of the statement, and so would not believe it to be true, so they would
indeed by violating rule 2149 if they stated it.
-zefram
think the use of watcher
in the statement of the CFJ is not as well supported as root makes out.
-zefram
Ed Murphy wrote:
So two partnerships with the same basis can both be qualified?
Yes, but Rule 2144 still lets any player deregister one of them
with Agoran Consent.
R2144 only applies to partnerships with identical bases. I'm also
concerned about overlapping non-identical bases.
-zefram
be qualified?
-zefram
accepted
by the courts as authoritative, er, codification of the uncodified law.
-zefram
to distinguish between nomics and non-nomic
rule systems.
-zefram
. Or, for a slight finesse, the basis of
another otherwise-well-qualified player. The CotC has to track bases
and apply the knowledge case by case, but of course partnerships are
public now.
-zefram
with whether such redefinition is possible in Agora.
-zefram
digit rotation done alongside rot13. I'd say leaving
digits unchanged is canonical behaviour.
-zefram
to deregister. Please get on with it.
-zefram
-amended current
rule, and in fact the second-most-ameneded rule ever (after R1671, the
Frankenstein Rule). Now it's in danger of being repealed, due to the
unpopularity of ribbons, even though the concept that got it amended so
much is still going strong.
-zefram
Ian Kelly wrote:
Yes, but we still require explicit redefinition, don't we?
There's no rule saying so.
-zefram
that is is of course determined by the time-honoured custom of the
registrar listing watchers in eir report.
-zefram
Ed Murphy wrote:
CFJ 1659 found that even a contract can't override an explicit rule
definition, much less a long-standing but still unlegislated custom.
And as a result we amended the rule that led to that judgement.
Contextual modifications now can override rule definitions.
-zefram
Levi Stephen wrote:
I hereby install Murphy as Clerk of the Courts.
I've just posted an up-to-date judicial status report. I presume that
Murphy has up-to-date case files for the open cases, by virtue of eir
database.
-zefram
,
such as law enforcement and public roads.
Agora serves to better Agoran society by providing essential services,
such as rule enforcement and public recordkeeping.
-zefram
, for this as well as the
reasons you pointed out. If CFJ 1860 is not judged on time then I'll
reassign it to you.
-zefram
.
-zefram
might
go with one of the offices located in the geographically dominant nomic
in your region:
http://geo.international.gc.ca/can-am/main/offices/default-en.asp
-zefram
. For that matter, it's also a good idea to explicitly delimit
your proposal text to separate it from the surrounding message.
-zefram
in multiple parts, a better form is
Amend rule 649 by ... and by ... and by ... and by
-zefram
stays vacant,
but we'd still have deputisation available.
-zefram
to be the office of
assessor.) I don't see a need for deputisation for any other Agoran
Decisions.
-zefram
-person, the PT is recognising something that
was achieved by a person.
-zefram
.
-zefram
.
And I'd have to change the dates in the ruleset records, and add another
tranche of date correction records to my historical rule data aggregator.
-zefram
some nomic.
Since Steve Wallace is not a game, he cannot be a nomic either. Since he is
a nomic,
^ not
-zefram
this isn't a forum
... says Iammars in the discussion forum.
so I don't have
avatars to associate you with.
What, our writing styles and opinions aren't distinctive enough?
-zefram
up than a picture next to your
names.
Pictures. How quaint.
-zefram
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
A player CAN deregister by announcement. E CANNOT register
within thirty days after doing so.
BobTHJ was deregistered by writ, not by eir own announcement. There's no
auto-exile in this case.
-zefram
of deregistration. I suggest that it should
be fixed by adding an auto-exile clause to the Cantus Cygneus rule.
-zefram
Ian Kelly wrote:
Good point. I suggest that this illustrates a flaw in our definition
of person.
I think it's a good reason why obligations ought to survive an
interruption of personhood.
-zefram
comex wrote:
-- From CFJ 1750 to 1800, the average time from being called to
assignment was about 13 hours. Daunting,
As e's doing such a good job of advertising my achievements, I hereby
assign comex as my re-election campaign manager.
-zefram
Ed Murphy wrote:
1831 was omitted here (but included under appeals), as was 1864.
Eh? 1831 was present in the message you're responding to. 1864 was
missing because I hadn't recorded it yet; fixed in my current document.
-zefram
Ian Kelly wrote:
These don't match.
Fixed in my copy.
-zefram
resolution to
this problem is that a URI on its own is uninterpretable.
-zefram
completes its HTTP response, although this means that a separate
message is sent to each viewer. Of course, HTTP dialogue is not a public
forum, so analysing it this way it's clearly not a public message anyway.
