DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Dep. Conductor] Lead Sheet

2009/4/24 Sean Hunt : > Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: >>                           C#    D#       F#    G#    A# >> Player                 C     D     E  F     G     A     B     Total >>                           Db    Eb       Gb    Ab    Bb >>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2454b assigned to Rodlen, ehird, coppro

Heh, I'm on a panel so quickly. Wow. Well, I'm off to research this case. --Rodlen

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2454b assigned to Rodlen, ehird, coppro

Aaron Goldfein wrote: > Then vote to affirm. You only need 2/3 votes. Yes, but then the appeals panel has to publish a Concurring Opinion, which takes unanimity, and we're lazy. I can't take my opinion back anyways, so it's moot at this point (if ehird and Rodlen both move to AFFIRM, I will of co

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2454b assigned to Rodlen, ehird, coppro

On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: > Aaron Goldfein wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 5:39 PM, Sean Hunt > > wrote: > > > > Ed Murphy wrote: > > > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2454b > > > > I opine REASSIG

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2454b assigned to Rodlen, ehird, coppro

Aaron Goldfein wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 5:39 PM, Sean Hunt > wrote: > > Ed Murphy wrote: > > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2454b > > I opine REASSIGN. Yally has twice failed to provide a complete and valid > reas

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2454b assigned to Rodlen, ehird, coppro

On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 5:39 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: >> >> Ed Murphy wrote: >> > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2454b >> >> I opine REASSIGN. Yally has twice failed to provide a complete and valid >> reasoning fo

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2454b assigned to Rodlen, ehird, coppro

On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 5:39 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: > Ed Murphy wrote: > > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2454b > > I opine REASSIGN. Yally has twice failed to provide a complete and valid > reasoning for eir judgment. > > I don't get it. If you disagree with my judgment,

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2454b assigned to Rodlen, ehird, coppro

coppro wrote: > * Kneeling. Kneeling players are unqualified to judge. I'd prefer "supine and can't change until X", which could also apply to recusal by the CotC. If you do create a separate posture, then it should have an explanatory comment like "will become sitting when the CotC rotat

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Dep. Conductor] Lead Sheet

2009/4/23 Geoffrey Spear : > On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn > wrote: >> Admitted. >> (is that all I have to do, or do I actually have to post an updated version?) > > R2201 says you have to publish a revision (and in fact gives no legal > status whatsoever to admitting claims), a

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Dep. Conductor] Lead Sheet

Tiger wrote: > Ooh, thanks. Now it's almost no sport. And those update to show the > latest... month, or what? Two weeks. Once data starts showing up in the current week, it should be safe to assume that the previous week is complete.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Dep. Conductor] Lead Sheet

2009/4/23 Ed Murphy : > coppro wrote: > >> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 1:49 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn >> wrote: >>> I depitise for the conductor to publish the following report: >> I transfer a prop from myself to Tiger for em sorting through nearly a >> month's messages to find all the noteworthy events an

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Dep. Conductor] Lead Sheet

coppro wrote: > On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 1:49 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn > wrote: >> I depitise for the conductor to publish the following report: > I transfer a prop from myself to Tiger for em sorting through nearly a > month's messages to find all the noteworthy events and publish a > report with no o

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: More frequent IADoP reporting

On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > I submit the following Proposal, entitled "More frequent IADoP reporting": > > Amend Rule 2138 by removing the word "monthly". > > --Wooble > As IADoP, I endorse this proposal.

Re: ?spam? Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2461 assigned to Murphy

ais523 wrote: > On Thu, 2009-04-23 at 21:56 +0200, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: >> 2009/4/23 Alex Smith : >>> On Thu, 2009-04-23 at 03:23 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: == CFJ 2461 == Caller: Nameless >>> Isn't

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2461 assigned to Murphy

ais523 wrote: > On Thu, 2009-04-23 at 03:23 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: >> == CFJ 2461 == >> Caller: Nameless > > Isn't it customary to refer to unknown CFJ applicants as Hillary Rodham > Clinton? I meant to go

DIS: Re: OFF: [Accountor] Asset Report

On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 12:41 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > Accountor's Asset Report > > Date of last report:  Mon 16 Mar 2009 > Date of this report:  Thu 23 Apr 2009 > > Asset             Type   Backing Document          Recordkeepor > ---

Re: DIS: Possible Protectorate etc

On Thu, 2009-04-23 at 21:03 +0100, Charles Walker wrote: > A discussion I just started over at B led to the following: > > > Warrigal: > > > "I think it would be possible to make B Nomic a public contract > without > the objection of a party. This is an Agoran action, so the > announcement of i

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Dep. Conductor] Lead Sheet

On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: > Admitted. > (is that all I have to do, or do I actually have to post an updated version?) R2201 says you have to publish a revision (and in fact gives no legal status whatsoever to admitting claims), although in practice the correction is

DIS: Possible Protectorate etc

A discussion I just started over at B led to the following: Warrigal: "I think it would be possible to make B Nomic a public contract without the objection of a party. This is an Agoran action, so the announcement of intent and objections both have to go to Agora; one does not need to be a player

Re: ?spam? Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2461 assigned to Murphy

On Thu, 2009-04-23 at 21:56 +0200, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: > 2009/4/23 Alex Smith : > > On Thu, 2009-04-23 at 03:23 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: > >> == CFJ 2461 == > >> Caller: Nameless > > > > Isn't it customary t

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2461 assigned to Murphy

2009/4/23 Alex Smith : > On Thu, 2009-04-23 at 03:23 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: >> ==  CFJ 2461  == >> Caller:                                 Nameless > > Isn't it customary to refer to unknown CFJ applicants as Hillary Rodham > Clinton? > > --

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution 6209 - 6222 & Report

On Thu, 2009-04-23 at 11:14 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 9:56 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: > > Number: 6109 > [...] > > Number: 6110 > > CoE: these number assignments were INVALID; these proposal IDs have > already been used. > > CFJ: {{Agoran Decisions on whether to adopt come

DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2461 assigned to Murphy

On Thu, 2009-04-23 at 03:23 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: > == CFJ 2461 == > Caller: Nameless Isn't it customary to refer to unknown CFJ applicants as Hillary Rodham Clinton? -- ais523

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Accountor] Asset Report

On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Roger Hicks wrote: > COE: the list omits Lands and WRV. Admitted (informally; it's not self-ratifying). I can't believe no one noticed that before now; they've been missing since October.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2454 remanded to Yally

On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote: > All those issues were pretty similar and obvious. 2 of them argued for FALSE, you you judged TRUE based on them.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2454 remanded to Yally

On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: > Wooble wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Aaron Goldfein > wrote: > >> I agree with my previous judgment and feel that Murphy's arguments have > >> supported that further. I opine TRUE. > > > > I intend to appeal this judgement with

DIS: Re: OFF: Short Logical Ruleset

comex wrote: > [! Note: There is considerable ambiguity about the current state of >the ruleset; this document is most likely incomplete. !] Which specific areas are still up in the air at this point?

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Short Logical Ruleset

On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: >> comex wrote: >> >>> [! Note: There is considerable ambiguity about the current state of >>>    the ruleset; this document is most likely incomplete. !] >> >> Which specific areas are sti

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Short Logical Ruleset

On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: > comex wrote: > >> [! Note: There is considerable ambiguity about the current state of >>    the ruleset; this document is most likely incomplete. !] > > Which specific areas are still up in the air at this point? I believe the text of R2223 is