On Wed, 2008-10-22 at 10:47 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 8:09 AM, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I intend to deputise for the CotC to:
* Recuse the appeals panel on CFJ 2213a
* Recuse the appeals panel on CFJ 2203a
* Recuse the appeals panel on CFJ
On Sunday 12 October 2008 02:00:39 pm Ed Murphy wrote:
1g) All communications pertaining to this contract are to be
posted to at least one forum of each nomic in which it is a
contract.
This should probably specify public forum.
Also: does are to be mean SHALL be or are ineffective unless?
On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 14:28 -0400, comex wrote:
I intend, without objection, to ratify the Short Logical Ruleset I
most recently published.
Generally speaking, I look with skeptical eyes whenever comex tries to
ratify anything, but that report looks correct to me.
--
ais523
I wrote:
I intend to deputize for the Assessor to resolve the Agoran decisions
to adopt proposals 5585-5650.
I believe the results are as follows. Proofreading is suggested, at
least for proposals where the results are close enough that an error
could conceivably affect the overall
On Sat, 17 May 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
While I agree with you that double jeopardy is a serious issue, what
would then prevent a person from breaking a rule, initiating a
specious criminal case alleging that the action broke some other rule,
then go on to assert that any further prosecution
On 5/19/08, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Naw, you're right. After thinking about things over the weekend, I realized
my annoyance at double-jeopardy is a symptom, the disease (what's leading me
to step back from the game right now) is:
1. Compulsion of judges via threat of
On Mon, 19 May 2008, comex wrote:
Personally I think the most pressing concern is the lack of any
meaningful Agoran currency. Previously, even a judge who didn't
egregiously abuse the system was compelled to judge accurately and on
time so that e might gain the Blue VC.
Judges don't get
On 5/19/08, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Judges don't get salaries of some kind anymore? I haven't been keeping
track personally, I just assumed we still got notes or something. I
agree (also to your point on tardiness) that salaries would be motivating
to many.
In fact, I was
comex wrote:
Personally I think the most pressing concern is the lack of any
meaningful Agoran currency. Previously, even a judge who didn't
egregiously abuse the system was compelled to judge accurately and on
time so that e might gain the Blue VC.
I've been trying to tweak Notes into a
comex wrote:
Not really. Even the contracts that define dependent actions aren't
really allowed to (Rule 1728: the Rules explicitly authorize...).
I think this is covered by the first paragraph of Rule 2198:
If a contract specifies a mechanism by which Contract Changes to
it can
Goethe wrote:
I call for judgement on the following statement. I bar root and ais523:
The second of these is ineffective (R591/26, paragraph 2). I'll do a
full catchup later tonight.
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 8:33 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
comex wrote:
By the way, the above is another reason why R101 should not be
interpreted such that I am guilty. If I wanted to break a rule and
get away with it, with this interpretation, I need only break the rule
then
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 10:05 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Exactly! ALREADY TRIED, the explicit mechanism for dealing with dupe
trials, requires it to be the same rule or it doesn't count. But with
Goethe's interpretation that R101 implicitly forbids such double
penalization (of being
On Thu, 15 May 2008, comex wrote:
Exactly! ALREADY TRIED, the explicit mechanism for dealing with dupe
trials, requires it to be the same rule or it doesn't count. But with
Goethe's interpretation that R101 implicitly forbids such double
penalization (of being called to court twice for
On Thu, 15 May 2008, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2008, comex wrote:
Exactly! ALREADY TRIED, the explicit mechanism for dealing with dupe
trials, requires it to be the same rule or it doesn't count.
That doesn't change my argument. R101 would have precedence and prevent
the trial
comex wrote:
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 10:05 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Exactly! ALREADY TRIED, the explicit mechanism for dealing with dupe
trials, requires it to be the same rule or it doesn't count. But with
Goethe's interpretation that R101 implicitly forbids such double
: what's to stop the new judge pulling the same
scam? It seems not unlikely that root would agree.
