This is not a brief because it contains no declaration of support for
either ruling. Instead, I wish to offer a Linguistics-based approach
to the current issue and convince players to side with a ruling based
on intuitive readings of the rules and legal precident.
Consider with me for a moment the
On Sat, 2014-10-11 at 11:44 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Mine is more: "A rule says do X to accomplish Z. A higher rule says
> "things like X are not sufficient to accomplish Z. Therefore you can't
> do X to accomplish Z".
>
> Now you would say "but I invented X+Y, which is actually *better* th
On Sat, 11 Oct 2014, Alex Smith wrote:
> Perhaps our disagreement is this: you see the process as "do X and Y to
> accomplish Z, as defined by Rule N". I see the process as "do X and Y" –
> thus, the process is something that can be followed regardless of
> whether any rules define it – and it's
On Sat, 2014-10-11 at 11:07 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> If a Rule actually said you could do a change With Notice, than we'd ask
> how much Notice was enough, and ask per instance if there was anything
> wrong with it. In fact, if Induction still existed, I would opine that
> By Announcement mea
On Sat, 11 Oct 2014, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-10-11 at 10:41 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > Looking at that one, the only fail/success mechanism *is* by announcement,
> > so that's the only basis for judging whether a judicial assignment
> > succeeds.
> >
> > The requirement for the Arbit
On Sat, 2014-10-11 at 10:41 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Looking at that one, the only fail/success mechanism *is* by announcement,
> so that's the only basis for judging whether a judicial assignment
> succeeds.
>
> The requirement for the Arbitor to have further procedure to ensure
> fairness is
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2014, Alex Smith wrote:
> > Another example would be your process for assigning judges; it's clearly
> > more complex than just the by-announcement in the last paragraph of rule
> > 991, because you have requirements to distribute duties among judges
> > over time.
>
> That one
On Sat, 11 Oct 2014, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-10-11 at 10:09 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On Sat, 11 Oct 2014, Alex Smith wrote:
> > > What makes this different from processes that aren't written down in the
> > > rules?
> >
> > Which ones? Examples would be really helpful! Especially
On Sat, 2014-10-11 at 10:09 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2014, Alex Smith wrote:
> > What makes this different from processes that aren't written down in the
> > rules?
>
> Which ones? Examples would be really helpful! Especially examples
> of what happens when these processes are
On Sat, 11 Oct 2014, Alex Smith wrote:
> What makes this different from processes that aren't written down in the
> rules?
Which ones? Examples would be really helpful! Especially examples
of what happens when these processes are CFJ'd?
On Sat, 2014-10-11 at 09:53 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> If the Proposal text changed mid-stream, then there is more wrong with
> the process. For example, the voting notice that started the voting
> (R107) no longer refers to the matter being decided. In that case,
> the text might be R105 ambigu
On Sat, 11 Oct 2014, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-10-11 at 09:28 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > Specifically, no rules-defined review process. You tried to do this
> > by announcement. "By announcement" has no review. -G.
>
> To argue the point rather than the procedure, what makes a prop
On Sat, 11 Oct 2014, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-10-09 at 16:53 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > I submit the following judgement for CFJ 3429.
> > I announce my intent w/2 support to enter it into Moot.
>
> I support. I also notice several bugs the Arbitor could exploit in the
> Moot rul
On Sat, 2014-10-11 at 09:28 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Specifically, no rules-defined review process. You tried to do this
> by announcement. "By announcement" has no review. -G.
To argue the point rather than the procedure, what makes a proposal have
any more review than an announcement that
On Sat, 11 Oct 2014, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-10-11 at 09:26 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On Sat, 11 Oct 2014, Alex Smith wrote:
> > > Using the mechanism defined in rule 2437, I cause rule 2437 to set its
> > > own text to the following:
> >
> > Fails under current standing judgement.
On Sat, 11 Oct 2014, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2014, Alex Smith wrote:
> > Using the mechanism defined in rule 2437, I cause rule 2437 to set its
> > own text to the following:
>
> Fails under current standing judgement. No review has taken place.
Specifically, no rules-defined revi
On Sat, 2014-10-11 at 09:26 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2014, Alex Smith wrote:
> > Using the mechanism defined in rule 2437, I cause rule 2437 to set its
> > own text to the following:
>
> Fails under current standing judgement. No review has taken place.
Sure, but I think your j
On Sat, 11 Oct 2014, Alex Smith wrote:
> Using the mechanism defined in rule 2437, I cause rule 2437 to set its
> own text to the following:
Fails under current standing judgement. No review has taken place.
On Sat, 2014-10-11 at 17:09 +0200, James Beirne wrote:
> > White (W): A player qualifies for a White Ribbon if e has never
> > previously owned a White Ribbon (including under previous rulesets). A
> > player who has been registered for at least 30 days and has never caused
> > another person to g
> While a person owns all types of Ribbon, that person can Raise a Banner
> by announcement. This causes that person to win the game and a new game
> begins. That person's Ribbon Ownership becomes the empty set.
> ...
> White (W): A player qualifies for a White Ribbon if e has never
> previously ow
20 matches
Mail list logo
