Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Open letter

On 6/19/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: root wrote: > I've been around since 1998 -- 9 years! -- but how often do I get > noticed? Twice in my whole life I've been invoked, and one of those > times was a full two years before I hatched, so you can't really say > that it counts! Let's

DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: honorless degrees

On 6/19/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: {{{ Repeal rule 2092. [We've had this rule for two years and never awarded an honorary degree. It's deadweight.] }}} There was an attempt when the rule was first created, but it failed quorum. Perhaps it's time to try again. -root

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Open letter

On 6/19/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ian Kelly wrote: >That's not even close to what the Registrar's report claims. The historical matter in the Registrar's report is not entirely accurate. Most obviously, there's an alleged deregistration by Writ that p

Re: DIS: CFJ 1684

On 6/19/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I don't think comex ever explicitly assigned the number. That would be an implicit result of entering it into the CFJ database. You were then assigned as judge thus: |I assign CFJ 1684 to Eris. Eris is now turned. If the CotC never explicitly li

Re: DIS: CFJ 1684

On 6/19/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ian Kelly wrote: >If the CotC never explicitly linked the index 1684 to any particular >CFJ, can the assignment be considered successful? I think it can. CFJ numbers are unregulated, but we all agree on a single numbering authority.

DIS: Re: BUS: Primo Shares

On 6/19/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: root and Eris have been offered shares by Murphy. According to the newly revised section 19 of the Primo Corporation charter, by accepting those shares (if they chose to do so) they become party to the Primo Corporation agreement. That's an int

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Primo Protectorate

On 6/19/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This might allow something like the following: psuedo-proposal AI 2 { Repeal all rules of the Protectorate Agora with Power 3 or greater } I don't think so; rule 2140 is pretty clear. So then the question becomes whether my proposal is suffic

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Primo Protectorate

On 6/19/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ian Kelly wrote: > Agora hereby submits to Agora as its benevolent protector. I don't think that's enough to make Agora qualify to be a protectorate: it also needs a mechanism for Agora to change Agora's rules arbitra

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Primo Protectorate

On 6/19/07, bd_ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 09:00:54PM +0100, Zefram wrote: > Roger Hicks wrote: > >Primo Corporation hereby becomes a Protectorate of Agora. > > Ho ho. And it's a player of B Nomic too? InterNomic, even in its > recursive form, is beginning to look tame.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Primo Protectorate

On 6/19/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ian Kelly wrote: >The exact wording is: "It also must allow Agora unrestricted access to >make changes to its ruleset." There's no restriction on what an AI-3 >proposal can do The rules of Agora have little concept

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in CFJ 1684

On 6/19/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I take significant exception to the unaddressed assumption in CFJ 1623 that the definition of "person" to be used is a legal one. Rule 754(3) states: "Any term primarily used in mathematical or legal contexts, and not addressed by previous provisions o

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: CFJ 1684

On 6/19/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: comex wrote: > So is taking the action for me a penalization? It might be, but I meant the punishment if you didn't follow the order (e.g. multiple timing orders to do the same thing result in at most one penalty for not performing the task).

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in CFJ 1684

On 6/19/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I call for appeal of CFJ 1684. Not because I necessarily disagree with its reasonableness, but as it conflicts with the (now possibly non-existent judgments of) 1622 and 1623. A Court of Appeals on a CFJ out of the self- referential loop is th

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in CFJ 1684

On 6/19/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So, I'm confused here. Are we to go back and rewrite history, declaring that the various partnerships were never able to register? Or are partnerships no longer persons from this point on? Since the issue was resolved by a subsequent CFJ rather

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Primo Protectorate

On 6/19/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > presumably the rule >was voted upon at some point, yes? I think you've stretched the concept of player action beyond any meaningfulness. Perhaps. As I said, that scenario is questionable. I have

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in CFJ 1684

On 6/19/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: root wrote: > Since the issue was resolved by a subsequent CFJ rather than an > appeal, I would argue for the latter in this case. Except that the opposite interpretation has since then been directly coded into law, by Proposal 4977 which creat

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in CFJ 1684

On 6/19/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: root wrote: > Rule 2145 merely ascribes some properties to persons created by > agreements. It doesn't itself allow for such persons to be created in > the first place. It explicitly defines non-natural persons, No, it does not. It explicit

