Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements

On Fri, 26 Jul 2013, Alex Smith wrote: "received" is what the recent precedents indicate. (The rules require the message to be "sent via" a public forum, rule 478, and it hasn't gone via the forum until both the sender has sent it, and the recipient has received it. Also I can't construct a circ

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements

On Fri, 2013-07-26 at 23:34 +0200, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > On Fri, 26 Jul 2013, Alex Smith wrote: > > > Finally, CFJ 866 seems to be relevant background reading too (and also > > supports this verdict), and may be responsible for the TDoC confusion > > (in that it holds that the /recipient's/ TDoC

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements

On Fri, 26 Jul 2013, Alex Smith wrote: Finally, CFJ 866 seems to be relevant background reading too (and also supports this verdict), and may be responsible for the TDoC confusion (in that it holds that the /recipient's/ TDoC is what matters, not the /sender's/ TDoC). FWIW IMO as the original

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements

On Fri, 26 Jul 2013, Ørjan Johansen wrote: I would correspondingly find it natural for the TDoC of the sender to be consulted for when a message is _sent_, if the rules were otherwise silent, which however they currently are not (date stamps), albeit in a not very clarifying way. Oh also I s

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements, CFJs 3217/3218

3218 is an inquiry case; NOT GUILTY is not a valid judgement for it. On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > I judge CFJs 3217 and 3218 NOT GUILTY. I can't find anything in rule > 2365, nor in rule 2362, nor in rule 2354 (which uses "condition"), that > would imply that there's anythi

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements

On Mon, 14 May 2012, omd wrote: > On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Thanks.  CFJ in question is 1361: > > > > "It is my view that, for the purposes of R559, a nickname is a name that > > a Player chooses for emself, that can be reliably used to pick em out in > > the full r

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements

On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Thanks.  CFJ in question is 1361: > > "It is my view that, for the purposes of R559, a nickname is a name that > a Player chooses for emself, that can be reliably used to pick em out in > the full range of Agoran contexts. On this view, arbitra

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements

On Mon, 14 May 2012, Ed Murphy wrote: > G. wrote: > > On Mon, 14 May 2012, omd wrote: > > > On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 2:06 AM, ais523 > > > wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2012-05-14 at 02:03 -0400, omd wrote: > > > > > On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > > > > > > I judge CFJ 3190 NOT GUI

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements

G. wrote: On Mon, 14 May 2012, omd wrote: On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 2:06 AM, ais523 wrote: On Mon, 2012-05-14 at 02:03 -0400, omd wrote: On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Alex Smith wrote: I judge CFJ 3190 NOT GUILTY (1504(a)). Arguably, also (d), but (a) is more clearcut. I intend, with tw

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements

On Mon, 14 May 2012, omd wrote: > On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 2:06 AM, ais523 wrote: > > On Mon, 2012-05-14 at 02:03 -0400, omd wrote: > >> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > >> > I judge CFJ 3190 NOT GUILTY (1504(a)). Arguably, also (d), but (a) is > >> > more clearcut. > >> > >>

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements

I support. On May 14, 24 Heisei, at 1:03 AM, omd wrote: > On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Alex Smith wrote: >> I judge CFJ 3190 NOT GUILTY (1504(a)). Arguably, also (d), but (a) is >> more clearcut. > > I intend, with two support, to make this case Notable. > > Proposal: Notability is usua

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements

On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 2:06 AM, ais523 wrote: > On Mon, 2012-05-14 at 02:03 -0400, omd wrote: >> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Alex Smith wrote: >> > I judge CFJ 3190 NOT GUILTY (1504(a)). Arguably, also (d), but (a) is >> > more clearcut. >> >> I intend, with two support, to make this case N

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > However, there is some > unfortunate phrasing in rule 2143: > >      While performing weekly or monthly duties or publishing weekly >      or monthly reports, officers SHALL NOT publish information that >      is inaccurate or misleading. > > No

