On Dec 2, 2007 7:51 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 2 Dec 2007, Ed Murphy wrote: > > It's been about 4 days and 2.5 hours since my "assuming no response > > within 4 days" message. I pre-emptively consent to root causing the > > panel to judge these appeals as e sees fit. > > I consent to root causing the panel to judge in a way reasonably > similar to whatever we discussed 4 days and 2.5 hours ago. -Goethe
I do not consent. With the nkep scam fully exposed, it now seems totally ludicrous to me to consider an unknown definition from a private contract as having meaning in public discourse. I think that the best support for this comes from R101 (iv) and (v). As I am not a member of Fookiemyartug, I have not agreed to that contract, and therefore I have not agreed to the definition of "nkep" that Fookiemyartug provides. The same goes for other players who participated in the "nkep" decision; so how can that decision be meaningful? It seems to me that the standard of CFJ 1361 should be applied to actions as well as to nicknames. As a private definition, "nkep" did not clearly specify an action to most Agorans at the time the CFJ was issued; therefore it should be judged as a non-action. -root
