Goethe wrote:
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
The rules only ascribe importance to the actual judgement, not to the
arguments presented; the CotC isn't even required to track them. So
it's not as if any rule would be broken by doing that.
I forgot that. How can we have a meaningful pr
Ian Kelly wrote:
>Judgements are appealed, not cases, and R2110 is consistent with this
>distinction. The new UNDECIDABLE judgement is distinct from the
>original one and thus has never been appealed, so I don't believe this
>is a problem either.
That's the way I intended it to work.
-zefram
On Nov 18, 2007 8:05 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I hadn't thought about the bug in the win rule. (Now it's resulted in a
> judgement of undecidable, but that CFJ was *previousy* appealed within the
> same week, don't ask me what happens).
Judgements are appealed, not cases, and R
On Nov 18, 2007 7:57 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 17 Nov 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> > The rules only ascribe importance to the actual judgement, not to the
> > arguments presented; the CotC isn't even required to track them. So
> > it's not as if any rule would be broken
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Goethe wrote:
>
>> I don't suppose there's any way of just appending this to the arguments
>> of the judgement I haven't appealed yet, is there... really wishing for
>> concurring opinions here...
>
> I can always throw 'em into the database as gratuituous a
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> The rules only ascribe importance to the actual judgement, not to the
> arguments presented; the CotC isn't even required to track them. So
> it's not as if any rule would be broken by doing that.
I forgot that. How can we have a meaningful precedence/st
Goethe wrote:
I don't suppose there's any way of just appending this to the arguments
of the judgement I haven't appealed yet, is there... really wishing for
concurring opinions here...
I can always throw 'em into the database as gratuituous arguments.
On Nov 17, 2007 10:31 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't suppose there's any way of just appending this to the arguments
> of the judgement I haven't appealed yet, is there... really wishing for
> concurring opinions here... anyway, apology unnecessary and certainly
> accepted. -
I don't suppose there's any way of just appending this to the arguments
of the judgement I haven't appealed yet, is there... really wishing for
concurring opinions here... anyway, apology unnecessary and certainly
accepted. -Goethe
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
> I interpret the stateme
On Nov 17, 2007 10:14 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I thought that ship sailed as soon as the first appeal was initiated,
> but the "isn't two appeals per case a loophole?" line of questioning
> made me realize otherwise: if a third judgement of UNDECIDABLE is
> left unappealed, then
comex wrote:
On Saturday 17 November 2007, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I call for appeal of Murphy's latest judgement in CFJ 1787, and suggest
at this point REASSIGN. CotC, please consider the preceding paragraph
to be my Appellant's arguments.
I object!
Repeatedly appealing a judgement because of a
root wrote:
On Nov 17, 2007 9:37 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
*I'm* the one still think UNDECIDED is reasonable, and I came up with
arguments supporting it which I think are perfectly fine. I think that
root should be the winner.
I thought that ship sailed as soon as the first
comex wrote:
On Saturday 17 November 2007, Taral wrote:
No, repeatly appealing the *same* judgement is a loophole. Appealing
the *new* judgement is perfectly reasonable.
Then why is, say, an OVERRULE judgement unappealable, while other
judgements resulting from appeals are not?
Rule 911/16
On Saturday 17 November 2007, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> [Sorry folks, forgot that I have to phrase calls for appeals as intent
> these days, have to ask for Support again!]
I think your original message was valid. See http://cfj.qoid.us/1722
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed mess
On Nov 17, 2007 9:37 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> *I'm* the one still think UNDECIDED is reasonable, and I came up with
> arguments supporting it which I think are perfectly fine. I think that
> root should be the winner. But this judgement is an incorrect precedent.
> [Side note:
On Saturday 17 November 2007, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> So to sum up: E accepts that IRRELEVANT is reasonable, and tben
> judges as e does based [in part] on the argument that IRRELEVANT is
> unreasonable! This just shouldn't stand as precedent.
Well, you've gotten your two supporters; you can initiat
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007, comex wrote:
> On Saturday 17 November 2007, Josiah Worcester wrote:
>> This result is not merely unsatisfactory, it's pure *bullshit*.
>
> Perhaps. I at least would consider the appeal at least in part a political
> move.
*I'm* the one still think UNDECIDED is reasonable,
On 11/17/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Then why is, say, an OVERRULE judgement unappealable, while other
> judgements resulting from appeals are not?
I don't see why this is relevant.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
--
On Saturday 17 November 2007, Taral wrote:
> No, repeatly appealing the *same* judgement is a loophole. Appealing
> the *new* judgement is perfectly reasonable.
Then why is, say, an OVERRULE judgement unappealable, while other
judgements resulting from appeals are not?
Rule 911/16 (Power=1.7)
Ap
On Saturday 17 November 2007, Josiah Worcester wrote:
> This result is not merely unsatisfactory, it's pure *bullshit*.
Perhaps. I at least would consider the appeal at least in part a political
move. After all, the option of choosing a context for the CFJ and thereby
ruling TRUE or FALSE is a
On 11/17/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Repeatedly appealing a judgement because of an unsatisfactory result is
> only legal through a loophole and should not be. I suggest that the
> appeal panel wait two weeks, then judge AFFIRM, thereby removing the
> possibility of appeal from the case
On Saturday 17 November 2007 19:54:12 comex wrote:
> On Saturday 17 November 2007, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > I call for appeal of Murphy's latest judgement in CFJ 1787, and suggest
> > at this point REASSIGN. CotC, please consider the preceding paragraph
> > to be my Appellant's arguments.
>
> I obj
On Saturday 17 November 2007, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I call for appeal of Murphy's latest judgement in CFJ 1787, and suggest
> at this point REASSIGN. CotC, please consider the preceding paragraph
> to be my Appellant's arguments.
I object!
Repeatedly appealing a judgement because of an unsatisfac
On Saturday 17 November 2007 19:34:21 Taral wrote:
> On 11/17/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I call for appeal of Murphy's latest judgement in CFJ 1787, and suggest at
> > this point REASSIGN. CotC, please consider the preceding paragraph to be
my
> > Appellant's arguments.
>
> I
24 matches
Mail list logo