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements

Huh? They seem perfectly sensical to me (in English, yes). On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > I judge CFJs 3180 and 3181 technically MALFORMED, as the sequence of > characters given as the CFJ "statement" can't be parsed as a statement, > being nonsensical when interpreted as En

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements and capacitors, CFJs 2962-64

On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: > omd wrote: > >> I don't remember the judgement as well as I should have, I guess... in >> that case, doesn't the argument hinge on something as inconsequential > > Not inconsequential if it, well, has substantive consequences: > >> as the format

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements and capacitors, CFJs 2962-64

omd wrote: > I don't remember the judgement as well as I should have, I guess... in > that case, doesn't the argument hinge on something as inconsequential Not inconsequential if it, well, has substantive consequences: > as the format in which states are saved in the gamestate? ais523 > seems t

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements and capacitors, CFJs 2962-64

On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 2:41 AM, Ed Murphy wrote: >> Ratification is not obviously broken if the gamestate includes its >> history.  ais523 assumed it doesn't in eir judgement of CFJ 2909: >> >>> it instead tries to work out a minimal change to the /present/ gamestate to >>> change the past. > > I

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements and capacitors, CFJs 2962-64

omd wrote: > On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 10:28 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: >>> This point has generated quite a bit of discussion lately, not to >>> mention that current precedent is that it's false; I think just >>> stating it as true without any justification is unreasonable. >> >> Which precedent? Â Anywa

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements and capacitors, CFJs 2962-64

On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 10:28 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: >> This point has generated quite a bit of discussion lately, not to >> mention that current precedent is that it's false; I think just >> stating it as true without any justification is unreasonable. > > Which precedent?  Anyway, I believe my othe

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements and capacitors, CFJs 2962-64

omd wrote: > On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: >> I interpret "gamestate" as including history (at least relevant >> parts e.g. whether someone deregistered recently, and once that's >> included, I see no good reason not to include all of it), and >> ratification as implicitly deem

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements

ais523 wrote: > I increase the II of CFJ 2951 to 1 and judge it TRUE. The caller's The II was already 3, so this increase was ineffective, and your later capacitor award may also have been ineffective.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements, CFJ 2954-2955

I don't see how that statement is clearly TRUE. From R1789: The Player is deregistered as of the posting of the Writ, and the notation in the Registrar's Report will ensure that, henceforth, all may know said Player deregistered in a Writ of FAGE. Referencing you has a playe

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements, CFJ 2954-2955

Flipping the switch when it's already off, sure, but I figured you can't be deregistered if you're not a player. R869 states that "the verb "to be deregistered" means to cease to be a player (i.e., to have one's citizenship changed from Registered to Unregistered)". The Writ of FAGE didn't cause hi

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements, CFJ 2954-2955

On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 11:56 PM, Jonathan Rouillard wrote: > In any case, omd did publish a Cantus Cygneys, but his deregistration > wasn't a Writ of FAGE but rather his own doing. I thus judge CFJ 2955 > FALSE. But the rules clearly say that the statement is TRUE, whether or not I actually dereg

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements

G. wrote: > On Fri, 10 Sep 2010, com...@gmail.com wrote: >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Sep 10, 2010, at 1:22 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: >>> Instruments generally, nowhere. Proposals in particular, the first >>> paragraph of R106: >>> >>> When a proposal that includes >>> such explicit chan

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010, com...@gmail.com wrote: > Sent from my iPhone > > On Sep 10, 2010, at 1:22 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > > Instruments generally, nowhere. Proposals in particular, the first > > paragraph of R106: > > > > When a proposal that includes > > such explicit changes takes ef

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements

Sent from my iPhone On Sep 10, 2010, at 1:22 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > Instruments generally, nowhere. Proposals in particular, the first > paragraph of R106: > > When a proposal that includes > such explicit changes takes effect, it applies those changes to > the gamestate. Huh.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > Instruments generally, nowhere. Proposals in particular, the first > paragraph of R106: > > When a proposal that includes > such explicit changes takes effect, it applies those changes to > the gamestate. Ah, there we go: I (and Murphy

