Ed Murphy wrote:
A judgeship is such a position.
Mm, applying deputisation to judges. That's ringing alarm bells.
-zefram
Ben Caplan wrote:
Since we are assuming I was already under 50 VP when this was first proposed,
I would have no way of avoiding being bound by these new terms.
You could simply have not agreed to the contract that allowed itself to
be amended in this way. Once you have agreed, yes, you're tied
On Feb 4, 2008 1:06 AM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 3, 2008 11:46 AM, Iammars [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wed 16 Jan 23:38:37 BobTHJ deregisters in a Writ of FAGE. (loses all
ribbons)
CoE: You've got my deregistration, but not my subsequent registration.
BobTHJ
How is this
On 2/4/08, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1881 pikhq comex*Fri 1 Feb 02:57:42
1890-91 Goethe comex Sat 9 Feb 04:46:32
will get on these today.
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Zefram wrote:
We have a couple of interesting questions to resolve about contracts,
in the light of CFJ 1892. Principally, if an agreement is intended to
be a binding contract, but does not in fact impose any obligations of
any kind (including indirect obligations or
Wooble wrote:
I submit the following Proposal, with AI = 2, entitled Judicial Immunity:
In Rule 2158, replace SHALL with SHOULD.
This rule contains SHALL twice: for assigning an appropriate
judgement, and for the CotC recusing judges more than a week late.
Regarding the first instance: A
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
Regarding the first instance: A judge who intentionally assigns
an inappropriate judgement should be subject to prosecution.
I also disagree with this sentiment. Sounds like good grounds for a
vote. -Goethe
On Feb 4, 2008 6:31 AM, Iammars [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 4, 2008 1:06 AM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 3, 2008 11:46 AM, Iammars [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wed 16 Jan 23:38:37 BobTHJ deregisters in a Writ of FAGE. (loses all
ribbons)
CoE: You've got my
On Feb 4, 2008 2:43 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 4, 2008 12:25 PM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I disagree that making inappropriate judgments should be a criminal
offense. I'd support having an appeal of a Judge's decision resulting
in a judgment of OVERRULE
On Feb 4, 2008 1:49 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Regarding the first instance: A judge who intentionally assigns
an inappropriate judgement should be subject to prosecution. A
judge who assigns a judgement that e believes in good faith is
appropriate, but later turns out to be
Proto-Proposal: Intelligent Dependent Action reporting, AI-2.
[I don't think this clashes with Proposal 5418 changes, I could be wrong]
-
[To resolve a dependent action, you just have to report the voters
casting the appropriate
Ed Murphy wrote:
Why so? Surely a bad judgement could still be appealed as normal.
That's still a lot of extra bother. But the really dangerous bit is
deputisation on an appeal case. Judicial panels are relatively often
late, and I think it's now possible to deputise as judge of an appeal
case
On Feb 4, 2008 3:24 AM, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ian Kelly wrote:
25 Jan 2008 03:47:47 Pavitra registers as a watcher, pending CFJ
1882. Welcome back!
28 Jan 2008 02:29:51 Jeremy registers. Welcome to Agora!
- time of last report -
30 Jan 2008
Ed Murphy wrote:
= Criminal Case 1889 =
History:
Called by Wooble: 01 Feb 2008 14:14:33 GMT
Assigned to woggle: 04 Feb 2008 11:49:45 GMT
This history really ought to include the notification of the
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
What if the judgement in question is unappealable, such as the
judgement of an appeal panel itself?
You know, if there's a conspiracy of the CotC and a majority of an
appeals court, we're in trouble anyway even if make abuse a criminal
offense. Best
On Feb 4, 2008 12:25 PM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I disagree that making inappropriate judgments should be a criminal
offense. I'd support having an appeal of a Judge's decision resulting
in a judgment of OVERRULE either automatically or perhaps at the
option of the Panel
On 2/3/08, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A second point made by comex is that plenty of contracts have been
created that do not impose obligations. However, this is the first
time any of those have been tested in Agoran Courts (and in fact, if a
contract claimed to not impose
comex wrote:
2. The AFO can by announcement dissolve or amend the contract.
This means that the AFO can bind comex to arbitrary terms, including
ones that directly impose obligations. There is therefore an indirect
obligation here.
