On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 5:04 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
A contest's contestmaster CAN transfer ownership of or destroy a Medal
in that contest's possession, but only as explicitly described by the
contest's text; one exception to this is that a contest CANNOT transfer
a Medal to
On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 08:43 -0800, Taral wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 5:04 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
A contest's contestmaster CAN transfer ownership of or destroy a Medal
in that contest's possession, but only as explicitly described by the
contest's text; one exception to
Goethe wrote:
[Note: (not part of judgement) I assume we are judging on the
culpability rather than the sentencing here?]
Correct, I explicitly appealed culpability.
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
Goethe wrote:
[Note: (not part of judgement) I assume we are judging on the
culpability rather than the sentencing here?]
Correct, I explicitly appealed culpability.
Ok I certainly stand by Affirm then; the place to take into
account Sgeo being silly
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, comex wrote:
I move to AFFIRM. I have not carefully weighed the full implications
of my failure to include arguments.
I think that counts as an included argument.
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Charles Reiss wrote:
And even if the above were not the better interpretation, surely the
ambiguity on this matter would be sufficient to fail to satisfy
R1504's condition (d) the Accused could have reasonably believed that
the alleged act did not violate the specified
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:41, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Charles Reiss wrote:
And even if the above were not the better interpretation, surely the
ambiguity on this matter would be sufficient to fail to satisfy
R1504's condition (d) the Accused could have
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Charles Reiss wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:41, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
(d) deliberately does not care about what the defendent actually
thinks, only what e could have thought. Therefore, there is no reason
to consider the defendent's admission in
ais523 wrote:
If SHOULD as defined leads to an infinite regress, this does not mean
it's impossible to breach. To be legal, Sgeo would have had to read the
ruleset, or thought about reading the ruleset and decided not to, or
thought about thinking about reading the ruleset and deciding not to
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 13:01, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Charles Reiss wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:41, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
(d) deliberately does not care about what the defendent actually
thinks, only what e could have thought.
NUM C I AI SUBMITTER TITLE
6120 D 1 2.0 Murphy Increase the ticket ration
FOR
-Yally
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Elliott Hird wrote:
Arguments: According to Goethe, if you admit you breached the rules
you're guilty, regardless of whether or not the rules say you're
guilty.
I didn't say that. We're talking about cases where (a) we actually
interpret an action as a breach; in which
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Elliott Hird wrote:
Arguments: According to Goethe, if you admit you breached the rules
you're guilty, regardless of whether or not the rules say you're
guilty.
I didn't say that. We're talking about cases where (a) we actually
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 16:26, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Charles Reiss wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 13:01, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Charles Reiss wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:41, Kerim Aydin
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
I agree that Sgeo did not meet any of the conditions, but the rules
don't clearly define failure to meet any of the conditions as being a
violation.
I noticed this too:
6. MUST, SHALL, REQUIRED, MANDATORY: Failing
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 5:50 PM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote:
I contest this. NoVing someone immediately upon joining is very rude.
E ceased to play for a month, let em be.
Dodging punishments by leaving the game is permitted -- but don't
expect to rejoin without paying your dues.
--
Taral
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Charles Reiss wrote:
I think plainly this is not what R1504(d) says since it considers
whether some hypothetical situation exists where the defendent could
have believed it did not violate the rule. This perhaps does not
excuse them for violations after research, but
Taral wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
I agree that Sgeo did not meet any of the conditions, but the rules
don't clearly define failure to meet any of the conditions as being a
violation.
I noticed this too:
6. MUST, SHALL, REQUIRED,
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Which, as noted, is exactly how I intended #7 to operate. (We have
other rules with even less significant effect.) If the courts decide
otherwise, then so be it, but until then I'm not conceding the issue.
The problem
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 18:08, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Charles Reiss wrote:
I think plainly this is not what R1504(d) says since it considers
whether some hypothetical situation exists where the defendent could
have believed it did not violate the rule.
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Charles Reiss wrote:
I disagree. The judge has an affirmative duty to check each possible
defense emselves regardless of what the defendant says in order to
avoid making an inappropriate judgment on culpability. Ideally,
figures related to the case (not necessarily the
[stuff]
As far as I remember, my confession was not that I violated a rule,
just that I failed to throughly consider the consequences of not
reading the ruleset during read the ruleset week.
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 21:01, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
[snip]
And what's wrong with addressing this in a sentencing appeal, anyway
(e.g. yes e technically could have known, but it's because e took the
advice of others, so DISCHARGE is just fine). I'm leery of setting
23 matches
Mail list logo
