Re: BUS: Intent to ditch the Points Party
2009/9/20 ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk:
If possible (i.e. if one or more of my mousetraps so far have
succeeded), I act on behalf of Murphy to cause em to destroy all eir
Distrib-u-matic cards.
I didn't notice this before.
You're a damn immoral liar, claiming that your mousetrap would only be
used for that proposal to me.
Shame.
Proposal: No (AI=1.7,II=0)
{
Create N Rests in ais523's possession, where N is 24 subtracted by the
number of Rests in ais523's possession.
}
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Darth Cliche reregisters
--- On Tue, 22/9/09, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: From: Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu Subject: DIS: Re: BUS: Darth Cliche reregisters To: Agora Discussion agora-discuss...@agoranomic.org Date: Tuesday, 22 September, 2009, 10:20 PM On Tue, 22 Sep 2009, Kenner Gordon wrote: I register. I... er... my goodness. I don't think I can CFJ anything on that one. I think I can. I call for judgement on the statement Darth Cliche (Kenner Gordon) registered yesterday. Arguments: I register does not necessarily indicate intent to register, on the basis that the person in question might have been lying. (Compare the recent message by G., where G. stated that e intended to register without actually intending to register, and it was ruled ineffective because the intent didn't actually exist in G.'s mind.) Therefore, the action is too ambiguous to succeed. -- ais523 who doesn't really think this will work, but letting a registration go unCFJed nowadays would be too much of a break with tradition
BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2680 judged FALSE by ə
--- On Tue, 22/9/09, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: == CFJ 2680 == Judgement: FALSE I intend, with 2 support, to appeal this judgement. At the time, the status of CFJ 2670a was rather unclear; and I don't think a belief that that appeal existed would have been unreasonable. Therefore, a player who held that belief (such as BobTHJ) could have legally stated that CFJ 2670a existed; e would probably have been mistaken, but e wouldn't have been breaking the rules. -- ais523
Re: BUS: Intent to ditch the Points Party
--- On Wed, 23/9/09, Elliott Hird penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
Proposal: No (AI=1.7,II=0)
{
Create N Rests in ais523's possession, where N is 24
subtracted by the
number of Rests in ais523's possession.
}
I submit the following proposal: No to No (AI 1.7, II 1):
{
For each Rest in ais523's possession, destroy that Rest and
create 1 Rest in ehird's possession.
}
I don't intend to make this Distributable unless ehird's becomes Distributable
somehow.
--
ais523
Re: BUS: Intent to ditch the Points Party
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Alex Smith
callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
I submit the following proposal: No to No (AI 1.7, II 1):
{
For each Rest in ais523's possession, destroy that Rest and
create 1 Rest in ehird's possession.
}
I don't intend to make this Distributable unless ehird's becomes
Distributable somehow.
I make ehird's proposal Distributable.
--
-c.
BUS: Proposal: Registration is not dependent
Proposal: Registration is not dependent (AI = 2, please) Amend Rule 869 (How to Join and Leave Agora) by replacing this text: A first-class person CAN (unless explicitly forbidden or prevented by the rules) register by publishing a message that indicates reasonably clearly and reasonably unambiguously that e intends to become a player. with this text: A first-class person CAN (unless explicitly forbidden or prevented by the rules) register by publishing a message that indicates reasonably clearly and reasonably unambiguously that e intends to become a player at that time.
BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Corrected Census
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote: Registrar's Census CoE: missing Darth Cliche.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Grand Poobah] Deck of Government report
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 15:44, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 00:59 - coppro IBA-withdraws 2 No Confidence for 110zm Tue, 15 Sep 2009 00:59 - coppro plays No Confidence to begin an electin for IADoP I re-CoE this one. I assumed they succeeded, but then coppro emself came in and said These all failed. I think the important point was that e claimed to not have had enough zm at the time, but I don't feel like digging through the history section of the IBA reports... I'd like a comment from coppro or an IBA person before I admit to this one. The withdrawal was delayed to the list and thus did not occur at the time specified directly on the message, but rather the time stamped by the mailing list. As a result, it failed (due to me having spent my zm in the meantime). coppro sent the message prior to performing these actions: Sun, 13 Sep 2009 17:32 - coppro IBA-deposits 1 Water Rights Vouchers for 130zm Sun, 13 Sep 2009 17:32 - coppro IBA-withdraws 4 Absolv-o-Matic for 180zm (attempted to withdraw 7) Sun, 13 Sep 2009 17:33 - coppro IBA-withdraws 7 Absolv-o-Matic (FAILED - No Absolv-o-Matic to withdraw) But the message didn't hit the list until over a day later. However, because eir above withdraws partially failed e still had adequate zm to make the withdraw: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 00:59 - coppro IBA-withdraws 2 No Confidence for 110zm I re-re-CoE the DoG report on coppro and the IBA's holdings. BobTHJ
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Grand Poobah] Deck of Government report
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 15:06, Jonatan Kilhamn jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote: c-walker* 7 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 11 CoE: (and I realize you indicate this eir holdings are in dispute) C-walker has 5 Roll Calls and an On the Nod, no other cards. Denied, from where would e get an On the Nod? E's had it since before is audit, it wasn't destroyed in the audit, and e hasn't played it since. I re-CoE: Walker has one On the Nod card. Umm... Walker never had any On the Nod in any of coppro's reports and hasn't had any in mine, and you never CoE'd on it (those reports haven't ratified anyway, but still). My history sections also don't show em gaining any. I ask again, where would e get an On the nod? Denied. The July 25th report (which ratified) shows Walker with an On the Nod. Each subsequent report you've issued since then (with the exception of the Sept 17 report) shows Walker with one On the Nod. You may want to check this again. I re-re-CoE this. BobTHJ
Re: BUS: [IBA] Corrected report
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 16:37, comex com...@gmail.com wrote: === Industrial Bank Agora Report Date of this report: 22 September 2009 President of the IBA: comex === Current Holdings: Nickname zm - *Taral 1280 CoE: Taral has 1258zm. I think you're missing this: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 21:47 - Taral IBA-withdraws 2 1 Crops for 22zm (attempted to withdraw 4) Admitted. Current Rates: asset rate (zm) # in bank - -- AAA 1 Crop 11 2 CoE: should be 0, per Taral's above withdraw -- Cards (Government) Kill Bill 110 3 CoE: should be 5. You seem to have double-recorded Tiger's recent withdraw Admitted. Lobbyist 110 Local Election 110 No Confidence 55 2 CoE: should be 3. The Deck of Government report mis-recorded this, it was CoEd and corrected. Admitted, I made a typo in the history. -- -c.
Re: BUS: [IBA] Corrected report
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 6:37 PM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote: Unfilled Offers (can be filled by announcement): * Pavitra [250zm] x2: Play Lobbyist, specifying Pavitra. I fill this once (causing me to take the above action). -- -c.
