Ed Murphy wrote:
> woggle wrote:
>
>> The second NoV (which wasn't on 19 May) named the crime correctly. The
>> first did not.
>
> Does this invalidate CFJ 2537?
>
No it does not. The second NoV, on May 25, was valid (BobTHJ has yet to
post a notice to that effect though).
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 6:57 PM, comex wrote:
> E could avoid breaching the rules by making a proposal to remove stale
> proposals from the pool.
I did in fact do just that, assuming that I'd get an objection.
However, when I didn't, I figured trying to get an AI-3 proposal
passed was a lot harde
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 5:49 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2480a
>
> Appeal 2480a
>
> Panelist: Wooble
> Panelist: Rodlen
> Pan
woggle wrote:
> The second NoV (which wasn't on 19 May) named the crime correctly. The
> first did not.
Does this invalidate CFJ 2537?
On 5/25/09 5:52 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
[snip]
> ps. court cases raised about a document should block ratification,
> not just self-ratificatation; generalization of R2201 in order here?
I don't think that's a good idea unless CFJs raised about a document can
be more clearly/objectively identified.
On 5/25/09 5:28 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> woggle wrote:
>
>
>>> !05/19:001 17:16 comex Wooble 22038forgery
>>>
>>>
>> CoE: This notice was invalid. The crime it named, "Forgery", is not
>> specified by the rules.
>>
> The NoV named "Endorsing Forgery", which is spe
Ed Murphy wrote:
> coppro wrote:
>
>> Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2524
>>>
>>> == Equity Case 2524 ==
>>>
>>> c-walker flipped the contestmaster of the C# Party to Murphy.
>>>
>>> =
comex wrote:
> That made me look something up, though-- how exactly does ratification
> of the ruleset work again? The Rule Changes involved are generally
> not clearly specified, no rule allows Rule 1551 (Ratification) to make
> Rule Changes specifically, and Rule 105 (Rule Changes) takes
> prece
On Mon, 25 May 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> -Goethe
See, I forget too. I'll get it eventually. -G.
On Mon, 25 May 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Gratuitous: Publishing an erroneous report (power-1 Rule) is less
> serious than ratifying one (Class-8 Crime).
Mitigating argument:
Ratifying a report that everyone understands to be erroneous for the
good of the game (or what the officer reasonably perc
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 8:45 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 18:28, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> woggle wrote:
>>
!05/19:001 17:16 comex Wooble 2203 8 forgery
>>> CoE: This notice was invalid. The crime it named, "Forgery", is not
>>> specified by the rules.
>>
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 8:38 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 6:57 PM, comex wrote:
>> E could avoid breaching the rules by making a proposal to remove stale
>> proposals from the pool.
>
> And since I don't know what they all are, someone would claim that the
> proposal didn't
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 6:57 PM, comex wrote:
> E could avoid breaching the rules by making a proposal to remove stale
> proposals from the pool.
And since I don't know what they all are, someone would claim that the
proposal didn't specify which proposals clearly enough.
woggle wrote:
>> !05/19:001 17:16 comex Wooble 22038forgery
>>
> CoE: This notice was invalid. The crime it named, "Forgery", is not
> specified by the rules.
The NoV named "Endorsing Forgery", which is specified by the rules; it's
only the report that omitted "Endorsing".
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 6:45 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Gratuitous: As judge didn't notice the ratification attempt; if I
> had noticed it I would have delayed the judgement to avoid the issue.
> Since the judgement found that, to the best of available evidence,
> there had been no ratifications in
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> Arguments in my defense:
>
> While ais523 was able to find one proposal that was in the pool that
> was not in the published report, simply adding that proposal to the
> report would not have guaranteed the accuracy of the report, any more
>
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 4:54 PM, comex wrote:
>>> I initiate a criminal CFJ, noting that the Accused had plenty of
>>> warning and the opportunity to avoid violating the rule.
>
> Arguments in my defense:
>
> While ais523 was able to find one proposal that was in the pool
On Mon, 2009-05-25 at 17:41 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> While ais523 was able to find one proposal that was in the pool that
> was not in the published report, simply adding that proposal to the
> report would not have guaranteed the accuracy of the report, any more
> than my looking through the
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 1:17 PM, Taral wrote:
> On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 7:44 AM, comex wrote:
>> This was sent two hours after Goethe's judgement that a certain other
>> proposal existed in the pool. Accordingly, NoV: Wooble violated R2202
>> and committed the Class-8 Crime of Endorsing Forgery
Alex Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-05-18 at 21:08 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Cookie Jar Report
>
> wrt the Cookie Jar: I guess 19 proposals, 22 CFJs.
>
15 proposals, 20 CFJs.
Pavitra
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
2009/5/23 Sean Hunt :
> Tiger:
> I act on Tiger's behalf to create 2 Rests in eir possession.
> I act on behalf of Tiger to destroy none of eir scrolls and award em no
> scrolls.
> I award Tiger 1 y-point.
> I award Tiger 5 x-points.
> I award Tiger 7 x-points.
> I award Tiger 9 y-points.
> I revo
On Mon, 2009-05-25 at 16:34 +0100, Charles Walker wrote:
> B has flipped its recognition of Agora to Friendly, and as Ambassador
> I am obliged to inform you of this. In case you don't know how to
> contact us, B's PF is spoon-busin...@nomic.net.
We do; Agora recognises B too.
--
ais523
Agoran A
22 matches
Mail list logo
