Re: DIS: RE: RE: BUS: RE: [CotC] CFJ 1961 assigned to Pavitra

On 5/22/08, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ah, I see, you're not claiming it's false either, your just noting > that your post has no guaranteed informational content whatsoever > But that means it can't be taken as an actual action of "denying" > anything, because denial depends on th

Re: DIS: RE: Pending court business

ehird wrote: > 2008/5/22 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> Fixed now. >> > > What was wrong? I recently back-populated CFJ 1234 into the database; the judge delivered judgement, but was recused and replaced by Eris for the purpose of responding to a motion (request for the judge to perform some

DIS: Re: BUS: RE: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1958 assigned to Wooble

On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 8:02 AM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Arguments: I suspect FALSE. The contract in question defines an > Annoucement of Chaos as something which destroys all rules and then > terminates the contract. If I remember the punctuation correctly, it was "an Announc

Re: DIS: RE: Pending court business

2008/5/22 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Fixed now. > What was wrong? ehird

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: No unappealable judgements

On Thursday 22 May 2008 6:08:54 ihope wrote: > On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 11:01 PM, Ben Caplan wrote: > > {{ > > Amend rule 911 by inserting the text " of REMAND or REASSIGN" after > > "a judgement" in the second paragraph. > > }} > > That text appears twice, I believe. But only once in the second p

DIS: Re: BUS: No unappealable judgements

On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 11:01 PM, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I submit the following proposal, entitled "No unappealable judgements", > with AI=1.7 and II=1: > > {{ > Amend rule 911 by inserting the text " of REMAND or REASSIGN" after > "a judgement" in the second paragraph. > }} That

Re: BUS: RE: DIS: RE: BUS: RE: [CotC] CFJ 1961 assigned to Pavitra

On Thu, 22 May 2008, Ed Murphy wrote: > But what is truth? Is truth a changing law? > We both have truths-- are mine the same as yours? And here I am with insufficient glitter on my sandals.

Re: BUS: RE: DIS: RE: BUS: RE: [CotC] CFJ 1961 assigned to Pavitra

ais523 wrote: > I call for judgement on the following statement: "It is possible to > take a game action even in a message which includes the disclaimer > in the evidence section." But what is truth? Is truth a changing law? We both have truths-- are mine the same as yours? (Watch these message

Re: DIS: RE: Pending court business

ais523 wrote: > Oh, Eris, just a note: according to the CotC website at > , > you're over 2824 days late on a judgement. Fixed now.

Re: DIS: RE: BUS: RE: [CotC] CFJ 1961 assigned to Pavitra

On Thursday 22 May 2008 4:55:15 Alexander Smith wrote: > Just because I didn't claim my claim of identity to be true, and > explicitly refrained from saying that it was true or false, doesn't > mean that it isn't a public document. You fundamentally cannot publish a statement without claiming it t

RE: DIS: RE: BUS: RE: [CotC] CFJ 1961 assigned to Pavitra

On Thu, 22 May 2008, Alexander Smith wrote: > Just because something is not claimed to be true doesn't prevent it being > a game action, or, as in this case, a claim of identity.) It does if the game action itself is stating or denying whether something is true!! -G.

RE: DIS: RE: BUS: RE: [CotC] CFJ 1961 assigned to Pavitra

On Thu, 22 May 2008, Alexander Smith wrote: > be a claim of identity. I can write "'This message was written by Goethe' > is a claim of identity" without lying, I'm pretty sure. You can write that without lying. But then, if there was any legal effect that required the message being actually w

DIS: RE: Pending court business

Oh, Eris, just a note: according to the CotC website at , you're over 2824 days late on a judgement. -- ais523 <>

RE: DIS: RE: BUS: RE: [CotC] CFJ 1961 assigned to Pavitra

On Thu, 22 May 2008, Alexander Smith wrote: > As an additional example, the CotC publishes the text of CFJs, even if > they are later judged FALSE. E certainly isn't claiming that the text of > every CFJ ever published is true. However, they are still public > documents, nevertheless. (They aren't

RE: DIS: RE: BUS: RE: [CotC] CFJ 1961 assigned to Pavitra

Goethe wrote: > Yep. The whole thing is a public document. R2149 says you take the > truth of the whole thing. If the whole thing isn't a claim, then it > isn't a claim and isn't an action in this case. Either your DISCLAIMER > disclaims your earlier sentence for all legal purposes, or no leg

RE: DIS: RE: BUS: RE: [CotC] CFJ 1961 assigned to Pavitra

On Thu, 22 May 2008, Alexander Smith wrote: > Pavitra wrote: >> Actually, I think the DISCLAIMER works, due to R2149's "truth or >> falsity of the whole" clause. Fortunately, this same disclaimer also >> means that e did not publish eir claim of identity (and hence score). >> ais523's attempt is