--
ais523
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Ed Murphy
Sent: Tue 13/05/2008 05:03
To: Agora Business
Subject: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent on CFJ 1932a
root wrote
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 12:53 AM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
Goethe wrote:
on the matter of the appeal (CFJ 1932a),
This Board moves to REASSIGN.
Bah, my attempt was a few minutes too late, but hopefully it will
give the
On Tue, 13 May 2008, Iammars wrote:
CFJ 1488 says that we can't get root for anything here. But I do plan
on hitting the judge here, probably with APOLOGY. I hate scams that
use the judicial system, and would usually assign CHOKEY, but because
he's a new player, I'll be a little lenient.
On 5/13/08, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Otherwise, if we
were going by common definitions you cite, we'd have to conclude that equity
with oneself on any level must be considered either tautology or nonsense and
cases thrown out accordingly.
Rule 2191 says that, in a pledge, the
On Tue, 13 May 2008, comex wrote:
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 12:19 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I initiate a criminal case against comex, alleging that e violated
Rule 101(vii) and Goethe's defined rights by initiating a criminal case
against Goethe, when Goethe is already being
On Tue, 13 May 2008, comex wrote:
(In fact, I somehow managed to not see root's message despite it being
located (in GMail) directly above my reply.
By the way, I didn't think you'd seen root's message. I'd rather R101
actually stopped the CFJ from being called or allowed the judge to dismiss
On Tue, 13 May 2008, comex wrote:
(In fact, I somehow managed to not see root's message despite it being
located (in GMail) directly above my reply.
Oh an offer comex: I'll withdraw my criminal CFJ if you withdraw yours
(and feel free to add your arguments to the criminal case that root
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let's magnify your claim that being put on trial isn't punishment in the
R101 sense. Any time you're found INNOCENT, I could re-start the same
trial. Over and over and over again. Over and over again. If the courts
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 3:49 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh an offer comex: I'll withdraw my criminal CFJ if you withdraw yours
(and feel free to add your arguments to the criminal case that root
brought against me). I'll consider this offer of agreement accepted if
you do so
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 6:28 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In criminal cases, it has been found (CFJ 1863) that outright bribery of
the judge is only of limited importance in determining whether a judgement
was appropriate. However, in criminal cases, judgements are chosen from
On Mon, 12 May 2008, comex wrote:
You have not opposed the position that, because there is one party,
any judgement is equitable, therefore reasonably equitable, therefore
appropriate; in which case there would be no serious doubt about the
appropriateness of the prior judgement.
Er, from my
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 4:28 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In legal practice, and in Agoran Courts, what constitutes reasonable
is not determined by what specific, interested parties might consider
reasonable, but by what a reasonable disinterested observer might
consider
On Mon, 12 May 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
When an applicable question on equation in an equity case has a
judgement, and has had that judgement continuously for the past
week (or all parties to the contract have approved that
judgement), the judgement is in effect as a binding
On Mon, 12 May 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
I do not see how a reasonable disinterested observer could fail to
come to the conclusion that the judgement was equitable.
I do not see how a reasonable disinterested observer, upon seeing a
clear-cut case of judicial bribery, can fail to have serious
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 8:05 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
When an applicable question on equation in an equity case has a
judgement, and has had that judgement continuously for the past
week (or all parties to the
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 6:05 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Looks like the only thing to do is overturn, which actually replaces
the judgment (and therefore contract, since contract=judgement) with
a new judgement. I think that creates a genuine conflict between R911,
which says
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 7:46 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2008, comex wrote:
You have not opposed the position that, because there is one party,
any judgement is equitable, therefore reasonably equitable, therefore
appropriate; in which case there would be no
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 10:11 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I therefore suggest that the appeal panel EITHER
a) demonstrate that the scam is very unlikely to be an appropriate
judgement (regardless of whether or not it worked), or
b) call an inquiry case on whether the judgement was
Goethe wrote:
on the matter of the appeal (CFJ 1932a),
This Board moves to REASSIGN.
