Re: DIS: Re: BUS: intent, NoV
Sean Hunt wrote: Geoffrey Spear wrote: I intend to deputize for the IADoP to initiate an election for Rulekeepor. I publish an NoV alleging that coppro violated R2217, a Power 1 rule, by failing to initiate an election for Rulekeepor within 1 week of the office ceasing to have an active holder. I cause this NoV to become Closed. I spend an Absolve-o-matic (sp) to destroy a Rest in my own possession. TTttPF
Re: BUS: intent, NoV
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Geoffrey Speargeoffsp...@gmail.com wrote: I intend to deputize for the IADoP to initiate an election for Rulekeepor. I do so. I nominate myself as Rulekeepor.
Re: BUS: intent, NoV
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Geoffrey Speargeoffsp...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Geoffrey Speargeoffsp...@gmail.com wrote: I intend to deputize for the IADoP to initiate an election for Rulekeepor. I do so. I nominate myself as Rulekeepor. Me too. -- -c.
Re: BUS: Intent test
On Thu, 2009-07-02 at 17:33 +0100, Alex Smith wrote: I intend, without objection, to deputise for the Grand Poobah to do the caste rotation for July. I call for judgement on the statement If the Grand Poobah does not do a caste rotation within the first week of July, and I do make any further intents to deputise until I attempt to deputise, I CAN deputise for em after the first week of July ends. Arguments: This would definitely work were it not for the without objection in the intent. Does the intent work anyway? Does it matter if anyone tries to object? I retract that CFJ. I call for judgement on the statement If the Grand Poobah does not do a caste rotation within the first week of July, and I do not make any further intents to deputise until I attempt to deputise, I CAN deputise for em after the first week of July ends., with the same arguments. (The only change is the addition of a missing word 'not'.) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to award patent titles
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: On Wed, 2009-05-20 at 21:52 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 9:50 PM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote: I award myself the patent title Champion for my win by Championship. I award myself the patent title Champion for my win by High Score. I award myself the patent title Minister Without Portfolio. I award myself an Ultraviolet ribbon. In case the quoting wasn't sufficient, I do the above by deputising for the Herald to do so. The Herald isn't obligated to give you an ultraviolet ribbon. You'll have to do that bit yourself. If I don't already have an Ultraviolet ribbon, I award myself one. Now to write that thesis...
Re: BUS: Intent to award patent titles
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 9:50 PM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote: I award myself the patent title Champion for my win by Championship. I award myself the patent title Champion for my win by High Score. I award myself the patent title Minister Without Portfolio. I award myself an Ultraviolet ribbon. In case the quoting wasn't sufficient, I do the above by deputising for the Herald to do so.
Re: BUS: Intent to clean up contracts from November and early December
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 9:12 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wrote: Wed 5 Nov 00:58:13 P1 and P2 amended; P3 through P100 come and go In case the previous message was ineffective: [snip the murders of partnerships P1-P100] I CFJ on the statement: P17 has the Patent Title of Left in a Huff Arguments: R649 talks about awarding persons patent titles, but then does seem to imply that non-person entities can hold patent titles.
Re: BUS: Intent to clean up contracts from October
I wrote: For each contract whose text is quoted below, I intend (without objection, assuming I am elected Notary) to terminate it. Sun 5 Oct 02:03:40 The Law-abiding Partnership created by comex and Warrigal 1. The name of this contract is The Law-abiding Partnership. 2. This is a public contract and a partnership. 3. Parties to this contract SHALL ensure that this partnership follows the Rules of Agora to the maximum possible extent. 4. Parties to this contract CAN act on behalf of this partnership by announcement. Having received no objection, I terminate this contract. Sun 5 Oct 15:46:28 Unnamed pledge created by Warrigal 0. This is a pledge and public contract. 1. If I become Grand Poobah before the end of October 2008, then I pledge to determine demotions and promotions by a random means that gives probabilities for promotions and demotions among the active non-first-class players proportional to their basis size, and which avoids promoting and prefers demoting inactive and first-class players. 