DIS: Re: BUS: Preserve the Partnerships

On 6/19/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I hereby submit the following proposal titled "Preserve the Partnerships" with an AI of 1: { Amend R2145 by appending the paragraph: {{ Agora recognizes an agreement that implicitly or explicitly assigns its rights, obligations, and responsibili

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in CFJ 1684

On 6/19/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I wrote: >I call for appeal of Eris's judgement of CFJ 1684, Additional argument for appeal: Eris's judgement is inconsistent with the judgement on CFJ 1671, concerning the registration (and so implicitly the personhood) of Second System Effect. Ho

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in CFJ 1684

On 6/19/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Sorry, no. The second sentence states that partnerships are created by agreements, and by the first sentence, those partnerships are in the set of non-natural persons. Since it's legal to make these partnerships, it's possible for the set of no

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Primo Shares

On 6/19/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: BobTHJ wrote: > My interpretation was that since there is no time-limit for accepting > shares that have been offered, the offer is still on the table. > > BobTHJ > > On 6/19/07, * Ian Kelly* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in CFJ 1684

On 6/19/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It can (if the Board of Appeals agrees) accomplish the reversal of the judgement of CFJ 1684. Not because I disagree with its reasonableness either, but I find the judgements of CFJs 1622 and 1623 to also be reasonable, and heavily favored by the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Primo Shares

On 6/20/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: root wrote: >> I disagree with both of you. The sqrt(2) shares that I transferred >> to you were created by charter-specified methods (IPO or CFO salary); >> and I didn't just offer them, I flat-out transferred them according >> to the old sectio

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in CFJ 1684

On 6/20/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: By my count, seven out of ten natural-person players are currently members of purportedly-registered partnerships. A proposal opposing the concept was rejected; a proposal supporting the concept was adopted. In short, most of us seem to /want/ 16

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal

On 6/20/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: comex wrote: >I submit the following proposal: No title. >Whereas Rule 955 is titled "Determining the Will of Agora", Rule titles have no legal force. I don't think you can claim that Agora has a will based on this. The rule body uses similar te

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in CFJ 1684

On 6/20/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ian Kelly wrote: > I *do* >think that the existence of partnerships is damaging to the game. How so? There are certainly a couple of problems with giving partnerships the sa

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in CFJ 1684

On 6/20/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Wednesday 20 June 2007, Ian Kelly wrote: > Again, that may be the interest of the majority of the players, but > the players are not the game. Are you sure about that :) I certainly don't think of the game as being merely the s

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in CFJ 1684

On 6/20/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Frankly, it's far more of an abuse that a single natural player can accumulate 13x (or arbitrarily more) base voting power on something through free submission of trivial fix proposals. That's more of a chilling effect on voting than partnership

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in CFJ 1684

On 6/20/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Overall, nothing's changed here in your above general opinion in a long time: in 2001 we were trying to implement teams/partnerships in a meaningful way (that was my first scam, CFJoops the CotC web is offline this moment). Groups weren't consi

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5027-5041

On 6/20/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 5030 O 1rootRecantus Cygneus AGAINST, Primo: AGAINST x2 I thought you liked that proposal... -root

DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Single Use VCs

On 6/20/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: A player may expend one VC to increase eir own voting limit on an ordinary proposal by one. If the proposal is already in its voting period, then this runs afoul of Rule 1950. Not sure what the a clean way to fix this would be.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals

On 6/20/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ian Kelly wrote: > The ballot allotment time of a proposal of which the chamber The term "chamber" is no longer defined. Would be clearer if you define it. Whoops. >Increase the power of Rule 2142 to 2, and amend it

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Single Use VCs

On 6/20/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 6/20/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This makes a VC effectively an EV (Extra Vote), as existed in the > early years. Spending capital to influence a single proposal does not > make for a good game. If you want to cast your EVs AGAINST a p

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Regulate CFJ numbers

On 6/20/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Tuesday 19 June 2007, Ed Murphy wrote: >such player, the Speaker) SHALL assign an ID number to it by ... >announcement as soon as possible; such an assignment is INVALID I do fervently hope "Mother, May I?" fails. Unfortunately it

DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: still support democracy

On 6/20/07, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Repeal Rule 2142 Modify Rule 106 by replacing the following text: (This might have to be changed depending on other proposals) The adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1, with a default and minimum value of 1.

