DIS: Re: BUS: Act V
Sgeo wrote: I win by Junta. Iff this works, and comex has no Rests, and previous assumptions of wins are correct: I don't think it worked, but if it did, then comex's Rests were irrelevant (e amended R2238 to turn off all Losing Conditions).
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 6086-6108
comex wrote: 6099 D 1 2.0 Pavitra Clean up the deregistration mess AGAINT As usual, this is invalid due to ambiguity (CFJs 1260-61).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 6086-6108
On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: comex wrote: 6099 D 1 2.0 Pavitra Clean up the deregistration mess AGAINT As usual, this is invalid due to ambiguity (CFJs 1260-61). Really? I seem to remember you've usually treated it as AGAINST.
DIS: Re: agora-official digest, Vol 1 #2454 - 2 msgs
I cast the following votes as many times as I am allowed 6086 AGAINST 6087 AGAINST 6088 FOR 6089 FOR 6090 AGAINST 6091 FOR 6092 AGAINST 6093 AGAINST 6094 FOR 6095 AGAINST 6096 AGAINST 6097 AGAINST 6098 AGAINST 6099 AGAINST 6100 AGAINST 6101 AGAINST 6102 AGAINST 6103 FOR 6104 FOR 6105 AGAINST 6106 AGAINST 6107 AGAINST 6108 AGAINST cmealerjr cdm...@gmail.com
DIS: Re: agora-official digest, Vol 1 #2455 - 9 msgs
In the matter of CFJ 2378, I judge the question to be undetermined. According to cfj 1744: [CFJ 1744 (called 18 September 2007): It is not the job of the judge to hunt down or request the information that would be required to render a substantive judgement.] The callers arguments provided insufficient reference to an earlier CFJ which the caller believes to be relevant to the case. I also find it to be impossible to judge the qualities of a non-existent entity, specifically rule 2238, which does not appear in the FLR at the time of my research into the matter. And I saw no evidence it was in existence a the time this inquiry was called. Chester Mealer cdm...@gmail.com
DIS: RE: Re: agora-official digest, Vol 1 #2455 - 9 msgs
cdm014 wrote: In the matter of CFJ 2378, I judge the question to be undetermined. nttpf. (In other word, you sent to a-d not a-b by mistake, so your post has no effect.) Also, Rule 2238 did exist at the time of the CFJ, but has since been repealed (it was involved in a scam, which meant it moved a lot faster than other rules; in particular, it had a tendency to self-amend a lot.) I agree that the CotC, or someone, should have probably given more context; however, in this case, if you don't know the history it's probably best to recuse and let someone else sort it out (or it will probably go to appeal, because settling what happened is relatively important so we know the gamestate). -- ais523
DIS: RE: Re: agora-official digest, Vol 1 #2454 - 2 msgs
cdm014 wrote: I cast the following votes as many times as I am allowed Send them to agora-business, not agora-discussion, or they won't be counted. (It's easy to reply to the wrong list, everyone here's probably done it several times; the default's agora-discussion, so you have to change it by hand to send to agora-business.) -- ais523 winmail.dat
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements
ais523 wrote: Also, why should comex's scam legislation address the ramifications of its claim? That's for a judge to do, not for the scam rule itself. (If the scam rule did state a judgement to be used in any CFJs regarding it, I rather suspect that would either be considered judicial corruption, or ignored, rather than something that the rule is required to do!) If a rule says, or implies, that a proposal can be modified, it is not ineffective merely because it does not consider every possible resulting corner case. I did, and my arguments amounted to this is broken enough to justify ignoring it in favor of the long-standing custom tied to R106. (I'm tied up with something else this weekend and don't have time to offer more detailed commentary, sorry.) I also transfer a prop from Murphy (for not including my gratuitous arguments on CFJ 2376 in its permanent record, but including Goethe's, giving a rather biased view of the case) to Goethe (for taking the trouble to debate and come up with good arguments against, rather than just assuming that it didn't work for no apparent reason). Please point me to said arguments and I'll add them to the record.
Re: DIS: RE: Re: agora-official digest, Vol 1 #2455 - 9 msgs
ais523 wrote: Also, Rule 2238 did exist at the time of the CFJ, but has since been repealed (it was involved in a scam, which meant it moved a lot faster than other rules; in particular, it had a tendency to self-amend a lot.) I agree that the CotC, or someone, should have probably given more context; however, in this case, if you don't know the history it's probably best to recuse and let someone else sort it out (or it will probably go to appeal, because settling what happened is relatively important so we know the gamestate). Another valid approach is to ask the relevant persons to provide more information. I didn't give more context because I have myself lost track of the arguments in favor of a judgement of TRUE.
