Pavitra wrote:
> I too recommend OVERRULE/FALSE, in part because the original judge says
> so, and in part because if we don't use OVERRULE for cases like this,
> where the correct answer is as trivial and obvious as it could
> conceivably be, then why do we even have OVERRULE and AFFIRM as valid
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Sep 2009, Pavitra wrote:
>> Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> with:
>>>vii. Every player has the right to deregister and thereby cease
>>> to be a player by informing all other players.
>>
>> I don't want an attempt to use R101(vii) to retroactively turn out
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009, Pavitra wrote:
> However, I strongly disagree with that syllogism. Such a precedent would
> allow low-powered rules to effectively override high-powered ones, by
> pretending to avoid conflict while subverting the natural meaning of the
> high-powered rule entirely.
I think o
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009, Pavitra wrote:
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> with:
>>vii. Every player has the right to deregister and thereby cease
>> to be a player by informing all other players.
>
> I don't want an attempt to use R101(vii) to retroactively turn out to
> have platonically fa
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009, ais523 wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 17:18 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> If you'd like you can insert "in the judges opinion" after "the
>> correct choice", because that is what matters here. Judges have
>> latitude to select what they believe to be the best option when faced
Sean Hunt wrote:
> Roger Hicks wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 01:00, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2682
>>>
>>> == CFJ 2682 ==
>>>
>>>It is POSSIBLE to increase a player's voting limit
comex wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 4:04 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2692
>>
>> == �CFJ 2692 �==
>>
>> � �G. is a player.
>>
>> =
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> with:
>vii. Every player has the right to deregister and thereby cease
> to be a player by informing all other players.
I don't want an attempt to use R101(vii) to retroactively turn out to
have platonically failed because the person somehow accidentally o
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Proposal 6476 (Ordinary, AI=1.0, Interest=1) by Yally
> No More Paradox
>
> Amend point d of Rule 2143 to read:
>
> For every non-IADoP report, the date on which it was last
> submitted.
Amendment fails because there is no point d; I s
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 9:50 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> There are two possible scenarios:
>
> 1. Wooble was unable to gather the required consent to amend the PNP
> to point to the new instance. Since the nomic.info instance was down
> there were no registered PerlNomic players, and thus no PNP par
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 19:41, Ed Murphy wrote:
> BobTHJ wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 13:34, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> Voting results for Proposals 6476 - 6494:
>>>
>>> 6481 depends on the state of the PNP:
>>> If the PNP has the non-c. text, then Pavitra and coppro vote AGAINST,
>>> and 64
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 14:04, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2691
>
> = Criminal Case 2691 =
>
> ais523 violated Rule 2215 (Truthfulness) by falsely claiming
> that e intended to amend the IBA.
>
BobTHJ wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 13:34, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Voting results for Proposals 6476 - 6494:
>>
>> 6481 depends on the state of the PNP:
>> If the PNP has the non-c. text, then Pavitra and coppro vote AGAINST,
>>and 6481 fails (3 FOR, 2 AGAINST).
>> If the PNP has the c. tex
ais523 wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 17:34 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> You seem to be missing the point here. This is not a matter of what is
>> true and what is false. In this case, because of the way the rule is
>> worded, there are two possible ways to interpret the rule. Both are
>> equally
ehird wrote:
> 2009/9/18 ais523 :
>> Arguments: So far there hasn't actually been a situation that needs
>> resolving. I recommend a null judgement. (As comex says, this CFJ was
>> submitted for anti-scam reasons (if a situation arises in the future a
>> judgement to reverse it could then be given
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 13:34, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Voting results for Proposals 6476 - 6494:
>
> 6481 depends on the state of the PNP:
> If the PNP has the non-c. text, then Pavitra and coppro vote AGAINST,
> and 6481 fails (3 FOR, 2 AGAINST).
> If the PNP has the c. text, then Pavitra and cop
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 17:40, ais523 wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 17:34 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> You seem to be missing the point here. This is not a matter of what is
>> true and what is false. In this case, because of the way the rule is
>> worded, there are two possible ways to interpret
On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 17:34 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
> You seem to be missing the point here. This is not a matter of what is
> true and what is false. In this case, because of the way the rule is
> worded, there are two possible ways to interpret the rule. Both are
> equally viable ways to interp
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 17:32, ais523 wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 17:27 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> CoE: I CoE this report simply because it reflects some of the same
>> discrepencies that I reported on your last report (not your fault, I
>> was just late in looking at that one).
>
> Have you
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 17:23, ais523 wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 17:18 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> If you'd like you can insert "in the judges opinion" after "the
>> correct choice", because that is what matters here. Judges have
>> latitude to select what they believe to be the best option w
On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 17:27 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
> CoE: I CoE this report simply because it reflects some of the same
> discrepencies that I reported on your last report (not your fault, I
> was just late in looking at that one).
Have you dealt this week's cards, by the way?
