Ed Murphy wrote:
coppro wrote:
comex wrote:
I amend Contract B to read:
{
This is a public contract and a pledge. comex CAN make arbitrary
Contract Changes to this contract by announcement.
If this contract is a contest, comex CAN and MAY award points at eir
discretion, so long as the total
coppro wrote:
> comex wrote:
>> I amend Contract B to read:
>> {
>> This is a public contract and a pledge. comex CAN make arbitrary
>> Contract Changes to this contract by announcement.
>>
>> If this contract is a contest, comex CAN and MAY award points at eir
>> discretion, so long as the total
comex wrote:
I amend Contract B to read:
{
This is a public contract and a pledge. comex CAN make arbitrary
Contract Changes to this contract by announcement.
If this contract is a contest, comex CAN and MAY award points at eir
discretion, so long as the total number of points awarded or revoke
woggle wrote:
> On 9/16/09 5:12 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> NoV: Justiciar woggle violated Rule 2158 (Power=2) by failing to
>> assign a panel to 2670a.
>
> I contest this. Arguments: I reasonably believed (and still believe)
> that CFJ 2670a does not exist and therefore I am not required or
> permi
Pavitra wrote:
> Ed Murphy wrote:
>> NoV: Justiciar woggle violated Rule 2158 (Power=2) by failing to
>> assign a panel to 2670a.
> Was that the one that was recently ruled not to have been assigned even
> though the panel attempted to judge it? If so, UNAWARE would seem
> appropriate.
I pointe
Ed Murphy wrote:
> NoV: Justiciar woggle violated Rule 2158 (Power=2) by failing to
> assign a panel to 2670a.
Was that the one that was recently ruled not to have been assigned even
though the panel attempted to judge it? If so, UNAWARE would seem
appropriate.
signature.asc
Description: OpenP
I wrote:
> I intend, with 2 support, to appeal. The arguments indicate that
> the transfer failed, but the statement is "ais523 owns a Dunce Cap
> card" which should have been judged TRUE. I recommend REASSIGN,
> as coppro presumably just mis-remembered the statement as "ais523
> transferred a D
woggle wrote:
> On 9/16/09 12:08 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2688
>>
>> = Criminal Case 2688 =
>>
>> ais523 violated the Power-1 rule 1742 by failing to act in
>> accordance with the Per
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009, Charles Walker wrote:
> During an emergency session, the eligible voters on a democratic
> decision are the active Senators, each with a voting limit of
> one, Rules to the contrary notwithstanding.
Cheap and easy scam; first few senators who notice this passin
On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 20:29 +0100, Charles Walker wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> {{
>
> Fix the Senate (AI = 3, II = 2)
>
> There are currently several problems with the Senate Rule. Firstly,
> the following:
Could you please retract the proposal, and repost it with the
explanato
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 8:01 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 2:55 PM, Charles Walker
> wrote:
>> Wooble, have you admitted or denied this CoE? I can't seem to find I
>> reply and I thought it would be best to point it out before you
>> distribute this week.
>
> The report's no
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 2:55 PM, Charles Walker
wrote:
> Wooble, have you admitted or denied this CoE? I can't seem to find I
> reply and I thought it would be best to point it out before you
> distribute this week.
The report's not self-ratifying; I flagged the message to update the
distributabi
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Charles Walker
wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> chamber: democratic
>> ai: 3.0
>> interest: 1
>> proposer: coppro
>> coauthors:
>> title: FIXME
>> submit_date: 2009-08-27
>> submit_mid: <4a970a36.6040...@gmail.com>
>> distributabi
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 19:58, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I withdraw 2 * No Confidence for 110zm.
> I play No Confidence, specifying the IADoP.
> Since it's gone longest without an election, I initiate an election for
> Insulator.
>
For recordkeeping purposes, can someone summarize for me: This message
wa
ais523 wrote:
On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 07:30 -0400, comex wrote:
Wait, what? Why not REMAND?
Because the case was originally assigned to Pavitra by mistake.
I was the judge at the time of the assignment; I don't believe I would
not therefore be the prior judge.
-coppro
On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 09:40 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 08:19, Sean Hunt wrote:
> >
> > Having received no objections, I make all the quoted players inactive.
> >
> And here I thought I was the only one who believed dependent actions
> were not broken.
A proposal just pass
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 08:19, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Sean Hunt wrote:
>>
>> For each of the following players, I intend, without objection, to make
>> em inactive (I know it's broken now but I hope the Assessor will pass
>> the proposal to repair it quickly).
>>
>> woggle
>> Schrodinger's Cat
>> Jonn
On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 11:25 -0400, comex wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 11:20 AM, The PerlNomic Partnership
> wrote:
> > This message serves to announce and make effective changes to
> > the list of parties to the PerlNomic Partnership (a public contract).
>
> CoE: The PNP arguably didn't write
On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 07:30 -0400, comex wrote:
> Wait, what? Why not REMAND?
Because the case was originally assigned to Pavitra by mistake.
--
ais523
Wait, what? Why not REMAND?
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 16, 2009, at 5:26 AM, ais523
wrote:
On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 11:20 +0200, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
2009/9/16 Ed Murphy :
coppro wrote:
I assign myself as judge to CFJ 2679, and I judge it FALSE.
I intend, with 2 support, to appeal.
On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 11:20 +0200, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
> 2009/9/16 Ed Murphy :
> > coppro wrote:
> >
> >> I assign myself as judge to CFJ 2679, and I judge it FALSE.
> >
> > I intend, with 2 support, to appeal. The arguments indicate that
> > the transfer failed, but the statement is "ais523 ow
On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 13:50 -0700, Charles Reiss wrote:
> Corrected NoV (forget the power of the rule in the first one): ais523
> violated the Power-1 rule 1742 by failing to act in accordance with the
> PerlNomic Partnership contract by attempting to modify it other than by
> the proposal mechanis
On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 13:36 -0700, Charles Reiss wrote:
> On 9/15/09 1:49 AM, ais523 wrote:
> > Some scams work better when they're kept secret; however, some are
> > better when people know they're scams in advance. This message contains
> > at least 3 scam attempts; some I think are unlikely to w
On 9/16/09 12:08 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2688
>
> = Criminal Case 2688 =
>
> ais523 violated the Power-1 rule 1742 by failing to act in
> accordance with the PerlNomic Partnership co
24 matches
Mail list logo