Re: DIS: another approach to VC balance

On 6/20/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: We have a lovely system where all the influences on voting power are persistent (for a period of time), not per proposal. It is marred by per-proposal rewards. We've just discussed per-proposal voting power, which has been done before. Let's consid

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in CFJ 1684

On 6/20/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: root wrote: > * Hold office. This creates an obvious loophole around Rule 1450, > easily fixed using partnership bases. Don't over-fix the problem. For instance, if the Speaker is a partnership and the CotC is a natural-person member of that par

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: still support democracy

On 6/20/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 6/20/07, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Repeal Rule 2142 > > Modify Rule 106 by replacing the following text: > (This might have to be changed depending on other proposals) > > The adoption i

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: still support democracy

Maybe it would be worthwhile adding in the qualifier that ordinary/democratic is decided at distribution time (as the proposer is only allowed to modify the adoption index before that time). i.e., A Proposal with an Adoption Index of less than 2 at the time it is distributed by the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in CFJ 1684

On 6/20/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: root wrote: > I'm too lazy to be that proactive about it, nor do I want to get > bogged down in the extra requirements of multiple R1742 agreements > just to keep up with the Joneses. That's an argument against implementing VCs, cards, currenci

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Regulate ID numbers

On 6/21/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 6/21/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think e has something more ambitious in mind. I didn't grasp the > relevance of "computable numbers" when we're explicitly limiting this > to natural numbers. But perhaps e plans to use Graham's numbe

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Regulate ID numbers

On 6/21/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I have an idea for preventing the use of really colossal numbers: require that the ID number being assigned be stated explicitly as a decimal literal in the assigning announcement. No chained arrow notation for us. That doesn't prevent them; it jus

DIS: Proto

Here's a proto that I'm flirting with. I'm not really sure yet where I want this to go, so I decided to go ahead and request comments on it. Amend Rule 2136 to read: Points are a measure of a player's contentiousness. The number of points possessed by a player is eir score. The leve

Re: DIS: Proto

On 6/21/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ian Kelly wrote: > Whenever a player's level is at least 8, any player may > announce this fact, specifying the player in question. If > true, the effect of such an announcement is that the specified > player

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Regulate ID numbers

On 6/21/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 6/21/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What do you mean by "computable natural number"? In the sense meant > by "computable real number", all natural numbers are trivially > computable. I ca

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Regulate ID numbers

On 6/21/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Seems like bad terminology to me, since the same numbers (whatever they might be) are computable. I'm not sure what would be better. Non-computable image, perhaps? s/are computable/are computable by other means/ -root

Re: DIS: BUS: Gunner Nomic 2.0

On 6/21/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 6/21/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The Gunner Nomic Rule allowing Agora "unrestricted access" to the > ruleset is mutable, and an immutable rule (that rule changes must > be voted on) has precedence, so I don't think you've gra

Re: DIS: Proto: no protectorate takeovers

On 6/22/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: After looking at the fora of the proposed/possible protectorates, I'm a little concerned at the conflict of interest involved with the particular events in those fora. Proto: Amend Rule 2147 by replacing: A player of said nomic may then

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in CFJ 1684

On 6/22/07, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This *almost* asks for a return of Disinterested proposals, probably better implemented in the current game state as Unanimous Consent: An AI-1 proposal that passes if nobody votes against it, but doesn't gain VCs. I'm not sure I follow.

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal - Still supporting democracy

On 6/24/07, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: An Ordinary proposal may be made Democratic by any player during its voting period With 3 Supporters. This would overwrite the change made by proposal 5043, assuming that proposal is adopted. I'm not sure that I like the idea of m

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5042-5049

On 6/25/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 5047 AGAINST (see above; existing rule could be interpreted as "voting limit on the proposal's current chamber at the start of its voting period"; this is awkward, but so is the phrase "ballot allotment time") "...where N

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5042-5049

On 6/26/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: root wrote: > On 6/25/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 5047 AGAINST (see above; existing rule could be interpreted as "voting >> limit on the proposal's current chamber at the start of its >> voting period"; this is awkw

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5042-5049

On 6/26/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: root wrote: > On 6/26/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> "At the end of the voting period of an Agoran decision, the first >> N ballots submitted by each entity on that decision (where N is >> the entity's voting limit) rem