2. After October 2008, if I am not Grand Poobah, then I CAN terminate this pledge by announcement. ehird objected to the termination of Warrigal's Grand Poobah pledge, which might refer to this and/or the one with The List. I do not terminate this contract at this time. Sun 5 Oct 19:04:48 Unnamed pledge created by comex If a person spends notes to increase Bayes' caste, but does not thereby fill a Buy Ticket, I SHALL give em a land of eir ehoice, if I can. I CAN terminate this pledge by announcement if it does not currently impose any obligations on me. Having received no objection, I terminate this contract. Tue 7 Oct 19:06:24 Unnamed pledge created by Warrigal I pledge not to retract any of the votes made in this message. Having received no objection, I terminate this contract. Thu 9 Oct 19:22:05 Unnamed pledge created by comex I pledge that as far as I can see, this report does not contain any scams. Having received no objection, I terminate this contract. Thu 9 Oct 23:51:45 Unnamed pledge created by comex I, comex, the sole Member of the Deregiocrats, publicly pledge that The Private, Binding Agreement knows as the Articles of Confederation of the United Nomic Dead Groups affects the Votes of Myself, and affected the Votes of Myself from the time of the Pledge's Formation to (at least) the execution of the King. Having received no objection, I terminate this contract. Fri 10 Oct 00:21:31 Unnamed pledge created by Warrigal I pledge not to retract these votes. Having received no objection, I terminate this contract. Fri 10 Oct 20:57:40 Unnamed pledge created by Warrigal I submit the following conditional votes and pledge not to retract them: [list of votes omitted for brevity] Having received no objection, I terminate this contract. Tue 14 Oct 15:03:05 Unnamed pledge created by ehird I pledge not to fill this sell ticket. [Wooble's offer to leave Bayes for 7VP] Having received no objection, I terminate this contract. Tue 14 Oct 19:22:24 Unnamed pledge created by Murphy I pledge to make only statements in this message. [thinko for only true statements; transcription of a lolcat URL] Having received no objection, I terminate this contract. Wed 15 Oct 20:25:12 Unnamed pledge created by Warrigal I pledge to cause teucer to gain a Note within 30 days of eir registration if e registers within 30 days. Having received no objection, I terminate this contract. Sat 18 Oct 21:25:53 HAL created by Goethe 1. By pledge of Goethe, HAL is a biological organism that can communicate in English. Goethe may act on behalf of HAL by announcement. Goethe may terminate HAL by announcement. Having received no objection, I terminate this contract. Sun 19 Oct 20:03:20 Unnamed pledge created by comex This is a pledge. Marks are a currency. Whenever an entity transfers a Mark to another entity, the latter gains a second Mark in addition to the transferred one. Having received no objection, I terminate this contract. Mon 20 Oct 21:41:29 Crescendo created and amended by ais523 This is a pledge and a public contract named Crescendo. A person CANNOT become a party to Crescendo if Crescendo already has a party. The party to Crescendo, if any, is called the Sousaphonist. The Sousaphonist SHALL, immediately after becoming a party (in the same message), create and deposit with the Reformed Bank of Agora at least one Credit (as defined by The Note Exchange) of each of at least six different pitches. The Sousaphonist SHALL act in good faith not to re-obtain the Credits that e deposited upon joining Crescendo. The Sousaphonist CAN cease to be a party if and only if e has been a party continuously for the immediately preceding two weeks. This contract can be amended with the unanimous consent of the Sousaphonist and Pavitra. With consent of
Re: BUS: Intent to clean up contracts from November and early December
I wrote: For each contract listed below, I intend (without objection, and assuming I am elected Notary) to terminate it. Tue 4 Nov 22:43:29 comex agrees to an unnamed agreement Tue 4 Nov 22:48:47 ehird agrees to the above agreement, making it a contract 1. This is a public contract. Only ehird can join this contract. 2. If McCain becomes the unambiguous winner of the US presidential election, comex SHALL give ehird all of eir VP ASAP 3. If Obama does, ehird SHALL give comex 5 VP ASAP. Having received no objection, I terminate this contract. Tue 4 Nov 23:03:47 Alpha testing created by Sgeo This is a pledge, and a public contract called Alpha testing There is a type of action called Alpha. Only actions defined in this pledge may be actions of type Alpha. Any player may act on behalf of Sgeo to cause Sgeo to perform any action of type Alpha. Beta is an action of type Alpha. Beta CAN be performed by announcement. After performing Beta, the person who performed Beta must, as soon as possible, state Blah in a public forum. Players CAN NOT act on behalf of other players to cause the other player to perform Beta. This pledge CAN be terminated by Sgeo by announcement one week or more after creation of this pledge. Having received no objection, I terminate this contract. Wed 5 Nov 00:58:13 P1 and P2 amended; P3 through P100 come and go [texts omitted for brevity] Having received no objection, I terminate this contract. Wed 5 Nov 