On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> I submit the following AI-3, II-0 proposal, entitled "Rule IDs".
> coppro is a coauthor of this proposal.
please vote against this until someone figures out whether it was
legally proposed in the first place
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 9:43 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Rule 106 does not allow the proposal to do anything. It merely causes the
> proposal to act. The proposal is still restricted by what any rules,
> including R2125, say.
note that although this publicity flipping somewhat uniquely is
regulated by
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 11:45 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Where permitted
> by other rules, a proposal that takes effect generally can, as
> part of its effect, apply the changes that it specifies.
This is a no-op (except possibly in the case of a power conflict),
because it only copies
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 10:15 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> scshunt is arguing that there is no existing authorization
>>
>> in which case your proposed text would not authorize it, since it's not
>> "permitted by other rules".
>
> Permission can be implicit, in the sense of "not prohibited"; R101(i)
>
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> [Still 274 messages behind but might as well]
>
> I become active. I sit up.
>
> Iff the office of Fearmongor is Assumed, I assume it.
>
> I make ehird Quiet (call that wishful thinking :P )
>
> -G.
Do you realize you're a dictator?
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> I pay fees to destroy 3 ergs in my possession.
There's a good argument that all announcement actions are fee-based
(zero is non-negative), so this might be valid even if you didn't have
enough ergs to use the normal fee-based destruction.
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> I opine REMAND without prejudice on CFJ 2929a. Given the arguments on
> the CFJ, the judge should ideally go into more detail as to what their
> affect is, or if they're irrelevant (and if so, why).
The arguments all seemed fairly blandly worde
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> CFJ, II 1: A player with exactly 2 ergs remaining CAN destroy 1 erg in
> eir own possession via a fee-based action.
> CFJ, II 1: It is legal for a player with exactly 2 ergs remaining to
> attempt to destroy 1 erg in eir own possession via a fee
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 9:56 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2011, com...@gmail.com wrote:
>> FWIW, I think this makes a nice trophy but doesn't really accomplish
>> anything.
>
> Oh of course it does. It means I have to be very careful about what I say I
> do
> in the PF.
No rule says
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Logic:
> 1. An Instrument explicitly CANNOT make changes > power (R2140);
> 2. Exceptio probat regulam; therefore an instrument generally CAN make
> changes =< power.
> [Note: I admit it's arguable and therefore safer to a scam to use the ru
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> It's a mechanism question, too:
> CFJ (request linked): An instrument that generally CAN make announcements
> generally
> CAN make changes regulated by rules of equal or lower power, by announcement.
Time to update my instrument fix proposal
probably the original intention, but this also fails. I
> assume omd is entirely capable of speech, and thus not technically dumb;
> and as it's linked with an "and" to the rest of the sentence, the entire
> thing thus becomes false.
I intentionally made my being dumb a requir
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> This distribution of proposal 6958
> initiates the Agoran Decision on whether to adopt it. The eligible
> voters are the active players at the time of this distribution
In case anyone wants to try to judicially punish this scam, I'll note
tha
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> What's incorrect about eligible voter description? It's the boilerplate
> from many previous and I believe it's technically accurate.
As I saw ais523 mention in the IRC backlog, the class of eligible
voters you specified ("active players at
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> I'll likely wait to propose this until after the current scam(s) have
> been resolved and the gamestate can be quantified (as I re-registered
> mid-scam and don't care to sort it out). I am open to suggestions for
> additional achievements, or
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 5:02 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I hereby cause R2324 make all currently active players except myself
> inactive (this is a trivial expansion to a list, so should work).
Well, I'm not convinced your other message didn't work and deregister
everyone. Your ratification thing l
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Well, I'm not convinced your other message didn't work and deregister
>> everyone. Your ratification thing leaves the game in a slightly
>> different state if it did.
>
> Resolution of this one first will render the issue moot (I think?)
Not
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 6:32 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I don't think the ratification causes anyone to become anything new;
> it ratifies that a past message wasn't sent and so that any states are
> continuous in terms of gamestate.
Well, this is the old issue of whether or not history is part of
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 7:39 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I think given that at power-3.2 saying "that
> previous message was never sent" means that that previous message was
> never sent! Hard to get around any game custom at that power.
