I vote as follows:
> ID Author(s) AI Title Pender Pend fee (sh.)
> -
> 7958* Aris, [1] 3.0 Assets v7 Aris 6
FOR. Aris, your commitment to making this happen is c
> Judge's Arguments:
>
> I was considering playing along with this, but frankly, given
> everything that's happened, I'm not in the mood. Even the caller has
> practically admitted that this CFJ is frivolous (the message was
> entitled "A little levity"). The only sensible reading of the rule is
I will typo all I want, and you will all like it.
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 17:14 V.J Rada wrote:
> And of course, egregious not agregious
>
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > Proto Proposal:
>> > AI = 4
>> > Title: When two becom
And of course, egregious not agregious
On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Proto Proposal:
> > AI = 4
> > Title: When two become one
> > Rule: 'A short list of things that are too agregious to even attempt'
> > Doing any of the followin
> Proto Proposal:
> AI = 4
> Title: When two become one
> Rule: 'A short list of things that are too agregious to even attempt'
> Doing any of the following is `Treating Agora Right Bad Forever` and are
> bannable offenses:
> - A single person attempting to register as two players
>
> If a person i
On Wed, 2017-06-14 at 09:49 +1000, V.J Rada wrote:
> I retract any CFJs that are not the first one I just called, if they
> exist.
Oh. If there were three separate CFJs, I actually assigned the third
one, I think (on the assumption that it would have the best
formatting). So you'll need to retract
On Tue, 2017-06-13 at 16:42 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> "Purport: appear or claim to be or do something, especially
> falsely; profess."
>
> which is exactly what I did.
>
> In other words, to "purport" is literally to SID.
You didn't claim it was part of the Registrar's Report. You claimed you
On Wed, 14 Jun 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-06-13 at 09:29 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > All sorts of titles for omd (in caller's arguments):
> > > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3422
>
> I've just noticed that the gratuitous arguments by me in CFJ 3422 have,
> in th
On Wed, 14 Jun 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-06-13 at 10:41 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > Therefore, I purport the following document is part of the Registrar's
> > Weekly Report:
>
> ISIDTID. I don't believe you actually purported that the document was
> part of the Registrar's weekl
On Tue, 2017-06-13 at 23:01 +, Quazie wrote:
> All valid feedback. I feel like a high AI showed the gravity of the
> offense, and i'm just throwing the idea out there - i'll wait until
> Criminal Cases are re-established before i go further
Technically speaking you can put the AI above the ru
On Tue, 2017-06-13 at 09:29 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> All sorts of titles for omd (in caller's arguments):
> > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3422
I've just noticed that the gratuitous arguments by me in CFJ 3422 have,
in the Court record, an additional line labelling them as
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 4:00 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, Quazie wrote:
> > Proto Proposal:AI = 4
>
> power below ratification please; not sure why it needs higher power...
>
> > Title: When two become one
> > Rule: 'A short list of things that are too agregious to even attemp
On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, Quazie wrote:
> Proto Proposal:AI = 4
power below ratification please; not sure why it needs higher power...
> Title: When two become one
> Rule: 'A short list of things that are too agregious to even attempt'
> Doing any of the following is `Treating Agora Right Bad Foreve
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 3:40 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, CuddleBeam wrote:
> > It... seems extremely easy to just make more emails and have a bunch of
> sockpuppets.
> > Has it been an issue in the past? There doesn't seem to be any direct
> measures against it.
>
> We've had
On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> When Alexis re-registered, e didn't *tell* people e used to be scshunt, e let
> people assume that for the Ribbon ratification. E was very, very careful
> there,
> and only let it last as long as absolutely necessary for that (and of course,
> e
> was
On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, CuddleBeam wrote:
> It... seems extremely easy to just make more emails and have a bunch of
> sockpuppets.
> Has it been an issue in the past? There doesn't seem to be any direct
> measures against it.
We've had more explicit rules against it before.
Right now, if you wer
It broke the game a lot and was pretty rough, please do not do that.
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 3:07 PM V.J Rada wrote:
> Yes, one time somebody pretended to be two people, got several offices
> etc, then deregistered and revealed they were the same person all along.
> Honour system though guys. IG
Yes, one time somebody pretended to be two people, got several offices etc,
then deregistered and revealed they were the same person all along. Honour
system though guys. IGMEOY.
On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 7:52 AM, CuddleBeam
wrote:
> It... seems extremely easy to just make more emails and have a b
It... seems extremely easy to just make more emails and have a bunch of
sockpuppets.
Has it been an issue in the past? There doesn't seem to be any direct
measures against it.
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 2:24 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2017, V.J Rada wrote:
> > "I Point My Finger at um... what's your nickname? Kerim, anyway. For
> clear
> > reasons, let's see what happens though"
>
> Oh, sorry, been lazy signing messages lately. G. is my nickname. -G.
>
>
On Wed, 14 Jun 2017, V.J Rada wrote:
> "I Point My Finger at um... what's your nickname? Kerim, anyway. For clear
> reasons, let's see what happens though"
Oh, sorry, been lazy signing messages lately. G. is my nickname. -G.
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 2:16 PM V.J Rada wrote:
> I Point My Finger at um... what's your nickname? Kerim, anyway. For clear
> reasons, let's see what happens though.
