On Sun, 2009-07-19 at 12:51 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote:
> 2009/7/19 Taral :
> > On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 8:57 PM, Benjamin
> > Caplan wrote:
> >> Clearly this means "I hereby judge {comex SHALL ensure that judicial
> >> panels of which e is a member are not assigned as judge in the appeal of
> >> any
2009/7/19 Taral :
> On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 8:57 PM, Benjamin
> Caplan wrote:
>> Clearly this means "I hereby judge {comex SHALL ensure that judicial
>> panels of which e is a member are not assigned as judge in the appeal of
>> any judicial case." (The bit about the contract is a holdover from the
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 8:57 PM, Benjamin
Caplan wrote:
> Clearly this means "I hereby judge {comex SHALL ensure that judicial
> panels of which e is a member are not assigned as judge in the appeal of
> any judicial case." (The bit about the contract is a holdover from the
> days when equity judge
Elliott Hird wrote:
> 14:53 ehird: fungot: Punish comex.
> 14:54 fungot: ehird: there is an order. it shall be its judge by
> announcement. quorum for an appelate judge is recused, and an
> indication is a contract
> Pastiching, inferring and general munging left as an exercise to the reader.
Cle
2009/7/18 ais523 :
> I suggest feeding the Agoran ruleset to fungot and taking the first
> output that's reasonably recognisable as a punishment.
14:53 ehird: ^style agora
14:53 fungot: Selected style: agora (a large selection of Agora rules,
both current and historical)
14:53 ehird: fungot: Punis
On Sat, 2009-07-18 at 14:50 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote:
> 2009/7/18 Taral :
> > I'm still not convinced that any other judgement is in the best
> > interests of the parties and the game in general. Unless, of course,
> > the parties wish to suggest some more adequate remedy?
>
> Some bizarre punish
2009/7/18 Taral :
> I'm still not convinced that any other judgement is in the best
> interests of the parties and the game in general. Unless, of course,
> the parties wish to suggest some more adequate remedy?
Some bizarre punishment in the spirit of the text? :-)
I'm still not convinced that any other judgement is in the best
interests of the parties and the game in general. Unless, of course,
the parties wish to suggest some more adequate remedy?
--
Taral
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 6:57 AM, Benjamin
Caplan wrote:
> So you didn't intend anything *specific*, but you did intend that
> *something* would happen.
I for one intended to be bound by whatever the text said.
--
-c.
Elliott Hird wrote:
> 2009/7/16 Taral :
>> In an Equitable sense, I believe it actually does. If you both entered
>> into the contract without any intention that it have any effect on
>> you, it may not even be a contract.
>
> Oh, we knew it'd have effects; we just didn't care because we were
> bu
2009/7/16 Taral :
> In an Equitable sense, I believe it actually does. If you both entered
> into the contract without any intention that it have any effect on
> you, it may not even be a contract.
Oh, we knew it'd have effects; we just didn't care because we were
busy giggling about it.
On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 19:18 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote:
> 2009/7/16 Taral :
> > By the initiator's own admission, e did not envision anything by the
> > contract. I proto-judge {The parties to (2008-11-22-ehird) SHALL act
> > to terminate it ASAP.}
> >
> > Comments?
>
> That parenthical was a joke;
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Elliott
Hird wrote:
> That parenthical was a joke; are you seriously suggesting that being
> reckless absolves us of the obligations?
In an Equitable sense, I believe it actually does. If you both entered
into the contract without any intention that it have any ef
Elliott Hird wrote:
> 2009/7/16 Taral :
>> By the initiator's own admission, e did not envision anything by the
>> contract. I proto-judge {The parties to (2008-11-22-ehird) SHALL act
>> to terminate it ASAP.}
>>
>> Comments?
>
> That parenthical was a joke; are you seriously suggesting that being
2009/7/16 Taral :
> By the initiator's own admission, e did not envision anything by the
> contract. I proto-judge {The parties to (2008-11-22-ehird) SHALL act
> to terminate it ASAP.}
>
> Comments?
That parenthical was a joke; are you seriously suggesting that being
reckless absolves us of the ob
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 1:00 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> == Equity Case 2623 ==
>
> comex - who (dubiously) counts as the CotC when performing
> Justiciar duties - rotated the bench without intending to
> mislead others as to the pointless conce
16 matches
Mail list logo