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5042-5049

On 6/26/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: You also seem to be conflating "Agoran decision" with "proposal". Currently, proposals are the only Agoran decisions defined, but it would be good to be able to add new types of Agoran decisions without having to fix thi

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5042-5049

On 6/26/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "At the end of the voting period of an Agoran decision, the first N ballots submitted by each entity on that decision (where N is the entity's effective voting limit for that decision) remain valid; all other ballots submitted on that decision are

Re: DIS: Okay, *now* the CotC DB is available

On 6/26/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: And now it's down again. By the way, any luck with the signal booster? I've had nothing but pain with them. It's working for me. -root

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1689 assigned to root

On 6/27/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: comex wrote: > CFJ 1689 is hereby assigined to root. And here's another conflict of interest. At least with CFJ 1647 I was the only standing judge left (though there's no requirement to assign judges in increasing order of CFJ number, and in thi

DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1677 assigned to PP

On 6/27/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: CFJ 1677 is hereby assigned to the Pineapple Partnership. The Pineapple Partnership is not a player, as per CFJ 1684, so it can't judge CFJs. But wasn't there an appeal of CFJ 1684 in progress? I don't recall

DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Reinstate Elections

On 6/27/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Proto-Proposal: Reinstate Elections Why? Elections were always unnecessarily complex. -root

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJs 1692-3 assigned to Murphy

On 6/27/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The rules do not regulate the numbering of CFJs. There is clear game custom that purported CFJs are numbered in order of submission. There have been no recent ambiguities in any part of this process. (The purported CFJ 1622 is unambiguously a pu

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1689 assigned to root

== CFJ 1647 == Murphy's message with datestamp Sun, 29 Apr 2007 16:59:19 -0700 had the effect of submitting a proposal. According to Rule 106/4: A proposal

DIS: Re: BUS: Unofficial list of pending judicial actions

On 6/28/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I intend to have HP2 judge the appeal of CFJ 1684. Ack! The whole point of CFJ 1684 was to settle the matter of CFJs 1622 and 1623 while avoiding the paradoxes introduced in those earlier CFJs. -root

DIS: Re: BUS: Speaking of which...

On 6/29/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: A little over 8 hours into it... Happy Birthday, Agora! Happy Birthday, Agora! ...easy to forget when there's no reward for remembering... -root

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PC's posture

On 7/10/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I was away for a week, then back, then away again this week. Primo Issue #23 assigns CFJ 1688 to Murphy to answer on behalf of Primo, and CFJ 1694 to myself to answer on behalf of Primo. The slowness has been due to the lack of a VPSA report summ

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PC's posture

On 7/10/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 7/10/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So is Primo just ignoring the decision of CFJ 1659 or what? I believe so. Wasn't this amended shortly thereafter to fix the problem? Yes and no. After P5038, the rul

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PAP1

On 7/11/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I hereby call for judgement, barring root, comex, and BobTHJ, on the statement: to qualify as a member of a partnership one must be responsible for all of the partnership's obligations. Argument: Legal partnerships in most jurisdictions make all par

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposal 5079

On 7/14/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Saturday 14 July 2007, Ed Murphy wrote: > comex wrote: > > I spend 2 VCs to increase my voting limit on ordinary proposals by 1. > > I vote AGAINST *8 > > The eighth vote will be invalid. Why? Because your voting limit for the proposal is determin

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: The Republic of Agora

On 7/17/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The substance is in fact that of proposal 5050, which was voted down. F/A was 4/2, and one of those 2 was me. (I think I misunderstood the proposal's effect at the time.) I was the other vote against, and the only reason I voted against was b

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: The Republic of Agora

On 7/17/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 7/17/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The substance is in fact that of proposal 5050, which was voted down. > > F/A was 4/2, and one of those 2 was me. (I think I misunderstood > the proposal's effec

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Ambassador] Ambassador's report for July 17, 2007

On 7/17/07, Peekee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On behalf of Agora I hereby repeal all rules, regulations, terms and any and all other parts of the Primo Coporation and its charter. The Primo Coporation no longer exists. ... As Primo unconditionally allows Agora permission to change its charter

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Ambassador] Ambassador's report for July 17, 2007