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements

On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Fri, 10 Sep 2010, Ed Murphy wrote: >> 2855:  TRUE >> 2856:  TRUE >> >> A substantive aspect of a rule pertains to /how/ a rule governs, not >> /what/ a rule governs.  With that argument eliminated, a low-powered >> proposal is just as c

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010, Ed Murphy wrote: > 2855: TRUE > 2856: TRUE > > A substantive aspect of a rule pertains to /how/ a rule governs, not > /what/ a rule governs. With that argument eliminated, a low-powered > proposal is just as capable as a low-powered rule (they're both > instruments and th

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements

On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 6:35 AM, ais523 wrote: > First, we have to deal with a potential bug in the proposal itself; it > attempts to create a rule, but does not specify its power. However, it > seems reasonable to assume that the rule is created at power 1; although > nowhere in the rules is a def

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements

On Fri, 2010-09-03 at 06:51 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Fri, 3 Sep 2010, ais523 wrote: > > First, we have to deal with a potential bug in the proposal itself; it > > attempts to create a rule, but does not specify its power. However, it > > seems reasonable to assume that the rule is created at

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements

On Fri, 3 Sep 2010, ais523 wrote: > First, we have to deal with a potential bug in the proposal itself; it > attempts to create a rule, but does not specify its power. However, it > seems reasonable to assume that the rule is created at power 1; although > nowhere in the rules is a default power

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements, capacitors

coppro wrote: > On 08/28/2010 05:34 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: >> 2851: coppro has admitted to eir guilt. The default penalty is >> mitigated by the interesting gameplay that has resulted (contrast >> the hypothetical example of coppro changing eir nickname to "omb", >> which would just be annoying).

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements

ais523 wrote: > I opine REMAND on CFJ 2809a; everyone, including the original judge, > seems to want more detail in the judgement. You need to specify with/without prejudice.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements

On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 15:41 -0400, comex wrote: > On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 3:15 PM, ais523 wrote: > > On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 11:40 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: > >> The domain of the argument is whether or not this opportunity was > >> "reasonable", by whatever standards we might determine it. Just as >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements

On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 3:15 PM, ais523 wrote: > On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 11:40 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: >> The domain of the argument is whether or not this opportunity was >> "reasonable", by whatever standards we might determine it.  Just as >> it would be possible but probably unreasonable for som

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements

On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 11:40 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: > The domain of the argument is whether or not this opportunity was > "reasonable", by whatever standards we might determine it. Just as > it would be possible but probably unreasonable for someone to catch a > with-notice intent buried in the mi

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements

ais523 wrote: > On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 10:49 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: >> I believe that argument is only valid within a certain scope. In >> particular, consider it in conjunction with G.'s gratuitous arguments >> in the same case; there was certainly reasonable opportunity to review >> the possibi

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements

On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 10:49 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: > I believe that argument is only valid within a certain scope. In > particular, consider it in conjunction with G.'s gratuitous arguments > in the same case; there was certainly reasonable opportunity to review > the possibility of a loophole in

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements

ais523 wrote: > On Sun, 2009-10-25 at 10:15 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: >> 2698: TRUE >> >> I accept the caller's arguments, but also c.'s gratuitous arguments; >> in particular, ais523's "I intend to amend via various objection-based >> methods" did not necessarily offer a reasonable opportunity to

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements

No they don't, see my gratuitous arguments in 2698. We had reasonable notice of the amendment (i.e., "replace the entire text with blah"), but not necessarily of the intent (I intend, without objection, to amend Points Party by replacing the entire text with blah), because there was one ame

