comex wrote:
On Tuesday 19 June 2007, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Zefram wrote:
comex wrote:
I issue a Timing Order to the CotC to recuse the judge of CFJ 1684
ASAP (per R408).
I also issue a Timing Order to the CotC to recuse the judge of CFJ
1684 ASAP (per R408).
vii. Every person has the r
root wrote:
> It seems to me that performing the action would satisfy one of the
> orders, but the target could still be penalized at most once for not
> satisfying the remaining orders. If so, this is obviously broken.
Actually, here's a counterargument to it being broken (Rule 1794/8)(d):
On 6/19/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
comex wrote:
> So is taking the action for me a penalization?
It might be, but I meant the punishment if you didn't follow the
order (e.g. multiple timing orders to do the same thing result
in at most one penalty for not performing the task).
comex wrote:
> So is taking the action for me a penalization?
It might be, but I meant the punishment if you didn't follow the
order (e.g. multiple timing orders to do the same thing result
in at most one penalty for not performing the task).
It's quite possible that the subsequent orders are i
On Tuesday 19 June 2007, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Zefram wrote:
> > comex wrote:
> > > I issue a Timing Order to the CotC to recuse the judge of CFJ 1684
> > > ASAP (per R408).
> >
> > I also issue a Timing Order to the CotC to recuse the judge of CFJ
> > 1684 ASAP (per R408).
>
>vii. Every per
Zefram wrote:
> comex wrote:
> > I issue a Timing Order to the CotC to recuse the judge of CFJ 1684 ASAP
> > (per R408).
>
> I also issue a Timing Order to the CotC to recuse the judge of CFJ 1684
> ASAP (per R408).
vii. Every person has the right to not be penalized more than
On 6/19/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ian Kelly wrote:
>If the CotC never explicitly linked the index 1684 to any particular
>CFJ, can the assignment be considered successful?
I think it can. CFJ numbers are unregulated, but we all agree on a
single numbering authority. In context, the
Ian Kelly wrote:
>If the CotC never explicitly linked the index 1684 to any particular
>CFJ, can the assignment be considered successful?
I think it can. CFJ numbers are unregulated, but we all agree on a
single numbering authority. In context, there is no ambiguity in the
meaning of "CFJ 1684".
On 6/19/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't think comex ever explicitly assigned the number. That would be
an implicit result of entering it into the CFJ database. You were then
assigned as judge thus:
|I assign CFJ 1684 to Eris. Eris is now turned.
If the CotC never explicitly li
Taral wrote:
>That's not my point. I have no record of the numerical assignment, so
>I don't know what the statement is, nor what arguments were submitted.
root called it:
|> You know, I'm amazed that three folks didn't appeal the original
|> (self-interested) judgements that said partnerships co
On 6/19/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Taral wrote:
>I still have no idea about this CFJ...
I suggest that you examine the purported judge's arguments in CFJ 1623.
You're not necessarily bound to judge the same, because if you judge to
the contrary then CFJ 1623 hasn't really been judged.
Taral wrote:
>I still have no idea about this CFJ...
I suggest that you examine the purported judge's arguments in CFJ 1623.
You're not necessarily bound to judge the same, because if you judge to
the contrary then CFJ 1623 hasn't really been judged. But if you find
the reasoning good then you ca
I still have no idea about this CFJ...
--
Eris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
13 matches
Mail list logo
