On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 12:57 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> R2170 already defines "Executor" (as "the first-class person who sends
> it, or who most directly and immediately causes it to be sent"). Going
> back to "Grantor" and "Holder" would work. (History lesson: the rules
> used t
Goethe wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Rule 2170 (Who Am I?) should probably also be amended to state that
>> "X CAN act on behalf of Y" constitutes a legal fiction that Y is the
>> one acting, and define some useful label for X's role in the matter.
>
> How about, er, "Power of
cdm014 wrote:
> I had posted a message indicating my intent to deregister. Assuming my
> deregistering was successful, I don't know why it wouldn't be, I would
> need to register again.
Nothing in the archives (unless you sent it to a-d, or a backup
list). Your last two messages prior to your re
I had posted a message indicating my intent to deregister. Assuming my
deregistering was successful, I don't know why it wouldn't be, I would need
to register again.
--cdm014
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Any player CAN appeal CFJ 2050 by announcement, upon which this
> rule is repealed.
Why not a rule that allows late appeals with a higher support number
(or Agoran Consent, would need that to get this passed anyway).
-Goethe
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Rule 2170 (Who Am I?) should probably also be amended to state that
> "X CAN act on behalf of Y" constitutes a legal fiction that Y is the
> one acting, and define some useful label for X's role in the matter.
How about, er, "Power of Attorney"? "Grantor",
On Wednesday 13 August 2008 11:03:13 pm Ed Murphy wrote:
> define some useful label for X's role in the matter.
"Executor"
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Charles Reiss wrote:
> Proposal: Overturn CFJ 2050
> {{
> comex is a co-author of this proposal.
>
> Set the judgment on the question of veracity in CFJ 2050 to TRUE.
>
Oh this is horrid and unneeded though I agree with the arguments.
Just CFJ again, there's no reason a ne
woggle wrote:
> Proposal: Overturn CFJ 2050
> {{
> comex is a co-author of this proposal.
>
> Set the judgment on the question of veracity in CFJ 2050 to TRUE.
This isn't strictly needed. From Rule 591:
The judgement of the question in an inquiry case, and the
reasoning by which it
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> 2082a: If tusho's stated belief that "failing speech acts were not
> illegal" was reasonable, then UNAWARE was appropriate and thus GUILTY
> was inappropriate. I intend (with the support of fellow panelists pikhq
> and Goethe) to cause the panel to judge
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 8:14 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 10:45 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> By CFJ 2050 doing x on behalf of another player is really just you doing x.
>>
>> Thus if I make a partnership vote on something, it is really me voting.
>>
>>
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 10:45 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> By CFJ 2050 doing x on behalf of another player is really just you doing x.
>
> Thus if I make a partnership vote on something, it is really me voting.
>
> Thus partnerships can't do anything.
Umm... that is an absurd precedent.
By CFJ 2050 doing x on behalf of another player is really just you doing x.
Thus if I make a partnership vote on something, it is really me voting.
Thus partnerships can't do anything.
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 19:12, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 8:41 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I intend, with the consent of the rest of the panel, to REMAND this
>>> case to Sgeo, so that e might judge the case again while thinking more
>>> clearly,
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 8:41 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I intend, with the consent of the rest of the panel, to REMAND this
>> case to Sgeo, so that e might judge the case again while thinking more
>> clearly, and also consider the precedent of CFJ 1771.
>
> Appeals are support
On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 8:01 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I nominate each of ais523, BobTHJ, comex, Goethe, Murphy, OscarMeyr,
> Quazie, root, Sgeo, Taral, tusho, woggle, and Wooble for each of the
> offices of Promotor and Rulekeepor.
I'm going to treat this self-nomination as an accept
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 3:43 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 3:40 PM, root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On behalf of TNP2: TNP2 registers.
>
> I nominate TNP2 for Rulekeepor.
This was ineffective as the nomination period for the office had ended.
Pavitra wrote:
> On Wednesday 13 August 2008 12:38:12 pm Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Quazie wrote:
>>> [snip]
>> TIATEOISIRIEIJIDISISISIRITILISIRITIPICIRICISIOIWIIILISICIEIIIFIR
>> IVILIDIBISIEIUILILILISIMITIEISIRIBIHIHIHISIPIP-PIMIDIDIWINIAIWICIJIP
>> IDIDICISIOICIDIDIWILICISIWIAIS
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> comex wrote:
>>Anyone have the script for FLR-->SLR?
> Attached.
Excess newline removed, and all of these should be up to date:
http://cfj.qoid.us/current_flr.txt
http://cfj.qoid.us/current_flr.txt,v
http://cfj.qoid.us/current_s
comex wrote:
>Anyone have the script for FLR-->SLR?