23:36:36 comex agrees to an unnamed agreement Wed 5 Nov 23:42:02 ais523 joins the above agreement, making it a contract comex CAN act on behalf of the Registrar To publish Canti Cygnei And Writs of FAGE. (But either party can terminate this by announcement.) Having received no objection, I terminate this contract. Thu 6 Nov 19:31:06 root announces the existence of two contracts I affirm that I have contracts with two other first-class senators of the form: I contract/agree (no private pledges so root has to agree) that root CAN act on behalf of other party's name redacted to end filibusters or support end of filibusters on the proposals in comex/ehird's Cantus scam. Having received no objection, I terminate these contracts. Thu 6 Nov 19:52:20 BobTHJ agrees to the InterBank Reconciliation Agreement if ehird does Thu 6 Nov 19:55:32 ehird agrees to the InterBank Reconciliation Agreement 1. The name of this pledge / contract is the InterBank Reconciliation Agreement 2. Upon the inception of this agreement, BobTHJ SHALL modify eir PBA report to reflect the values displayed currently on ehird's PBA report. ehird SHALL then publish and attempt to ratify that report. 3. The results of any PBA related transaction older than 7 days SHALL NOT be modified even if errors are later detected in that transaction. Having received no objection, I terminate this contract. Fri 7 Nov 22:08:51 Unnamed pledge created by Sgeo This is a pledge, and a public contract. Anyone may act on behalf of Sgeo to cause Sgeo to vote FOR the proposal created above. Sgeo CAN and MAY terminate this pledge by announcement. Having received no objection, I terminate this contract. Sat 15 Nov 20:07:04 Unnamed pledge created by ehird This is a public contract and a pledge. Anyone can join or leave this contract. Votes of the form RANDOM(vote), RANDOM(vote,vote), RANDOM (vote,vote,vote) and so on are conditional votes resolving to one of the votes randomly. Having received no objection, I terminate this contract. Sun 16 Nov 00:52:20 Unnamed pledge created by ehird I pledge not to redeem USD Vouchers specifying warrigal. Having received no objection, I terminate this contract. Thu 20 Nov 04:32:56 Murphy agrees to an unnamed agreement Thu 20 Nov 13:54:00 avpx joins the above agreement, making it a contract ehird can act on behalf of avpx to choose a target for killing in Werewolves. Having received no objection, I terminate this contract. Sat 22 Nov 22:28:03 ehird agrees to an unnamed agreement Sat 22 Nov 23:15:23 Warrigal joins the above agreement, making it a contract Raargh! A public contract identifying itself as such. A pledge is a low-priority office whose report includes the Short Logical Ruleset (SLR). In this format, each Monster is a public message. [snip] comex objected. Mon 24 Nov 15:24:15 ehird agrees to the Paypal payment gateway This is a public pledge named the Paypal payment gateway. Nobody but ehird can join this contract. ehird can leave this contract by announcement. Every email address has a number of dollars in its possession. Any person CAN, by announcement, make a transfer through this gateway, specifying a target email address and an amount of
Re: BUS: Intent to clean up contracts from November and early December
I wrote: Wed 5 Nov 00:58:13 P1 and P2 amended; P3 through P100 come and go In case the previous message was ineffective: I terminate P1. I terminate P2. I terminate P3. I terminate P4. I terminate P5. I terminate P6. I terminate P7. I terminate P8. I terminate P9. I terminate P10. I terminate P11. I terminate P12. I terminate P13. I terminate P14. I terminate P15. I terminate P16. I terminate P17. I terminate P18. I terminate P19. I terminate P20. I terminate P21. I terminate P22. I terminate P23. I terminate P24. I terminate P25. I terminate P26. I terminate P27. I terminate P28. I terminate P29. I terminate P30. I terminate P31. I terminate P32. I terminate P33. I terminate P34. I terminate P35. I terminate P36. I terminate P37. I terminate P38. I terminate P39. I terminate P40. I terminate P41. I terminate P42. I terminate P43. I terminate P44. I terminate P45. I terminate P46. I terminate P47. I terminate P48. I terminate P49. I terminate P50. I terminate P51. I terminate P52. I terminate P53. I terminate P54. I terminate P55. I terminate P56. I terminate P57. I terminate P58. I terminate P59. I terminate P60. I terminate P61. I terminate P62. I terminate P63. I terminate P64. I terminate P65. I terminate P66. I terminate P67. I terminate P68. I terminate P69. I terminate P70. I terminate P71. I terminate P72. I terminate P73. I terminate P74. I terminate P75. I terminate P76. I terminate P77. I terminate P78. I terminate P79. I terminate P80. I terminate P81. I terminate P82. I terminate P83. I terminate P84. I terminate P85. I terminate P86. I terminate P87. I terminate P88. I terminate P89. I terminate P90. I terminate P91. I terminate P92. I terminate P93. I terminate P94. I terminate P95. I terminate P96. I terminate P97. I terminate P98. I terminate P99. I terminate P100.