Well, that's not what the rule says. It doesn't establish an
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> DO YOU WANT ME TO YELL?
Only if you do it to the public forum.
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 12:34 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Gratuitous: regardless of the "real" sequence of events, the Legal Fiction
> established at power-3.2 is that Bucky's conditional was never satisfied, so
> e was never a player in the first place. This case is an important precedent
> for th
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Gratuitous: Note again, though, that if the gamestate doesn't contain
>> history, changing the gamestate to "what it would be" doesn't actually
>> create anything describable as a Legal Fiction. In that case we are
>> left with the real seque
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 6:51 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I agree that legislative clarification would help here, strongly. There's
> an interesting history to "gamestate" in reset proposals along with "deem"
> and other terms of legal fiction that have been used until strongly
> questioned and then
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Without definition, gamestate is the whole game as of now. Anything needed
> to interpret its current and future behavior is part of that state.
If that's true, the state also includes, say, the content of every
message that will ever be sent
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 4:23 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 1 Feb 2011, omd wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> > Without definition, gamestate is the whole game as of now. Anything needed
>> > to interpret its current and futu
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 4:41 PM, omd wrote:
>> Past only. future clearly not included.
>
> The future is certainly "needed to interpret its current and future behavior".
Or, to use your other quote, it must be in the state if the state
"describes enough about the sys
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Feb 2011, omd wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 4:41 PM, omd wrote:
>> >> Past only. future clearly not included.
>> >
>> > The future is certainly "needed to interpret its current and f
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 7:15 PM, omd wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 7:00 PM, omd wrote:
>>> Guess what I intend to do at this time?
>>
>> Incidentally, I was planning to have a script send this message at
&g
I mentioned this twice in a-d in the context of other discussions, but
I'm not sure if you saw it, so to be more explicit:
H. Murphy, if/when you gain the office of Assessor again, can you
re-resolve 6928-6940, with a tally that does not include my ballots on
the ordinary decisions?
Thanks.
On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 10:28 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> This point has generated quite a bit of discussion lately, not to
>> mention that current precedent is that it's false; I think just
>> stating it as true without any justification is unreasonable.
>
> Which precedent? Anyway, I believe my othe
On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 2:41 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Ratification is not obviously broken if the gamestate includes its
>> history. ais523 assumed it doesn't in eir judgement of CFJ 2909:
>>
>>> it instead tries to work out a minimal change to the /present/ gamestate to
>>> change the past.
>
> I
On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> omd wrote:
>
>> I don't remember the judgement as well as I should have, I guess... in
>> that case, doesn't the argument hinge on something as inconsequential
>
> Not inconsequential if it, well, has substantiv
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> So, empowered by R106, which now conflicts with and numerically
>> overrules R2140 and R1688, a Proposal CAN (since November-2009) make
>> gamestate changes regardless of its power versus the secured
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 11:08 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Create a power-2 Rule entitled "The President":
>
> The President is a second-class person and a player. A
> first-class player CAN cause the President to take an action
> other than deregistration by using a mechanism explicit
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 5:44 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Per omd's request:
NttPF
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 12:24 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2011, Elliott Hird wrote:
>> But someone please propose something to replace the removed cruft. Not
>> much fun playing an empty game. I would if I had any ideas. :p
>
> I think a functioning auction system would be a good s
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 1:10 AM, omd wrote:
> After that, well, SELL(AUCTION) never really did work.
(therefore auctions would be nice as I've never seen them before, not
therefore auctions are a bad idea)
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 12:18 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> === CFJ 2970 (Interest Index = 0)
>> It is generally possible for Bucky to register by a means of
>> honorable deregistration.
>
> I recuse myself from this case; too cl
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 4:20 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Gratuitous: The core issue should definitely get a proper judgement,
>> but I just noticed that the statement is trivially false. You can't
>> (generally) register by a means of deregistration.
>
> I kinda wondered.
I think it's a misinterpr
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> Rule 2308 (Power=1) Contests
Great, there goes my Mafia contest.
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> I intend to deputize for the Registrar to publish eir weekly report.
Pseudo-CoE: This is too vague. There are multiple documents that
would satisfy the Registrar's requirement to publish a weekly report.
