On Fri, 26 Jul 2013, Alex Smith wrote:
"received" is what the recent precedents indicate. (The rules require
the message to be "sent via" a public forum, rule 478, and it hasn't
gone via the forum until both the sender has sent it, and the recipient
has received it. Also I can't construct a circ
On Fri, 2013-07-26 at 23:34 +0200, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jul 2013, Alex Smith wrote:
>
> > Finally, CFJ 866 seems to be relevant background reading too (and also
> > supports this verdict), and may be responsible for the TDoC confusion
> > (in that it holds that the /recipient's/ TDoC
On Fri, 26 Jul 2013, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
I would correspondingly find it natural for the TDoC of the sender to be
consulted for when a message is _sent_, if the rules were otherwise silent,
which however they currently are not (date stamps), albeit in a not very
clarifying way.
Oh also I s
On Mon, 14 May 2012, omd wrote:
> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > Thanks. CFJ in question is 1361:
> >
> > "It is my view that, for the purposes of R559, a nickname is a name that
> > a Player chooses for emself, that can be reliably used to pick em out in
> > the full r
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Thanks. CFJ in question is 1361:
>
> "It is my view that, for the purposes of R559, a nickname is a name that
> a Player chooses for emself, that can be reliably used to pick em out in
> the full range of Agoran contexts. On this view, arbitra
On Mon, 14 May 2012, Ed Murphy wrote:
> G. wrote:
> > On Mon, 14 May 2012, omd wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 2:06 AM, ais523
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2012-05-14 at 02:03 -0400, omd wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> > > > > > I judge CFJ 3190 NOT GUI
G. wrote:
On Mon, 14 May 2012, omd wrote:
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 2:06 AM, ais523 wrote:
On Mon, 2012-05-14 at 02:03 -0400, omd wrote:
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
I judge CFJ 3190 NOT GUILTY (1504(a)). Arguably, also (d), but (a) is
more clearcut.
I intend, with tw
On Mon, 14 May 2012, omd wrote:
> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 2:06 AM, ais523 wrote:
> > On Mon, 2012-05-14 at 02:03 -0400, omd wrote:
> >> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> >> > I judge CFJ 3190 NOT GUILTY (1504(a)). Arguably, also (d), but (a) is
> >> > more clearcut.
> >>
> >>
On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> omd wrote:
>
>> I don't remember the judgement as well as I should have, I guess... in
>> that case, doesn't the argument hinge on something as inconsequential
>
> Not inconsequential if it, well, has substantive consequences:
>
>> as the format
omd wrote:
> I don't remember the judgement as well as I should have, I guess... in
> that case, doesn't the argument hinge on something as inconsequential
Not inconsequential if it, well, has substantive consequences:
> as the format in which states are saved in the gamestate? ais523
> seems t
On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 2:41 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Ratification is not obviously broken if the gamestate includes its
>> history. ais523 assumed it doesn't in eir judgement of CFJ 2909:
>>
>>> it instead tries to work out a minimal change to the /present/ gamestate to
>>> change the past.
>
> I
omd wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 10:28 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> This point has generated quite a bit of discussion lately, not to
>>> mention that current precedent is that it's false; I think just
>>> stating it as true without any justification is unreasonable.
>>
>> Which precedent? Â Anywa
On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 10:28 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> This point has generated quite a bit of discussion lately, not to
>> mention that current precedent is that it's false; I think just
>> stating it as true without any justification is unreasonable.
>
> Which precedent? Anyway, I believe my othe
I don't see how that statement is clearly TRUE. From R1789:
The Player is deregistered as of the posting of the Writ, and
the notation in the Registrar's Report will ensure that,
henceforth, all may know said Player deregistered in a Writ of
FAGE.
Referencing you has a playe
G. wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Sep 2010, com...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Sep 10, 2010, at 1:22 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>>> Instruments generally, nowhere. Proposals in particular, the first
>>> paragraph of R106:
>>>
>>> When a proposal that includes
>>> such explicit chan
On Fri, 10 Sep 2010, com...@gmail.com wrote:
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Sep 10, 2010, at 1:22 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> > Instruments generally, nowhere. Proposals in particular, the first
> > paragraph of R106:
> >
> > When a proposal that includes
> > such explicit changes takes ef
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 10, 2010, at 1:22 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> Instruments generally, nowhere. Proposals in particular, the first
> paragraph of R106:
>
> When a proposal that includes
> such explicit changes takes effect, it applies those changes to
> the gamestate.
Huh.
