Wooble wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 8:28 PM, comex wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 5:54 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>>> comex violated R2158 (power 2) by failing to assign a judgement to CFJ
>>> 2316 as soon as possible after e become assigned to it as Judge.
>>>
>>> comex violated R2158 (po
comex wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Elliott Hird
> wrote:
>> On 19 Jan 2009, at 09:32, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>
>>>Props are a type of asset.
>> Umm, I pass a trivial TRUE on CFJ 2344.
>
> I intend to appeal this with 2 support, as the judge did not address
> the caller's arguments (o
comex wrote:
> I become sitting.
This was a no-op, you already were sitting.
ehird wrote:
> On 25 Jan 2009, at 15:02, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
>
>> The best I can do for this case is impose a judgment that makes
>> further delays subject to NoVs. So I publish this judgment:
>>
>> {ehird SHALL either: (1) Publish the required report of the PBoA
>> every week, as long a
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 10:10 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 10:01 PM, comex wrote:
>> I contest these and initiate criminal cases regarding the
>> above-contested NoVs. You could have easily reminded either me or the
>> CotC to achieve the necessary support.
>
> Note to jud
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 10:01 PM, comex wrote:
> I contest these and initiate criminal cases regarding the
> above-contested NoVs. You could have easily reminded either me or the
> CotC to achieve the necessary support.
Note to judge: the fact that comex is initiating criminal CFJs for
violating
On 26/01/2009, comex wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Elliott Hird
> wrote:
>>
>> On 19 Jan 2009, at 09:32, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>
>>>Props are a type of asset.
>>
>> Umm, I pass a trivial TRUE on CFJ 2344.
>
> I intend to appeal this with 2 support, as the judge did not address
> the c
ehird wrote:
> On 25 Jan 2009, at 23:55, Ed Murphy wrote:
>
>> If you judged this, then I missed it; point out the message containing
>> your judgement for a straightforward NOT GUILTY.
>
> I just wasn't aware I was an eligible judge/
Rule 1871/25 (Power=1.5)
The Standing Court
Posture i
On 25 Jan 2009, at 23:55, Ed Murphy wrote:
If you judged this, then I missed it; point out the message containing
your judgement for a straightforward NOT GUILTY.
I just wasn't aware I was an eligible judge/
ehird wrote:
> On 25 Jan 2009, at 22:54, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>
>> ehird violated R2158 (power 2) by failing to assign a judgement to CFJ
>> 2333 as soon as possible after e become assigned to it as Judge.
>
> Wait WTF?
Seems clear-cut to me:
http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=
On 25 Jan 2009, at 22:54, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
ehird violated R2158 (power 2) by failing to assign a judgement to CFJ
2333 as soon as possible after e become assigned to it as Judge.
Wait WTF?
Goethe wrote:
> As no submissions were received this week, and only one last week, I announce
> my intent [no objections or support needed, just a week's notice] to clear
> the
> BF Joust Hill and replace the Current Tournament part of the Contest with:
> There is no Current Tournament. Com
On 25 Jan 2009, at 03:26, Chuck Carroll wrote:
Thank you, all. I'm deeply flattered, and a bit humbled to share
the honor with Suber and Hofstadter. It's also quite satisfying to
me to see that Agora continues, even though I haven't been a Player
for many years now.
Hi!
ais523 wrote:
> Taral wrote:
>> Unfortunately, the equity court is not empowered to change
>> contestmaster. Nor can it directly award points to the parties.
>>
>> {{{
>> Within 2 weeks of this equation coming into force, the parties to the
>> Fantasy Rules Contest SHALL collectively ensure that a
ehird wrote:
> On 25 Jan 2009, at 14:58, Alexander Smith wrote:
> > I support. (Who would have guessed that a simple milking rule would be
> > so controversial?)
> Could you stop responding to things that are already resolved?
Could you please take email reading lag into account? It certainly used
Taral wrote:
> Unfortunately, the equity court is not empowered to change
> contestmaster. Nor can it directly award points to the parties.
>
> {{{
> Within 2 weeks of this equation coming into force, the parties to the
> Fantasy Rules Contest SHALL collectively ensure that a new
> contestmaster is
comex wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> > So it is. I spend A C# E to increase my caste to Beta.
> Fails. To increase your own caste, you must spend five notes.
Note that this is why the Note Exchange exists; so you can cause other people to
spend the 3 notes nec
On Jan 25, 2009, at 10:04 AM, Elliott Hird wrote:
On 25 Jan 2009, at 15:02, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
The best I can do for this case is impose a judgment that makes
further delays subject to NoVs. So I publish this judgment:
{ehird SHALL either: (1) Publish the required report of the PBoA
On 25 Jan 2009, at 14:58, Alexander Smith wrote:
I support. (Who would have guessed that a simple milking rule would be
so controversial?)
Could you stop responding to things that are already resolved?
OscarMeyr wroet:
> If Wooble's motion of 22 Jan 2009 is approved, then immediately after
> the change in exchange rates but before any other actions involving
> the RBoA happen, I withdraw as much of the RBoA's assets as I can.
I don't think such timed actions work in Agora. B used to have them
On Jan 22, 2009, at 10:59 PM, Taral wrote:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Benjamin Schultz
wrote:
If Wooble's motion of 22 Jan 2009 is approved, then immediately
after the
change in exchange rates but before any other actions involving
the RBoA
happen, I withdraw as much of the RBoA's a
21 matches
Mail list logo