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements

On Sun, 2009-10-25 at 10:15 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: > 2698: TRUE > > I accept the caller's arguments, but also c.'s gratuitous arguments; > in particular, ais523's "I intend to amend via various objection-based > methods" did not necessarily offer a reasonable opportunity to review > the notice-b

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements

BobTHJ wrote: > Not that I think you've been unfair, but did you consider my argument > for NOT GUILTY via implicit announcement? The NOVs were announced in > the Insulator report, and by assigning them ID numbers I implicitly > declared their validity. I think this does satisfy the requirement in

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements

Roger Hicks wrote: On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 12:28, Ed Murphy wrote: 2721: GUILTY / APOLOGY 2722: GUILTY / DISCHARGE 2723: GUILTY / DISCHARGE Technically GUILTY, but for the various reasons cited, an APOLOGY should be sufficient - provided that it isn't phoned in this time. For today's presc

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements

On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 12:28, Ed Murphy wrote: > 2721:  GUILTY / APOLOGY > 2722:  GUILTY / DISCHARGE > 2723:  GUILTY / DISCHARGE > > Technically GUILTY, but for the various reasons cited, an APOLOGY > should be sufficient - provided that it isn't phoned in this time. > > For today's prescribed-wo

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements, CFJs 2507-2510

On Fri, 22 May 2009, Alex Smith wrote: > However, one interesting point here is > whether it's rule 106 or the proposal enacting the rules; it seems very > clear that it's the proposal itself (especially because it's the > proposal's power that matters to enact the rules), and interestingly, > the

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements, CFJs 2507-2510

N.B. the ruleset has been ratified, but I'm not sure we haven't missed knock-on effects to the gamestate. I think we still need a "R1482 never contained that text" ratification. Sent from my iPhone On May 22, 2009, at 5:21 PM, Alex Smith wrote: These are only of academic interest now we'

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements, CFJs 2471-4

On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 9:27 AM, Quazie wrote: > When I became a player is relevant, and what constitutes a valid > registration is relevant. So the judgements should be left alone, since that's what they currently determine. -root

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements, CFJs 2471-4

On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 11:23 AM, comex wrote: > On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Alex Smith wrote: >>> I intend to appeal this judgement with 2 Support.  CFJ 2471 is >>> trivially true, as I am currently a player and it is after I sent that >>> message.  I believe I didn't CFJ on what I wanted t

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements, CFJs 2471-4

On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Alex Smith wrote: >> I intend to appeal this judgement with 2 Support.  CFJ 2471 is >> trivially true, as I am currently a player and it is after I sent that >> message.  I believe I didn't CFJ on what I wanted to. > > I interpreted "after" as "due to", but I shoul

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements, CFJs 2471-4

Quazie wrote: > I intend to appeal this judgement with 2 Support. CFJ 2471 is > trivially true, as I am currently a player and it is after I sent that > message. I believe I didn't CFJ on what I wanted to. Interpreting "after" as a gloss for "as a result of" may be acceptable shorthand for thes

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements, CFJs 2471-4

On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Alex Smith wrote: > On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 09:33 -0400, Quazie wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 7:22 AM, Alex Smith wrote: >> > I judge CFJ 2471 FALSE. An announcement about the past that does not >> > fall into any of the categories in rule 869 is just a true sta

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements, CFJs 2471-4

On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 09:33 -0400, Quazie wrote: > On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 7:22 AM, Alex Smith wrote: > > I judge CFJ 2471 FALSE. An announcement about the past that does not > > fall into any of the categories in rule 869 is just a true statement, > > not a registration action. > > I intend to a

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements

On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 12:11 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: > 2432:  Trivially TRUE, as you can announce: > >  "I spend the cube that person A gave me. >   I spend the cube that person B gave me." > > 2433:  Trivially TRUE, as you can announce: > >  "I spend one of my cubes. >   I spend the other one of my