On Fri, 10 Sep 2010, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> Instruments generally, nowhere. Proposals in particular, the first
> paragraph of R106:
>
> When a proposal that includes
> such explicit changes takes effect, it applies those changes to
> the gamestate.
Ah, there we go: I (and Murphy
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 10 Sep 2010, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> 2855: TRUE
>> 2856: TRUE
>>
>> A substantive aspect of a rule pertains to /how/ a rule governs, not
>> /what/ a rule governs. With that argument eliminated, a low-powered
>> proposal is just as c
On Fri, 2010-09-03 at 06:51 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Sep 2010, ais523 wrote:
> > First, we have to deal with a potential bug in the proposal itself; it
> > attempts to create a rule, but does not specify its power. However, it
> > seems reasonable to assume that the rule is created at
On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 15:41 -0400, comex wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 3:15 PM, ais523 wrote:
> > On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 11:40 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> >> The domain of the argument is whether or not this opportunity was
> >> "reasonable", by whatever standards we might determine it. Just as
>
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 3:15 PM, ais523 wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 11:40 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> The domain of the argument is whether or not this opportunity was
>> "reasonable", by whatever standards we might determine it. Just as
>> it would be possible but probably unreasonable for som
On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 11:40 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> The domain of the argument is whether or not this opportunity was
> "reasonable", by whatever standards we might determine it. Just as
> it would be possible but probably unreasonable for someone to catch a
> with-notice intent buried in the mi
ais523 wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 10:49 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> I believe that argument is only valid within a certain scope. In
>> particular, consider it in conjunction with G.'s gratuitous arguments
>> in the same case; there was certainly reasonable opportunity to review
>> the possibi
On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 10:49 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> I believe that argument is only valid within a certain scope. In
> particular, consider it in conjunction with G.'s gratuitous arguments
> in the same case; there was certainly reasonable opportunity to review
> the possibility of a loophole in
ais523 wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-10-25 at 10:15 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> 2698: TRUE
>>
>> I accept the caller's arguments, but also c.'s gratuitous arguments;
>> in particular, ais523's "I intend to amend via various objection-based
>> methods" did not necessarily offer a reasonable opportunity to
No they don't, see my gratuitous arguments in 2698. We had reasonable
notice of the amendment (i.e., "replace the entire text with blah"),
but not necessarily of the intent (I intend, without objection, to
amend Points Party by replacing the entire text with blah), because
there was one ame
BobTHJ wrote:
> Not that I think you've been unfair, but did you consider my argument
> for NOT GUILTY via implicit announcement? The NOVs were announced in
> the Insulator report, and by assigning them ID numbers I implicitly
> declared their validity. I think this does satisfy the requirement in
Roger Hicks wrote:
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 12:28, Ed Murphy wrote:
2721: GUILTY / APOLOGY
2722: GUILTY / DISCHARGE
2723: GUILTY / DISCHARGE
Technically GUILTY, but for the various reasons cited, an APOLOGY
should be sufficient - provided that it isn't phoned in this time.
For today's presc
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 9:27 AM, Quazie wrote:
> When I became a player is relevant, and what constitutes a valid
> registration is relevant.
So the judgements should be left alone, since that's what they
currently determine.
-root
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 11:23 AM, comex wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
>>> I intend to appeal this judgement with 2 Support. CFJ 2471 is
>>> trivially true, as I am currently a player and it is after I sent that
>>> message. I believe I didn't CFJ on what I wanted t
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
>> I intend to appeal this judgement with 2 Support. CFJ 2471 is
>> trivially true, as I am currently a player and it is after I sent that
>> message. I believe I didn't CFJ on what I wanted to.
>
> I interpreted "after" as "due to", but I shoul
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 09:33 -0400, Quazie wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 7:22 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
>> > I judge CFJ 2471 FALSE. An announcement about the past that does not
>> > fall into any of the categories in rule 869 is just a true sta
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
> This comes down on the anti- side. Neither a Bill nor an Amendment
> can be changed once the process of voting on it begins.
[...]
> There should also be at least one CFJ along the lines of "even if the
> proposal's text did change, did the decision and ass
comex wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> >> So the Bill is a changeable Proposal to change the Law.
> >> And an Amendment is an unchangeable Proposal to change the Bill.
> >
> > This comes down on the anti- side. Neither a Bill nor an Amendment
> > can be changed once th
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> So the Bill is a changeable Proposal to change the Law.
>> And an Amendment is an unchangeable Proposal to change the Bill.