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On 11-03-04 01:28 AM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
>> Proposal: End the Game (AI = 3):
>>
>> There is no spoon. There there is an Agora. But, when this proposal goes
>> into effect, there becomes a spoon, but there ceases to be an Agora.
>
> INEFFECTIVE
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> AIAN
IMO, declaring that the game is over is more of an external thing than
a "change to the gamestate", similar to declaring that someone won.
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> If the rules are repealed or amended
> If the rules are amended such that they define an entity both
I don't think these should be different, although I'm not sure exactly
what the wording should be.
> Upon the adoption of this propos
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Where permitted
> by other rules, a proposal that takes effect generally can, as
> part of its effect, apply the changes that it specifies.
I still don't think this does anything. It also gives me a headache.
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> I retract my recent proposal "Clarify Rule 106".
Oops, should have read up before replying.
> Except as
> prohibited by other rules, a proposal that takes effect CAN,
> as part of its effect, apply the changes that it specifies.
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 12:36 PM, ais523 wrote:
> The whole
> thing dissolved into a mess, though, and I deregistered shortly
> afterwards for unrelated reasons.
Funny, that happened to my dictatorship too.
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 1:11 PM, omd wrote:
>> CFJ: The President is Rule 2326.
>> Arguments:
>> Precedent from The Monster suggests TRUE.
>
> Gratuitous arguments: In this case, R2326 actually defines what the
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2011, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> The President is Rule 2326.
>
> Arguments:
>
> Proposals are not Rule 106. Assets are not Rule 2166. Moreover,
> R1586 allows the entity definition to move from rule to rule without
> affecting th
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> CFJ: MRW and Associates is a second-class person.
What rule with power of at least 2 defines MRW and Associates as a person?
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Charles Walker
wrote:
> And WHEREAS, in any case I couldn't think of any more,
Welcome back, H. Walker'); DROP TABLE Players;--!
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 2:36 PM, ais523 wrote:
> This is quite different from the Vladivostok Telephone Directory
> situation, which as far as I could tell was almost completely
> impossible,
For what it's worth, it was ruled in CFJ 2974 that you could satisfy
the requirement by visiting a web si
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Create a rule titled "The Resource Map of Agora" with this text:
>
> *-* *-*
> / \ / \
> *-* A *-* *-* B *-*
> / \ / \ / \ / \
> *-* C *-*
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 9:10 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> For what it's worth, it was ruled in CFJ 2974 that you could satisfy
>> the requirement by visiting a web site (if you understood Russian, but
>> presumably also if you used Google Translate).
>
> For what it's also worth, I picked up a physic
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> > On 11-03-19 02:57 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> >> The Speaker CAN, by announcement, cause the President to take
>> >> an action that is not otherwise IMPOSSIBLE. If there is no
>> >> Speaker, then the player who was most rec
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> I submit the following AI-2 proposal, "Bring Back Points":
Meh.
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 2:52 PM, omd wrote:
> This also contradicts the judgement of CFJ 2945.)
(which there was already a discussion on that I didn't see until after
posting this)
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Charles Walker
wrote:
>> Amend Rule 107 (Initiating Agoran Decisions) by appending this text:
>>
>> The voting period for a decision cannot be set or changed to a
>> duration longer than fourteen days.
>
> Can this ever happen under the current rules?
By
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Alex Smith
wrote:
> --- On Wed, 23/3/11, omd wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 12:13 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> > == CFJ 2980 ==
>> >
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Create a rule (power -2 or -3):
>
> A Promise is an asset created as described by this rule.
"Promises are a class of assets."
> A Player (the promise's author) CAN create a promise by publishing the
> text of the promise with clear int
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Mar 2011, omd wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 7:05 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> >> I publish a NoV accusing Wooble of breaking Rule 2158, a power 2 Rule,
>> >> by failing to judge case 2979 w
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Amend Rule 2230 (Notices of Violation) by replacing this text:
>
> A player CAN publish a Notice of Violation (NoV) for a fee of N
> ergs, where N is the one half of the number of valid NoVs e
> previously published during the sam
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 6:34 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> omd wrote:
>
>> The AFO registers.
