On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 12:12 -0700, Roger Hicks wrote:
> Not sure if this changes anything at this point, but the above failed
> as ais523 didn't have any favors (e transferred them to the PBA on Nov
> 20).
What, all of them? I thought I had a spare... Maybe not, though, it gets
hard to track all th
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 07:33, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-11-27 at 22:39 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2273a
>>
>> Appeal 2273a
> I spend a Favour to call in
On Sun, 2008-11-30 at 15:11 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 10:04 AM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Another interesting data point: I was playing Cheat with a single deck
> > of cards with some friends. Someone called "two fives", and put down
> > two cards.
On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 10:04 AM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Another interesting data point: I was playing Cheat with a single deck
> > of cards with some friends. Someone called "two fives", and put
On Sunday 30 November 2008 02:11:32 pm Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 10:04 AM, Alexander Smith
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Another interesting data point: I was playing Cheat with a single
> > deck of cards with some friends. Someone called "two fives", and
> > put down two ca
On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 10:04 AM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Another interesting data point: I was playing Cheat with a single deck
> of cards with some friends. Someone called "two fives", and put down
> two cards. So I called "three fives", and put down the other two fives,
> in
On Sunday 30 November 2008 09:04:40 am Alexander Smith wrote:
> At this point, I admitted
> what had happened; and the other players there considered it to be
> unacceptable to lie about the number of cards played, even though
> it was acceptable to lie about their values.
I've always played that
On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 10:04 AM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> comex wrote:
> > Reminds me of the card game where, on your turn, you have to place
> > down one or more cards of a certain number, and say what you're
> > putting down ("two fives")-- except you can lie and put down di
On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 11:33 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 30 Nov 2008, at 15:04, Alexander Smith wrote:
>
>> Either Cheat or I Doubt It, depending on who you play with
>
> or "Bullshit"
I transfer one prop from ehird to ehird (a minor) for the use of profanity.
On 30 Nov 2008, at 15:04, Alexander Smith wrote:
Either Cheat or I Doubt It, depending on who you play with
or "Bullshit"
comex wrote:
> Reminds me of the card game where, on your turn, you have to place
> down one or more cards of a certain number, and say what you're
> putting down ("two fives")-- except you can lie and put down different
> cards than what you say. If someone else calls you out on lying,
> you're p
Murphy wrote:
> As CotC, I support. ais523?
I am shocked that you would support the judgement of a CFJ without
any reasoning.
Nevertheless, I support.
--
ais523
<>
Taral wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 8:40 PM, Pavitra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The online Notary's report says you joined 2008-11-06.
>>
>> ... Here we go. In the thread "Racketeering":
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Hm, why did I do that?
I don't know, why did you?
Here it is in the agorano
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 8:40 PM, Pavitra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The online Notary's report says you joined 2008-11-06.
>
> ... Here we go. In the thread "Racketeering":
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hm, why did I do that?
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trou
On Friday 28 November 2008 10:32:36 pm Taral wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 8:27 PM, Geoffrey Spear
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 11:23 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 9:10 AM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >>> As it is now, the
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 8:27 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 11:23 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 9:10 AM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> As it is now, the Protection
>>> Racket has three first-class parties (BobTHJ,
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 11:23 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 9:10 AM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> As it is now, the Protection
>> Racket has three first-class parties (BobTHJ, Taral and ehird) and
>> about twenty first-class non-parties. I think they're ou
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 9:10 AM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As it is now, the Protection
> Racket has three first-class parties (BobTHJ, Taral and ehird) and
> about twenty first-class non-parties. I think they're outnumbered.