Bah, my attempt was a few minutes too late, but hopefully it will
give the replacement judge something to think about.
On Mon, 12 May 2008, comex wrote:
Since the dispute is purely between members of the contract, which
party is being treated better or worse than another?
Common definitions of equity don't have any meaning when we're speaking
of a sole party.
To have an agreement with only 1 person is
On Mon, 12 May 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
I withdraw my support for REASSIGN, and intend (with the support of
Goethe and Wooble) to OVERRULE with the following replacement
judgement:
Sorry, Murphy! Didn't realize you were just getting to the end of the
threads. -Goethe
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 10:03 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I withdraw my support for REASSIGN, and intend (with the support of
Goethe and Wooble) to OVERRULE with the following replacement
judgement:
{{{
1) It being entirely within the power of the initiator of CFJ 1932 to
On Mon, 12 May 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
Goethe wrote:
on the matter of the appeal (CFJ 1932a),
This Board moves to REASSIGN.
Bah, my attempt was a few minutes too late, but hopefully it will
give the replacement judge something to think about.
Regardless, it opens the door to criminal
On Saturday 22 December 2007 17:08:22 Zefram wrote:
Josiah Worcester wrote:
I intend to deputise to publish the IADoP's report for last week. The time
limit has already expired.
It's now a low-priority office, and so only has a monthly report.
-zefram
Did *not* notice that.
I wrote:
I intend, with the consent of all other partners, to amend the AFO
charter by replacing clause 3 with this text:
3. The AFO may incur obligations, rights, and privileges under the
rules of other nomics. The Partners may act on behalf of the AFO
to satisfy such obligations and to
On Sunday 09 December 2007 10:26:13 Ed Murphy wrote:
I wrote:
I intend, with the consent of all other partners, to amend the AFO
charter by replacing clause 3 with this text:
3. The AFO may incur obligations, rights, and privileges under the
rules of other nomics. The Partners may
On Sunday 02 December 2007 16:46:28 Ed Murphy wrote:
I intend, with the consent of all other partners, to amend the AFO
charter by replacing clause 3 with this text:
3. The AFO may incur obligations, rights, and privileges under the
rules of other nomics. The Partners may act on behalf of
Ed Murphy wrote:
I intend, with the consent of all other partners, to amend the AFO
charter by replacing clause 3 with this text:
3. The AFO may incur obligations, rights, and privileges under the
rules of other nomics. The Partners may act on behalf of the AFO
to satisfy such obligations and
On Nov 29, 2007, at 9:02 PM, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Nov 29, 2007 6:41 PM, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I intend to make hedgehogcull inactive, without objection.
hedgehogcull is already inactive, as of 29 Oct 07.
-root
That would make it easy then.
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
On Sunday 25 November 2007, Josiah Worcester wrote:
I intend to deputise for the CotC in the assignment of criminal case
1804. The time limit for assignment runs out in nearly 24 hours, so 48
hours after my declaration of intent, I will be allowed to deputise.
Hmm...
http://www.fysh.org/
On Sunday 25 November 2007 13:32:11 comex wrote:
On Sunday 25 November 2007, Josiah Worcester wrote:
I intend to deputise for the CotC in the assignment of criminal case
1804. The time limit for assignment runs out in nearly 24 hours, so 48
hours after my declaration of intent, I will be
On Sunday 25 November 2007 15:14:53 Ed Murphy wrote:
pikhq wrote:
On Sunday 25 November 2007 13:32:11 comex wrote:
On Sunday 25 November 2007, Josiah Worcester wrote:
I intend to deputise for the CotC in the assignment of criminal case
1804. The time limit for assignment runs out in
On Sunday 25 November 2007, Josiah Worcester wrote:
Finally, if my above deputisation goes through, I intend to nominate
Murphy as CotC.