>
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 3:41 AM, Kerim Aydin
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, Quazie wrote:
>> > 1 - Current rules are
I Point My Finger at um... what's your nickname? Kerim, anyway. For clear
reasons, let's see what happens though.
On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 3:41 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, Quazie wrote:
> > 1 - Current rules are certainly not handled by 10 year old CFJs... BUT2
> - A non-pla
On Jun 13, 2017 1:48 PM, "Quazie" wrote:
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 11:22 AM grok (caleb vines)
wrote:
>
>
> On Jun 13, 2017 12:52 PM, "Kerim Aydin" wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, grok (caleb vines) wrote:
> > Forgive me if I'm wrong but: since agencies cause the President of the
> agency to
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 11:22 AM grok (caleb vines)
wrote:
>
>
> On Jun 13, 2017 12:52 PM, "Kerim Aydin" wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, grok (caleb vines) wrote:
> > Forgive me if I'm wrong but: since agencies cause the President of the
> agency to perform
> > the action, the person doesn't
On Jun 13, 2017 12:52 PM, "Kerim Aydin" wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, grok (caleb vines) wrote:
> Forgive me if I'm wrong but: since agencies cause the President of the
agency to perform
> the action, the person doesn't perform the action but rather the
President. So person
> acting through an ag
On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, grok (caleb vines) wrote:
> Forgive me if I'm wrong but: since agencies cause the President of the agency
> to perform
> the action, the person doesn't perform the action but rather the President.
> So person
> acting through an agency might compel a player to perform a S
On Jun 13, 2017 12:32 PM, "Kerim Aydin" wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, CuddleBeam wrote:
> We have: [CFJ 1709 (called 26 July 2007): The rules are binding on all
those
> who play the game in the broader sense, regardless of whether they
> have the rule-defined status of "player".]
>
> And then in
On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, CuddleBeam wrote:
> We have: [CFJ 1709 (called 26 July 2007): The rules are binding on all those
> who play the game in the broader sense, regardless of whether they
> have the rule-defined status of "player".]
>
> And then in R869: "The Rules CANNOT otherwise bind a person
1 - Current rules are certainly not handled by 10 year old CFJs... BUT
2 - A non-player interacting with the game can't be compelled to act, but
if they do act they are wilfully agreeing and can be bound by the rules -
meaning they can't just do illegal things and have them succeed, as they
are `pl
We have: [CFJ 1709 (called 26 July 2007): The rules are binding on all those
who play the game in the broader sense, regardless of whether they
have the rule-defined status of "player".]
And then in R869: "The Rules CANNOT otherwise bind a person to abide
by any agreement without that person's wi
On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, Quazie wrote:
> In fact, I think Gaelan is legally a Ninny as of the most recently resolved
> proposals?
It is Known.
In fact, I think Gaelan is legally a Ninny as of the most recently resolved
proposals?
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 09:33 Quazie wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 09:32 Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 10:54 PM, Quazie wrote:
>> > >
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 09:32 Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 10:54 PM, Quazie wrote:
> > > SnuggleWand could've indeed - the CFJ is indeed in a peculiar mess,
> which is
> > > why I recently introduced recusal, so if someone gets a
On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 10:54 PM, Quazie wrote:
> > SnuggleWand could've indeed - the CFJ is indeed in a peculiar mess, which is
> > why I recently introduced recusal, so if someone gets a case they just don't
> > wanna deal with (which happened to Pud
DoggleBoon posted the following:
> https://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2017-May/034886.html
which directly purported to be the Judgement on 3509. E listed the wrong
statement,
but that should not distract from a clear expression of 3509: DISMISS being
delivered.
CFJs are judged on their truth value at call time.
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 08:35 CuddleBeam wrote:
> This may help:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg07962.html
>
> >On Mon, 2017-05-22 at 19:20 -0700, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> >> I CFJ on these statements:
> >>
> >> “Any
This may help:
http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg07962.html
>On Mon, 2017-05-22 at 19:20 -0700, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>> I CFJ on these statements:
>>
>> “Any player may take the office of Rulekeepor with 2 support.” [i.e.
>> I got a pink slip]
>> “o committed a cardable
I actually never gave formal judgement. I don't know why people think I've
DIMISSED it or broken my pledge.
Please link to me where I've explicitly given Judgement.
I also agree with that I should be yellow-carded, but for simple negligence
of not doing what I was supposed to (give Judgement), bu
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 1:38 AM, V.J Rada wrote:
> I Point the Finger at Cuddlebeam. On 25 May he said "I pledge to not
> submit Judgement on CFJ 3509."
> (https://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2017-May/034882.html).
> On that very same date, he did.
> (https://www.agor
On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 10:54 PM, Quazie wrote:
> SnuggleWand could've indeed - the CFJ is indeed in a peculiar mess, which is
> why I recently introduced recusal, so if someone gets a case they just don't
> wanna deal with (which happened to PuddleGleam here) then ey can recuse
> themselves inste
On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> Question: does Aris's announcement of intent "identify a lack" as per
> R107 and kill the decision just by being intended? I can see arguments
> on both sides of that one, but definitely *don't* want to muck it up with
> a CFJ before some di
42 matches
Mail list logo