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements

On Mon, 16 Feb 2009, Ed Murphy wrote: > This comes down on the anti- side. Neither a Bill nor an Amendment > can be changed once the process of voting on it begins. [...] > There should also be at least one CFJ along the lines of "even if the > proposal's text did change, did the decision and ass

RE: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements

comex wrote: > On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: > >> So the Bill is a changeable Proposal to change the Law. > >> And an Amendment is an unchangeable Proposal to change the Bill. > > > > This comes down on the anti- side. Neither a Bill nor an Amendment > > can be changed once th

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements

On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: >> So the Bill is a changeable Proposal to change the Law. >> And an Amendment is an unchangeable Proposal to change the Bill. > > This comes down on the anti- side. Neither a Bill nor an Amendment > can be changed once the process of voting on it

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements

Goethe wrote: > I had forgotten, previously, about R754(c), which suggests that we might > give weight to legal definitions. Leaving aside "document" (there are > amendable and non-amendable legal documents) and all the example's we've > used (text documents, messages, contracts et al.) let's t

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements

On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > This morning, I find myself more swayed by pro- than anti-. That > changes each time I think about it. The only thing I'm *sure* of is > that I think a judge needs to come right out and say they are weighing > these closely-balanced sides on

DIS: RE: BUS: Judgements

On Sat, 14 Feb 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote: > This morning, I find myself more swayed by pro- than anti-. That > changes each time I think about it. The only thing I'm *sure* of is > that I think a judge needs to come right out and say they are weighing > these closely-balanced sides on the interest

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements

ais523 wrote: > Also, why should comex's scam legislation address the ramifications of its > claim? That's for a judge to do, not for the scam rule itself. (If the scam > rule did state a judgement to be used in any CFJs regarding it, I rather > suspect that would either be considered judicial cor

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, comex wrote: > On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 4:03 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 2282: FALSE >> >> Even if the scam clause converting annotations into amendments >> was added to the rules, any reasonable definition of "annotation" >> requires that the annotation was tr

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements

comex wrote: > On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 4:03 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 2282: FALSE >> >> Even if the scam clause converting annotations into amendments >> was added to the rules, any reasonable definition of "annotation" >> requires that the annotation was true, which this purpor

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements

On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 4:03 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2282: FALSE > > Even if the scam clause converting annotations into amendments > was added to the rules, any reasonable definition of "annotation" > requires that the annotation was true, which this purported > annotation was

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements

On Sat, 22 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote: > However, there are other reasons why the > resulting contract might not take effect; effects of a contract which > rely on agreement to it (such as acting on behalf) won't work unless the > players in question have actually agreed to it, and violations of >

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements

On 22 Nov 2008, at 13:11, Alex Smith wrote: So I judge CFJ 2264 trivially TRUE to the literal question asked, and TRUE to the spirit of the question, but with many caveats; the contract can be amended, but might not be enforceable. I hate contract law.

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements on CFJs 2086 and 2087, and thoughts from Agora's history

On Fri, 3 Oct 2008, ais523 wrote: . The proposal made radical changes to the ruleset, along with two others submitted at a similar time, and seemed to have been part of a large ruleset simplification. (Goe

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements, CFJs 2086 and 2087

On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 15:30 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 3:16 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The "great simplification" purposefully dropped this but didn't replace > > it with anything, on the grounds that doing such would make it part of > > "game custom

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements, CFJs 2086 and 2087

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008, Elliott Hird wrote: > 2008/9/16 comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> So the question is whether actions happen truly simultaneously (the >> actions are being done at the same time), in which case the statements >> would both be TRUE, or whether they can be separated in legal time, in

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements, CFJs 2086 and 2087

On Tuesday 16 September 2008 02:08:10 pm Charles Reiss wrote: > They say that they happen at the time date-stamped on the message. > This is not the same thing as simultaneously, since in the magical > universe of the rules we can order actions that occur at the same > instant. Incidentally, this