Attached.
-zefram
#!/usr/bin/perl
use warnings;
use strict;
use IO::Handle;
{
my $peeked_line;
sub peekline() {
unless(defined $peeked_line) {
local $/ = "\n";
$p
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Quazie wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Ben Caplan
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Wednesday 13 August 2008 12:38:12 pm Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Quazie wrote:
[snip]
>>>
>>> TIATEOISIRIEIJIDISISISIRITILISIRITIPICIRICISIOIWIIILISICIEIIIFIR
>
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Quazie wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 10:38 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Quazie wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>
>> TIATEOISIRIEIJIDISISISIRITILISIRITIPICIRICISIOIWIIILISICIEIIIFIR
>> IVILIDIBISIEIUILILILISIMITIEISIRIBIHIHIHISIPIP-PIMIDIDIWINIAI
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Ben Caplan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 13 August 2008 12:38:12 pm Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Quazie wrote:
>> >[snip]
>>
>> TIATEOISIRIEIJIDISISISIRITILISIRITIPICIRICISIOIWIIILISICIEIIIFIR
>> IVILIDIBISIEIUILILILISIMITIEISIRIBIHIHIHISI
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 10:38 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Quazie wrote:
>>[snip]
>
> TIATEOISIRIEIJIDISISISIRITILISIRITIPICIRICISIOIWIIILISICIEIIIFIR
> IVILIDIBISIEIUILILILISIMITIEISIRIBIHIHIHISIPIP-PIMIDIDIWINIAIWICIJIP
> IDIDICISIOICIDIDIWILICISIWIAISISIIIS
On Wednesday 13 August 2008 12:38:12 pm Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Quazie wrote:
> >[snip]
>
> TIATEOISIRIEIJIDISISISIRITILISIRITIPICIRICISIOIWIIILISICIEIIIFIR
> IVILIDIBISIEIUILILILISIMITIEISIRIBIHIHIHISIPIP-PIMIDIDIWINIAIWICIJIP
> IDIDICISIOICIDIDIWILICISIWIAISISIIISIPILIEIBAWRISIA
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Quazie wrote:
>[snip]
TIATEOISIRIEIJIDISISISIRITILISIRITIPICIRICISIOIWIIILISICIEIIIFIR
IVILIDIBISIEIUILILILISIMITIEISIRIBIHIHIHISIPIP-PIMIDIDIWINIAIWICIJIP
IDIDICISIOICIDIDIWILICISIWIAISISIIISIPILIEIBAWRISIATHPAFALT.
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 12:25 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> he or she, surely. We don't call objects "e" do we?
We have players that aren't humans and thus have no gender, and the
rules do use "e" when referring to players, so yes.
Pavitra wrote:
>> I I I lean. I sit.
> Probably effective.
>> I hem. i haw. I hug.
> Probably effective. We have a tradition of respecting creative
> paraphrases like "I lie down" for "I become supine".
These two are no-ops. I'm treating them as successful.
>> I inactive.
> Probably effec
On Wednesday 13 August 2008 12:03:46 am Quazie wrote:
> I stand.
Ineffective, you cannot generally flip your own posture to standing.
> I register.
Ineffective, you are already a player.
> I support. i object.
Ineffective, it's not clear what you're supporting/objecting to.
> I I I lean. I sit.
2008/8/13 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I believe it's 754(1) that grants them meaning, since those words have
> no ordinary-language meaning. I'd say they represent either a
> difference in spelling or dialect, depending on your view of whether a
> language variation with a tiny number of
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 11:50 AM, Chester Mealer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gender Neutral pronouns(e.g eir, e, and e's) are words granted meaning and
> usage under the set of rules excluding 754(4).
I believe it's 754(1) that grants them meaning, since those words have
no ordinary-language mean
2008/8/13 Chester Mealer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I resume being cdm014. If the previous statement was not a possible action,
> I register or reregister under the name cdm014 choosing the action which
> best communicates that I was previously an active player called cdm014 and
> wish to be so again.
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 1:03 AM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I run. i eat. I jump. I dance. I sing. I stand. i spread. I rip.
> i trip. i lie. I spin. i rotate. I taste. I present. I
> contribute. I register. i concur. I support. i object. I walk. I
> I I lean. I sit. I
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 1:03 AM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i act?
I doubt any of that was sufficiently unambiguous to cause any actions.
Possibly the "I lean. I sit." which would have had no net effect
anyway as you were already sitting.
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 1:26 AM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does this mean 2019 is now back on ais523's plate? And if so aren't
> they WAY overdue for a judgement?
The panel in 2019a was WAY overdue in judging. ais523 still has 6+
days to judge, since the case was just remanded to em.
35 matches
Mail list logo