Re: BUS: Intent to clean up contracts from November and early December
I wrote: Tue 2 Dec 01:51:42 Unnamed pledge created by Warrigal This is a public contract. This is a pledge. Warrigal CAN terminate this contract by announcement, but SHALL NOT do so if e is Grand Poobah or there is currently an election for Grand Poobah. The List is initially the following: pikhq, Murphy, root, Sgeo, comex, Whoops, ehird ambiguously objected to this one as well, which means my change was ambiguous and thus ineffective.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to clean up contracts from November and early December
Warrigal wrote: Tue 2 Dec 23:27:07 Unnamed pledge created by Warrigal I publicly pledge that if I get elected, I'll sort this out so that harblcat, Siege and Charles get an equal chance. Having received no objection, I terminate this contract. This is also a Grand Poobah pledge, isn't it? You're right, that one also fails due to ambiguity.
Re: BUS: Intent to clean up contracts from October
On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 10:56 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote: For each contract whose text is quoted below, I intend (without objection, assuming I am elected Notary) to terminate it. Mon 20 Oct 21:41:29 Crescendo created and amended by ais523 This is a pledge and a public contract named Crescendo. A person CANNOT become a party to Crescendo if Crescendo already has a party. The party to Crescendo, if any, is called the Sousaphonist. The Sousaphonist SHALL, immediately after becoming a party (in the same message), create and deposit with the Reformed Bank of Agora at least one Credit (as defined by The Note Exchange) of each of at least six different pitches. The Sousaphonist SHALL act in good faith not to re-obtain the Credits that e deposited upon joining Crescendo. The Sousaphonist CAN cease to be a party if and only if e has been a party continuously for the immediately preceding two weeks. This contract can be amended with the unanimous consent of the Sousaphonist and Pavitra. With consent of Pavitra, I amend the Crescendo pledge by replacing Reformed Bank of Agora with People's Bank of Agora. I vaguely remember having terminated that one already, but just in case I haven't, I leave the above-quoted contract and it terminates due to not having enough parties. (This fails if I've already left it.) -- ais523
Re: BUS: Intent to appeal
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I intend, with 2 support, to appeal the judgement on sentencing in CFJ 2273. CHOKEY is far too lenient. Support.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to deputise
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 11:01 AM, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I nominate Taral for CotC. I decline. -- Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you. -- Unknown
Re: BUS: Intent to deputise
ais523 wrote: I intend to deputise for the CotC to: * Recuse the appeals panel on CFJ 2213a * Recuse the appeals panel on CFJ 2203a * Recuse the appeals panel on CFJ 2172a I note that the CotC is very nearly overdue on one of these recusals, and am getting the intent in for the other two in sufficient time to be able to deputise relatively soon; an appeals case being held up for 14 days is not in the best interests of Agora. Will process them in a few minutes. I transfer a prop from myself to ais523 for pointing out the delay.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to deputise
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 2:01 PM, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I decline this nomination. I nominate Taral for CotC. I nominate Murphy for CotC. --Wooble
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to deputise
On 23 Oct 2008, at 14:24, Geoffrey Spear wrote: On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 2:01 PM, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I decline this nomination. I nominate Taral for CotC. I nominate Murphy for CotC. --Wooble I nominate myself for CotC, because it's probably easier than Coinkeepor. -- ehird
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to deputise
Wooble wrote: On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 2:01 PM, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I decline this nomination. I nominate Taral for CotC. I nominate Murphy for CotC. I accept this nomination. I also predict that Taral will decline (or at least not accept) eirs, as IIRC e ran away screaming the last time e was so nominated.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to deputise
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 9:49 AM, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, agreed, but I can't deputise for that. I nominate ais523 for CotC. -- Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you. -- Unknown
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to deputise
On Wed, 2008-10-22 at 10:59 -0700, Taral wrote: I nominate ais523 for CotC. I decline this nomination. I nominate Taral for CotC. -- ais523
Re: BUS: Intent to deactivate
On Sep 27, 2008, at 1:40 PM, ais523 wrote: I intend, without objection, to make Human Point Two inactive. I object to this. - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr
Re: BUS: Intent to deactivate
On Saturday 27 September 2008 12:40:03 pm ais523 wrote: I intend, without objection, to make The Normish Partnership 2 inactive. I intend, without objection, to make the Protection Racket inactive. I object to these two, but not the others.