BUS: [IBA] Corrected corrected report
=== Industrial Bank Agora Report Date of this report: 23 September 2009 President of the IBA: comex === Current Holdings: Nickname zm - *BobTHJ 764 *comex 806 *coppro 40 *Murphy 270 *Pavitra 529 *Taral 1258 Tiger97 *Walker 345 *woggle 447 Wooble 182 * IBA party All IBA parties are listed. All other persons have no zm. === Unfilled Offers (can be filled by announcement): * BobTHJ [500zm]:Write an apology for CFJ 2684 * Pavitra [250zm]:Play Lobbyist, specifying Pavitra. * Pavitra [500zm]:(selling Minister without Portfolio) (ISELL votes not included.) === Current Rates: asset rate (zm)# in bank - -- AAA 0 Crop 1113 1 Crop 11 2 Crop 45 3 Crop 219 4 Crop 23 5 Crop 27 6 Crop 507 7 Crop 19 8 Crop 12 9 Crop 118 X Crop 100 20 WRV 130 9 -- Cards (Government) Roll Call 2015 Debate-o-Matic 204 Arm-twist 4513 On the Nod 453 Kill Bill 110 5 Lobbyist110 Local Election 110 No Confidence 553 Goverment Ball 500 -- Cards (Change) Distrib-u-Matic 25 Committee 30 Your Turn 30 Presto! 150 Not Your Turn 250 Supersize Me30 Shrink Potion 50 Change Ball 500 -- Cards (Justice) Absolv-o-Matic 45 Stool Pigeon40 Drop your Wea.. 80 Discard Picking 130 Justice Ball500 Penalty Box 175 * Drop your Wea.. = Drop your Weapon -- misc X Point 15 Y Point 15 Medal 1500 === History: 03 June 2009 02:44:03 Pavitra +623zm (0c, 7*1c, 2*3c, 2*4c, 2*5c, 2*6c, 7c, 3*8c, 13*9c, 4*Xc) 14 June 2009 19:37:25 woggle +200zm (4*6c) -109zm (2*5c, 7c, 3*8c) 14 June 2009 20:13:55 Tiger +275zm (2*Xc, 3*7c, 2*0c) -145zm (1c, 4c, 2*6c, 9c) 16 August 2009 15:51:29BobTHJ +108zm (6c, 5c, 7c, 8c) 19 August 2009 04:07:40BobTHJ +27zm (5c) 21 August 2009 03:47:29comex +320zm (2*LE, NC, OtN) 21 August 2009 20:34:19coppro +130zm (WRV) 21 August 2009 20:37:14BobTHJ -130zm (WRV) 21 August 2009 22:43:29BobTHJ +85zm (RC, DoM, At) 22 August 2009 15:01:09C-walker +135zm (3*AoM) 23 August 2009 21:49:09woggle +300zm (3*Xc) -31zm (8c, 7c) 25 August 2009 20:18:10Tiger +164zm (10*0c, 9*3c, 2*At, 2*Com, OtN, RC) 25 August 2009 20:30:10Tiger +0zm (4*7c) -177zm (2*6c, 2*5c, 4c) 27 August 2009 07:21:10Murphy +270zm (Lob, 2*DyW) 28 August 2009 22:00:11BobTHJ +80zm (4*RC) 30 August 2009 15:36:11coppro +130zm (2*AoM, 2*DoM) 31 August 2009 20:42:11Tiger +260zm (2*WRV) 31 August 2009 23:39:02Pavitra +80zm (DyW) 01 September 2009 03:19:03 coppro -30zm comex +30zm [P6473] 01 September 2009 03:37:03 coppro +520zm (4*WRV) 01 September 2009 21:24:04 Taral +45zm (At) 03 September 2009 16:39:04 Wooble +481zm (4*KB, OtN) 03 September 2009 19:06:03 comex +540zm (2*Lob, LE, KB, 2*NC) -46zm (2*Com) 03 September 2009 19:51:04 woggle +90zm (2*AoM) 03 September 2009 23:14:03 Pavitra +151zm (2*AoM, DoM, At) 03 September 2009 23:50:04 Taral +175zm (PB) +260zm (2*WRV) [IBA -PB] 04 September 2009 01:10:04 coppro -550zm (2*Lob, 3*LE) 04 September 2009 01:12:04 woggle -76zm (4*7c) 04 September 2009 19:00:04 Wooble +141zm (9*RC, At) 04 September 2009 19:15:04 Wooble -80zm (DyW) 04 September 2009 19:55:04 Wooble -360zm (8*AoM) 04 September 2009 19:55:07 BobTHJ +594zm (2*KB, 2*NC, 7*At) 04 September 2009 20:35:04 woggle +73zm (3*DuM) 04 September 2009 23:02:05 comex -160zm (2*DyW) 05 September 2009 09:01:04 C-walker +135zm (3*AoM) 05 September 2009 09:07:04 C-walker +57zm (2*Com) [...ambiguous actions...] C-walker +18zm comex -128zm [IBA -Lob] 13 September 2009 17:32:05 coppro +130zm (WRV) -180zm (4*AoM) 15 September 2009 01:00:06 coppro -110zm
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Grand Poobah] Deck of Government report
