On Wed, 2009-05-20 at 18:53 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote:
2009/5/20 Quazie quazieno...@gmail.com:
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2494
I judge TRUE by my own arguments.
I intend, with two
On Wed, 20 May 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
On Wed, 2009-05-20 at 18:53 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote:
2009/5/20 Quazie quazieno...@gmail.com:
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2494
I judge TRUE by my
On Wed, 2009-05-20 at 11:37 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Wed, 20 May 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
On Wed, 2009-05-20 at 18:53 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote:
2009/5/20 Quazie quazieno...@gmail.com:
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Detail:
On Wed, 2009-05-20 at 11:52 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Wed, 20 May 2009, Elliott Hird wrote:
I intend, with two support, to appeal this judgment because remanding
here was an awful tiebreakre.
I submit the following proposal, Two tiered tiebreaker, AI 2.0:
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 12:52, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Amend Rule 911 (Appeal Cases) by inserting the following new
paragraph immediately after the paragraph in which the above
deletion occurred:
If the time period ends with no majority judgement, then:
- if the
On Wed, 20 May 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
On Wed, 2009-05-20 at 11:52 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
[The Justiciar can just submit an opinion when e feels like it,
and it's used as the tiebreaker when needed].
Can you remove the hot-or-cold thing at the same time? This serves a
similar purpose,
On Wed, 2009-05-20 at 14:19 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Wed, 20 May 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
On Wed, 2009-05-20 at 11:52 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
[The Justiciar can just submit an opinion when e feels like it,
and it's used as the tiebreaker when needed].
Can you remove the hot-or-cold
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
I withdraw my previous proposal, Two tiered tiebreaker.
I submit the following proposal, Two tiered tiebreaker, AI 2.0,
ais523 coauthor:
-
Amend Rule
On Wed, 20 May 2009, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
- otherwise, the case enters an overtime period, which
lasts for four days. The CotC SHOULD publicly remind the
Justiciar when an overtime period begins. During
this period, if the Justiciar publishes a Justiciar's
Kerim Aydin wrote:
If the time period ends with no majority judgement, then:
- if the Justiciar has published an opinion on the case
clearly marked as the Justiciar's Opinion and indicating
a valid judgement, and that judgement is the same as
one given by
On Wed, 20 May 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
7-man panel:
REMAND
REMAND
REMAND
REASSIGN
REASSIGN
OVERRULE
-no judgment-
the Justiciar picks OVERRULE, and that's the judgment.
*shrug* I thought about making the Justiciar pick only from among the
ones with most votes, but frankly, panels
coppro wrote:
- Otherwise, the Justiciar (or, failing that, the CotC) shall choose a
judgment such that if every undecided panelist chose that judgment, no
other judgment would have been chosen more often (so in the above
instance, e could pick REMAND or REASSIGN)
Consider the actual recent
Kerim Aydin wrote:
You mean affirm based on the arguments of Murphy and Goethe where
both appellants argued for a non-affirm? Did that mean that Pavitra
wasn't paying attention, or that e accepted the arguments of Murphy
(that the judgement was wrong) but realized from the arguments of
13 matches
Mail list logo