>
> CoE: First, it terminated when contracts were repealed (the arguments
> in CFJ 2761 apply equally to the third paragraph of Rule 1586). Second,
> even if it didn't, Agora now r
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> I don't know about coppro but at least I would object. I like
>> partnerships, but I do not believe Agora has had a long enough break
>> from them yet.
>
> I object (to mentioned registration), and my opinion is same reason as
> ehird. -G.
13
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 4:35 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Murphy, omd:
>
> I think in the current circumstances it would be good if a panel could
> come to some consensus precedent on what considerations of correct TIME
> OUT levels should be.
For what it's worth, I think that
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 8:22 PM, Tanner Swett wrote:
> I think receiving Agoran Consent to register is prima facie evidence
> of still existing. It means a majority of interested players are fine
> with its existence and participation in Agora.
I don't think that works.
-- comex, dubitant
On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> NUM AI SUBMITTER TITLE
> 6978 2.0 Murphy The Pear-Shaped Office
> 6979 1.0 Tanner L. Swett Killing Dragons Is Everything Around Here
> 6980 3.0 Murphy Timey wimey
> 6981 3.0 Murphy Little
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 3:57 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> It would require some slightly longer attention span than Agora tends to
> have for punishments, but it would be more by-the-book. May raise some
> ex post facto issues about CFJ timing but, as I said, that sort of thing
> isn't forbidden and i
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Charles Walker
wrote:
> * EXILE, appropriate for rule breaches of the highest severity.
> The ninny is deregistered when the time limit for appealing
> the case expiries (provided there is no appeal), and CANNOT
> register for two months af
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Tanner Swett wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> I change my vote to/cast my vote for AGAINST any ongoing Agoran Decisions to
>> adopt proposals adopted by Yally.
>
> Do you mean proposals submitted or pro-voted by Yally?
Well, e's not the
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Charles Walker
wrote:
> On 4 April 2011 22:31, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
>> Registrar's Census
>>
>> FIRST-CLASS PLAYERS (15)
>
> CoE: omd/comex/c. is not listed as a player.
>
> This has already been ratified in several
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Charles Walker
wrote:
> CFJ: omd has more than 0 points.
FALSE because points are restricted to players.
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> On 12 April 2011 00:25, Quazie wrote:
>> I'm a player if anyone wants me to be.
>
> I want you to be.
>
> CFJ: Quazie is a player.
I vaguely remember something like this being done before. Anyone
remember the details?
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 7:24 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> I don't think it has been, since AFAICT every Registrar's report since
> you registered has been CoE'ed or CFJed and been blocked from
> ratification.
How about this one?
http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg21454.ht
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> 6997 2.0 omd Soles
> 7000 3.0 omd Souls
Note to Assessor: these were distributed in the wrong order; 7000
should be resolved first.
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> 6997 2.0 omd Soles
>
> AGAINST (no effect)
It depends on Souls.
>> 6998 3.0 omd Fix implicit votes
>
> AGAINST (don't pick an arbitrary constant; fix voting)
I don't think
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Charles Walker
wrote:
> I initiate an election for IADoP. I nominate omd.
Not my fault that e ragequit over an election.
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> I don't think it's broken. It's useful to allow voters to vote
>> different ways on the same decision, so I wouldn't want "sum of voting
>> limits of people who voted X"; banning voting limit changes would
>> forbid a lot of fun stuff; and ma
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> I'm annoyed at the FLR's lack of CFJ annotations. I nominate myself as
> Rulekeepor. I intend to deputize for the Rulekeepor to publish the
> FLR.
Campaign speech: I will keep the ruleset in RCS and continue to
structure commits so that the
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> Campaign speech: I will keep the ruleset in RCS and continue to
>> structure commits so that the history makes sense.
>>
>> If Wooble promises to do so, however, I'll slink away.
>
> I pledge to not use RCS because I don't care if Zefram is
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 4:17 PM, omd wrote:
>> I pledge to not use RCS because I don't care if Zefram is mad about
>> how the ruleset looks. I will also use a computer and not some kind of
>> steam-powered difference engine for recording changes.