Re: BUS: Intent to deactivate
On 6/22/08, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I intend to make pikhq inactive without objection. I go On Hold. -- Azh nazg durbataluk, azh nazg gimbatul, Azh nazg thrakataluk agh burzum ishi krimpatul! -- J. R. R. Tolkien (In the language of Mordor)
Re: BUS: intent to bank
On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 8:04 PM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I intend, with the consent of the other Bankers, to cause the Bank of Agora to join the Points Relay Service. Still need consent from the AFO to do this one. I intend, without 3 objections, to add the Bank of Agora to the Points Relay Service as a Member Contract. Having received no objections, I add Bank of Agora to the PRS Member Contracts list. --Wooble
Re: BUS: intent to bank
On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 6:04 PM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I intend, with the consent of the other Bankers, to cause the Bank of Agora to join the Points Relay Service. HmmI consent.
Re: BUS: intent to bank
On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 8:04 PM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I intend, with the consent of the other Bankers, to cause the Bank of Agora to join the Points Relay Service. I consent. I intend, without 3 objections, to add the Bank of Agora to the Points Relay Service as a Member Contract. Now, that's a little weird, but I support. --Ivan Hope Support-is-nop
Re: BUS: Intent on CFJ 1932a (fwd)
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 10:00 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propia. I hereby publish the following message on behalf of the appeals board of CFJ 1932, with support of Murphy and Wooble: I initiate a criminal case against each of Goethe, Murphy, and Wooble. In each case, the rule breached was Rule 2157, and the action by which it was breached was failing to ensure that the panel met all of its obligations in appeal case 1932a. Specifically, the panel failed to meet its obligation to assign an appropriate judgement in that case. The judgement assigned by the panel in 1932a was REASSIGN, which per R911 is appropriate if there is serious doubt about the appropriateness of the prior judgement. This was not established by the panel. The closing paragraph of the panel's judgement found that there was serious doubt as to the reasonableness of the prior judgement, but this is not sufficient; for the prior judgement to be inappropriate, it must fail to be reasonably equitable, not reasonable. It may be the case that Panelist Goethe was simply careless with eir words in that paragraph and meant reasonably equitable wherever e wrote reasonable. But even correcting those words leaves us with this puzzling statement: ...whether or not [the contract in question] is [reasonably equitable] as a whole, the direct and obvious bribery and resulting collusion by the judge is sufficient grounds to question the [reasonable equity] of the judgement... Huh? In fact, what seems to be the case is that the panelists simply wish to penalize the prior judge for eir participation in the scam, so they point to obvious collusion in forming the prior judgement (which is not illegal per se) as evidence that the judgement was inequitable, ignoring that the equitability of that judgement was in fact an important goal for the conspirators, and despite that the nature of the scam provided no motive whatsoever to assign an inequitable judgement. This evidence is therefore exceedingly flimsy, and no other is provided. In the preceding paragraphs, the panel convincingly argues that equitability is to be determined by a reasonable disinterested observer, not by a party to the contract, but they provide no argument either that the prior judge held any unreasonable interest in the equitability of eir judgement, or that any other reasonable disinterested third party might actually consider the judgement inequitable. In fact, panelist Murphy even suggested a replacement judgement that would use the *exact same* clause to equitably resolve the state of affairs that led up to CFJ 1932 in the first place. In summary, the members of the panel in CFJ 1932a have assigned a judgement that requires there be serious doubt but have failed to establish that such exists; and moreover, they have done so not with the honest intention of establishing a more equitable resolution to CFJ 1932, but rather in the political hope of providing the judge of criminal case 1938 with the precedent e needs to get a conviction. This is a clear abuse of the panel's authority as an appeal judge, and this court should not stand for it. -root
Re: BUS: Intent on CFJ 1932a (fwd)
On 5/13/08, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [If a bug in the appeals allows the original judgement to stand as well as the remand, that's a different bug.] Nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propia. This Latin phrase, while perhaps a fair rebuttal of my argument regarding equity in a set of one, is not an Agoran rule. I initiate a criminal case against Goethe alleging that e violated Rule 217 by submitting a judgement (on behalf of an appeal panel) for the appeal case CFJ 1932a. Arguments: The best interests of the game DO NOT include exercising judicial authority to bust a possibly valid scam, ESPECIALLY when a judicial case (CFJ 1938) that would clearly determine the appropriateness of the appealed judgement is already in progress, will be judged soon, and is open to fair appeal. I called for an inquiry case on the matter, unaware of CFJ 1938, but the issue is the same: for the best interests of the game, the prior judgement MUST CLEARLY be determined to be inappropriate before the appeal case is reassigned or overruled, and it has NOT. Goethe did respond briefly to ONE of my concerns in the discussion forum, but e then proceeded to reassign CFJ 1932 despite CFJ 1938 not having yet been judged. This is an egregiously inappropriate-- if not in the Agoran sense of the word, in the common-- appeal judgement. Evidence: Rule 217/6 (Power=3) Interpreting the Rules When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules takes precedence. Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom, common sense, past judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the game. Note: In CFJ 1296, Peekee was tried for violating Rule 217; the case was dismissed only because a rule then existed that stated that inappropriate judgements must be dealt with by the appeals court. That rule no longer exists, and I do allege that the appeals court itself has acted inappropriately.