>
> This comes down on the anti- side. Neither a Bill nor an Amendment
> can be changed once the process of voting on it
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, comex wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 4:03 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 2282: FALSE
>>
>> Even if the scam clause converting annotations into amendments
>> was added to the rules, any reasonable definition of "annotation"
>> requires that the annotation was tr
comex wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 4:03 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 2282: FALSE
>>
>> Even if the scam clause converting annotations into amendments
>> was added to the rules, any reasonable definition of "annotation"
>> requires that the annotation was true, which this purpor
On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 15:30 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 3:16 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The "great simplification" purposefully dropped this but didn't replace
> > it with anything, on the grounds that doing such would make it part of
> > "game custom
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
> 2008/9/16 comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> So the question is whether actions happen truly simultaneously (the
>> actions are being done at the same time), in which case the statements
>> would both be TRUE, or whether they can be separated in legal time, in
On Tuesday 16 September 2008 02:08:10 pm Charles Reiss wrote:
> They say that they happen at the time date-stamped on the message.
> This is not the same thing as simultaneously, since in the magical
> universe of the rules we can order actions that occur at the same
> instant.
Incidentally, this
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 3:16 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The "great simplification" purposefully dropped this but didn't replace
>> it with anything, on the grounds that doing such would make it part of
>> "game custom and precedence"
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008, ais523 wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 12:16 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Sep 2008, ais523 wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 12:01 -0700, Charles Reiss wrote:
I also support the appeal of CFJ 2086-7. As root has stated,
long-standing game custom allows the a
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 3:16 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The "great simplification" purposefully dropped this but didn't replace
> it with anything, on the grounds that doing such would make it part of
> "game custom and precedence" as long as the rules remained silent.
Suber's ju
On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 12:16 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Sep 2008, ais523 wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 12:01 -0700, Charles Reiss wrote:
> >> I also support the appeal of CFJ 2086-7. As root has stated,
> >> long-standing game custom allows the actions of a message to have some
> >> o
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 3:14 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (Incidentally, I think we now have people arguing for FALSE/FALSE,
> TRUE/TRUE, UNDECIDABLE/UNDECIDABLE, and FALSE/TRUE...)
In that case I feel obligated to try to come up with a convincing
argument for TRUE/FALSE.
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008, ais523 wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 12:01 -0700, Charles Reiss wrote:
>> I also support the appeal of CFJ 2086-7. As root has stated,
>> long-standing game custom allows the actions of a message to have some
>> ordering in legal time even though they take effect at the same
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 12:04, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 12:01 -0700, Charles Reiss wrote:
>> I also support the appeal of CFJ 2086-7. As root has stated,
>> long-standing game custom allows the actions of a message to have some
>> ordering in legal time even though
On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 08:35, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-08-01 at 10:23 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 8:06 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Unfortunately for you, a judicial finding has still found that it's
> > > regulated, regardless of
On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 09:27, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 12:43 -0600, Charles Reiss wrote:
> > I intend to appeal the judgment of CFJ 2094 with 2 support.
> > I intend to appeal the judgment of CFJ 2095 with 2 support.
> >
> > I recommend REASSIGN due to the corrupti
On Fri, 2008-08-01 at 10:23 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 8:06 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Unfortunately for you, a judicial finding has still found that it's
> > regulated, regardless of whether or not the finding is successfully
> > appealed.
>
> I'm not sur
On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 8:06 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Unfortunately for you, a judicial finding has still found that it's
> regulated, regardless of whether or not the finding is successfully
> appealed.
I'm not sure why you think it matters if objecting is regulated or
not. An Obje
On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 09:10, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-07-29 at 11:06 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 10:52 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > In my judgement of CFJ 2094, I also find that objecting to a dependent
>> > action whilst not being
On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 11:10 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's rule 2125 I'm trying to invoke there, which is not a SHOULD at all.
> You're thinking of the wrong rule...
I was thinking of the judge's reasoning guiding play, which is a
SHOULD, but if your reasoning constitutes "a judici
On Tue, 2008-07-29 at 11:30 -0400, comex wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 10:52 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In my judgement of CFJ 2094, I also find that objecting to a dependent
> > action whilst not being commonly known by the name ais523 is a regulated
> > action. (This is complete
On Tue, 2008-07-29 at 11:06 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 10:52 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In my judgement of CFJ 2094, I also find that objecting to a dependent
> > action whilst not being commonly known by the name ais523 is a regulated
> > action. (This is
On 5/25/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
root wrote:
> On 5/25/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Human Point Two judges CFJs 1682 and 1683 FALSE.
>>
>> Arguments:
>>
>> The first paragraph of Rule 1742 consistently uses plurals. I interpret
>> this as requiring such agreements
57 matches
Mail list logo