2009/9/23 Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com: On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 15:06, Jonatan Kilhamn jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote: c-walker* 7 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 11 CoE: (and I realize you indicate this eir holdings are in dispute) C-walker has 5 Roll Calls and an On the Nod, no other cards. Denied, from where would e get an On the Nod? E's had it since before is audit, it wasn't destroyed in the audit, and e hasn't played it since. I re-CoE: Walker has one On the Nod card. Umm... Walker never had any On the Nod in any of coppro's reports and hasn't had any in mine, and you never CoE'd on it (those reports haven't ratified anyway, but still). My history sections also don't show em gaining any. I ask again, where would e get an On the nod? Denied. The July 25th report (which ratified) shows Walker with an On the Nod. Each subsequent report you've issued since then (with the exception of the Sept 17 report) shows Walker with one On the Nod. You may want to check this again. I re-re-CoE this. Epic reading failure, I kept looking for No Confidence cards. My bad. However, the On the Nod was indeed included in the auditing randomization table and was destroyed in the audit. Denied yet again. -- -Tiger
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Grand Poobah] Deck of Government report
2009/9/23 Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com: On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 15:44, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 00:59 - coppro IBA-withdraws 2 No Confidence for 110zm Tue, 15 Sep 2009 00:59 - coppro plays No Confidence to begin an electin for IADoP I re-CoE this one. I assumed they succeeded, but then coppro emself came in and said These all failed. I think the important point was that e claimed to not have had enough zm at the time, but I don't feel like digging through the history section of the IBA reports... I'd like a comment from coppro or an IBA person before I admit to this one. The withdrawal was delayed to the list and thus did not occur at the time specified directly on the message, but rather the time stamped by the mailing list. As a result, it failed (due to me having spent my zm in the meantime). coppro sent the message prior to performing these actions: Sun, 13 Sep 2009 17:32 - coppro IBA-deposits 1 Water Rights Vouchers for 130zm Sun, 13 Sep 2009 17:32 - coppro IBA-withdraws 4 Absolv-o-Matic for 180zm (attempted to withdraw 7) Sun, 13 Sep 2009 17:33 - coppro IBA-withdraws 7 Absolv-o-Matic (FAILED - No Absolv-o-Matic to withdraw) But the message didn't hit the list until over a day later. However, because eir above withdraws partially failed e still had adequate zm to make the withdraw: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 00:59 - coppro IBA-withdraws 2 No Confidence for 110zm I re-re-CoE the DoG report on coppro and the IBA's holdings. BobTHJ I never denied it the second time, just waited for you to sort things out. Admitted then - e had 1 at the time of this report and 2 now, having gained one since then. I also admit the one about the IBA having 3 No Confidence. -- -Tiger
BUS: IBA/Cards
I IBA-withdraw 4 * Debate-o-Matic for 80zm (or as many as possible). I transfer the cards I just withdrew to Pavitra. (Why not?) -- Taral tar...@gmail.com Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you. -- Unknown
BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Corrected Census
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 9:25 AM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.comwrote: Registrar's Census CoE: I am on hold.