On 7/17/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: root wrote: > TIASCOTC"ISIDTID"FTHPAFAVLT. ^ ? Sorry, I thought everyone would know by now. *ahem* "This is a straightforward case of the common "I say I do, therefore I do" fallacy that has plagued Agora for a very long time." -root

DIS: Re: OFF: assignment of appeal 1684a to HP2/Murphy, Zefram, BobTHJ

On 7/18/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Appeal 1684a is the appeal of Eris's judgement in CFJ 1684. If partnerships worked without legislation, the appellate judges for appeal 1684a are Speaker Human Point Two, CotC Zefram, and BobTHJ. If partnerships did not work without legislation, th

DIS: Re: OFF: assignment of CFJ 1703 to root

On 7/18/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I hereby assign CFJ 1703 to root. Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1703 == CFJ 1703 == Comex successfully changed eir nickname to Murphy on 9 July 2007. ==

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: assignment of CFJ 1703 to root

On 7/18/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: root wrote: > Arguments: The entities Comex and Murphy are physical in nature, not > rule-defined, and hence their names and nicknames are not governed by Rule > 1586. Just for fun playing Devil's advocate here... Counterargument: "Player"-

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: assignment of appeal 1684a to HP2/Murphy, Zefram, BobTHJ

On 7/18/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In appeal 1684a I proto-judge REVERSE. Reasoning: As noted by appellant Zefram, the trial judge's reasoning fails to properly address the arguments made in the judgement of CFJ 1623. Its claim to find a defect in that argument is not substantiated

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: assignment of appeal 1684a to HP2/Murphy, Zefram, BobTHJ

On 7/18/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ian Kelly wrote: >The problem here is that if CFJ 1684 is overturned on the grounds of the >assumed precedent of CFJ 1623, It's not, if the other appellate judges agree with me. I did not treat CFJ 1623 as binding preceden

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: assignment of appeal 1684a to HP2/Murphy, Zefram, BobTHJ

On 7/18/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 7/18/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ian Kelly wrote: > >The problem here is that if CFJ 1684 is overturned on the grounds of > the > >assumed precedent of CFJ 1623, > > It's not, if the

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: assignment of appeal 1684a to HP2/Murphy, Zefram, BobTHJ

On 7/18/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: root wrote: > [the purported judgement of CFJ 1623] > was also a rather flimsy analysis. It relied upon the assertion that > R754 was not clear on the matter, Yes. > which is patent nonsense No. > as "person" is not primarily a legal term.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: assignment of appeal 1684a to HP2/Murphy, Zefram, BobTHJ

On 7/18/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: root wrote: > Sorry, I forgot to add: For that reason, CFJ 1684 may merit remanding or > reassignment, but it should not properly be reversed, as the subject still > merits scrutiny by a trial judge. With this rejudgment/appeal occurring so l

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: assignment of appeal 1684a to HP2/Murphy, Zefram, BobTHJ

On 7/18/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: root wrote: > On 7/18/07, *Ed Murphy* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > > root wrote: > > > [the purported judgement of CFJ 1623] > > was also a rather flimsy analysis. It relied upon the assertion that >

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Who's Who in Agora

On 7/20/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ian Kelly wrote: >21 Jun 2007 19:04:23 BobTHJ registers Gunner Nomic 2.0 as a player. ... >Gunner Nomic 2.0 c/o BobTHJ 21 Jun 2007 ... >Gunner Nomic 2.0 A 21 Jun 07 Per CFJ 1697, these parts of the registr

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5098-5106

On 7/23/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ian Kelly wrote: >>5098 Oi 1BobTHJ Bad Taste >AGAINST x 11 Your voting limit on ordinary proposals in this batch is 6, because they were distributed last week. Your EVLOP didn't increase to 11 until the beginning

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5098-5106

On 7/23/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So it is. Proposal soon. It would be good to have R2117 subsumed into deputation as well, but that's a more complex change. > I'd rather create a default of ASAP than try to ensure that >every case is explicitly covered. I think we can hand

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5088-5097

On 7/23/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The idea with these proposals is that you vote for your preferred minimum quorum and also for all the higher ones. Presumably if you want a minimum quorum of three then you also think that four would be an improvement (though a lesser one) on the pre

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: assignment of appeal 1684a to HP2/Murphy, Zefram, BobTHJ