>
> It's not ju
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> I'm curious to know why people are voting against omd's proposals but
> for Promises. Both seem to fit the general "subverting democracy for
> fun, profit, and profit" theme.
The spirit of privatization, and a backlash against the recent
ten
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 1:21 PM, omd wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Elliott Hird
> wrote:
>> I'm curious to know why people are voting against omd's proposals but
>> for Promises. Both seem to fit the general "subverting democracy for
>> fun, pr
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 7:44 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> Despite the attempts
> of the rules to define who's playing the game or not, in terms of a
> switch, it is generally accepted (except among some players of The Game)
> that games cannot freely cause arbitrary persons to be playing them;
> childr
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Roujo wrote:
>
>> DISCLAIMER: Any of the previous statements might have failed.
>
> In fact, they all did, *because* of this disclaimer (CFJ 2069).
Actually, the main precedent of 2069 (since the judge apparently
didn't want to rule on the actua
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Jonathan Rouillard
wrote:
> I CfJ on the following: { At least one of the actions in the quoted
> message succeeded. }
Please be more specific; in the old case, G. ruled that a similar
statement was trivially TRUE because announcing something is an
action.
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 7:06 PM, John Smith wrote:
> This statement causes the creation of a CfJ of Inquiry questioning its own
> legality.
Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed "by
announcement", a person performs that action by unambiguously
and clearly speci
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 8:58 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> CFJ: In general, if a purported action by announcement is accompanied
> by a disclaimer equivalent to "this may be ineffective", without
> indicating why it may be ineffective, then the action is ineffective
> due to ambiguity.
Well, this is al
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Even without that equation, IIRC there's a precedent somewhere that:
> 1. Stating something in public is a common definition of an announcement;
> 2. Therefore any post to a public forum is an announcement.
Sure, but it might not be an annou
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2011, omd wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> > Even without that equation, IIRC there's a precedent somewhere that:
>> > 1. Stating something
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Charles Walker
wrote:
> {{ Not worth the paper it's not printed on (AI 1.7)
>
> Amend Rule 591 (Inquiry Cases) by removing:
>
> The Rulekeepor is ENCOURAGED to annotate rules to
> draw attention to relevant inquiry case judgements.
>
> and appending a new para
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> The intent of a R869 amendment was to weaken the "by announcement"
> standard by using "publishing" for registration. However, such a
> weakening would mean that unclear reports could be published,
> unclear judicial declarations, etc mult
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Charles Walker
wrote:
> objections, make a case Incidental. Rules to the contrary
> notwithstanding, the CotC need not report the Notability of a
> case which was initiated more than a month ago.
Maybe change this to cases whose Notability has not c
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> On 19 April 2011 20:11, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Here's the timing of relevant events. All times are UTC, and subject
>> to the usual minor fuzziness involved in e-mail transmission.
>
> I change my vote on proposal 7017 to AGAINST, because it'd
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2011, omd wrote:
>> 2) When we had Truthfulness, we didn't hesitate to punish people for
>> ambiguous/unclear false statements, which by your interpretation would
>> not be considered p
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 9:46 PM, omd wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 8:58 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> CFJ: In general, if a purported action by announcement is accompanied
>> by a disclaimer equivalent to "this may be ineffective", without
>> indicating why it may
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I think you're missing the piece of the equivalence. I'm saying:
> "publish" = "announce"
> "do X by publishing 'I do X'" = "do X by announcing 'I do X'"
> but I'm NOT saying that "publish" = "do X by announcing 'I do X'".
Oh, sure... but how
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 8:33 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> omd wrote:
>
>> but it does not say who is publishing it. I don't
>> think I can call a CFJ by stating "A CFJ is called...")
>
> Speaking of this argument re CFJs 2999 / 3002, where does Rule 591
> requ
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Walker wrote:
>
>> I've made it a switch, but this requires a RttCN to prevent bloating
>> of the Docket.
>
> How about making it tracked by the Rulekeepor (and specifying that it's
> part of eir monthly report)? Then the FLR itself can count.
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 8:45 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> CFJ 2972 already found that eir registration in early February 2011
> succeeded.
By the way, if G.'s CFJ is judged true, it actually did fail.
401 - 500 of 1475 matches
Mail list logo