-zefram
business flowing as I have done so far.
-zefram
viewpoint. See CFJ 1687 for a similar application of
this principle.
-zefram
, and presence of doubt results in a SLIPPERY
judgement. Your judgement of EXCUSED cannot be supported by such doubt.
-zefram
in a message that
has other concerns.
-zefram
.
-zefram
be
to ignore the lessons of history.
-zefram
Ed Murphy wrote:
I lost one for 1840 being reassigned.
Oh yes, I missed that.
OscarMeyr gained one for judging 1851;
No e didn't; e was late.
-zefram
Ed Murphy wrote:
Zefram wrote:
(Disclaimer: I'm not convinced about the accuracy of the most recently
reported voting limits, so some of the following votes may well be
invalid due to VLOP.)
Explain please?
The report shows a reset of VVLOP due to an award of Champion, but that
award came from
Ian Kelly wrote:
I think this has already self-ratified.
Eir possession of those VCs may have self-ratified, but in that case e
still didn't gain the VCs at the time or in the manner indicated.
-zefram
Iammars wrote:
We're aloud to post judgements now?
Yes. The holiday ended almost 18 hours ago. You have 54 hours left to
post judgements whose due date was affected by the holiday.
-zefram
Ian Kelly wrote:
I intend, with the agreement of my fellow panelists, to cause the
panel to judge AFFIRM in this case with the following concurring
opinion, revised from the prior judge's arguments:
I consent.
-zefram
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
s/degregistered/deregistered/
No, the rule text actually says degregistered.
-zefram
within the holiday, the assessor is not
obliged to publish the results until a week after the holiday ends.
-zefram
of the
voting period did not occur during a holiday.
-zefram
.
-zefram
the contract text nor any of the three options for the notice
of intent. I think it is therefore not effective in making the AFO a
public contract.
-zefram
Ian Kelly wrote:
(Some or all of these votes may be too late to be valid.)
Holidays don't extend voting periods. A quorum problem would, however.
-zefram
be adjudicated within
Agora. Your statements therefore seem to be contradictory.
-zefram
with the defendant and action.
-zefram
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
Given that comex did not meet the requirement (b) for submitting a
criminal CFJ, I rule FALSE.
That matches my logic. You could perhaps do with expanding your
discussion of what constitutes clarity.
-zefram
rules. What's possible under the current version
remains undetermined. The precedents of CFJ 1711 and CFJ 1810 point in
opposite directions.
-zefram
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
This CFJ may hinge on an adequate
specification of clearly specify.
Yes. I think clearly specify is a stronger requirement than specify.
-zefram
, but we are on holiday. . .
You're entitled to call a CFJ. I'm just not allowed to assign a judge
for the next two weeks.
-zefram
Nick Vanderweit wrote:
I CFJ on this.
To CFJ (of the inquiry variety) you need to provide a distinct statement
whose truth is to be determined. You also need to do it in the public
forum. I suggest CFJing on a statement such as it is possible to spend
a VC that one does not possess.
-zefram
.
-zefram
Nick Vanderweit wrote:
What do you mean?
How does anyone come to possess a peso? You didn't define any way for
pesos to be gained by persons or to be transferred from the Treasury
to persons.
Btw, it seems strange to call it real currency when it can't be
transferred freely.
-zefram
Ed Murphy wrote:
[Rather than limit the minting of currency, simply devalue it. This
is both simpler and more realistic.]
Been done before, and it was horrendous. Making currency units decay
(as we now have them do) involves a lot less paperwork.
-zefram
.
-zefram
of the experience is relevant.
Alternatively, the decay rate could be changed from 1-of-every-5
to (AU formula, max 4)-of-every-5.
No need to change it, I think. The money supply just hasn't reached
its stable level yet; give it time.
-zefram
Josiah Worcester wrote:
As Scorekeepor, I request to know why nobody wants me as Scorekeepor anymore.
Because you abused the position some 55 minutes ago by creating an
unearned point.
-zefram
Ed Murphy wrote:
Then again, e previously used the same scam writ large to effectively
gain 3 VCs and wipe out all other points, and no one attempted to sack
em in response to that.
That was a legitimate scam. Now that e's got eir win, further use of
the same loophole is Not Fun.
-zefram
as making
that definitively valid, but it's a distinct possibility.) In any case,
redefining words until an action becomes valid seems a dangerous approach
to interpreting public messages.
-zefram
Statement: submitting a protective decree to Steve Wallace is a violation
of rule 2159
I note that this is asking about submitting a *real* protective decree,
not (as the prior discussion) about falsely claiming something to be a
protective decree.
