FWIW, I did actually consider them. I didn't address them because a) they
were only briefly alluded to and did not change my opinion, and b) I was
typing this on my phone.
Is it necessary for a judge to address every argument in a case or only the
ones they consider pertinent to their judgement?
Goethe wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Feb 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> I move to REMAND 2356a. It should be overturned based on the Defendant's
>>> arguments (to which the Judge agrees) but it's unfair to punish the
>>> judge when the Defendant did
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
>> I move to REMAND 2356a. It should be overturned based on the Defendant's
>> arguments (to which the Judge agrees) but it's unfair to punish the
>> judge when the Defendant did not provide eir
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> I move to REMAND 2356a. It should be overturned based on the Defendant's
> arguments (to which the Judge agrees) but it's unfair to punish the
> judge when the Defendant did not provide eir argument in a timely
> manner. -Goethe
I made th
On Sun, 7 Dec 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
> I intend, with two support, to appeal CFJ 2292 as it seems to imply that what
> is "actually" true is irrelevant.
Oh ehird, ehird, ehird. You've fallen victim to one of the classic
Agoran blunders (the most well-known is ISIDTID, but only *slightly*
le
ehird wrote:
> I intend, with two support, to appeal CFJ 2292 as it seems to imply
> that what is "actually" true is irrelevant.
If you're only CFJing on "X stated that e did Y", then it /is/
irrelevant whether e actually did Y (i.e. whether the statement is
true); it only matters whether e cla
On Nov 10, 2007 1:22 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * A judgement of IRRELEVANT is not appropriate, because the veracity
> of the statement determines whether the initiator wins the game, per
> Rule 2110.
Hm, sounds like the definition of IRRELEVANT needs clarification. The
veracity of
Eris wrote:
On 1/31/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I hereby appeal Sherlock's judgement of CFJ 1594.
I also appeal this Judgement, because I've always wanted to try this.
This is explicitly allowed by Rule 101, but contributes nothing toward
Rule 1564's prerequisites for initiating a
8 matches
Mail list logo