BUS: Re: DIS: A Criminal Problem
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 11:16, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 12:04, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Tue, 15 Sep 2009, Charles Walker wrote: Get rid of Absolv-o-matics. Instead, you can use certain other cards to destroy Rests. This is what card frequency is for - game balance. This can all be fixed with a proposal to make them rarer, just change one number. Agreed. I intend, without 2 objections, to set the frequency of Absolv-o-Matic to 30 (a little less than half of what it was). Without two objections, I do so. BobTHJ BobTHJ
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6495-6501
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 07:49, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote: NUM C I AI SUBMITTER TITLE 6495 D 1 3.0 coppro FIXME AGAINST 6496 D 1 2.0 coppro Justiciar Swap PRESENT 6497 O 0 1.0 BobTHJ Advertising Anarchy 6498 O 0 1.0 c. I want to be Justiciar again! 6499 D 0 2.0 Wooble none FOR 6500 D 0 2.0 coppro Redundant Redundancy Cleanup PRESENT 6501 D 1 2.0 coppro That's Dumb FOR BobTHJ
BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2693 assigned to BobTHJ
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 14:05, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2693 == CFJ 2693 == If G.'s possible registration in the above message were successful, then G. would now be a party to the Fantasy Rules Contest. I rule TRUE. Pavitra has argued that R101 vii enables a player to make a Hard Deregistration, whereby the player not only ceases to be bound by the rules of Agora, but by all contractual obligations as well. However, no mechanism for such a Hard Deregistration is specified in the rules. This judge's opinion is that such a Hard Deregistration is exercised by the player ceasing to be involved in the Agoran forums and essentially ignoring the game. When such occurs, R101 vii is fulfilled as Agora makes no attempt to impose any penalty upon a absent player other than to deregister them. Thus all deregistrations made by announcement are merely shorthand for the flipping of a citizenship switch. Contractual obligations which were imposed upon the deregistered player continue to be imposed as specified by the relevant contracts. BobTHJ
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6502-6513
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 07:55, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote: NUM C I AI SUBMITTER TITLE 6502 D 1 2.0 Yally Creative Offices AGAINST (I like the idea, but the bulk of the Anarchist's duties are non-creative at the moment) 6503 D 0 2.0 G. fix ancient cards PRESENT (I think the errors this proposal attempts to correct have already been fixed, no?) 6504 O 1 1.0 Murphy We don't need this exception 6505 D 1 2.0 Pavitra Sensible Salary Switch AGAINST (This would re-initialize everyone's salary. I also don't see how this is much more than a wording change, there appears to be no functional difference) 6506 D 1 2.0 Pavitra No Vacancy v.3 PRESENT 6507 D 3 2.0 C-walker Card Rewrite AGAINST (opposed to per-deck hand limits and de-cardifying the Major Arcana. Remove those bits and you'd have my vote) 6508 O 1 1.0 Murphy Fix contest limits 6509 D 2 3.0 C-walker Fix the Senate PRESENT 6510 D 1 2.0 Murphy Judicial fixes PRESENT 6511 O 1 1.0 ais523 Fix point awards 6512 D 0 3.0 c. Fix dependent actions PRESENT 6513 D 0 3.0 coppro Power Cleanup PRESENT BobTHJ
BUS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2680 judged FALSE by ə
ais523 wrote: --- On Tue, 22/9/09, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: == CFJ 2680 == Judgement: FALSE I intend, with 2 support, to appeal this judgement. At the time, the status of CFJ 2670a was rather unclear; and I don't think a belief that that appeal existed would have been unreasonable. Therefore, a player who held that belief (such as BobTHJ) could have legally stated that CFJ 2670a existed; e would probably have been mistaken, but e wouldn't have been breaking the rules. I support.
BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2678a assigned to c., ais523, Pavitra, Murphy, coppro
Ed Murphy wrote: Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2678a Appeal 2678a Panelist: c. Decision: Panelist: ais523 Decision: Panelist: Pavitra Decision: Panelist: Murphy Decision: Panelist: coppro Decision: I opine OVERRULE with FALSE, given the prior judge's request. -coppro
BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2679a assigned to Murphy, c., coppro, BobTHJ, Walker
Ed Murphy wrote: Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2679a Appeal 2679a Panelist: Murphy Decision: Panelist: c. Decision: Panelist: coppro Decision: Panelist: BobTHJ Decision: Panelist: Walker Decision: I opine REMAND. -coppro
BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2689a assigned to Pavitra, coppro, BobTHJ
Ed Murphy wrote: Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2689a Appeal 2689a Panelist: Pavitra Decision: Panelist: coppro Decision: Panelist: BobTHJ Decision: I opine REMAND. -coppro
BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2679a assigned to Murphy, c., coppro, BobTHJ, Walker
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 16:20, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2679a Appeal 2679a REMAND. BobTHJ
BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2689a assigned to Pavitra, coppro, BobTHJ
REMAND On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 16:21, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2689a Appeal 2689a Panelist: Pavitra Decision: Panelist: coppro Decision: Panelist: BobTHJ Decision: History: Appeal initiated: 20 Sep 2009 17:20:24 GMT Assigned to Pavitra (panelist): (as of this message) Assigned to coppro (panelist): (as of this message) Assigned to BobTHJ (panelist): (as of this message) Appellant coppro's Arguments: I intend, with 2 support, to appeal this case, as the judgment does not seem to concur with the arguments. I recommend REMAND. Appellant Walker's Arguments: ah, dammit. coppro is right, I meant FALSE. I support. Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2689 == CFJ 2689 == The most recent Scorekeepor's report was correct in reporting that BobTHJ revoked 3 points from ais523. Caller: Wooble Judge: Walker Judgement: TRUE Appeal: 2689a Decision: (pending) History: Called by Wooble: 17 Sep 2009 17:14:42 GMT Assigned to Walker: 18 Sep 2009 20:03:18 GMT Judged TRUE by Walker: 20 Sep 2009 09:44:55 GMT Appealed by coppro: 20 Sep 2009 17:09:05 GMT Appealed by Walker: 20 Sep 2009 17:16:13 GMT Appealed by Murphy: 20 Sep 2009 17:20:24 GMT Appeal 2689a: 20 Sep 2009 17:20:24 GMT Caller's Arguments: On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 07:38, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrot= e: I CoE on the most recent Scorekeepor's report: the revocations shown were most likely IMPOSSIBLE. The last Scorekeepor report to self-ratify was Fri, 04 Sep 2009 16:55. Point events since then (up to but not including Murphy's Cookie Jar awards that provoked this case): Fri, 04 Sep 2009 20:16 - SoA creates a Digit Ranch (7) in the possession of BobTHJ (-3 X-Points) Wed, 09 Sep 2009 22:40 - SoA creates a Digit Ranch (7) in the possession of ais523 (-3 X-Points) The AAA's threshold is 100. Since July 17 when I began automated point tracking the AAA has revoked only 45 X-points (including those revoked above). It is =A0doubtful that another 55 points were revoked in the period between June 29 and July 17, these revocations were successful. I deny this CoE. The life of the contest began before June 29. Gratuitous Arguments by BobTHJ: Yes, but thresholds were created on June 29. Points awarded prior to that would not have counted toward a non-existant threshold. I submit this as an argument in this case. Judge Walker's Arguments: The question in this case is whether point awards and revocations before June 29 count against a contest's point limit. (The current award/revacation system was adopted on this date). BobTHJ argues that point awards before this date do not count against the then non-existent limits; Wooble's recent precedent in CFJs 2686-87 seems to disagree. I concur with Wooble's arguments* in both of these cases, and as they remain unappealed, I judge CFJ 2689 TRUE. * E discussed three possible interpretations of R2233 in eir arguments, and settled on 3: A contest can reward a total number of points equal to its threshold limit over the life of the contest.
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6502-6513
Geoffrey Spear wrote: This distribution of proposals 6502-6513 initiates the Agoran Decisions on whether to adopt them. The eligible voters for ordinary proposals are the active players, the eligible voters for democratic proposals are the active first-class players, and the vote collector is the Assessor. The valid options on each decision are FOR, AGAINST, and PRESENT. NUM C I AI SUBMITTER TITLE 6502 D 1 2.0 Yally Creative Offices AGAINST 6503 D 0 2.0 G. fix ancient cards AGAINST - this fix was already made 6504 O 1 1.0 Murphy We don't need this exception FOR 6505 D 1 2.0 Pavitra Sensible Salary Switch PRESENT 6506 D 1 2.0 Pavitra No Vacancy v.3 AGAINST 6507 D 3 2.0 C-walkerCard Rewrite AGAINST (breaks coups) 6508 O 1 1.0 Murphy Fix contest limits FOR 6509 D 2 3.0 C-walkerFix the Senate ENDORSE Wooble 6510 D 1 2.0 Murphy Judicial fixes FOR - I'd prefer picking II-2 people over II-1 for appeals, but it's a good start 6511 O 1 1.0 ais523 Fix point awards FOR 6512 D 0 3.0 c. Fix dependent actions PRESENT 6513 D 0 3.0 coppro Power Cleanup FOR -coppro
BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2678a assigned to c., ais523, Pavitra, Murphy, coppro
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 6:17 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2678a Appeal 2678a The fact that OVERRULE (which is often used just to correct a simple slip like in this case) dings the judge is unfortunate, and the rules should be changed, but it's a relatively harsh penalty so I opine REMAND. -- -c.
BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2679a assigned to Murphy, c., coppro, BobTHJ, Walker
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2679a Appeal 2679a REMAND -- -c.
BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2702 assigned to coppro
Ed Murphy wrote: Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2702 == CFJ 2702 == On or about Sept 20, 2009 22:51 (UTC) ais523 terminated Contract B. I judge VERY FUNNY. Err... TRUE, based on the following: 1) Acting on behalf of someone is equivalent to sending a message on their behalf, thus equivalent to acting in their discretion. 2) R2125 does not apply to Contract B. 3) It is impossible for comex to act in a manner other than at his own discretion (see 1)) -coppro
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2702 assigned to coppro
I intend to appeal this with two support. It is certainly conceivable for me to be acting on my own behalf, and yet still not at my discretion, such as if I were obligated to award points in a specific matter. The effects of R2125 are implied-- or is it your opinion that all dependent actions defined by contract couldn't be performed before R1728 came to mention them? Sent from my iPhone On Sep 23, 2009, at 6:55 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2702 == CFJ 2702 == On or about Sept 20, 2009 22:51 (UTC) ais523 terminated Contract B. === = I judge VERY FUNNY. Err... TRUE, based on the following: 1) Acting on behalf of someone is equivalent to sending a message on their behalf, thus equivalent to acting in their discretion. 2) R2125 does not apply to Contract B. 3) It is impossible for comex to act in a manner other than at his own discretion (see 1)) -coppro
BUS: Inactive
I go inactive. -- *** You have died *** Would you like to RESTART, REPLY to this e-mail, or QUIT?
Re: BUS: Pledge
comex wrote:
I agree to this:
{
This is a public contract and a pledge, known as Scumbuddies.
Anyone CAN join this contract with the consent of all existing
members. A party CAN leave this contract with the consent of all
members (consent required to prevent fleeing equity).
Each party has a membership of partial (default) or full. A party CAN
change eir membership by announcement.
Any party (the actor) CAN act on behalf of a party (the grantor) whose
membership is full by announcement, except to intend or agree to make
Contract Changes to this contract, but SHALL NOT do so except in the
following cases:
- as generally agreed and planned upon by both parties, such as as
needed to carry out a scam. The actor may make modifications to the
plan if e reasonably believes that the grantor would agree to them
without debate (i.e. fixes, not major changes);
- in the direct interest of the grantor, if the actor reasonably
believes the grantor would consent to the action without debate
(e.g. to leave a mousetrap under time pressure); or
- as would be POSSIBLE if not for this contract.
This contract is Equitable; a party SHALL NOT make it Legalistic. The
restrictions on acting on behalf are general in nature, but the most
important factor in equitability is the intent of the grantor. Don't
be evil.
}
I change my membership to full.
I consent for ais523 to join this contract.
I join Scumbuddies and change my membership to full.
-coppro
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6502-6513
6502 D 1 2.0 Yally Creative Offices FOR 6503 D 0 2.0 G. fix ancient cards FOR 6504 O 1 1.0 Murphy We don't need this exception FOR 6505 D 1 2.0 Pavitra Sensible Salary Switch FOR 6506 D 1 2.0 Pavitra No Vacancy v.3 FOR 6507 D 3 2.0 C-walkerCard Rewrite PRESENT. tldr, misspelled Goverment, Dealor should start out II=3. 6508 O 1 1.0 Murphy Fix contest limits FOR 6509 D 2 3.0 C-walkerFix the Senate PRESENT. without Senator three objections and Mutate might not mean what they appear to say. 6510 D 1 2.0 Murphy Judicial fixes FOR 6511 O 1 1.0 ais523 Fix point awards PRESENT 6512 D 0 3.0 c. Fix dependent actions PRESENT 6513 D 0 3.0 coppro Power Cleanup PRESENT. Is there a good reason for Power not to be an index? Pavitra signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Darth Cliche reregisters
Sean Hunt wrote: On Tue, 22 Sep 2009, Kenner Gordon wrote: I register. I CFJ (II=0) I is a player. Discuss. I favor this case. Gratuitous arguments: Absent context, it would be natural to read this as I am a player. However, in context, the obvious meaning of the CFJ statement is There is a player with the name or nickname 'I'. The statement then becomes Upon eir recent registration, Kenner Gordon selected the nickname 'I'. I see no reason to interpret eir message in this way. If e had sent either of the following messages: I registers. Kenner Gordon, I, registers. then it might make sense to interpret it this way. However, as it is, the natural reading is for the unquoted word I to function as a pronoun referring to the sender of the message. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2678a assigned to c., ais523, Pavitra, Murphy, coppro
comex wrote: On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 6:17 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2678a �Appeal 2678a � The fact that OVERRULE (which is often used just to correct a simple slip like in this case) dings the judge is unfortunate, and the rules should be changed, but it's a relatively harsh penalty so I opine REMAND. I'm persuaded by this. REMAND. (I believe this causes the panel to automatically deliver judgement -- I'm not used to being the last panelist to respond.) Pavitra signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: BUS: IBA/Cards
Taral wrote: I IBA-withdraw 4 * Debate-o-Matic for 80zm (or as many as possible). I transfer the cards I just withdrew to Pavitra. (Why not?) I deposit 4 * Debate-o-Matic. (It's just not a good idea these days to have excess cards lying around.) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2689a assigned to Pavitra, coppro, BobTHJ
History: Appeal initiated: 20 Sep 2009 17:20:24 GMT Assigned to Pavitra (panelist): (as of this message) Assigned to coppro (panelist): (as of this message) Assigned to BobTHJ (panelist): (as of this message) Appellant coppro's Arguments: I intend, with 2 support, to appeal this case, as the judgment does not seem to concur with the arguments. I recommend REMAND. Appellant Walker's Arguments: ah, dammit. coppro is right, I meant FALSE. I support. REMAND. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2695 assigned to Pavitra
== CFJ 2695 == c. awarded emself 70 x-points via the Contract B contest. Caller's Arguments: My intent when writing the rule was to create four limits for each contest (X-awarded, Y-awarded, X-revoked, Y-revoked). The text of the rule seems open to multiple interpretations however. I will immediately dispense with the interpretation that the limit is a real bound on a complex number of points, as exceed has no mathematical definition with respect to complex numbers as it does with respect to the reals. R2233 reads, in part: The contestmaster of a contest CAN and SHALL award and revoke points as directed by that contract up so long as the total number of points awarded or revoked on any axis do not exceed that contest's threshold index. Awards and revocations that counteract a previous award or revocation for that contest that was not in accordance with it's contract or that exceeded the contest's threshold index do not count against this limit. The key words here appear to be total, any, and the or in awarded or revoked. I interpret any axis to mean any given axis; that is, each axis. x-points and y-points are individually constrained. The plurality of the verb do not exceed implies that the subject of the key sentence is not the (singular) total number of points. It cannot be points, which is clearly enclosed in a prepositional phrase; could or be interpreted in such a way as to make the total ... awarded or revoked plural? I can imagine no reasonable interpretation for or other than that points awarded and points revoked both count towards the same total. The use of do rather than does must be treated as a R754(1) difference in grammar or dialect. Total has no further qualifiers or constraints on it, and I can see no excuse in the text of the rule for inventing any. In particular, the total number of points awarded or revoked on a particular axis is totaled over all players, over all time, and over all contracts or other mechanisms for awarding or revoking points. Rule 1586 suggests to me that x-points should be considered the same thing as pre-Axis points, which implies that no contract has ever awarded x-points. I suggest ignoring the text of this rule and letting the incorrect obvious interpretation ratify until the situation can be fixed legislatively. FALSE. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