Re: BUS: Intent on CFJ 1932a (fwd)
I initiate a criminal case against comex, alleging that e violated Rule 101(vii) and Goethe's defined rights by initiating a criminal case against Goethe, when Goethe is already being punished for the same single action (by having to defend emself in a separate, previously-initiated criminal case). Arguments: The act of being brought to trial and having to defend oneself is a punishment. Having to do so a second time for the same action is sufficient punishment (regardless of case outcome) that it is a violation of R101(vii) to initiate a second criminal case. Preventing second trials (not just second sentences) is a standard of double-jeopardy accepted in free societies worldwide. Note that R101(vii) prevents double jeopardy per alleged action, not per rule violated, so even though root's and comex's allegations refer to different rules being breached, comex has vioated R101(vii) as it refers to the same action. The fact that comex phrases is as the action of delivering the judgement whereas root phrases it as an inaction of delivering the correct judgment is not a substantive difference, it does not remove the fact that it was the act of publishing the message with support that is under question in both cases. Evidence: root's first criminal case, extract from: http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2008-May/010549.html I initiate a criminal case against each of Goethe, Murphy, and Wooble. In each case, the rule breached was Rule 2157, and the action by which it was breached was failing to ensure that the panel met all of its obligations in appeal case 1932a. comex's second criminal case, extract from: http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2008-May/010552.html I initiate a criminal case against Goethe alleging that e violated Rule 217 by submitting a judgement (on behalf of an appeal panel) for the appeal case CFJ 1932a. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent on CFJ 1932a
On Mon, 12 May 2008, Iammars wrote: Will my judgment of 1938 do anything to get rid of the contract? I don't think so, but it might. Don't think so, think it's just a bug. Still, it's not tested-in-court bug, so who knows? -Goethe I call for judgement on the following statement. I bar root and ais523: If an appealed equity case judgement is REMANDED or REASSIGNED, the original (prior) judgement remains a binding agreement. Arguments: In Appeals Cases (R911), prior judgements aren't thrown out upon REMAND or REASSIGN, they're just considered inappropriate, and therefore subsequent judgements have precedence in Rule. For cases that guide precedence (inquiry cases) this is not a bug, but this may be for equity cases (does the prior judgement, which is a contract, remain in effect) or criminal sentencing (am I missing it in the Rules where the sentence actually ceases to have an effect upon appeal?) In either equity or criminal cases, R101(vii) *may* be strong enough to infer the nullification of the prior judgement, leading to a judgement of FALSE here...that's the only argument I can think of for FALSE, and may need to be decided case-by-case. -Goethe
Re: BUS: Intent to deactivate
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 12:12 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I intend to make Jeremy inactive without objection. There having been no objections, I hereby make Jeremy inactive. -root
Re: BUS: Intent to deregister hedgehogcull
I wrote: I intend, without objection, to deregister hedgehogcull for inactivity. Support: me (implicitly) Object: none I hereby deregister hedgehogcull.
Re: BUS: Intent to Deputise
Josiah Worcester wrote: I intend to deputise to publish the IADoP's report for last week. The time limit has already expired. It's now a low-priority office, and so only has a monthly report. -zefram
Re: BUS: Intent to ratify, take six
I wrote: I intend, without objection, to ratify the Assessor's Report with Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] No votes either way. APPROVED. I hereby do so.