Not me.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know i
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 09:44, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
>>> It's not an "interesting test", it's complete and
>>> utter bullshit that is frankly destroying something I have enjoyed for
>>> nearly eight years. I really, really hope somebody
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 4:17 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I intend, with 2 support, to a criminal case against Warrigal for
>> violating rule 2157 by acting in such a manner that the appeals panel
>> for CF
On Friday 28 November 2008 09:44:35 am Kerim Aydin wrote:
> The unappealable thing hasn't changed, I think it was "always" that
> way, so it's just attitudes somehow, don't know why. I have
> noticed Callers tend to put much less effort into arguments than
> they used to, and original judges aren'
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Warrigal wrote:
>> I will not support this judgement, as I support AFFIRM only. CotC
>> Murphy, assuming you also would only support AFFIRM, I suggest that
>> you recuse this panel, as it clearly is not going to assign a
comex wrote:
> Reminds me of the card game where, on your turn, you have to place
> down one or more cards of a certain number, and say what you're
> putting down ("two fives")-- except you can lie and put down different
> cards than what you say. If someone else calls you out on lying,
> you're
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 3:37 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The rules, by specifying how to handle a breach in the rules, and what
> results in-game from them, have legalized rule breaking. In game, you
> can break the rules if you think you can stand the punishment or dodge
> it, be
On 28 Nov 2008, at 16:57, Alexander Smith wrote:
(ehird) There are no metarules, more or less; although it's best not
to scare off other people because the game is better as a result
To elaborate:
The rules are the only source for what's _right_ in nomic. The keyword
is that nomic is a GAME,
ais523 wrote:
> Arguably: the rules no longer say you have to obey the rules, so you
> don't. We replaced that with punishments instaed.
As previously noted, R2141's "a rule may ... prescribe or proscribe
certain player behaviour" is probably the closet remaining analogue.
> There has been a lot
Goethe wrote:
> In Monopoly, Risk, or any other game, no matter how well the rules are
> written, if the game is ruined because you are playing with a sniveling
> little rules-breaking shit, the game is ruined because you are playing
> with a sniveling little rules-breaking shit.
"Rule 101[/0] is
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 10:20 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
>>> Back in CFJ 1346, several players made a comments such as "if the appeals
>>> court can be corrupted and deliver blatantly illegal judgements, we're no
>>> longer playing Agora or
Warrigal wrote:
> I see one way this panel can avoid breaking any rules. With the
> support of two of BobTHJ, ais523, and H. CotC Murphy, I intend to send
> the following message on behalf of judge of CFJ 2273a: "This panel
> recuses itself from CFJ 2273a." BobTHJ and ais523, please support; it
>
ais523 wrote:
> Besides, I think the appeals case is entirely about determining the
> appropriateness of a judgement. It is clearly inappropriate now (and
> equally clearly appropriate at the time it was made); and the case is
> about which of these should be relevant.
The point in favor of "was"
Warrigal wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 9:33 AM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I spend a Favour to call in a Favour on CFJ 2273, specifying ALREADY
>> TRIED. I note that there are two appropriate verdicts for this appeal,
>> AFFIRM and REMAND, and am using the Protection Racket to per
My opinion on all this is that the game of Agora will not be destroyed
until its recordkeepors stop recordkeeping and nobody knows what the
state of the game is. People CAN break the rules; that's why we CAN
exile them and they generally CANNOT do more than a certain amount of
harm. If a bunch of p
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 8:44 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In Monopoly, Risk, or any other game, no matter how well the rules are
> written, if the game is ruined because [snip]
This is not those games. And they are not breaking the rules, merely
bending them in a very persistent fa
On 28 Nov 2008, at 16:44, Kerim Aydin wrote:
sniveling little rules-breaking shit
Go away until you stop making repulsive personal attacks on players,
please.
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
>> It's not an "interesting test", it's complete and
>> utter bullshit that is frankly destroying something I have enjoyed for
>> nearly eight years. I really, really hope somebody does something
>> comparable to something that you enjoy one day.
>
>
> So
On 28 Nov 2008, at 16:28, comex wrote:
Is registering partnerships as part of a scam *really* worse than all
other crimes ever committed under the criminal system (none of which
has gotten an EXILE afaik)?
Add the fact that you could have trivially violated the spirit of the
rule by rotating b
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 10:56 AM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Next time I will go with my first inclination and sentence the ninny to
> exile.
Is registering partnerships as part of a scam *really* worse than all
other crimes ever committed under the criminal system (none of whic
On Nov 28, 2008, at 11:19 AM, Elliott Hird wrote:
On 28 Nov 2008, at 15:56, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
Next time I will go with my first inclination and sentence the
ninny to exile.
Next time I will appeal that.
As is your right.
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr
On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 07:20 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> How can you have the audacity to even suggest with a straight face that
> a REMAND of a guilty that was wholly uncontested is appropriate? Why
> should anyone bother to judge anymore knowing that they will have to
> fight tooth and nail for
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> So can we please examine this appeal on its merits?
