On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 4:28 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Verrry slippery. Take it from the other side, then. What is to prevent
>> you from saying "hey! In between my posting consent and you posting the
>> message, I (quietly to myself
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 4:28 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Verrry slippery. Take it from the other side, then. What is to prevent
> you from saying "hey! In between my posting consent and you posting the
> message, I (quietly to myself) changed my mind!"
Nothing. What's the pr
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> From my point of view, what is required is the state of agreement
> itself, not the evidence that such a state exists (so I would hold the
> strict approach to be unnecessary). The game does not purport to
> regulate me changing my mind.
Verrry slippery. T
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 4:12 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Finally, a question for you and root: Taking the strict approach
> of R2157, if you say "I hereby agree for Goethe to post this message
> on behalf of this panel" what makes you think you *can* revoke that
> permission?
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Do you agree that if the message is posted before you change your mind,
>> it was posted with your permission even if you change your mind later?
>
> Yes, but your view would seem to
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Sorry about repeating myself, but R101 is all about burden of proof.
>> If two members disagree on what was agreed to, or if one member claims
>> agreement and the other isn't presen
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, comex wrote:
> Then again, what CFJ are you referring to? Contract changes have only
> been in place in their present form for two months.
R101 says what rights are available to people w.r.t. "agreements" and
"binding agreements". R1742 says that whenever a binding agreemen
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry about repeating myself, but R101 is all about burden of proof.
> If two members disagree on what was agreed to, or if one member claims
> agreement and the other isn't present, the judge should judge on the
> prepond
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do you agree that if the message is posted before you change your mind,
> it was posted with your permission even if you change your mind later?
Yes, but your view would seem to imply that if the message is posted
after I c
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 3. The above is no different than transferring your ability to vote to
> someone (then revoking said permission). That has been established as a
> clear and binding agreement in the courts, even when you can change your
>
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> R101 protections are unnecessary here. If another panel member sends
> a message that you did not agree to, then it was not successfully sent
> on behalf of the panel.
Sorry about repeating myself, but R101 is all about burden of proof.
If two members disag
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> When agreeing to an appeal judgement, I have always considered myself
> to be reserving the right to change my mind, which can hardly be
> called binding.
Do you agree that if the message is posted before you change your mind,
it was posted with your permiss
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, comex wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 5:21 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> And you'd better believe I expect R101 protections (e.g. silence=refusal).
>
> Perhaps you'd have to give evidence that you agree to the panelist
> who's performing the action. But not pu
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, comex wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 5:07 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> R2157 refers to an agreement to deliver a legal opinion. In the absence of
>> further definition of "binding", it is quite likely that agreeing to consent
>> to the posting of such an o
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 5:21 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And you'd better believe I expect R101 protections (e.g. silence=refusal).
Perhaps you'd have to give evidence that you agree to the panelist
who's performing the action. But not publicly-- even a bona fide
contract can be
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What I agree to is NOT to hold opinion (which I may or may not agree with at
> any particular time), but I agree TO THE ACT OF SENDING THE MESSAGE. I agree
> that someone else can deliver a specific and particular legal sta
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 3:07 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> R2157 refers to an agreement to deliver a legal opinion. In the absence of
> further definition of "binding", it is quite likely that agreeing to consent
> to the posting of such an opinion is binding. This particular typ
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, comex wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 4:28 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> (To forestall discussion on another detail, I assume that type of
>> "agreement"
>> referred to in R101 is the same as "agreements made" by judicial panels, as
>> there is no qualifying
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 5:07 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> R2157 refers to an agreement to deliver a legal opinion. In the absence of
> further definition of "binding", it is quite likely that agreeing to consent
> to the posting of such an opinion is binding.
I preemptively conse
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 2:28 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> (To forestall discussion on another detail, I assume that type of
>> "agreement"
>> referred to in R101 is the same as "agreements made" by judicial panels, as
>> there is no qualif
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 2:54 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If, in an appeal panel in which I was a member,
> a) one of the members consented
> b) I privately consented to the CotC to the same judgement
> c) the CotC announced that e was judging with majority consent
> (without saying w
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 4:28 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (To forestall discussion on another detail, I assume that type of "agreement"
> referred to in R101 is the same as "agreements made" by judicial panels, as
> there is no qualifying text to the contrary).
>
R101 (v) is pate
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 2:47 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 2:28 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > (To forestall discussion on another detail, I assume that type of
> "agreement"
> > referred to in R101 is the same as "agreements made" by judicial
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 2:28 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (To forestall discussion on another detail, I assume that type of "agreement"
> referred to in R101 is the same as "agreements made" by judicial panels, as
> there is no qualifying text to the contrary).
