Gratuitous counterarguments:
ProofTechnique, I tend to disagree, although I see where you're coming
from. The problem I have is with the way you construe the sentence "a
pledge may be considered broken if the pledger does not complete it in
a timely manner after it becomes possible to do so." I se
> On Sep 23, 2017, at 5:56 PM, Jack Henahan wrote:
>
>
> My reading of the rules also suggests that a pledge without a defined
> completion state may be considered broken by design, and therefore could
> be argued to be invalid.
>
> To use the example which I presume prompted this CFJ, nichdel
Please hang on everyone. I have some brief arguments, which I'll try to
post later today.
-Aris
On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 3:36 PM Jack Henahan wrote:
>
> Certainly. I'm admittedly a bit new to judging, but I'll read some older
> CFJs to get a feel for it.
>
> After considering a bit further, I wo
Certainly. I'm admittedly a bit new to judging, but I'll read some older
CFJs to get a feel for it.
After considering a bit further, I would amend
> precisely because it is impossible to reach a condition under which it
> might be considered complete.
to state instead
> precisely because it is
If you're interested in judging, I'm happy to assign this to you!
While your conclusion is still speculative your reasoning so far is
solid.
On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Jack Henahan wrote:
> My reading of the rules also suggests that a pledge without a defined
> completion state may be considered brok
My reading of the rules also suggests that a pledge without a defined
completion state may be considered broken by design, and therefore could
be argued to be invalid.
To use the example which I presume prompted this CFJ, nichdel's pledge
> I pledge not to acknowledge any messages Cuddle Beam se
And I got the numbers wrong yet again. Oh well.
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 5:24 PM, omd wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Flameshadowxeroshin
> wrote:
>> CFJ: Only sentient artificial intelligence systems are second-class persons.
>
> Note that "person" is currently explicitly defined by th
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Flameshadowxeroshin
wrote:
> CFJ: Only sentient artificial intelligence systems are second-class persons.
Note that "person" is currently explicitly defined by the Power-3 Rule
2150. CFJ 1700 does not mention root's keyboard; CFJ 1685, which
does, was called shor
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 3:15 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 4:55 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> UNDETERMINED. Who is to say that this anonymous poster is the same as
>> the previous one?
>
> Presumably only one person owns "[EMAIL PROTECTED]".
E could
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 2:16 PM, invalid invalid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I call for judgement on the following issue:
> {
> I submitted a proposal in my recent post
> }
>
> -- Anonymous
UNDETERMINED. Who is to say that this anonymous poster is the same as
the previous one?
-root
On Tuesday 16 September 2008 03:55:31 pm Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 2:16 PM, invalid invalid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > I call for judgement on the following issue:
> > {
> > I submitted a proposal in my recent post
> > }
> >
> > -- Anonymous
>
> UNDETERMINED. Who is to say th
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 4:55 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> UNDETERMINED. Who is to say that this anonymous poster is the same as
> the previous one?
Presumably only one person owns "[EMAIL PROTECTED]".
pikhq wrote:
I Call for Judgement on the following: Dependent actions with fewer than
Quorum voters have not been made since clause (a) of rule 955 was made to
have its current text, except for the self-ratification of the voting
results.
Evidence:
(a) If there is more than one availabl
On Jan 2, 2008 11:13 AM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I Call for Judgement on the following: Dependent actions with fewer than
> Quorum voters have not been made since clause (a) of rule 955 was made to
> have its current text, except for the self-ratification of the voting
> resul
On Wednesday 02 January 2008 11:13:05 Josiah Worcester wrote:
> I Call for Judgement on the following: Dependent actions with fewer than
> Quorum voters have not been made since clause (a) of rule 955 was made to
> have its current text, except for the self-ratification of the voting
> results.
On Saturday 29 December 2007 14:36:45 Zefram wrote:
> Josiah Worcester wrote:
> >The AFO is not part of the basis of Agora's Child, but is a partner of
Agora's
> >Child.
>
> The AFO is trivially not part of the basis of any person, because by
> definition the basis contains only first-class pers
Josiah Worcester wrote:
>The AFO is not part of the basis of Agora's Child, but is a partner of Agora's
>Child.
The AFO is trivially not part of the basis of any person, because by
definition the basis contains only first-class persons. Did you intend
some other term?
>The AFO ceased to be a me
On Dec 19, 2007 5:24 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Your beliefs on WALRUS are irrelevant. It is a non-first-class player, and
> WALRUS is its name.
Eir beliefs are not relevant, but eir context is. If you don't define
WALRUS, how are we to know whether you're referring to a pr
On Wednesday 19 December 2007 16:02:43 Zefram wrote:
> Josiah Worcester wrote:
> >WALRUS registers.
>
> "WALRUS" does not adequately identify any particular entity, so I believe
> that this attempted registration is ineffective.
>
> >WALRUS calls for judgement on the following (and ask for linked
On 12/18/07, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You'll be giggling more if you know why I founded WALRUS. ;)
I suggest you look more closely at the current Registrar's report.
--
Eris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknow
On Tuesday 18 December 2007 22:26:58 Ed Murphy wrote:
> pikhq wrote:
>
> > WALRUS registers.
>
> Is this anything to do with
> http://www.nomic.net/~nomicwiki/index.php/WalrusScam
> ?
>
The name is an intentional reference to that scam, yes. Different usage,
though.
pikhq wrote:
WALRUS registers.
Is this anything to do with
http://www.nomic.net/~nomicwiki/index.php/WalrusScam
?
On Tuesday 18 December 2007 22:14:50 Taral wrote:
> *giggle*
>
> On 12/18/07, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > WALRUS registers.
> > WALRUS calls for judgement on the following (and ask for linked
assignment):
> > It is possible for a game action to take effect retroactively.
> > I
*giggle*
On 12/18/07, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> WALRUS registers.
> WALRUS calls for judgement on the following (and ask for linked assignment):
> It is possible for a game action to take effect retroactively.
> It is possible for a contract change to take effect retroactively.
On Saturday 08 December 2007 10:34:56 Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Dec 8, 2007 9:23 AM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The AFO causes Agora's Child to submit a criminal CFJ on the following:
> > pikhq, as Ambassador, is in violation of rule 2159 by claiming the
following
> > to be a prot
On Dec 8, 2007 9:23 AM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The AFO causes Agora's Child to submit a criminal CFJ on the following:
> pikhq, as Ambassador, is in violation of rule 2159 by claiming the following
> to be a protective decree to Steve "cheesworshiper" Wallace: "There is now
>
26 matches
Mail list logo
