On Jun 7, 2008, at 3:48 PM, Alexander Smith wrote:
I call for judgement on the following statement: {{ehird has
apologised as required by the judgement of the question on
sentencing of CFJ 1943.}}
If this case winds up in my hands, I'm picking harder words.
Thanks very much, ais523, for coun
Pavitra wrote:
> On Saturday 7 June 2008 12:13:46 Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Suggested fix for the first problem with 5542: If the prior judgement
>> ceases to be effective, then the contract is amended to read as it would
>> have if it had not been amended as specified by the prior judgement.
>
> Alte
On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I CFJ on the statement: All actions are regulated.
>
> Arguments: R2125 reads, in part:
>
> An action is regulated if:
>
> [...]
>
>d) The rules explicitly state that it MAY be performed while
> cert
On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 2:16 PM, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is the BoA going to get into lands? Note Exchange credits?
Lands aren't currency, so as it the BoA is now, lands can't be
deposited and withdrawn. Note Exchange credits are more likely; I'm
hoping the BoA will get into them ev
Ben Caplan wrote:
>Ah, interesting. If R1868 finds it necessary to spell it out, then
>(exceptio probat regulam) "have" is equal to "come to have" elsewhere.
>Yes?
No. It's explicitly stated in R1868 because otherwise some people would
have got confused about it. It would still mean the same thi
On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 12:19 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/7/08, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> For all X, X is an entity. It's the noun corresponding to the
>> predicate T. At least, I think that's what "entity" is being used to
>> mean.
>
> Yes, but the rules talk about "crea
NTTPF.
On 6/7/08, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I vote as follows:
>
> On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 6:53 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > NUM FL AI SUBMITTER TITLE
> > 5541 O0 1ais523 Motto of the Monster
> FOR x 6
> > 5542 O1 1.7 Wooble equation as a
On 6/7/08, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For all X, X is an entity. It's the noun corresponding to the
> predicate T. At least, I think that's what "entity" is being used to
> mean.
Yes, but the rules talk about "creating" and "destroying" entities.
Those verbs aren't defined for all X.
--
On 6/7/08, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree that making something impossible makes making it illegal redundant.
> With respect to this particular rule, though, having something impossible but
> legal just seemed wrong.
Once something is impossible, its "legality" is moot. Und
Is the BoA going to get into lands? Note Exchange credits?
2008/6/7 comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 12:57 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I missed a piece of the web-based "record decision" form. It's since
>> been fixed. As has the single-quote bug; PHP is apparently escaping
>> quotes on its own, but not how PostgreSQL w
On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 12:57 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I missed a piece of the web-based "record decision" form. It's since
> been fixed. As has the single-quote bug; PHP is apparently escaping
> quotes on its own, but not how PostgreSQL wants, so I'm doing
> pg_escape_string(er
2008/6/7 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I missed a piece of the web-based "record decision" form. It's since
> been fixed. As has the single-quote bug; PHP is apparently escaping
> quotes on its own, but not how PostgreSQL wants, so I'm doing
> pg_escape_string(ereg_replace("\\\'", "'", $s))
>
On Saturday 7 June 2008 12:14:41 Ed Murphy wrote:
> Pavitra wrote:
>
> > There is, I think, a precedent somewhere to the effect that a state of
> > affairs can remain in place even when it can no longer come into being.
> > Something involving holding an office, or perhaps MwoP. So it would be
> >
On Saturday 7 June 2008 12:13:46 Ed Murphy wrote:
> Suggested fix for the first problem with 5542: If the prior judgement
> ceases to be effective, then the contract is amended to read as it would
> have if it had not been amended as specified by the prior judgement.
Alternatively:
When an
Pavitra wrote:
> There is, I think, a precedent somewhere to the effect that a state of
> affairs can remain in place even when it can no longer come into being.
> Something involving holding an office, or perhaps MwoP. So it would be
> unreasonable to interpret "CANNOT have" as synonymous with "C
On Friday 6 June 2008 1:42:50 Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> I'd argue that the action of coming to have the same name or nickname
> as another rule-defined entity is what's impossible, so in this case
> Rule 9991 would fail to take effect when the proposal to create it
> passed (assuming they were create
comex wrote:
> While you're at it...
> http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1240''
>
> Causes a database error. This might lead to some sort of SQL injection, FWIW.
Incidentally, there was no past danger of SQL injection because Apache
was only granted query access until yesterday.
On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 11:22 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sets do not exist solely because of this contract, so oddballs are not
> assets, and the Lost and Found Department does not own any. Nor does
> Ivan Hope CXXVII, who is not permitted by the Rules or by the contract
> to award them
comex wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 3:26 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Implemented: initiate, decide (arguments/evidence containing ' seem
>> to run into a bug)
> While you're at it...
> http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1240''
>
> Causes a database error. This
Wooble wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 2:50 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Judge: Wooble
>> Judgement:
>
> The judgement is missing here...
I missed a piece of the web-based "record decision" form. It's since
been fixed. As has the single-quote bug
I vote as follows:
On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 6:53 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> NUM FL AI SUBMITTER TITLE
> 5541 O0 1ais523 Motto of the Monster
FOR x 6
> 5542 O1 1.7 Wooble equation as amendment
FOR x 6
> 5543 D1 2Murphy Faster support
FOR
> 5544 D1 2
> == CFJ 1986 ==
>
>Ivan Hope CXXVII owns the oddball {2/3,3/4}
>
> == CFJ 1987 ==
>
>The Lost and Found Department owns the oddball {2/3,3/4}
>
>
On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 3:26 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Implemented: initiate, decide (arguments/evidence containing ' seem
> to run into a bug)
While you're at it...
http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1240''
Causes a database error. This might lead to some sort of
On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 3:34 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 6 Jun 2008, comex wrote:
>> Who wants to propose bringing insane proposals back?
>
> Weird tactical voting promotion of any/all kinds... good. Ones that
> depend on making it illegal to discuss votes even in private
On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 2:50 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Judge: Wooble
> Judgement:
The judgement is missing here...
On Fri, 6 Jun 2008, comex wrote:
> Who wants to propose bringing insane proposals back?
Weird tactical voting promotion of any/all kinds... good. Ones that
depend on making it illegal to discuss votes even in private...
unenforceably unworkable (previously demonstrated). -Goethe
Implemented: initiate, decide (arguments/evidence containing ' seem
to run into a bug)
Not implemented: appeal, decide appeal, inform defendant/parties,
end pre-trial, add/change player info, bar, recuse, add/change exhibit
28 matches
Mail list logo