The use of the wor
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 2:26 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let's see, "inspect the entire case history" presumably means that, if
> the history is presented like so:
>
> A in, B in, C in, B out, D in
Ah, we're talking about different things. I was referring to the
problem that to
Goethe wrote:
> I agree with Zefram in that I greatly prefer the collective-decision model,
> but notwithstanding what the CotC is supposed to track, as a panelist I (and
> others) have had trouble knowing what was consented to (e.g. if a panelist
> consents to a judgement I propose, but I mildl
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> I submit that if comex and woggle had at some point indicated that
> they had silently agreed to Wooble's attempted judgement in that case,
> then the appropriate judgement in CFJ 1908 would have been TRUE, not
> FALSE.
This is where the epistemology comes
root wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> > More confusing than having to inspect the entire case history in order
>> >> > to determine what panels exist?
>> >>
>> >> No, but the proposed revision would eliminate both.
>> >
>> > I'm not sure
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Because there are no individual actions that are significant.
>> Agreement between panel members is a status, not an action.
>
> Individual actions /are/ significant, whether or not they are entered
> into the database individually or not. See CFJ 1908.
Ag
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, Zefram wrote:
> Ed Murphy wrote:
>> already pointed out how the old system (under which the individual
>> significance of an individual action could be determined immediately)
>> is simpler than the new (in which it cannot be determined until the
>> panel acts);
>
> If you want
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > More confusing than having to inspect the entire case history in order
> >> > to determine what panels exist?
> >>
> >> No, but the proposed revision would eliminate both.
> >
> > I'm not sure what revision you're
root wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Individual actions /are/ significant, whether or not they are entered
>> into the database individually or not. See CFJ 1908.
>
> I submit that if comex and woggle had at some point indicated that
> they had
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Individual actions /are/ significant, whether or not they are entered
> into the database individually or not. See CFJ 1908.
I submit that if comex and woggle had at some point indicated that
they had silently agreed to Woo
Zefram wrote:
> Ed Murphy wrote:
>> So long as appeals are handled by sets of three, they're going to be
>> sui generis no matter what you call them.
>
> What is sui generis (that I'm talking about) in your system and in
> the pre-reform system is the framework governing appeals. Under the
> cur
root wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 10:39 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> As for complexity, I've
>> already pointed out how the old system (under which the individual
>> significance of an individual action could be determined immediately)
>> is simpler than the new (in which it
Ed Murphy wrote:
>So long as appeals are handled by sets of three, they're going to be
>sui generis no matter what you call them.
What is sui generis (that I'm talking about) in your system and in
the pre-reform system is the framework governing appeals. Under the
current system, judicial panels
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 10:39 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As for complexity, I've
> already pointed out how the old system (under which the individual
> significance of an individual action could be determined immediately)
> is simpler than the new (in which it cannot be determine
Zefram wrote:
> Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Proto-Proposal: Per-case panels
>
> Messy. It's a lot of extra complexity and room for bugs. It doesn't
> interface properly with the rest of the judicial system, as evidenced by
> your need to increase the power of R911 so that it can make exceptions
> to t
Ed Murphy wrote:
>Proto-Proposal: Per-case panels
Messy. It's a lot of extra complexity and room for bugs. It doesn't
interface properly with the rest of the judicial system, as evidenced by
your need to increase the power of R911 so that it can make exceptions
to the framework rules.
The rati
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 7:39 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (Side note: Do players feel
> that majority-plus-CotC is more or less warranted when the odd panelist
> expresses a contrary opinion, vs. when e says nothing?)
I would only consider it appropriate when one of the panelists
root wrote:
>> To assign a member to a judicial panel is to add em to its
>> membership, provided that e is qualified to become a member of
>> that panel. To recuse a member from a judicial panel is to remove
>> em from its membership.
>
> Confusing overloading of "assign
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 6:34 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A judicial panel is qualified to be assigned as judge of an appeal
> case if and only if it initially has three members, each of whom
> is qualified to become a member of that panel.
s/initially/at the time o
Proto-Proposal: Per-case panels
(AI = 2, please)
Amend Rule 2157 (Judicial Panels) by replacing this text:
A judicial panel's membership cannot change,
and if two panels have the same membership then they are the
same panel. Judicial panels exist implicitly, w
43 matches
Mail list logo