You don't need to do that dependently.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Sunday 25 November 2007 15:26:28 comex wrote:
On Sunday 25 November 2007, Josiah Worcester wrote:
Finally, if my above deputisation goes through, I intend to nominate
Murphy as CotC.
You don't need to do that dependently.
I don't want the nomination to occur until I deputise for
pikhq wrote:
I intend to amend the AFO contract, with consent of all of its Partners, so
that it reads as follows:
I consent to the amendment.
On Saturday 17 November 2007 12:44:22 Ed Murphy wrote:
Wed 14 Nov 03:56:30 Bake The Traitor created, contestmaster Murphy
(contesthood disputed, treats comex differently
from other potential contestants)
Wed 14 Nov 11:29:49 Zefram joins Bake
On Nov 10, 2007 11:55 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I intend, with 2 support, to appeal the judgement of CFJ 1772.
Appelant's argument:
This judgement is inconsistent with the judgement of CFJ 1773.
They don't seem inconsistent to me.
CFJ 1773: comex did not initiate a criminal
root wrote:
On Nov 10, 2007 11:55 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I intend, with 2 support, to appeal the judgement of CFJ 1772.
Appelant's argument:
This judgement is inconsistent with the judgement of CFJ 1773.
They don't seem inconsistent to me.
CFJ 1773: comex did not initiate
On 10/31/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
comex wrote:
Actually, I'm not even sure if either of the deputisations will work. The
CotC isn't obligated to assign cases to me (just to someone), and
deputisation isn't clear on whether I can deputise with an argument (if
not then I'd
comex wrote:
I CFJ on the following:
A worthwhile CFJ from comex. With cogent arguments, even. Will wonders
never cease?
While it seems that the CotC is indirectly required to perform that action
(else he can't assign any judges, which he is required to do),
This is slightly wrong. The
On Wednesday 31 October 2007, Taral wrote:
Well, I guess this works as well as the original attempt. However,
it's likely to hit you with 10,000 violations of Rule 1871.
I'm not sure about that. R1871 only says that the *CotC* SHALL NOT do
this. However, I think it's more likely that it
On 10/31/07, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I repeat the following sequence of actions 10,000 times:
- I intend to deputise for the office of CotC for the purposes of changing
all sitting players to standing.
- I intend to deputise for the office of CotC for the purposes of assigning
comex to
comex wrote:
On Wednesday 31 October 2007, Taral wrote:
Well, I guess this works as well as the original attempt. However,
it's likely to hit you with 10,000 violations of Rule 1871.
I'm not sure about that. R1871 only says that the *CotC* SHALL NOT do
this. However, I think it's more
On 9/6/07, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/6/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
comex consented to become Herald, but no one has voted SUPPORT or
OBJECT yet.
I vote SUPPORT.
--Wooble
I vote SUPPORT as well
BobTHJ
Ian Kelly wrote:
humbly request a linked assignment of the two CFJs.
Too late, I assigned the first one before receiving the message initiating
the second one.
-zefram
Quoting Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I intend to ratify the VC holdings listed in the Assessor's Report
that I published within the past hour.
Could that cause problems if it turns out I am not a player anymore?
--
Peekee
Peekee wrote:
Quoting Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I intend to ratify the VC holdings listed in the Assessor's Report
that I published within the past hour.
Could that cause problems if it turns out I am not a player anymore?
In that situation, the first paragraph of Rule 2126 would
On 8/13/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is anyone going to own up to triggering the web form?
Proto-CFJ:
{{{
A message sent by a Player to a Public Forum announcing that e
performs some action satisfies Rule 478's definition of Announcement
even if the message is sent by a means that
On Wednesday 01 August 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
I intend to cause IADoP Human Point Two to intend (with eir consent
and Agoran consent) to install comex as Scorekeepor.
This is not a very descriptive subject line.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
101 - 165 of 165 matches
Mail list logo