On 7/24/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: My opinion on this case would be to OVERRULE, assigning a judgment that is consistent with the reasoning of prior CFJs on this issue ^ I think the new CFJ rules make this appeal somewhat cleare

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: assignment of appeal 1684a to HP2/Murphy, Zefram, BobTHJ

On 7/24/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ian Kelly wrote: >As such, a judgement of OVERRULE would be inappropriate here >by Rule 911, because the appropriateness of a replacement judgement of >TRUE has not yet been demonstrated within the judicial system. That'

Re: DIS: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5098-5106

On 7/24/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: A reminder: If P5104 passes, the rules will no longer be a binding agreement, and players will no longer be required to obey the rules. R1504 requires players to obey the rules, by allowing for them to be found GUILTY of criminal charges if th

Re: DIS: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5098-5106

On 7/24/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > root wrote: > > R1504 requires players to obey the rules, by allowing for them to be > > found GUILTY of criminal charges if they don't. > > Ah yes, I see now, just catching up... the return of criminality > despite Maud and my best attempts to

DIS: Re: BUS: Proto-verdict on 1684a

Oops, I was going to submit some gratuitous arguments, and I plumb forgot. To be honest, I'm tired of griping about this anyway, so I don't think that I'll bother. >a) Should Rule 754 (3)'s "primarily used in ... legal contexts" be > interpreted as "primarily used by Agora in legal cont

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 5080 - 5087 (corrected)

On 8/1/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ed Murphy wrote: > >For each decision, the options available are > > ADOPTED, REJECTED, and FAILED QUORUM.] > > No they're not. The options are FOR, AGAINST, and PRESENT. There's a distinction between the options available to the vote

Re: DIS: proto: caps lock

On 8/1/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Proto: caps lock > (AI=2, disinterested) > > AMEND RULE 2152 BY CHANGING ALL WORDS IN ALL CAPS TO THEIR NORMAL ENGLISH > CAPITALIZATION, THEN AMEND EVERY OTHER RULE BY CHANGING THOSE WORDS IN THE > SAME WAY. You should also remove the "all caps" refere

Re: DIS: proto: clarify Mother, May I?

On 8/2/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > comex wrote: > >What if the ordinary language bit was a bit less clear and said: > > Then the rule would be pretty unclear. > > >Rule 1607 is not the only relevant rule. Consider, for example, rule 2161. > >CAN the player assign ID numbers? > > R2161

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1714: assign Zefram

On 8/3/07, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I appeal the ruling in CFJ 1714 on the grounds that the Judge > apparently does not understand the meaning of the word "if", the > concept of stipulating certain conditions, and perhaps formal logic in > general. I suggest a ruling of REASSIGN

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1714: assign Zefram

On 8/3/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > comex wrote: > >I intend to, with 2 supporters, initiate an appeal concerning Zefram's > >ruling of CFJ 1714, > > Oh goody, first ever usage of the new dependent action rules. I hereby > vote OBJECT. I don't think that has any practical effect, does

DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

On 8/6/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: right to a speedy trial

On 8/6/07, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I submit the following Proposal and set its AI to 1.7: > {{{ > In Rule 1504, insert the following text at the end of the second paragraph: > {{ > At any time during the pre-trial phase after the defendant has been > informed, the defendant CAN

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: clarify Mother, May I?

On 8/7/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tuesday 07 August 2007, Zefram wrote: > > R2161 is flawed in that it > > does not discuss possibility, but is not actually broken. My proposed > > amendment of MMI doesn't change this. > Yes, it does. The current MMI does not define SHALL, so its o

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: clarify Mother, May I?

On 8/7/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tuesday 07 August 2007, Ian Kelly wrote: > > No, game custom is that possibility and requirement are independent. > > This passage just solidifies that into a rule. With regard to R2161, > > the rule says nothing about

Re: DIS: proto: MMI take two?

On 8/7/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yuck, violation of orthogonality. And as discussed some weeks ago, > > not nearly as useful as you'd expect. Consider "the toastmaster shall > > initiate a toast to Agora as soon as possible": if relying on your > > implicitude, the toastmaster cann

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ: Fnord!

On 8/8/07, Peekee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > > > I CFJ on the following: > > > > Peekee submitted an email to the agora-discussion forum containing "Fnord!" > > > > -- > > Peekee > > > > > I would urge Judge root to Judge TRUE. If I am foolish enough to allow > other

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >