On Thu, 31 Jan 2008, Ben Caplan wrote:
> I wrote the first line intending to be listed as a watcher. Upon reading it,
> however, I realized its ambiguity due to the use of "register". I probably
> could have changed it, but (as I considered that paradox is the soul of any
> good nomic) I, reflecti
On Wednesday 30 January 2008 4:19 Kerim Aydin wrote:
> (As someone admonished in a recent case, why not just ask em?)
I've been deliberately withholding details, in order to maximize ambiguity,
but it occurs to me that the particular circumstances might actually create a
more interesting case. How
On Wednesday 30 January 2008 17:43:08 Levi Stephen wrote:
> I agree to REMAND also.
>
> Is it also worth considering the possibility that the registration
> notice registered a player 'Pavitra', rather than 'watcher'? (I believe
> this was the initial interpretation from the registrar?)
I believe
On Jan 30, 2008 4:09 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> E has taken player-only actions on a conditional basis, due to uncertainty
> about eir registration status. I think this is no evidence at all about
> intent, as a perfectly reasonable interpretation is that e is merely
> accepting the (
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, Zefram wrote:
> E has taken player-only actions on a conditional basis, due to uncertainty
> about eir registration status. I think this is no evidence at all about
> intent, as a perfectly reasonable interpretation is that e is merely
> accepting the (possible) accidental re
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>might be reasonable to use after-the-fact evidence of consent/intent, namely
>that "watcher" has acted as a player since trying to register.
E has taken player-only actions on a conditional basis, due to uncertainty
about eir registration status. I think this is no evidence a
I agree to REMAND also.
Is it also worth considering the possibility that the registration
notice registered a player 'Pavitra', rather than 'watcher'? (I believe
this was the initial interpretation from the registrar?)
Levi
I agree to this judicial decision of REMAND, with the added note t
I agree to this judicial decision of REMAND, with the added note that I don't
find Woggle's judgement inappropriate, but that there are two competing ideas
here: (1) Judge Steve's admonition (CFJ 1263) that we shouldn't be too nit-
picky about attempts to register (which is a little contrary to
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1882a
Appellant Zefram's Arguments:
> Per R754 that definition applies *by default*.
> It makes perfect sense as a modifier to make "register" refer to
> something other than the default (registration as a player), specifically
> to ref
9 matches
Mail list logo