Re: BUS: Intent to bestow contest status
On Dec 9, 2007 10:25 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wrote: I intend, without 3 objections, to make the Fantasy Rules Contest a contest. No support, no objections, APPROVED, I hereby do so. Anyone want to actually get the next round of the FRCommittee going? It's been sitting around quietly for upwards of two weeks. In case I haven't already, I join this contest. BobTHJ
Re: BUS: Intent to deactivate
On Nov 29, 2007 10:14 AM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I intend to make Peekee inactive, without objection. I resolve this decision. No votes were cast; the outcome selected by Agora is APPROVED. I thereby make Peekee inactive. -root
Re: BUS: Intent to ratify, take four (I think)
On Nov 30, 2007 8:49 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I intend, without objection, to ratify the Assessor's report just published. (It reached the list before the panel's decision on CFJ 1806a, by a margin of less than one minute.) Object. Still no mention of ultraviolet VCs in the report. -root
Re: BUS: Intent to deactivate
On Nov 29, 2007, at 12:14 PM, Ian Kelly wrote: I intend to make Peekee inactive, without objection. -root I intend to make hedgehogcull inactive, without objection. - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr
Re: BUS: Intent to ratify, take three
Ed Murphy wrote: The AFO intends, without objection, to ratify the Assessor's report that it published within the past hour. I object, due to Murphy having noticed an error regarding red marks. -zefram
Re: BUS: Intent to deputise
Josiah Worcester wrote: I intend to deputise for the CotC in the assignment of criminal case 1804. The time limit for assignment runs out in nearly 24 hours, so 48 hours after my declaration of intent, I will be allowed to deputise. At the time of your message, the pre-trial phase in this case had not yet terminated. Hence the case does not require a judge, so the obligation to assign one has not been activated. Unless you (as defendant) closed the pre-trial phase by announcement, it would expire at 26 Nov 2007 23:55:26. That is when the obligation to assign a judge commences. I expect to meet all obligations in all of my offices. -zefram
Re: BUS: Intent to ratify
Ed Murphy wrote: I intend, without objection, to ratify the Assessor's report with Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I vote OBJECT. I suspect that the report is not complete regarding violet VCs earned for patent title acquisitions. The herald has been remiss in eir duty to announce such events; someone needs to figure out which ones have occurred. -zefram
Re: BUS: Intent to ratify, take four
On Nov 27, 2007 7:16 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The AFO intends, without objection, to ratify Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I object. The report does not reflect that VVLOP may have been reset due to a win on Saturday; this is under CFJ. -root
Re: BUS: Intent to deputise
I wrote: I intend to deputise for the office of Scorekeepor for the purpose of publishing its report. I hereby do so, and claim my Cyan VC. Scorekeepor's Scoreboard Date of this report: Sat 17 Nov 07 Date of last report: Fri 7 Sep 07 (All times are UTC) RECENT EVENTS Wed 18 Jul 08:23:34 Office created by Proposal 5076 Tue 14 Aug 05:10:09 Chess Club dissolved Tue 14 Aug 05:10:09 The Variety Show created, contestmaster Murphy Tue 14 Aug 05:23:24 root joins The Variety Show Tue 14 Aug 05:32:31 Levi joins The Variety Show Tue 14 Aug 12:36:19 Zefram joins The Variety Show Tue 14 Aug 14:32:58 comex joins The Variety Show Tue 14 Aug 14:42:34 BobTHJ joins The Variety Show Sun 19 Aug 01:37:00 The Variety Show agreement amended Mon 20 Aug 13:04:59 Wooble joins The Variety Show Tue 21 Aug 06:27:25 Levi wins (possibly ineffective due to incorrectly announced score) Tue 21 Aug 06:34:19 Levi wins (if previous announcement was ineffective solely due to incorrectly announced score) Fri 24 Aug 17:45:24 The Variety Show agreement amended Fri 31 Aug 03:18:49 The Variety Show agreement amended - time of last report - Mon 24 Sep 04:00:48 Murphy deregisters, but remains contestmaster of The Variety Show Fri 28 Sep 03:38:07 The AFO joins The Variety Show Sun 30 Sep 23:14:30 Wooble deregisters Mon 1 Oct 15:22:50 BobTHJ deregisters Sun 28 Oct 17:40:55 Partnership 1's Contest created, contestmaster Partnership 1 (contesthood disputed, CFJ 1777; same argument applies to other contests created at this time) Sun 28 Oct 17:40:55 Partnership 2's Contest created Sun 28 Oct 17:40:55 Partnership 3's Contest created Sun 28 Oct 17:40:55 Partnership 4's Contest created Sun 28 Oct 17:40:55 Partnership 5's Contest created Sun 28 Oct 17:40:55 Partnership 6's Contest created Sun 28 Oct 17:40:55 Partnership 7's Contest created Sun 28 Oct 17:40:55 Partnership 8's Contest created Sun 28 Oct 17:40:55 Partnership 9's Contest created Sun 28 Oct 17:40:55 Partnership 10's Contest created Sun 28 Oct 17:41:02 The AFO joins Partnership 1's Contest Sun 28 Oct 