3. By joining this contract, comex authorizes the AFO to submit
On Feb 4, 2008 11:32 AM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I submit the following Proposal, with AI = 2, entitled Judicial Immunity:
In Rule 2158, replace SHALL with SHOULD.
Which instance(s)?
-root
On Feb 4, 2008 1:39 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Zefram wrote:
You brought back the bug where the initiator is otherwise disqualified
from voting.
That wasn't a bug, it was a feature. I never understood the purpose of
getting
rid of it. -Goethe
It was to
On Feb 4, 2008 1:23 PM, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kerim Aydin wrote:
You no longer count
yourself in support.
You brought back the bug where the initiator is otherwise disqualified
from voting.
You know, I'm no longer convinced that
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Zefram wrote:
You brought back the bug where the initiator is otherwise disqualified
from voting.
That wasn't a bug, it was a feature. I never understood the purpose of getting
rid of it. -Goethe
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
If the CotC can be corrupt, then why can't the Justiciar? This made
me realize something else, though; proposal coming up.
The point is that you have an alternate path if you know one is corrupt.
If both are corrupt, along with the judicial panel...well,
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
And yet they seem more palatable to me than letting a corrupt judicial
system punish corrupt judges.
Er, we don't have a corrupt judicial system. We have individual corrupt
judges. If we had a completely corrupt judicial system, wouldn't you
want to abolish criminal cases
On Feb 4, 2008 3:12 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You could simplify this sort of thing by amending the Vote Market
agreement to allow the poster of a ticket to explicitly limit who
can fill it.
Is specifying multiple costs even legal?
On Feb 4, 2008 3:21 PM, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
Right now such a judgment would need to be overturned by a Proposal
anyway, if I'm not mistaken. If the inappropriateness is egregious
enough, the members of the panel could always be horribly punished in
the same
Draft II: Intelligent Dependent Action reporting, AI-2.
-
[Draft II changes:
- No double-votes if you support your second-class person's actions
(amendment to (d))
- cleaned up reporting requirements (simplified them by
Kerim Aydin wrote:
No, I changed N+1 to N and then disqualified the initiator from being
a voter. Net effect: Still takes two first-class people to do it, same
as before.
No, because you allow a non-first-class player to initiate it. That
allows a non-first-class player plus *one* first-class
Ian Kelly wrote:
You know, I'm no longer convinced that that bug really needs a
solution. Dependent actions are meant to be quick and simple, not
precise, and a change that makes them simpler is a good thing.
For a with support (with 1 support), it makes the difference between
requiring two
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Zefram wrote:
Ian Kelly wrote:
You know, I'm no longer convinced that that bug really needs a
solution. Dependent actions are meant to be quick and simple, not
precise, and a change that makes them simpler is a good thing.
For a with support (with 1 support), it makes
On Feb 4, 2008 1:48 PM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In any case, I'm not sure objections to a majority of a comparatively
tiny legislative body being able to hand out punishments really apply
in a direct democracy. Is the whim of a majority of all Players
really worse than the
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
Right now such a judgment would need to be overturned by a Proposal
anyway, if I'm not mistaken. If the inappropriateness is egregious
enough, the members of the panel could always be horribly punished in
the same proposal.
Bill of attainder, eh. Opposition to those
BobTHJ wrote:
With the majority consent of the Farmers, I intend to make the
following changes to the AAA agreement:
I consent to these changes.
On 15:47 Sun 03 Feb , Ed Murphy wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1896a
Appeal 1896a
Justice:root
Decision:
Justice:Wooble
On 16:18 Mon 04 Feb , Ian Kelly wrote:
On Feb 4, 2008 3:09 PM, Josiah Worcester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
By rule 754, a difference in spelling, grammar, or dialect is
inconsequential, so long as the difference is nonambiguous. A question
in the role of a statement to be inquired into
On Feb 4, 2008 6:02 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The former doesn't really bother me too much.
Blue VCs anyone?
(Well, if it had worked.)