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1963 assigned to OscarMeyr

On Thu, 22 May 2008, Ben Caplan wrote: > On Thursday 22 May 2008 4:45:40 Kerim Aydin wrote: >> On Thu, 22 May 2008, ihope wrote: >>> R101 protects my right to participate in the fora. Revealing private >>> contracts is participating in the fora. R101 takes precedence over >>> R2173. >> >> If this

RE: DIS: RE: BUS: RE: [CotC] CFJ 1961 assigned to Pavitra

ais523 wrote: > Pavitra wrote: > > Actually, I think the DISCLAIMER works, due to R2149's "truth or > > falsity of the whole" clause. Fortunately, this same disclaimer also > > means that e did not publish eir claim of identity (and hence score). > > ais523's attempt is legal and ineffective. > Jus

RE: DIS: RE: BUS: RE: [CotC] CFJ 1961 assigned to Pavitra

Pavitra wrote: > Actually, I think the DISCLAIMER works, due to R2149's "truth or > falsity of the whole" clause. Fortunately, this same disclaimer also > means that e did not publish eir claim of identity (and hence score). > ais523's attempt is legal and ineffective. Just because I didn't claim m

Re: DIS: RE: BUS: RE: [CotC] CFJ 1961 assigned to Pavitra

On Thursday 22 May 2008 4:31:18 Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Boy, what a bunch of lying going on. I hope y'all others can teach > these folks that a purposeful lie is a purposeful lie, whether or > not it also happens to be a game action (and DISCLAIMERS to the > contrary notwithstanding). Actually, I

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1963 assigned to OscarMeyr

On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 5:45 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 22 May 2008, ihope wrote: >> R101 protects my right to participate in the fora. Revealing private >> contracts is participating in the fora. R101 takes precedence over >> R2173. > > If this were true, the "right to fr

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1963 assigned to OscarMeyr

On Thursday 22 May 2008 4:45:40 Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Thu, 22 May 2008, ihope wrote: > > R101 protects my right to participate in the fora. Revealing private > > contracts is participating in the fora. R101 takes precedence over > > R2173. > > If this were true, the "right to free speech" in the

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1963 assigned to OscarMeyr

On Thu, 22 May 2008, ihope wrote: > On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 12:15 AM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I do not immediately see how R101 overrides R2173 regarding the disclosure >> of a private contract. I may have to reread the a-d archives, this'll teach >> me to delete emails! >

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1963 assigned to OscarMeyr

On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 5:40 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 12:15 AM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I do not immediately see how R101 overrides R2173 regarding the disclosure >> of a private contract. I may have to reread the a-d archives, this'll t

Re: DIS: RE: RE: BUS: RE: [CotC] CFJ 1961 assigned to Pavitra

On Thu, 22 May 2008, Alexander Smith wrote: > Goethe wrote: >> Boy, what a bunch of lying going on. I hope y'all others can teach >> these folks that a purposeful lie is a purposeful lie, whether or >> not it also happens to be a game action (and DISCLAIMERS to the >> contrary notwithstanding). >

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1963 assigned to OscarMeyr

On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 12:15 AM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I do not immediately see how R101 overrides R2173 regarding the disclosure > of a private contract. I may have to reread the a-d archives, this'll teach > me to delete emails! R101 protects my right to participate in

DIS: RE: RE: BUS: RE: [CotC] CFJ 1961 assigned to Pavitra

Goethe wrote: > Boy, what a bunch of lying going on. I hope y'all others can teach > these folks that a purposeful lie is a purposeful lie, whether or > not it also happens to be a game action (and DISCLAIMERS to the > contrary notwithstanding). Rule 2149/8 explicitly permits disclaimers. Performi

DIS: RE: BUS: RE: [CotC] CFJ 1961 assigned to Pavitra

Boy, what a bunch of lying going on. I hope y'all others can teach these folks that a purposeful lie is a purposeful lie, whether or not it also happens to be a game action (and DISCLAIMERS to the contrary notwithstanding). On Thu, 22 May 2008, Alexander Smith wrote: > ihope wrote: >> Claim of

DIS: Re: BUS: A few CFJs

On 5/22/08, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I initiate 5 inquiry CFJs on the following statement, barring > > asoidjoasdjoiewrjjoweifwiocrmadfjlkajfkldsjfoidsfjiodsfjrlkefjoifgjerlkafjkldjgsoifmzdospklapod: > {"A few CFJs" accurately describes the amount of CFJs I have recently > call

RE: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Full Logical Ruleset

comex wrote: > Of course, that creates a good interest-of-the-game reason to judge > that R101 i. is just broken for some reason or other, because who > knows what spurious actions have been announced in the last two > months. Well, if anyone can do what e wilt, ehird's Announcement of Chaos actual

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 1933

On 5/22/08, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I judge this contract for CFJ 1933, which I join: > {This contract is a pledge. Parties to this contract may not judge CFJ > 1933 by anything other than this contract.} I don't think contracts are valid judgements for inquiry cases.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Full Logical Ruleset

On 5/22/08, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The fact that the Rules that would prevent it are "an explicit, binding > agreement to the contrary". Unless someone once again broke the part > that says that the Rules are treated as a binding agreement between > all players... is that gone

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Full Logical Ruleset

On Thu, 22 May 2008, comex wrote: > No, what I willed is that Agora's R101 be amended in the manner I > specified. I had the privilege to amend it and I did. What part of > the preamble contradicts this? The fact that the Rules that would prevent it are "an explicit, binding agreement to the co

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Full Logical Ruleset

On 5/22/08, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A. That's why (i) is a privilege and not a right. Read the R101 preamble. The rules may define persons as possessing specific rights or privileges. Be it hereby proclaimed that no binding agreement or interpretation of Agor

Re: DIS: Psychology of Agora: How is PRESENT viewed?