17:40:55 Partnership 1's Contest dissolved Sun 28 Oct 17:41:02 The AFO joins Partnership 2's Contest Sun 28 Oct 17:40:55 Partnership 2's Contest dissolved Sun 28 Oct 17:41:02 The AFO joins Partnership 3's Contest Sun 28 Oct 17:40:55 Partnership 3's Contest dissolved Sun 28 Oct 17:41:02 The AFO joins Partnership 4's Contest Sun 28 Oct 17:40:55 Partnership 4's Contest dissolved Sun 28 Oct 17:41:02 The AFO joins Partnership 5's Contest Sun 28 Oct 17:40:55 Partnership 5's Contest dissolved Sun 28 Oct 17:41:02 The AFO joins Partnership 6's Contest Sun 28 Oct 17:40:55 Partnership 6's Contest dissolved Sun 28 Oct 17:41:02 The AFO joins Partnership 7's Contest Sun 28 Oct 17:40:55 Partnership 7's Contest dissolved Sun 28 Oct 17:41:02 The AFO joins Partnership 8's Contest Sun 28 Oct 17:40:55 Partnership 8's Contest dissolved Sun 28 Oct 17:41:02 The AFO joins Partnership 9's Contest Sun 28 Oct 17:40:55 Partnership 9's Contest dissolved Sun 28 Oct 17:41:02 The AFO joins Partnership 10's Contest Sun 28 Oct 17:40:55 Partnership 10's Contest dissolved Sun 28 Oct 17:52:12 The AFO wins (if Partnership 1's Contest etc. were valid contests, and if announcing this fact in Rule 2136 is satisfied by announcing a win without specifying the method) Fri 9 Nov 18:39:24 The Agoran Proposal Awards created, contestmaster BobTHJ Fri 9 Nov 18:47:48 root joins the Agoran Proposal Awards Fri 9 Nov 19:41:22 Murphy claims to join the Agoran Proposal Awards (AOL!, ineffective per precedent of CFJ 1536) Fri 9 Nov 19:46:18 Goethe joins the Agoran Proposal Awards Sat 10 Nov 00:02:03 Zefram joins the Agoran Proposal Awards Sat 10 Nov 07:00:22 Murphy joins the Agoran Proposal Awards Mon 12 Nov 03:33:24 comex joins The Variety Show Wed 14 Nov 03:40:00 The Variety Show dissolved Wed 14 Nov 03:56:30 Bake The Traitor created, contestmaster Murphy (contesthood disputed, treats comex differently from other potential contestants) Wed 14 Nov 11:29:49 Zefram joins Bake The Traitor Wed 14 Nov 11:29:50 Zefram removed from Bake The Traitor, which dissolves due to lack of parties SCORES If the AFO won on October 28, then all players have a score of 0. Otherwise, the following players have the following non-zero scores: Player Score comex6 Levi 3 root15 Zefram 12 CONTESTS Contest Contestmaster Contestants - The Agoran Proposal AwardsBobTHJ Goethe, Murphy,
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to deputise
On Wednesday 31 October 2007, Ed Murphy wrote: Yes, this set of deputisations definitely wouldn't work. Then, if Zefram wants to block the CFJs from being assigned, all he has to do is neglect to change sitting players to standing. The worst I can do is assign them all to different players. Or initiate a criminal case... I CFJ on the following: It is possible to deputise for the purpose of changing all sitting players to standing Arguments: While it seems that the CotC is indirectly required to perform that action (else he can't assign any judges, which he is required to do), and it could be argued that it is therefore possible to deputise for that indirect requirement (my attempted deputisation would still be illegal as I did not try to assign all judges first), proposals are another method for making players standing. Evidence: Rule 1871/20 (Power=1.5) The Standing Court The CotC CAN change all sitting players to standing by announcement. The CotC SHALL NOT do this unless there is a judicial case to which e is obliged to assign a judge, all entities qualified to be so assigned are poorly qualified, and e immediately afterwards (in the same announcement) assigns a judge to that case. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: BUS: Intent to close the ACU
I wrote: I intend, without member objection, to amend the Agoran Credit Union contract by replacing items 2 and 3 with this text: 2.5) A member CAN leave this contract by announcement. No other members, no objections. I amend the contract as noted. I leave the Agoran Credit Union, thus dissolving it.
Re: BUS: Intent to control Speaker HP2
I hereby cause Human Point Two, in its capacity as Speaker, to rubberstamp Proposals 5222 and 5223.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to publish IADoP's report
TTttPF: On 9/6/07, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9/6/07, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9/6/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: comex consented to become Herald, but no one has voted SUPPORT or OBJECT yet. I vote SUPPORT. --Wooble I vote SUPPORT as well BobTHJ
Re: BUS: Intent to Deactivate + CFJ
On 8/15/07, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I CFJ on this statement: On or around August 15, 2007, root initiated an Agoran decision to make bd_ inactive. Oh bugger, that wasn't the phrasing I wanted. I CFJ on this statement: On or around August 15, 2007, root initiated an Agoran decision to approve the action of making bd_ inactive. My arguments for this are the same as for the previous CFJ, and I humbly request a linked assignment of the two CFJs. -root