--
ais523
On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 17:18 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
> If you'd like you can insert "in the judges opinion" after "the
> correct choice", because that is what matters here. Judges have
> latitude to select what they believe to be the best option when faced
> with multiple equally-plausible interpr
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 17:07, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Roger Hicks wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 01:00, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>>
>>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2682
>>>
>>> == CFJ 2682 ==
>>>
>>> It is POSSIB
2009/9/18 ais523 :
> Arguments: So far there hasn't actually been a situation that needs
> resolving. I recommend a null judgement. (As comex says, this CFJ was
> submitted for anti-scam reasons (if a situation arises in the future a
> judgement to reverse it could then be given), rather than an ac
2009/9/18 Kerim Aydin :
> For my current status there's a perfectly good word to use:
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kibitzer
I guess I'm the peanut gallery kibitzer.
2674a/b - currently, only valid panelists are ais523, c., Murphy, Wooble
2679a - currently, only valid panelists are c., coppro, Murphy, Wooble
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 3:53 PM, ais523 wrote:
> PerlNomic's sufficiently automated that it's likely to keep on sending
> them, oblivious to the circumstances, until someone tells it to shut up.
The notifications to Agora have to be sent by a logged-in user. Votes
on Agoran proposals, on the oth
On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 13:50 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 09:25, 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 (
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 09:25, 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 this
I wrote:
> 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
>>> ac
2009/9/18 Ed Murphy :
> Wooble wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 8:23 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> Wooble wrote:
>>>
> 6497 O 0 1.0 BobTHJ Advertising Anarchy
AGAINST * 2
>>> Your VLOP is 1 due to coppro's recent Win by Clout.
>>
>> I'm pretty sure I still have an extra vote as
On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 13:06 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 13:02, Jonatan Kilhamn
> wrote:
> > 2009/9/18 Roger Hicks :
> >> Contracts you were able to leave: Industrial Bank & Agora, Bob's
> >> Janitorial Service, The Agoran Agricultural Association (causing your
> >> crops an
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 13:02, Jonatan Kilhamn
wrote:
> 2009/9/18 Roger Hicks :
>> Contracts you were able to leave: Industrial Bank & Agora, Bob's
>> Janitorial Service, The Agoran Agricultural Association (causing your
>> crops and lands to be destroyed)
>>
> Well, dang.
>
>> Contracts you were
I considered it to work in the order which maximizes zm, but I guess
to be consistent with previous rulings it should be taken to fail...
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 18, 2009, at 1:09 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 09:38, Jonatanw Kilhamn
wrote:
For each of those intents (f
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 09:38, Jonatan Kilhamn
wrote:
> For each of those intents (for each of those contracts) I object.
> I deposit all my crops and WRV. I IBA-withdraw three Distrib-u-matic,
> two Committee and as many Kill Bill as I can afford.
> For each public contract that I am a party to,
Wooble wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 8:23 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Wooble wrote:
>>
6497 O 0 1.0 BobTHJ Advertising Anarchy
>>> AGAINST * 2
>> Your VLOP is 1 due to coppro's recent Win by Clout.
>
> I'm pretty sure I still have an extra vote as Chief Whip.
*checks* No, the r
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 09:56, Ed Murphy wrote:
> BobTHJ wrote:
>
>> I recuse myself from this case. I thought I was Hanging? Was this a
>> valid assignment?
>
> http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2009-August/023058.html
>
>
Oops, forgot I did that...sorry.
BobTHJ
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009, ais523 wrote:
> Anyway, what I was referring to is not "G. is playing", but "it seems to
> be consensus that exercising your right to stop playing has to be done
> deliberately, and with an actual intent to stop playing more or less
> permanently". I'm not sure if that opinion
BobTHJ wrote:
> I recuse myself from this case. I thought I was Hanging? Was this a
> valid assignment?
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2009-August/023058.html
On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 08:11 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Sep 2009, ais523 wrote:
> > There's no evidence that G. intends to stop playing Agora altogether
> > forever; quite the opposite, I would say.
>
> I have no support for the incorrect and wholly specious current
> assumption that a
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009, ais523 wrote:
> There's no evidence that G. intends to stop playing Agora altogether
> forever; quite the opposite, I would say.
I have no support for the incorrect and wholly specious current
assumption that a deregistered player/watcher is actually "playing".
By most common
On Thu, 2009-09-17 at 20:52 -0500, Pavitra wrote:
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > I intend, without Objection, to register.
>
> I CFJ on the statement { If G.'s possible registration in the above
> message were successful, then G. would now be a party to the Fantasy
> Rules Contest. }, disqualifying ais5
On Thu, 2009-09-17 at 20:11 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Ed Murphy wrote:
> > (2678 and 2679 are above ə's rank. Rotation and further assignments
> > coming up shortly, followed by resolution of proposals.)
> >
> > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2680
> >
> > =
43 matches
Mail list logo
