On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 21:01, Kerim Aydin wrote:
[snip]
>>> And what's wrong with addressing this in a sentencing appeal, anyway
>>> (e.g. "yes e technically could have known, but it's because e took the
>>> advice of others, so DISCHARGE is just fine"). I'm leery of setting
>>> culpability deci
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 8:54 PM, comex wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 6:12 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
>> I NoV against Warrigal for violating the power-1.7 rule 2169 by
>> violating the equation of CFJ 2119.
>>
>> (Context: the equation of CFJ 2119 is:
>> {{
>> ihope SHALL, within 30 days of this ju
> [stuff]
As far as I remember, my confession was not that I violated a rule,
just that I failed to throughly consider the consequences of not
reading the ruleset during read the ruleset week.
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Charles Reiss wrote:
> I disagree. The judge has an affirmative duty to check each possible
> defense emselves regardless of what the defendant says in order to
> avoid making an inappropriate judgment on culpability. Ideally,
> figures related to the case (not necessarily the
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 18:08, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Charles Reiss wrote:
>> I think plainly this is not what R1504(d) says since it considers
>> whether some hypothetical situation exists where the defendent could
>> have believed it did not violate the rule. This perhaps do
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Which, as noted, is exactly how I intended #7 to operate. (We have
> other rules with even less significant effect.) If the courts decide
> otherwise, then so be it, but until then I'm not conceding the issue.
The problem is that SHOULD is use
Taral wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> I agree that Sgeo did not meet any of the conditions, but the rules
>> don't clearly define failure to meet any of the conditions as being a
>> violation.
>
> I noticed this too:
>
> 6. MUST, SHALL, REQUIRED, MANDATORY:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Charles Reiss wrote:
> I think plainly this is not what R1504(d) says since it considers
> whether some hypothetical situation exists where the defendent could
> have believed it did not violate the rule. This perhaps does not
> excuse them for violations after research, but o
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 5:50 PM, comex wrote:
> I contest this. NoVing someone immediately upon joining is very rude.
> E ceased to play for a month, let em be.
Dodging punishments by leaving the game is permitted -- but don't
expect to rejoin without paying your dues.
--
Taral
"Please let m
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> I agree that Sgeo did not meet any of the conditions, but the rules
> don't clearly define failure to meet any of the conditions as being a
> violation.
I noticed this too:
6. MUST, SHALL, REQUIRED, MANDATORY: Failing to perform the
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 16:26, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Charles Reiss wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 13:01, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Charles Reiss wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:41, Kerim Aydin wrote:
(d) deliberately does not care about what
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Elliott Hird wrote:
>> Arguments: According to Goethe, if you admit you breached the rules
>> you're guilty, regardless of whether or not the rules say you're
>> guilty.
>
> I didn't say that. We're talking about cases where (a) we ac
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Elliott Hird wrote:
> Arguments: According to Goethe, if you admit you breached the rules
> you're guilty, regardless of whether or not the rules say you're
> guilty.
I didn't say that. We're talking about cases where (a) we actually
interpret an action as a breach; in whic
NUM C I AI SUBMITTER TITLE
6120 D 1 2.0 Murphy Increase the ticket ration
FOR
-Yally
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Charles Reiss wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 13:01, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Charles Reiss wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:41, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> (d) deliberately does not care about what the defendent actually
>>> thinks, only what e could have
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 13:01, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Charles Reiss wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:41, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> (d) deliberately does not care about what the defendent actually
>> thinks, only what e could have thought. Therefore, there is no reason
>> to c
ais523 wrote:
> If SHOULD as defined leads to an infinite regress, this does not mean
> it's impossible to breach. To be legal, Sgeo would have had to read the
> ruleset, or thought about reading the ruleset and decided not to, or
> thought about thinking about reading the ruleset and deciding not
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Charles Reiss wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:41, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> (d) deliberately does not care about what the defendent actually
> thinks, only what e could have thought. Therefore, there is no reason
> to consider the defendent's admission in deciding whether it i
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:41, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Charles Reiss wrote:
>> And even if the above were not the better interpretation, surely the
>> ambiguity on this matter would be sufficient to fail to satisfy
>> R1504's condition (d) "the Accused could have reasonably bel
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Charles Reiss wrote:
> And even if the above were not the better interpretation, surely the
> ambiguity on this matter would be sufficient to fail to satisfy
> R1504's condition (d) "the Accused could have reasonably believed that
> the alleged act did not violate the specifie
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, comex wrote:
> I move to AFFIRM. I have not carefully weighed the full implications
> of my failure to include arguments.
I think that counts as an included argument.
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Goethe wrote:
>
>> [Note: (not part of judgement) I assume we are judging on the
>> culpability rather than the sentencing here?]
>
> Correct, I explicitly appealed culpability.
Ok I certainly stand by Affirm then; the place to take into
account Sgeo bein
Goethe wrote:
> [Note: (not part of judgement) I assume we are judging on the
> culpability rather than the sentencing here?]
Correct, I explicitly appealed culpability.
On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 08:43 -0800, Taral wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 5:04 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
> > A contest's contestmaster CAN transfer ownership of or destroy a Medal
> > in that contest's possession, but only as explicitly described by the
> > contest's text; one exception to this is tha
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 5:04 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
> A contest's contestmaster CAN transfer ownership of or destroy a Medal
> in that contest's possession, but only as explicitly described by the
> contest's text; one exception to this is that a contest CANNOT transfer
> a Medal to its contestmast
25 matches
Mail list logo
