Yally wrote:
> I opine REMAND as the Justicar's Opinion. I lean.
The opinion was ineffective because with/without prejudice was
not specified.
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> CFJ 2805a entered its four-day overtime period about two hours
> ago. See Rule 911 for details; H. Justiciar Yally, take note.
>
> I opine REMAND, requesting that H. Judge coppro explicitly address the
> pros/cons of accepting or rejecting impli
ais523 wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 17:04 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> (Only other standing judges are ais523 who initiated, and BobTHJ who
>> has rank 1. I'm going to keep doing this as long as people keep
>> forgetting to disqualify; determining conceptual conflict of interest
>> is not part of
On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 17:04 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> (Only other standing judges are ais523 who initiated, and BobTHJ who
> has rank 1. I'm going to keep doing this as long as people keep
> forgetting to disqualify; determining conceptual conflict of interest
> is not part of the CotC's job descr
On 1/16/08, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I vote MURPHY.
Updated summary:
There are still 6 days to go.
Zefram ZEFRAM
rootZEFRAM
pikhq ZEFRAM
ErisZEFRAM
Goethe MURPHY
Murphy MURPHY
O.Meyr MURPHY
Wooble MURPHY
BobTHJ COMEX (unless one of the other COMEX vote
On 1/15/08, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> More likely that you'd think.
DOH!
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On 1/15/08, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 15, 2008 6:23 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Finally, I do declare: we shall *not* have a briber running the courts!
>
> Bribery? In *my* campaign?
More likely that you'd think.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let m
comex wrote:
>--> From CFJ 1750 to 1800, the average time from being called to
>assignment was about 13 hours. Daunting,
As e's doing such a good job of advertising my achievements, I hereby
assign comex as my re-election campaign manager.
-zefram
On Tuesday 15 January 2008 16:27:23 comex wrote:
> On Jan 15, 2008 6:23 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Finally, I do declare: we shall *not* have a briber running the courts!
>
> Bribery? In *my* campaign?
Need I remind you of your usage of the Vote Market to try to get me to
On Jan 15, 2008 6:23 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Finally, I do declare: we shall *not* have a briber running the courts!
Bribery? In *my* campaign?
comex wrote:
On Jan 15, 2008 5:08 PM, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I interpret this as meaning at the time of this message.
Conditional messages are only allowed when the rules allow them, which
is currently only with R2127 votes.
Ok. R2127, does say that the condition is evaluate
On Jan 15, 2008 5:08 PM, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I interpret this as meaning at the time of this message.
Conditional messages are only allowed when the rules allow them, which
is currently only with R2127 votes.
Roger Hicks wrote:
On Jan 15, 2008 2:58 AM, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I initiate an Agoran Decision to resolve the holder of the CotC office.
The valid options are ZEFRAM, COMEX and MURPHY.
If there are at least 2 other votes for COMEX I vote COMEX. Otherwise
I vote MURPHY.
Bob
comex wrote:
If Murphy will not bring the CotC database up, e may as well say so.
I have ample time to assign CFJs and even maintain a database if
necessary, but one already exists, and Murphy seems to be the only one
that can access it. I will neither object to this nor support it.
The probl
On Friday 22 June 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
> > The following issues are also pending:
> >
> > * HP2's judgement of CFJ 1647
> > * comex's judgement of CFJ 1611
> > * Assignment of CFJs 1688-94
>
> Also, assignment of a Board of Appeals to CFJ 1684.
I would prefer not to do this until the CotC
The following issues are also pending:
* HP2's judgement of CFJ 1647
* comex's judgement of CFJ 1611
* Assignment of CFJs 1688-94
Also, assignment of a Board of Appeals to CFJ 1684.
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
>I seem to have missed something about the Hanging Judge. How can
>these five separate items all be assigned to the same player?
Bug in R1871: "A player is ineligible to be Trial Judge of a CFJ if e was
turned when it was called." (rather than "... if e is turned at the
Yeah, I missed that one too.
BobTHJ
On 5/28/07, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On May 23, 2007, at 4:11 PM, comex wrote:
I assign CFJs 1659-60 to the Hanging Judge. Levi is psuedo-assigned.
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2007-May/006402.html
I
On May 23, 2007, at 4:11 PM, comex wrote:
I assign CFJs 1659-60 to the Hanging Judge. Levi is psuedo-assigned.
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/
2007-May/006402.html
I assign CFJs 1661-5 to the Hanging Judge. BobTHJ is psuedo-assigned.
http://www.agoranomic.o
Zefram wrote:
I approve the Hanging Judge judging CFJs 1666-1667 according
to the pseudo-judgement that Murphy published in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
...
On behalf of the Hanging Judge, CFJs 1666-8 are judged FALSE.
...
I pseudo-judge CFJs 1666 and 1667 false, as direct consequences of th
comex wrote:
>Actually, e did. It was just hiding in the arguments.
Ah, missed that. Still doesn't change the fact that I didn't approve
judging it, so your initial attempt to submit judgement wasn't legal under
the Hanging Judge agreement. It's approved now, so if you resubmit then
we're back
On Wednesday 23 May 2007 7:00 pm, Zefram wrote:
> Murphy didn't pseudo-judge CFJ 1668
Actually, e did. It was just hiding in the arguments.
> I interpret the status of a partnership in the face of changes to the
> agreement's membership (and/or text, for that matter) as covered by
> Rule 1586 (De
22 matches
Mail list logo