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements, CFJs 2086 and 2087

2008/9/16 comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > So the question is whether actions happen truly simultaneously (the > actions are being done at the same time), in which case the statements > would both be TRUE, or whether they can be separated in legal time, in > which case both would be FALSE. I support t

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements, CFJs 2086 and 2087

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 3:16 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> The "great simplification" purposefully dropped this but didn't replace >> it with anything, on the grounds that doing such would make it part of >> "game custom and precedence"

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements, CFJs 2086 and 2087

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008, ais523 wrote: > On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 12:16 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> On Tue, 16 Sep 2008, ais523 wrote: >>> On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 12:01 -0700, Charles Reiss wrote: I also support the appeal of CFJ 2086-7. As root has stated, long-standing game custom allows the a

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements, CFJs 2086 and 2087

On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 3:16 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The "great simplification" purposefully dropped this but didn't replace > it with anything, on the grounds that doing such would make it part of > "game custom and precedence" as long as the rules remained silent. Suber's ju

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements, CFJs 2086 and 2087

On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 12:16 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Tue, 16 Sep 2008, ais523 wrote: > > On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 12:01 -0700, Charles Reiss wrote: > >> I also support the appeal of CFJ 2086-7. As root has stated, > >> long-standing game custom allows the actions of a message to have some > >> o

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements, CFJs 2086 and 2087

On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 3:14 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > (Incidentally, I think we now have people arguing for FALSE/FALSE, > TRUE/TRUE, UNDECIDABLE/UNDECIDABLE, and FALSE/TRUE...) In that case I feel obligated to try to come up with a convincing argument for TRUE/FALSE.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements, CFJs 2086 and 2087

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008, ais523 wrote: > On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 12:01 -0700, Charles Reiss wrote: >> I also support the appeal of CFJ 2086-7. As root has stated, >> long-standing game custom allows the actions of a message to have some >> ordering in legal time even though they take effect at the same

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements, CFJs 2086 and 2087

On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 12:10 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > I support this appeal and thus appeal it. This should be considered > as a fencepost problem; things that are considered "at the time of" > are being considered in terms of continuous time (be it legal or real > time). Instants in time tha

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements, CFJs 2086 and 2087

On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 12:04, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 12:01 -0700, Charles Reiss wrote: >> I also support the appeal of CFJ 2086-7. As root has stated, >> long-standing game custom allows the actions of a message to have some >> ordering in legal time even though

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements, CFJs 2086 and 2087

On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 12:01 -0700, Charles Reiss wrote: > I also support the appeal of CFJ 2086-7. As root has stated, > long-standing game custom allows the actions of a message to have some > ordering in legal time even though they take effect at the same > instant of physical time. (I do not bel

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements, CFJs 2086 and 2087

On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 12:47 PM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2008/9/16 ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> Therefore: I judge CFJ 2086 FALSE, CFJ 2087 FALSE. >> -- >> ais523 >> > > With two support I intend to appeal this judgement. > > Arguments: > > See, "initiation" is the process by w

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements, panel intents

On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 4:11 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2086a, 2087a: I intend to cause the panel to send this message: > > { > The panel accepts appellant Zefram's arguments and judges 2086a and > 2087a OVERRULE with a replacement judgement of TRUE. > } BobTHJ, ais523: Any chance

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements on CFJs 2094 and 2095

On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 08:35, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 2008-08-01 at 10:23 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 8:06 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Unfortunately for you, a judicial finding has still found that it's > > > regulated, regardless of

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements on CFJs 2094 and 2095

On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 09:27, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 12:43 -0600, Charles Reiss wrote: > > I intend to appeal the judgment of CFJ 2094 with 2 support. > > I intend to appeal the judgment of CFJ 2095 with 2 support. > > > > I recommend REASSIGN due to the corrupti

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements on CFJs 2094 and 2095