On Feb 4, 2008 4:15 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, I'm of two minds here. If a person want eir partnership to do
something, e is hindered in supporting actions as partners can't support,
but helped in objecting actions as partners can't object. I'm torn on
whether this is
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Zefram wrote:
No, because you allow a non-first-class player to initiate it. That
allows a non-first-class player plus *one* first-class player to do it.
Fixed. -G.
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Feb 4, 2008 2:58 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(d) The eligible voters are those entities that were active
first-class players at the start of the voting period,
except for: (a) members of the basis of the initiator
Kerim Aydin wrote:
(d) The eligible voters are those entities that were active
first-class players at the start of the voting period,
except for: (a) members of the basis of the initiator of
the decision; and (b) any entities disqualified by the rule
root wrote:
Amend Rule 101 by appending after paragraph viii. the text:
ix. Every person has the right to not be penalized by bill of
attainder or by any rule or proposal that operates in an
ex post facto or retroactive manner.
This would arguably break any
On Feb 4, 2008 3:30 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 4, 2008 3:12 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You could simplify this sort of thing by amending the Vote Market
agreement to allow the poster of a ticket to explicitly limit who
can fill it.
Is specifying multiple costs
Goethe wrote:
You know, if there's a conspiracy of the CotC and a majority of an
appeals court, we're in trouble anyway even if make abuse a criminal
offense. Best defense against that sort of thing is a Justiciar,
but that was voted down.
If the CotC can be corrupt, then why can't the
Kerim Aydin wrote:
You no longer count
yourself in support.
You brought back the bug where the initiator is otherwise disqualified
from voting.
-zefram
On Feb 4, 2008 3:35 PM, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
And yet they seem more palatable to me than letting a corrupt judicial
system punish corrupt judges.
Er, we don't have a corrupt judicial system. We have individual corrupt
judges. If we had a completely corrupt
Draft III: Intelligent Dependent Action reporting, AI-2.
[Since the fix is about reporting, not the count, keeps the current method
of first/second class vote counting and eligibility, just changes the tally
report requirements for SUPPORT. Slightly ugly in the Rule, but prettier
in the
On Feb 4, 2008 4:27 PM, Josiah Worcester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the context of a CFJ, it *is* trivially equvilent. With a CFJ on
The name of the game is Agora, we are, in essence, asking: Is 'The
name of the game is Agora' true? Compare with Is 'Is the name of the
game Agora?' true?.
Is
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, comex wrote:
Just little annoyances, but they seem unnecessary. I'll vote for
anything that makes an incorrect tally a SHALL NOT rather than a
CANNOT.
Actually, for with Support and Object, you should only be required
to report N people who supported it, or note N people
On Feb 4, 2008 2:58 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(d) The eligible voters are those entities that were active
first-class players at the start of the voting period,
except for: (a) members of the basis of the initiator of
the decision; and (b) any
On Feb 4, 2008 2:59 PM, Iammars [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
B2. The webpage is not authored by comex.
I'm under the impression that the phrase I SUPPORT this appearing in
the flash animation was authored by comex, but that the rest was
authored by a third party.
B5 wouldn't be considered a vote
This is a proto judgment for CFJ 1831. This was a hard one to decide, but
this is what I came up with.
{
There are five possibilites that this attempt at a vote could be. They are:
A1. No Vote
A2. A Vote of SUPPORT.
A3. A Vote of OBJECT.
A4. A Vote of both SUPPORT and OBJECT, with SUPPORT
On Feb 4, 2008 11:16 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
History:
Called by pikhq:10 Dec 2007 01:25:39 GMT
Assigned to Goethe: 10 Dec 2007 10:24:26 GMT
Judged TRUE by Goethe: 10 Dec 2007 18:22:07 GMT
Appealed by Goethe:
So, I finally got around to fixing this up. Here's the new version. Feel
free to poke holes in it. The only other thing I might add is to allow the
contestmaster to adjust powers before bidding without some number of
objections.
1. Phase is an attribute of the Rumble Contest that behaves as if
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
Results of Brainfuck Golf Hole #4: There was only one entry. I hereby
award 35 points to Goethe.
Are any folks still trying, or is it pretty much game over here? -Goethe
54 matches
Mail list logo