-zefram
at all. I agree with the judgement of
FALSE, however, so appeal is not appropriate. New CFJ, anyone?
-zefram
Ed Murphy wrote:
I interpret (+b)'s except as noted below as except when a person
calls for judgement within the narrower circumstances noted below.
No doubt that's what was intended, but it's not what it says.
-zefram
. Now the partnership would need votes from three
first-class players, the same number that were always required for a
with 2 support when the vote collector is first-class.
-zefram
.
-zefram
on
the balance of probabilities. Retroactivity doesn't seem at all like
the sort of thing that Agorans would be likely to allow, and I'm sure
a reasonable player would judge that the same way. But BobTHJ is the
epitome of unreasonableness.
-zefram
wasn't identified
at all.
-zefram
. 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.
-zefram
as causing
mark awards or penalties. There are further situations that are not so
grammatically distinct.
-zefram
Zefram wrote:
I hereby assign the judicial panel of Murphy, pikhq, and Zefram as judge
of CFJ 1837a and CFJ 1838a.
I intend, with support of the other panel members, to have the panel
judge REMAND in both of these CFJs.
-zefram
publicly claimed that Fookiemyartug
was a person. There's another false statement. CFJ 1779 was judged
TRUE directly on the basis of your false statement.
-zefram
Josiah Worcester wrote:
I cannot judge this, since the H. CotC Zefram seems to think a different case,
which WALRUS initiated, is not a case.
I don't see the link between these cases. There is no doubt regarding the
identity of the initiator of CFJ 1836, and Fookiemyartug has a clear
referent
comex wrote:
I judge CFJ 1811 (late) in this manner:
Your judgement was not late. You still had two days left.
-zefram
comex wrote:
It purports to limit the R101 right of persons to initiate CFJs.
A partnership can still effectively initiate CFJs via its first-class
person members. I believe this satisfies the R101 right.
-zefram
Ian Kelly wrote:
The task doesn't disallow it. If it's somehow helpful to do that, go for it.
The task specification doesn't explicitly disallow printing out non-primes
either. Would a program that prints all integers from 0 to 255 qualify?
-zefram
Iammars wrote:
I join the above contest.
There is no contest above. There was a contest *below* that sentence.
A: Yes.
Q: Are you sure?
A: Because it destroys the flow of conversation.
Q: Why is top-posting bad?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in email?
-zefram
-zefram
film showed scenes in rev... no wait, they did that one.
Imagine if a novel had the chapters printed in reverse order. Or if a
with having to repeatedly jump backwards.
really need to be read in chronological order. The same issue arises
the newest post first, but as themes
, in general.
-zefram
compression is actually the arithmetical generation program.
-zefram
earlier in the same week.
This is unrelated to the rest of the proposal and should be proposed
separately.
-zefram
between the proposal and the win condition.
* Trigger: Awarding a win to one or more persons on behalf of
Agora.
I'm opposed to allowing this. Leave winning as an internal matter only.
-zefram
is incompletely specified. I suggest instead:
... the expression is evaluated. If the result is a well-defined
real number, e gains one crop corresponding to the units digit of
the number's decimal representation.
-zefram
lists. None of the others have any mail for the period you're
interested in.
Maud has an archive from Kelly covering the entire period, but hasn't
put it online yet.
-zefram
, either as an explicit abstention or due to one of the lobbies
having been entered in error or under duress. (Carrying an unconscious
legislator through a lobby is a normal part of parliamentary procedure,
especially after dinner.)
-zefram
the CFJ.
-zefram
messages, manually using commands such as:
$ mutt -s'CFJ 1803: result FALSE' [EMAIL PROTECTED] cfj1803
$ { echo 'I hereby assign OscarMeyr as judge of CFJ 1818.'; echo; cat cfj1818;
} | mutt -s'CFJ 1818: assign OscarMeyr' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's pretty low-tech.
It seems that Zefram, like me, has
Ed Murphy wrote:
What about the case where a judge whose verdict of GUILTY is
overturned after e delivers sentence?
Interesting one. Perhaps e should ultimately lose a VC for the sentence
having become inapplicable, but still I think a blue one.
-zefram
;
$_ = $nextline;
redo;
}
exit 0;
-zefram
.
This is the most important bit under equity.
Some reading for comex:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_%28law%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxims_of_equity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equitable_remedy
-zefram
the
parts regarding external actions.
-zefram
definitely been given).
You don't need any support to do so.
-zefram
201 - 300 of 937 matches
Mail list logo
