On 7/16/2020 2:41 PM, ais523 via agora-business wrote:
> On Thu, 2020-07-16 at 14:29 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-official
> wrote:
>> Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report)
>> Thu 16 Jul 2020 UTC
>
> COE: This omits the case I called about Diplonomic proposals being
> misinterpreted as
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 5:27 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> I point my finger at omd for failure to assign a judgement to CFJ 3752
> in a timely fashion.
Apologies; I forgot I was assigned to this one. I'll judge it tomorrow.
I'd be happy to weigh in but I note that I have made my opinion pretty
clear, so.
I haven't gotten a cfj in a while. maybe it's because my judgements are
never clear xD
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 9:56 PM D. Margaux wrote:
> I rescue from these two CFJs. Although I believe my reasoning was correct
On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 at 17:20, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On 7/6/2019 6:56 AM, James Cook wrote:
> > On Fri, 5 Jul 2019 at 15:11, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >> On 7/2/2019 6:02 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >>> [Quick! While it's still current!]
> >>>
> >>> Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report)
> >>
> >> By
Agreed.
Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>
From: agora-discussion on behalf of
Rebecca
Sent: Sunday, July 7, 2019 11:26:15 AM
To: Agora Nomic discussions (DF)
Subject: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette
do we do literally an
do we do literally anything other than semantic hair-splitting? we sure
don't do any actual gameplay
On Sun, Jul 7, 2019 at 4:37 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On 7/6/2019 10:29 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >> Ok, this is a ridiculous level of semantic hair-splitting even for
> Agora,
> >> sorry.
>
> Ugh
On 7/6/2019 10:29 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Ok, this is a ridiculous level of semantic hair-splitting even for Agora,
sorry.
Ugh - my unclear writing again. This was meant to read as "I'm about to
engage in some ridiculous hair-splitting on the subject, sorry about that",
NOT "I'm sorry, but
On 7/6/2019 10:16 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On 7/6/2019 6:56 AM, James Cook wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jul 2019 at 15:11, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On 7/2/2019 6:02 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
[Quick! While it's still current!]
Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report)
By this announcement, 5 coins are earned by
On 7/6/2019 6:56 AM, James Cook wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jul 2019 at 15:11, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On 7/2/2019 6:02 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
[Quick! While it's still current!]
Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report)
By this announcement, 5 coins are earned by G. for publishing the above
Arbitor's week
Proto-judgement of the matter (regardless of how packaged):
Colloquially, to "vote on a proposal" is to cast a valid ballot for the
Decision to adopt it. As "vote on" is an active verb, it is tied to
the moment of activity (the sending of a vote). In this sense, to vote
FOR is to submit a bal
In the interests of clarity, I suggest re-dismissing the CFJ and
reformulating the language so that it more clearly captures what Gaelan is
saying. Maybe something like, “If a player votes by endorsing another
player, and the endorsed player casts a valid vote, then the endorsing
player’s vote is n
Not that it matters, but I’m not convinced about this ruling. Proposal/decision
issue aside, in this situation:
Gaelan votes “ENDORSE G”
Then G votes “FOR”
Who was the last one to vote FOR? The CFJ would argue that G does, because e
were the last one to submit a ballot that evaluates to FOR. Bu
Thanks!
On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 at 14:23, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > Are the case statements available somewhere so that I can easily look
> over
> > them for annotations?
>
> Links pasted in below (from Murphy's earlier Gazette):
>
> 3614:
>
> https://ma
On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> Are the case statements available somewhere so that I can easily look over
> them for annotations?
Links pasted in below (from Murphy's earlier Gazette):
3614:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2017-December/012154.
Are the case statements available somewhere so that I can easily look over
them for annotations?
On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 at 13:40, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> > > > 3614* Assigned to o (due Fri, 15 Dec 2017 ~23:51:00)
> > > If I am assigned to this case (unclear to me):
> > > I judge TRUE. B
On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> The Gazette is not self-ratifying and CFJ ID numbers are not required. The
> only consequence of that failure is that we now have an informal opinion
> that the Door cannot be Slammed, not a CFJ stating as such.
Before CFJs were paid for, it used to be a bit
Still, the report contains incorrect information.
On 11/27/2017 9:46 PM, VJ Rada wrote:
The Gazette is not self-ratifying and CFJ ID numbers are not required. The
only consequence of that failure is that we now have an informal opinion
that the Door cannot be Slammed, not a CFJ stating as such.
The Gazette is not self-ratifying and CFJ ID numbers are not required. The
only consequence of that failure is that we now have an informal opinion
that the Door cannot be Slammed, not a CFJ stating as such.
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 1:31 PM, ATMunn wrote:
> CoE: CFJ 3607 was never properly called
On Mon, 20 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> Yeah that's a good explanation that makes sense. I retract my intent (is
> this possible again?)
No. That's by design. In the past we had "scamming" where someone who
really *didn't* want the action done would announce intent, gather support,
then just dro
Alright, so, the idea of it was that the sentence made two claims. Claim
1 was (hopefully obviously by now) false. The question I got stuck on
was whether or not Claim 2 was predicated on Claim 1 - in other words,
would Claim 2 be invalidated simply by Claim 1 also being invalidated?
The senten
20 matches
Mail list logo