On Thu, 22 May 2008, Elliott Hird wrote: > 2008/5/22 Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> blah > > Re the replies: I wasn't really asking what it actually _does_, or the > opinion it was made to represent, but the kind of _mood_ it inspires > if you see it on your proposal. That is, do you see it

Re: DIS: Psychology of Agora: How is PRESENT viewed?

2008/5/22 Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > blah Re the replies: I wasn't really asking what it actually _does_, or the opinion it was made to represent, but the kind of _mood_ it inspires if you see it on your proposal. That is, do you see it as helpful or a hinderance? ehird

Re: DIS: Psychology of Agora: How is PRESENT viewed?

On Thursday 22 May 2008 2:01:31 Elliott Hird wrote: > Dear (fellow) Agorans, > > How do you view a vote of PRESENT regarding a proposal you > made? Do view it as a kind of "wimpy FOR", or do you take it as > a sort of "well, I oppose this, but not enough for AGAINST"? > > Other opinions are welco

Re: DIS: Psychology of Agora: How is PRESENT viewed?

Elliott Hird wrote: >How do you view a vote of PRESENT regarding a proposal you >made? It's expressing no opinion or a neutral opinion. -zefram

DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1961 assigned to Pavitra

On Wednesday 21 May 2008 10:34:52 Ed Murphy wrote: > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1961 > > == CFJ 1961 == > > Proposal A is distributed and is filibustered (and remains > filibustered) during emergency

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1936a assigned to comex, Pavitra, pikhq

On Wednesday 21 May 2008 10:31:28 Ed Murphy wrote: > Pavitra wrote: > > > Simply put: persons make binding agreements; Agora makes those > > agreements into contracts, and eventually perhaps contests. The > > judgement for a question on equation is not even a contract. > > Counterargument: R1742

DIS: Psychology of Agora: How is PRESENT viewed?

Dear (fellow) Agorans, How do you view a vote of PRESENT regarding a proposal you made? Do view it as a kind of "wimpy FOR", or do you take it as a sort of "well, I oppose this, but not enough for AGAINST"? Other opinions are welcome, but "I view it as PRESENT" is not. :P ehird

DIS: RE: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Full Logical Ruleset

Goethe wrote: > B. Actually, no ones stopping you from making a Ruleset like that and > publishing it. Go for it. It's your privilege and (for the moment) your > right. In other words, rule 101 says: Nothing's stopping you from trying. That doesn't mean it will work. -- ais523 <>

RE: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Hay guyz

On Thu, 22 May 2008, Alexander Smith wrote: > ihope wrote: >> My arguments: R101(i) gives me the privilege of doing what I will, >> which includes stating that two plus two is five. Doesn't anybody read preambles anymore?? -Goethe

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Full Logical Ruleset

On Thu, 22 May 2008, comex wrote: > On 5/22/08, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> i. Every person has the privilege of doing what e wilt. > CFJ: R101 item i. reads: >i. The map being obviously the most important rule, every > person has the right to move it back up to

DIS: Re: BUS: RE: [CotC] CFJ 1961 assigned to Pavitra

On Thu, 22 May 2008, Alexander Smith wrote: > That doesn't seem undecidable; when two rules contradict, one takes > precedence. The contradiction here is not of the usual sort, but the > fact that you've shown a loop means that a contradiction does exist. > Contradictions should be broken in favou

DIS: RE: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1936a assigned to comex, Pavitra, pikhq

Pavitra wrote: > Simply put: persons make binding agreements; Agora makes those > agreements into contracts, and eventually perhaps contests. The > judgement for a question on equation is not even a contract. Rule 1742/14 says, in part: Contracts are binding agreements governed by the rules

RE: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Hay guyz

ais523 wrote: > ihope wrote: > > My arguments: R101(i) gives me the privilege of doing what I will, > > which includes stating that two plus two is five. > Where does it say that? Saying that two plus two is five has nothing > to do with the map. Ah, ignore that, rule 101 changed after you sent you

RE: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Hay guyz

ihope wrote: > My arguments: R101(i) gives me the privilege of doing what I will, > which includes stating that two plus two is five. Where does it say that? Saying that two plus two is five has nothing to do with the map. {{{ Rule 101/7 (Power=3) Agoran Rights and Privileges The rules may