Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Three judgements

2007-11-18 Thread Ed Murphy
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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Three judgements

2007-11-18 Thread Zefram
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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Three judgements

2007-11-18 Thread Ian Kelly
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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Three judgements

2007-11-18 Thread Roger Hicks
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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Three judgements

2007-11-18 Thread Kerim Aydin
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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Three judgements

2007-11-18 Thread Kerim Aydin
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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Three judgements

2007-11-17 Thread Ed Murphy
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.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Three judgements

2007-11-17 Thread Ian Kelly
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. -

DIS: Re: BUS: Three judgements

2007-11-17 Thread Kerim Aydin
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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Three judgements

2007-11-17 Thread Ian Kelly
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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Three judgements

2007-11-17 Thread Ed Murphy
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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Three judgements

2007-11-17 Thread Ed Murphy
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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Three judgements

2007-11-17 Thread Ed Murphy
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

DIS: Re: BUS: Three judgements

2007-11-17 Thread comex
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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Three judgements

2007-11-17 Thread Ian Kelly
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:

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Three judgements

2007-11-17 Thread comex
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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Three judgements

2007-11-17 Thread Kerim Aydin
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,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Three judgements

2007-11-17 Thread Taral
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." --

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Three judgements

2007-11-17 Thread comex
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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Three judgements

2007-11-17 Thread comex
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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Three judgements

2007-11-17 Thread Taral
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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Three judgements

2007-11-17 Thread Josiah Worcester
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

DIS: Re: BUS: Three judgements

2007-11-17 Thread comex
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

DIS: Re: BUS: Three judgements

2007-11-17 Thread Josiah Worcester
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