan 11, 2008 9:55 AM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 11, 2008 5:49 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I hereby assign the judicial panel of Murphy, root, and woggle as judge
> > of CFJ 1860a.
>
> Proto-judgement here:
>
> With the consent of Murphy and root, I intend to
On Jan 14, 2008 3:51 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Levi wrote:
>
> > Is it worth considering the decision that was almost made before for
> > this appeal?
>
> Yes, I had forgotten about this. (I wasn't on the panel at the time,
> so I just filed it away in case it led to an actual pan
BobTHJ wrote:
On Jan 14, 2008 3:14 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I consent. Judges should not get away with accepting bribes.
Even if the judgment was appropriate?
In the case at hand, you did a poor job of addressing and refuting
arguments in favor of the statement's relevance.
Levi wrote:
Is it worth considering the decision that was almost made before for
this appeal?
Yes, I had forgotten about this. (I wasn't on the panel at the time,
so I just filed it away in case it led to an actual panel action.)
Having considered it more carefully, I stand by my opinion tha
On Jan 14, 2008 3:14 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I consent. Judges should not get away with accepting bribes.
>
Even if the judgment was appropriate?
BobTHJ
Ed Murphy wrote:
root wrote:
On Jan 14, 2008 9:15 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I intend to cause the panel to judge REASSIGN, on the basis that
comex apparently did not make the reasonable effort to ask pikhq
whether the alleged event occurred.
I would prefer REMAND. There's no
root wrote:
On Jan 14, 2008 2:33 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jan 11, 2008 3:49 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I hereby assign the judicial panel of Murphy, root, and woggle as judge
of CFJ 1860a.
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1860a
This case
root wrote:
On Jan 11, 2008 3:49 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I hereby assign the judicial panel of Murphy, root, and woggle as judge
of CFJ 1860a.
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1860a
This case requires further consideration. Due to the disregard for
the
On Jan 14, 2008 3:02 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 14, 2008 2:48 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Your recusal does not encourage your role as CotC.
> >
> > I OBJECT to all nominations for CotC other than Zefram.
> >
> I SUPPORT comex's nomination for CotC.
comex wrote:
>I sit up. I note that if elected CotC, I will remind judges about
>cases they are late to judge before recusing them.
I note that, both in my time as CotC and previously, I have always
discharged my judicial duties in a timely fashion. If re-elected I will
continue to keep court bu
On Jan 14, 2008 10:54 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Due to eir recusal with cause from CFJ 1855, I hereby flip comex's
> posture to supine.
I sit up. I note that if elected CotC, I will remind judges about
cases they are late to judge before recusing them.
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>Another way to put it (with a connection to past precedent) is that the
>contents behind the link have not left the technical domain of control
>of the sender, so the message has not been sent.
Interesting point. You could argue that the TDOC is left when the web
server comp
Ed Murphy wrote:
>How many people have reasonable access to Flash Player these days?
I found that requirement unacceptable. I eschew graphical web browsers
for a variety of reasons, chief among them the submission to external
authority, the hideous user interfaces, and the security problems.
I do
On Jan 14, 2008 2:33 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 11, 2008 3:49 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I hereby assign the judicial panel of Murphy, root, and woggle as judge
> > of CFJ 1860a.
> >
> > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1860a
>
> This c
On Jan 11, 2008 3:49 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I hereby assign the judicial panel of Murphy, root, and woggle as judge
> of CFJ 1860a.
>
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1860a
This case requires further consideration. Due to the disregard for
the judicial
On Jan 14, 2008 1:24 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> root wrote:
>
> > We have established precedent that base64 encoding is not an
> > acceptable format for delivering a message containing game actions.
>
> It's acceptable when properly labeled (as you judged in CFJ 1741),
> unaccepta
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, comex wrote:
> Besides, I could have linked to a page controlled by me that displays
> "SUPPORT" or "OBJECT" depending on who views it, or some other equally
> dangerous thing.
Another way to put it (with a connection to past precedent) is that the
contents behind the link h
On Jan 14, 2008 3:24 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How many people have reasonable access to Flash Player these days? If
> it's missing or disabled on their usual machine, then does the page
> clearly indicate what it requires?
There's no native Flash player for amd64 Linux. Now, we
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Why should a link to an external web page that requires Flash Player
>> to view be acceptable?
>
> How many people have reasonable access to Flash Player these days? If
> it's missing or disabled on their usual machine, then does the page
> clearly indicat
root wrote:
> We have established precedent that base64 encoding is not an
> acceptable format for delivering a message containing game actions.
It's acceptable when properly labeled (as you judged in CFJ 1741),
unacceptable otherwise (as I did in CFJ 1580).
I would lean toward any sort of "thi
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> I found some tricks to deal with multiple Boolean flags using
> nested if/then's, but I couldn't wrap my head around it all, so I just
> made some copies and dealt with them individually.
These actually ended up looking like some fall-through switch stateme
On Jan 14, 2008 11:15 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Zefram wrote:
>
> > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1828a
>
> I intend to cause the panel to judge REASSIGN, on the basis that
> comex apparently did not make the reasonable effort to ask pikhq
> whether the
Goethe wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
I scored 6945, although I'm absolutely certain that if the deadline
wasn't today I could've significantly cut that down by the simplest of
optimization.
Well, I feel dumb too... I got 549, but misremembered the timezones and
dinked arou
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> I scored 6945, although I'm absolutely certain that if the deadline
> wasn't today I could've significantly cut that down by the simplest of
> optimization.
Well, I feel dumb too... I got 549, but misremembered the timezones and
dinked around without c
I think this problem would've been a lot easier had I not decided to
make the actual brainfuck coding easier by writing a debugger for the
Mac, which involved remembering how to code in Objective C, learning
Apple's CoreData API that I'd never used before (which was entirely
unnecessary for this ta
On Jan 14, 2008 12:37 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One could argue that the URL counts as a single OBJECT vote, ignoring
> the content behind that URL.
>
> I now intend to cause the panel to judge REMAND, with instructions to
> the judge to consider all of these possible interpretatio
1 - 100 of 127 matches
Mail list logo
