Re: DIS: Proto-CFJ: Agora is a Person

(You could take that the place where the thought blooms itself is where it "originates". Or the origin of the heat itself. If we assume that a start of the universe was the originator of everything, and we assume that nothing can have more than one originator, then nothing is an originator. Or

Re: DIS: Proto-CFJ: Agora is a Person

Yes, more or less the argument I'm supporting. That Agora originates (gives rise to) in OTHERS, thoughts. Note the ones I bring up about Agora to defend the case aren't of the creative kind, they're of the "yeah it exists and its there" kind - passive. Imagine, really hot stew. You could

Re: DIS: Proto-CFJ: Agora is a Person

CFJ 1895 may be useful, although it was written when 'person' was defined in other ways. The key quote: It is a longstanding principle of Agora that fundamental telos, the Intention, is non-assumable, irreducible, and non-transferable. Every assumed act of free will can be traced

Re: DIS: Proto-CFJ: Agora is a Person

- It depends on what thought you're referring to, because thoughts are personal experiences. The original idea of Agora was originated by M. Norrish via their own creativity but the non-creative activity of perceiving Agora itself gives rise to other ideas (therefore "originating" them as per the

Re: DIS: Proto-CFJ: Agora is a Person

Proto-gratuitous arguments: There are several issues with this argument. (s/thought/(thought or idea) throughout) Agora did not originate the thought of Agora. While Agora may embody that thought, the thought was originated by Michael Norrish. Freely originating thoughts means originating

DIS: Proto-CFJ: Agora is a Person

I Free-CFJ the following: "Agora is a Person" Grat. Arguments: R869 says "Any organism that is generally capable of freely originating and communicating independent thoughts and ideas is a person." There is no mention that the independent thoughts and ideas that are originated or communicated

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement to CFJ 3623: DISMISS

On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote: > I find it funny how IRRELEVANT is a special case of DISMISS lol > > It's like: "This is bogus- but a SPECIAL kind of bogus!" I was inspired to look at a history for this. TRUE and FALSE were always there, but the rest of the scheme was: 1993 -

DIS: FLR error

H. Rulekeepor, This annotation for R591: Amended(45) by Proposal 7975 "Auctions v6" (ATMunn; with o, Aris, nichdel, G.), Nov 26, 2017 should be: Amended(45) by Proposal 7976 "A Mostest Ingenious Paradox" (Alexis; with ais523), Nov 26, 2017

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Fact-Checker's Guild

Please, no. The mailing lists are for game business, game reports, and game discussion. Everyone gets off topic sometimes, and that's okay, but please try to remain focused on game matters. -Aris On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 12:14 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > do you kno da wae? > >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Fact-Checker's Guild

That meme died the second it was born because it's so lame. On Feb 12, 2018 13:14, "Cuddle Beam" wrote: do you kno da wae? On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 3:54 PM, ATMunn wrote: > dabbing is a dead mem- wait, we're not supposed to talk about memes at

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Fact-Checker's Guild

do you kno da wae? On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 3:54 PM, ATMunn wrote: > dabbing is a dead mem- wait, we're not supposed to talk about memes at all > here are we... > > > On 2/11/2018 11:49 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > >> Yes, that's a bit the intent. >> >> A bit of a ridiculous

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement to CFJ 3623: DISMISS

I find it funny how IRRELEVANT is a special case of DISMISS lol It's like: "This is bogus- but a SPECIAL kind of bogus!" On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 8:31 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > For something "out of play" IRRELEVANT might be best because distim and > doshes > aren't

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement to CFJ 3623: DISMISS

For something "out of play" IRRELEVANT might be best because distim and doshes aren't rules defined or described, so don't have anything to do with earning shinies, so whether someone distimmed eir doshes is irrelevant to the state of shinies. IRRELEVANT is also appropriate for your first

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement to CFJ 3623: DISMISS

But yeah its a fuzzy line tbh. I can see your line of reasoning, it's like one of those illusions where you can force your eye to make the ballerina seem to rotate one way or the other. I just wanted to mention that below lol because my head would feel constipated otherwise and I think its a

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

Thanks! On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 at 14:23, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > Are the case statements available somewhere so that I can easily look > over > > them for annotations? > > Links pasted in below (from Murphy's earlier Gazette):

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Alexis Hunt wrote: > Are the case statements available somewhere so that I can easily look over > them for annotations? Links pasted in below (from Murphy's earlier Gazette): 3614:

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement to CFJ 3623: DISMISS

To delve a bit further into it because I think its very interesting, assuming that "Did he distim the doshes?" is judged DISMISS as I suspect it would, what about "Did the distimming of the doshes per se make him earn a Shiny?" So basically, "He distimmed the doshes" => therefore => "he earned a

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement to CFJ 3623: DISMISS

No it was meant as friendly discussion mainly! I think the difference is semantic - If a thing is rules-described I tend to think of "failed things" as still being some version of that thing, so an "invalid bid" is still something that's there (as opposed to ooga boogas that aren't there at

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement to CFJ 3623: DISMISS

Is this a Motion to Reconsider? I don't mind it if you deem it necessary. (I personally don't think its too weird to consider "DISMISS" for a statement like "Could a Ooga Booga have shinies?" or "Did he distim the doshes?", which even if it can be read and seems to make language sense, it's

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

Are the case statements available somewhere so that I can easily look over them for annotations? On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 at 13:40, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > 3614* Assigned to o (due Fri, 15 Dec 2017 ~23:51:00) > > > If I am assigned to this case (unclear to

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement to CFJ 3623: DISMISS

By saying there's insufficient information, you imply that you accept the bid as POSSIBLE in the first place, because if the bid wasn't a bid at all, the answer would be FALSE no matter what. On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote: > Statement: "were Gaelan’s bid of i on Quazie’s zombie

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Fact-Checker's Guild

dabbing is a dead mem- wait, we're not supposed to talk about memes at all here are we... On 2/11/2018 11:49 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote: Yes, that's a bit the intent. A bit of a ridiculous way to make someone lose some shinies because the Auction is underway but oh well lol *dabs* On Mon, Feb 12,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Fact-Checker's Guild

I don't think this worked as you failed to specify With Agoran Consent. On 2/11/2018 10:51 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote: Ugh. I intend to amend (per the last paragraph) this contract by removing the all-caps line, if it exists, as well as the blank line following it. I support. I get annoyed about