Yeah that's a good explanation that makes sense. I retract my intent (is
this possible again?)
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 10:27 AM, Madeline <j...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> Alright, so, the idea of it was that the sentence made two claims. Claim 1
> was (hopefully obviously by now) false. The question I got stuck on was
> whether or not Claim 2 was predicated on Claim 1 - in other words, would
> Claim 2 be invalidated simply by Claim 1 also being invalidated? The
> sentence structure suggested it as very plausible, and in a more serious
> matter having the conditions of "when you can do this thing" being rendered
> invalid might have huge consequences, so there's a pretty strong case for
> potentially invalidating. On the other hand, Claim 2 isn't actually
> impacted by Claim 1's invalidation at all, and in this case Claim 1
> existing wasn't a big deal anyway, so there's a reason not to. I couldn't
> really see an easy way to decide one way over the other (though with what
> I've just written I feel like I'd be leaning towards invalidating Claim 2
> on this logic regardless), so in the end I basically decided "you know this
> only really matters for the sake of the election and the election is a
> total mess because of people not knowing, so let's take the former position
> and suggest that maybe trying to take precedent from this one isn't the
> greatest of ideas."
>
> Hopefully that explains things a little bit?
>
>
> On 2017-11-20 07:29, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>>
>> I support, with the following arguments:
>>
>> One reason the judge gives for judging as e does is that the case has
>> been rendered moot by a rule change. This is not always a bad choice,
>> but forgets that it's not moot for the Herald-initiated Agoran decision
>> that may or may not be ongoing.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 20 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>>
>>> I don't understand 3594 either. Idu intend to call a motion for
>>> reconsideration with two support on the grounds that 1: the judgement
>>> seemed to consider best interests of the game using facts after the
>>> calling
>>> of the CFJ, rather than the best interests of the game with each blanket
>>> interpretation of the rules and 2: the judgement appeared to invalidate a
>>> rules clause for the best interests of the game, which is obviously not
>>> possible.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 7:18 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> ============================================================
>>>> ============
>>>> COURT GAZETTE [Arbitor's Weekly Report for 19 Nov 2017]
>>>>
>>>> * PUBLIC REMINDER to PSS, G., and Aris
>>>> You have judgements that are late or nearly late! See below.
>>>>
>>>> * I've dropped Nichdel from the list of judges as e hasn't been around.
>>>> Can re-add at request!
>>>>
>>>> Open Cases (CFJs)
>>>> ------------------------
>>>> [* = overdue, ! = <24 hours before deadline]
>>>>
>>>> 3591* Motioned to Publius (due Sat, 18 Nov 2017 ~03:14:10)
>>>> 3595! Assigned to G. (due Sun, 19 Nov 2017 ~22:14:02)
>>>> 3596! Assigned to G. (due Sun, 19 Nov 2017 ~22:16:00)
>>>> 3597! Assigned to Aris (due Sun, 19 Nov 2017 ~22:19:51)
>>>>
>>>> 3598 Assigned to ATMunn (due Sun, 26 Nov 2017 ~19:56:44)
>>>> 3599 Assigned to o (due Sun, 26 Nov 2017 ~20:01:43)
>>>> 3600 Assigned to o (due Sun, 26 Nov 2017 ~20:01:43)
>>>> 3601 Assigned to o (due Sun, 26 Nov 2017 ~20:01:43)
>>>> 3602 Assigned to Telnaior (due Sun, 26 Nov 2017 ~20:03:30)
>>>> 3603 Assigned to Alexis (due Sun, 26 Nov 2017 ~20:07:06)
>>>> 3604 Assigned to Alexis (due Sun, 26 Nov 2017 ~20:09:22)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Recently-Delivered Verdicts and Implications
>>>> --------------------------------------------
>>>> [** = consider for rules annotation, ! = delivered late]
>>>>
>>>> **3592 by o: If a purported report is missing required information, it
>>>> is not a report.
>>>>
>>>> 3593 by ATMunn: a collection of puns without a final punchline can be
>>>> "a truly hideous pun" as per R1650.
>>>>
>>>> 3594 bt Telnaior: confusion in Medal of Honour definition ("month" and
>>>> "7 days") somehow made the rule not work (a bit confused on the logic of
>>>> the judge's arguments myself).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bench Roster
>>>>
>>>> Judge Court[***] Recent
>>>> ----- ----- ------
>>>> G. Night 3556, 3567, 3563, 3579, 3580, 3582, 3595, 3596
>>>> Publius Night 3558, 3561, 3574, 3576, 3591
>>>> Corona Night
>>>> o Day 3568, 3565, 3572, 3584, 3590, 3592, 3599-3601
>>>> Aris Day 3557, 3562, 3577, 3578, 3589, 3597
>>>> V.J. Rada Day 3585
>>>> Telnaior Day 3586, 3594, 3602
>>>> Alexis Weekend 3573, 3581, 3587, 3588, 3603, 3604
>>>> ATMunn Weekend 3593, 3598
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Highest Numbered Case: 3604
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> ------------
>>>> [***] Court Descriptions
>>>>
>>>> Day Court [Default, rotate roster through as needed].
>>>>
>>>> Night Court [Assigned quick turnaround cases (either trivial or
>>>> game-urgent), generally promises to judge in 4 days].
>>>>
>>>> Weekend Court [Backup/partial rotation, generally gets half as many
>>>> cases each as Day Court].
>>>>
>>>> Courts are informal relative levels of "interest" in judging as per
>>>> R991. Players can change Court by notifying the Arbitor.
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> ------------
>>>>
>>>> DISCLAIMER
>>>> Informational only - No actions are contained in this report.
>>>> Information in this report is NOT self-ratifying.
>>>>
>>>> ============================================================
>>>> ============
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> From V.J. Rada
>>>
>>>
>
--
>From V.J. Rada
