On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 1:26 AM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does this mean 2019 is now back on ais523's plate? And if so aren't
they WAY overdue for a judgement?
The panel in 2019a was WAY overdue in judging. ais523 still has 6+
days to judge, since the case was just remanded to em.
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 1:03 AM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i act?
I doubt any of that was sufficiently unambiguous to cause any actions.
Possibly the I lean. I sit. which would have had no net effect
anyway as you were already sitting.
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 1:03 AM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I run. i eat. I jump. I dance. I sing. I stand. i spread. I rip.
i trip. i lie. I spin. i rotate. I taste. I present. I
contribute. I register. i concur. I support. i object. I walk. I
I I lean. I sit. I cfj.
2008/8/13 Chester Mealer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I resume being cdm014. If the previous statement was not a possible action,
I register or reregister under the name cdm014 choosing the action which
best communicates that I was previously an active player called cdm014 and
wish to be so again.
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 11:50 AM, Chester Mealer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gender Neutral pronouns(e.g eir, e, and e's) are words granted meaning and
usage under the set of rules excluding 754(4).
I believe it's 754(1) that grants them meaning, since those words have
no ordinary-language
2008/8/13 Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I believe it's 754(1) that grants them meaning, since those words have
no ordinary-language meaning. I'd say they represent either a
difference in spelling or dialect, depending on your view of whether a
language variation with a tiny number of
On Wednesday 13 August 2008 12:03:46 am Quazie wrote:
I stand.
Ineffective, you cannot generally flip your own posture to standing.
I register.
Ineffective, you are already a player.
I support. i object.
Ineffective, it's not clear what you're supporting/objecting to.
I I I lean. I sit.
Pavitra wrote:
I I I lean. I sit.
Probably effective.
I hem. i haw. I hug.
Probably effective. We have a tradition of respecting creative
paraphrases like I lie down for I become supine.
These two are no-ops. I'm treating them as successful.
I inactive.
Probably effective.
This
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 12:25 PM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
he or she, surely. We don't call objects e do we?
We have players that aren't humans and thus have no gender, and the
rules do use e when referring to players, so yes.
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Quazie wrote:
[snip]
TIATEOISIRIEIJIDISISISIRITILISIRITIPICIRICISIOIWIIILISICIEIIIFIR
IVILIDIBISIEIUILILILISIMITIEISIRIBIHIHIHISIPIP-PIMIDIDIWINIAIWICIJIP
IDIDICISIOICIDIDIWILICISIWIAISISIIISIPILIEIBAWRISIATHPAFALT.
On Wednesday 13 August 2008 12:38:12 pm Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Quazie wrote:
[snip]
TIATEOISIRIEIJIDISISISIRITILISIRITIPICIRICISIOIWIIILISICIEIIIFIR
IVILIDIBISIEIUILILILISIMITIEISIRIBIHIHIHISIPIP-PIMIDIDIWINIAIWICIJIP
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Ben Caplan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 13 August 2008 12:38:12 pm Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Quazie wrote:
[snip]
TIATEOISIRIEIJIDISISISIRITILISIRITIPICIRICISIOIWIIILISICIEIIIFIR
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Quazie wrote:
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 10:38 AM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Quazie wrote:
[snip]
TIATEOISIRIEIJIDISISISIRITILISIRITIPICIRICISIOIWIIILISICIEIIIFIR
IVILIDIBISIEIUILILILISIMITIEISIRIBIHIHIHISIPIP-PIMIDIDIWINIAIWICIJIP
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Quazie wrote:
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Ben Caplan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 13 August 2008 12:38:12 pm Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Quazie wrote:
[snip]
TIATEOISIRIEIJIDISISISIRITILISIRITIPICIRICISIOIWIIILISICIEIIIFIR
comex wrote:
Anyone have the script for FLR--SLR?
Attached.
-zefram
#!/usr/bin/perl
use warnings;
use strict;
use IO::Handle;
{
my $peeked_line;
sub peekline() {
unless(defined $peeked_line) {
local $/ = \n;
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
comex wrote:
Anyone have the script for FLR--SLR?
Attached.