DIS: BUS: Proposal: Correction of Typos
Proposal: Correction of Typos (AI = 1, II = 1) Create a new rule entitle Correction of Proposal Response Typos with power = 1 and the text: If in response to a proposal distribution an eligible voter submits a non-legal response that clearly and obviously resembles an acceptable response (AGANST, FR, etc.), the Assessor SHALL count eir vote as that response for which it most clearly resembles. -Yally
Re: DIS: Re: agora-official digest, Vol 1 #2454 - 2 msgs
On Sat, 14 Feb 2009, Chester Mealer wrote: I cast the following votes as many times as I am allowed 1. Not to the public forum; 2. Arguably, you are allowed an infinite number of votes, they just aren't all counted. A safer phrase would be up to my voting limit on each. -Goethe
DIS: RE: BUS: Judgements
On Sat, 14 Feb 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote: This morning, I find myself more swayed by pro- than anti-. That changes each time I think about it. The only thing I'm *sure* of is that I think a judge needs to come right out and say they are weighing these closely-balanced sides on the interest of the game, and perhaps, as much as anything, commit emself to a subjective opinion rather than looking for a final piece of hard logic. I should also say that now that the dictatorship has ended one way or the other, and voting on proposals to fix the bugs are in progress, making a good of the game argument solely based on it's not for the good of the game for comex to have a power-3 dictatorship seems like Bad Form. -Goethe
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements
On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: This morning, I find myself more swayed by pro- than anti-. That changes each time I think about it. The only thing I'm *sure* of is that I think a judge needs to come right out and say they are weighing these closely-balanced sides on the interest of the game, and perhaps, as much as anything, commit emself to a subjective opinion rather than looking for a final piece of hard logic. It may be that we admit that this decision relies solely on the luck of assignment and mood of the judge. We'll also have to admit that in such a case, an Appeals Court that constantly REMANDS would only switch back and forth between subjective judgements; thus an AFFIRM at some point (perhaps not this one) would be necessary even if the appeals court doesn't wholly agree. For the record, I agree that this is necessarily subjective. As long as the final opinion on this case is well-thought-out, I don't intend to appeal it even if I disagree with its logic. Though, as Murphy as an AFO member and the Assessor has necessarily taken part in the process (albeit as the scam's enemy, I guess, considering the AFO's deregistration), I wouldn't mind a REASSIGN just for impartiality.
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Correction of Typos
On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 8:28 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote: Create a new rule entitle Correction of Proposal Response Typos with power = 1 and the text: If in response to a proposal distribution an eligible voter submits a non-legal response that clearly and obviously resembles an acceptable response (AGANST, FR, etc.), the Assessor SHALL count eir vote as that response for which it most clearly resembles. Ack... this creates an obligation on the Assessor to possibly incorrectly report votes (while not actually changing the validity of such votes, which is defined by Power=3 rules anyway). Have you read Rule 754?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Correction of Typos
On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 7:38 PM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 8:28 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote: Create a new rule entitle Correction of Proposal Response Typos with power = 1 and the text: If in response to a proposal distribution an eligible voter submits a non-legal response that clearly and obviously resembles an acceptable response (AGANST, FR, etc.), the Assessor SHALL count eir vote as that response for which it most clearly resembles. Ack... this creates an obligation on the Assessor to possibly incorrectly report votes (while not actually changing the validity of such votes, which is defined by Power=3 rules anyway). Have you read Rule 754? Except that rule 754 concerns terminology and grammar. I would consider those to refer to the selection and definition of words, not a typo.
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Correction of Typos
On 2009-02-15, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote: Proposal: Correction of Typos (AI = 1, II = 1) Create a new rule entitle Correction of Proposal Response Typos with power = 1 and the text: If in response to a proposal distribution an eligible voter submits a non-legal response that clearly and obviously resembles an acceptable response (AGANST, FR, etc.), the Assessor SHALL count eir vote as that response for which it most clearly resembles. -Yally Please disregard any other versions of this proposal. Not a sufficient formal retraction.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Correction of Typos
On Sat, 14 Feb 2009, Aaron Goldfein wrote: Except that rule 754 concerns terminology and grammar. I would consider those to refer to the selection and definition of words, not a typo. There are several precedents in the case log (forgive me for not looking them up right now) that say more or less if any reasonable person could be able to figure out what it means, and there isn't more than one reasonable interpretation, then it works. Not to say that this might not be made a little clearer in R754, but it probably belongs there instead of fixing typos for the assessor and noone else. -Goethe
