On 5/30/08, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A system that allows a judicial scam to succeed by legitimizing an improper
> judgement is no longer a judicial system worthy of Agora. Agorans put
> great store in their legal system, so such a system is un-Agoran. The reason
> the First G
On Fri, 30 May 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> In retrospect, I suppose it was my general disdain for the
> equity court (which has yet to actually produce a useful equation,
> save perhaps the judgement in CFJ 1927 (which had not yet been judged
> when I started putting this scam together)) that led me
On Fri, 30 May 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> And there's the
> great irony in what you just wrote: you complain about the
> criminalization of judging poorly in one sentence, and in the next
> sentence you remark that a judge who may have done just that got off
> too easily.
Sorry, I phrased that ba
On Fri, 30 May 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Proto-Proposal: Defend the judiciary
> In the interest of defending the judicial system as a paragon of
> virtue, unfairly self-interested judgements are never appropriate,
> rules to the contrary notwithstanding.
Please take a look at my p
ais523 wrote:
> NttDF? (What happens if you send a proto to a-b, anyway?)
On top of strong game custom, it fails to meet Rule 106's "clear
indication" requirement.
> as far as I could tell, it would be inequitable to judge anything but
> what the parties wanted.
[snip]
> What would other players
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > and as far as I
> > could tell, it would be inequitable to judge anything but what the parties
> > wanted.
>
> If all of the parties agree to a resolution, the equity court isn't
> needed. I don
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> and as far as I
> could tell, it would be inequitable to judge anything but what the parties
> wanted.
If all of the parties agree to a resolution, the equity court isn't
needed. I don't think this interpretation is a go
Murphy wrote in a-b:
> Proto-Proposal: Defend the judiciary
> (AI = 2, please)
>
> Amend Rule 2158 (Judicial Questions) by inserting this paragraph after
> the paragraph containing "A judgement is valid and/or appropriate only
> as defined by the rules.":
>
> In the interest of defending t
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A system that allows a judicial scam to succeed by legitimizing an improper
> judgement is no longer a judicial system worthy of Agora. Agorans put
> great store in their legal system, so such a system is un-Agoran. The rea
On Fri, 30 May 2008, comex wrote:
> In the Mousetrap Thesis, it's described how a
> scam that goes too far besides just plugging the loophole (too many
> gravy for the scamsters) is un-Agoran. But awarding a little gravy is
> reasonable, and preventing a scam from doing even that should be
> fro
On 5/29/08, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If valid scams should be allowed, then so should valid counter-scams;
> this alone is a red herring.
Perhaps, but then Goethe's (purported-- as I mentioned, e claims this
was not eir intent) scam-buster should be considered a scam itself, a
sort o
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 8:05 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Because anyone could have made the scam contest cease to be a contest
> without 3 objections (and I don't think there would have been 3
> bojections,
Sure there would have been. That was our reason for bringing a third
founding m
comex wrote:
> On 5/29/08, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> But the CFJ isn't over *appropriate* judgements, it's over assigning a
>> judgement at all.
>
> Umm, that's just a wording thing. What I was attempting to try em for
> is failing to augment the ambiguity in the Rules with
On May 29, 2008, at 10:05 PM, comex wrote:
On 5/29/08, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But the CFJ isn't over *appropriate* judgements, it's over
assigning a
judgement at all.
Umm, that's just a wording thing. What I was attempting to try em for
is failing to augment the ambi
On 5/29/08, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But the CFJ isn't over *appropriate* judgements, it's over assigning a
> judgement at all.
Umm, that's just a wording thing. What I was attempting to try em for
is failing to augment the ambiguity in the Rules with respect to
whether equa
On May 29, 2008, at 9:28 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 9:19 PM, Benjamin Schultz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm getting hung up on the entire concept of calling a
criminal case on a player for doing eir Agoran duty.
Well, the rules do say judges SHALL assign appropriate j
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 9:19 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm getting hung up on the entire concept of calling a
> criminal case on a player for doing eir Agoran duty.
Well, the rules do say judges SHALL assign appropriate judgements.
IIRC, I proposed changing that to SHOULD t
17 matches
Mail list logo