Excess newline removed, and all of these should be up to date:
http://cfj.qoid.us/current_flr.txt
http://cfj.qoid.us/current_flr.txt,v
http://cfj.qoid.us/current_slr.txt
Pavitra wrote:
On Wednesday 13 August 2008 12:38:12 pm Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Quazie wrote:
[snip]
TIATEOISIRIEIJIDISISISIRITILISIRITIPICIRICISIOIWIIILISICIEIIIFIR
IVILIDIBISIEIUILILILISIMITIEISIRIBIHIHIHISIPIP-PIMIDIDIWINIAIWICIJIP
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 3:43 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 3:40 PM, root [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On behalf of TNP2: TNP2 registers.
I nominate TNP2 for Rulekeepor.
This was ineffective as the nomination period for the office had ended.
On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 8:01 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I nominate each of ais523, BobTHJ, comex, Goethe, Murphy, OscarMeyr,
Quazie, root, Sgeo, Taral, tusho, woggle, and Wooble for each of the
offices of Promotor and Rulekeepor.
I'm going to treat this self-nomination as an acceptance
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 8:41 PM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I intend, with the consent of the rest of the panel, to REMAND this
case to Sgeo, so that e might judge the case again while thinking more
clearly, and also consider the precedent of CFJ 1771.
Appeals are support (not
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 19:12, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 8:41 PM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I intend, with the consent of the rest of the panel, to REMAND this
case to Sgeo, so that e might judge the case again while thinking more
clearly, and also
By CFJ 2050 doing x on behalf of another player is really just you doing x.
Thus if I make a partnership vote on something, it is really me voting.
Thus partnerships can't do anything.
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 10:45 PM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
By CFJ 2050 doing x on behalf of another player is really just you doing x.
Thus if I make a partnership vote on something, it is really me voting.
Thus partnerships can't do anything.
Umm... that is an absurd precedent. I
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 8:14 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 10:45 PM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
By CFJ 2050 doing x on behalf of another player is really just you doing x.
Thus if I make a partnership vote on something, it is really me voting.
Thus
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
2082a: If tusho's stated belief that failing speech acts were not
illegal was reasonable, then UNAWARE was appropriate and thus GUILTY
was inappropriate. I intend (with the support of fellow panelists pikhq
and Goethe) to cause the panel to judge
woggle wrote:
Proposal: Overturn CFJ 2050
{{
comex is a co-author of this proposal.
Set the judgment on the question of veracity in CFJ 2050 to TRUE.
This isn't strictly needed. From Rule 591:
The judgement of the question in an inquiry case, and the
reasoning by which it was
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Charles Reiss wrote:
Proposal: Overturn CFJ 2050
{{
comex is a co-author of this proposal.
Set the judgment on the question of veracity in CFJ 2050 to TRUE.
Oh this is horrid and unneeded though I agree with the arguments.
Just CFJ again, there's no reason a new CFJ
On Wednesday 13 August 2008 11:03:13 pm Ed Murphy wrote:
define some useful label for X's role in the matter.
Executor
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
Rule 2170 (Who Am I?) should probably also be amended to state that
X CAN act on behalf of Y constitutes a legal fiction that Y is the
one acting, and define some useful label for X's role in the matter.
How about, er, Power of Attorney? Grantor, Holder,
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
Any player CAN appeal CFJ 2050 by announcement, upon which this
rule is repealed.
Why not a rule that allows late appeals with a higher support number
(or Agoran Consent, would need that to get this passed anyway).
-Goethe
I had posted a message indicating my intent to deregister. Assuming my
deregistering was successful, I don't know why it wouldn't be, I would need
to register again.
--cdm014
cdm014 wrote:
I had posted a message indicating my intent to deregister. Assuming my
deregistering was successful, I don't know why it wouldn't be, I would
need to register again.
Nothing in the archives (unless you sent it to a-d, or a backup
list). Your last two messages prior to your
Goethe wrote:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
Rule 2170 (Who Am I?) should probably also be amended to state that
X CAN act on behalf of Y constitutes a legal fiction that Y is the
one acting, and define some useful label for X's role in the matter.
How about, er, Power of Attorney?
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 12:57 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
R2170 already defines Executor (as the first-class person who sends
it, or who most directly and immediately causes it to be sent). Going
back to Grantor and Holder would work. (History lesson: the rules
used to explicitly
34 matches
Mail list logo