> It has none. For gods sake you confessed to the crime and the judgement
> was trivial on facts. To say that your "already tried" scam is
> "interesting" in any sense i
On 28 Nov 2008, at 15:56, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
Next time I will go with my first inclination and sentence the
ninny to exile.
Next time I will appeal that.
On 28 Nov 2008, at 15:20, Kerim Aydin wrote:
How can you have the audacity to even suggest with a straight face
that
a REMAND of a guilty that was wholly uncontested is appropriate?
it's not the best option but it is not inappropriate.
It's a scam. So what?
It's not an "interesting test",
On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 07:58 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, comex wrote:
> > So can we please examine this appeal on its merits?
>
> It has none. For gods sake you confessed to the crime and the judgement
> was trivial on facts. To say that your "already tried" scam is
> "inter
On Nov 28, 2008, at 11:02 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
Next time I will go with my first inclination and sentence the
ninny to exile.
That would certainly be a just, though not necessarily satisfactory
due to
knowing we're trying to play a game with
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
> Next time I will go with my first inclination and sentence the ninny to exile.
That would certainly be a just, though not necessarily satisfactory due to
knowing we're trying to play a game with appeals corruption, result of a
remand. -G.
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, comex wrote:
> So can we please examine this appeal on its merits?
It has none. For gods sake you confessed to the crime and the judgement
was trivial on facts. To say that your "already tried" scam is
"interesting" in any sense is sheer sophistry. How can an appeals cour
Next time I will go with my first inclination and sentence the ninny
to exile.
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 10:06 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Back in CFJ 1346, several players made a comments such as "if the appeals
> court can be corrupted and deliver blatantly illegal judgements, we're no
> longer playing Agora or have faith that we can respect a body of rules,
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, comex wrote:
> Maybe judges worked harder then than now... criminal cases are
> different because the defendant can (and often does) appeal them by
> announcement (see http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/list.php?appeal=1,
> looks at first glance like a disproportionate number of
On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 07:36 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
> > On Nov 28, 2008, at 10:12 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
> >> happens. (Counterargument: this is defending the law, the law allows an
> >> appeals court to pick one appropriate judgement over another, an
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
> Probably the slipping power of AFFIRM is a symptom, rather than the
> problem itself; people are scared of AFFIRM because it makes a judgement
> unappealable, and nobody, not the original judge, not the appeals panel,
> has really bothered to look at the si
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 10:26 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I personally am of the opinion that the first appeal of any case
>> should rarely if ever be judged AFFIRM or OVERRULE, so I would have
>> supported this even if ais523 didn't invoke the PR.
>
> A very old tradition is that
On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 07:26 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> A very old tradition is that we used to give a strong weight to AFFIRM
> in the name of "this is a game, and judges work hard, and we should fucking
> listen to them." I'm very, very, sorry that's dead.
Actually, I agree. Appeals panels shoul
On Nov 28, 2008, at 10:12 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 07:06 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
On Thu, 2008-11-27 at 22:39 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2273a
Appea
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> Back in CFJ 1346, several players made a comments such as "if the appeals
>> court can be corrupted and deliver blatantly illegal judgements, we're no
>> longer playing Agora or have faith that we can respect a body of rules, and
>> we might as well quit.
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 08:06, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
>> On Thu, 2008-11-27 at 22:39 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2273a
>>>
>>> Appeal 2273a ===
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
>> Back in CFJ 1346, several players made a comments such as "if the appeals
>> court can be corrupted and deliver blatantly illegal judgements, we're no
>> longer playing Agora or have faith that we can respect a body of rules, and
>> we might as well quit."
On 28 Nov 2008, at 15:06, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Back in CFJ 1346, several players made a comments such as "if the
appeals
court can be corrupted and deliver blatantly illegal judgements,
we're no
longer playing Agora or have faith that we can respect a body of
rules, and
we might as well quit
On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 07:06 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
> > On Thu, 2008-11-27 at 22:39 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
> >> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2273a
> >>
> >> Appeal 2273a =
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 07:33, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-11-27 at 22:39 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2273a
>>
>> Appeal 2273a
> I spend a Favour to call in
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-11-27 at 22:39 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2273a
>>
>> Appeal 2273a
> I spend a Favour to call in a Favour on CFJ 2273, specify
61 matches
Mail list logo