On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 12:43 -0600, Charles Reiss wrote: > I intend to appeal the judgment of CFJ 2094 with 2 support. > I intend to appeal the judgment of CFJ 2095 with 2 support. > > I recommend REASSIGN due to the corruptive self-interest shown in > ais523's arguments regarding respect to the re

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements on CFJs 2094 and 2095

On Fri, 2008-08-01 at 10:23 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 8:06 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Unfortunately for you, a judicial finding has still found that it's > > regulated, regardless of whether or not the finding is successfully > > appealed. > > I'm not sur

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements on CFJs 2094 and 2095

On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 8:06 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Unfortunately for you, a judicial finding has still found that it's > regulated, regardless of whether or not the finding is successfully > appealed. I'm not sure why you think it matters if objecting is regulated or not. An Obje

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements on CFJs 2094 and 2095

On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 12:43 -0600, Charles Reiss wrote: > On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 08:52, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In CFJs 2094 and 2095, I rule UNDETERMINED, as I have severe trouble > [snip] > > In my judgement of CFJ 2094, I also find that objecting to a dependent > > action whilst n

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements on CFJs 2094 and 2095

On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 09:10, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 2008-07-29 at 11:06 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 10:52 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > In my judgement of CFJ 2094, I also find that objecting to a dependent >> > action whilst not being

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements on CFJs 2094 and 2095

On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 11:10 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's rule 2125 I'm trying to invoke there, which is not a SHOULD at all. > You're thinking of the wrong rule... I was thinking of the judge's reasoning guiding play, which is a SHOULD, but if your reasoning constitutes "a judici

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements on CFJs 2094 and 2095

On Tue, 2008-07-29 at 11:30 -0400, comex wrote: > On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 10:52 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In my judgement of CFJ 2094, I also find that objecting to a dependent > > action whilst not being commonly known by the name ais523 is a regulated > > action. (This is complete

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements on CFJs 2094 and 2095

On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 10:52 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In my judgement of CFJ 2094, I also find that objecting to a dependent > action whilst not being commonly known by the name ais523 is a regulated > action. (This is completely irrelevant to the judgement; however, it > should be

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements on CFJs 2094 and 2095

On Tue, 2008-07-29 at 11:06 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 10:52 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In my judgement of CFJ 2094, I also find that objecting to a dependent > > action whilst not being commonly known by the name ais523 is a regulated > > action. (This is

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements on CFJs 2094 and 2095

On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 10:52 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In my judgement of CFJ 2094, I also find that objecting to a dependent > action whilst not being commonly known by the name ais523 is a regulated > action. (This is completely irrelevant to the judgement; however, it > should be

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements, panel intents

On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 1:11 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2048a: I support woggle's intent to send the message below. The > required support having been achieved, I send this message on behalf > of the panel: > > { > As Taral has not cited the precedent on which apparently eir judgm

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements

Quazie wrote: > If possible I bar ehrid from the above CFJ. Not possible. Rule 591, excerpt: The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case, and in the initiating announcement e CAN disqualify one person from assignment as judge of the case.

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements

2008/6/17 Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I CFJ on the following statement: If ehrid was able to act on my > behalf at the time CFJ 1999 and CFJ 2000 were called one or more of > the set of {CFJ 1999, CFJ 2000} would've been TRUE. > > The more interesting question behind these CFJs is what ehrid's >

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements of CFJs 1678-83

root wrote: > What's more, a reversal of CFJ 1682 would be both useful and supported > by game custom, as evidenced by this announcement (as well as other > similar historical agreements) made by Goethe on April 6, 2005: > >> I agree, as per the rules of agora, to not check out >> more cards from

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements of CFJs 1678-83

root wrote: > Now that the matter no longer has any bearing on Partnerships thanks > to the new, improved Rule 2145, I would like to reiterate my appeal of > CFJ 1682 in the hopes of garnering more support. I still find fault > in the logic of the Judge's arguments, and it seemed at the time that

  1   2   >