Re: DIS: Re: BUS: intent to deputise
On May 30, 2009, at 1:48 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: Geoffrey Spear wrote: I intend to deputise for the Herald to announce that OscarMeyr became Speaker on 20 May 2009. Oscar, or anyone deputizing if Oscar fails to do so: I believe the Respectfully, my nickname is OscarMeyr, not Oscar. Take a good look at my .sig file for a hint as to where this comes from. - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: intent to deputise
Benjamin Schultz wrote: On May 30, 2009, at 1:48 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: Geoffrey Spear wrote: I intend to deputise for the Herald to announce that OscarMeyr became Speaker on 20 May 2009. Oscar, or anyone deputizing if Oscar fails to do so: I believe the Respectfully, my nickname is OscarMeyr, not Oscar. Take a good look at my .sig file for a hint as to where this comes from. All right, I will refrain from abbreviating you as Oscar in the future. Now, are you going to assign Prerogatives or let the rest of us fight over it (not that it wouldn't be funny)?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: intent to deputise
Sean Hunt wrote: Geoffrey Spear wrote: I intend to deputise for the Herald to announce that OscarMeyr became Speaker on 20 May 2009. Oscar, or anyone deputizing if Oscar fails to do so: I believe the current MWoPs are myself, ais523, root, yourself, and Wooble. Note that Canada being awarded MWoP will not change this; it will subsequently lose the title due to not being a player. Correction: root will lose it, not Canada. OscarMeyr will still remain Speaker.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: intent to deputise
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: at OscarMeyr became Speaker on 20 May 2009. Canada is a player, and an active one at that.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: intent to deputise
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: at OscarMeyr became Speaker on 20 May 2009. Canada is a player, and an active one at that. It is a person; I'm not aware of it ever becoming a player.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to deputise
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I accept this nomination. I also predict that Taral will decline (or at least not accept) eirs, as IIRC e ran away screaming the last time e was so nominated. Eh, if Murphy wants it, e can have it. Murphy? -- Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you. -- Unknown
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to deputise
Taral wrote: On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I accept this nomination. I also predict that Taral will decline (or at least not accept) eirs, as IIRC e ran away screaming the last time e was so nominated. Eh, if Murphy wants it, e can have it. Murphy? Sure. CotC duties remain nowhere near as onerous as (say) high-velocity asset recordkeeping, I just need to actually get around to it regularly.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to deputise
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 2172a I note that the CotC is very nearly overdue on one of these recusals, and am getting the intent in for the other two in sufficient time to be able to deputise relatively soon; an appeals case being held up for 14 days is not in the best interests of Agora. In 2213a, the intended judgement seems rather uncontroversial. It would probably be better if the CotC would just support the intent in lieu of Sir Toby. Yes, agreed, but I can't deputise for that. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to deputise
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 allowed to deputise. Hmm... http://www.fysh.org/ It's around 24 Nov 2007 and we're still reinstalling fysh.org after a hacking incident. As such all websites normally hosted by us are currently unavailable. We're working as fast as we can to get it all back up and running. Explains why the ruleset has been down for a while, but what of Zefram himself? That's a good question. It seems that the CotC site has been updated, but I don't know if Zefram has any influence on that site. . .
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to deputise
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 nearly 24 hours, so 48 hours after my declaration of intent, I will be allowed to deputise. Unless I missed a message, you haven't ended the pre-trial phase yet; it will end automatically in just over 24 hours, and the time limit for assignment will start. The CotC database is not yet aware of the pre-trial phase. I may eventually fix that, but it's not a high priority. I've already submitted my arguments defending myself. I thought that that would be sufficient to end the pre-trial phase. . . But apparently not. Zefram posted the Rulesets three days ago, and eir oldest standing obligation as CotC (the assignment CFJ 1805) still has over four days to go. If e remains cut off long enough, then I'll nominate myself to take back the office (and we'll have to reassign Rulekeepor and Promotor as well). I suggest that we wait a few days before doing so.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to deputise?
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 the position, though. . .
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to deputise
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 consider it broken); By deputise with an argument, do you mean deputise for a duty that can be satisfied in multiple ways, stating in advance which way you intend to choose? I don't see why this wouldn't work, given that you can do the same thing without the advance statement. This reminds me of the precedent set in CFJ 1334, in which it was ruled that a dependent action failed because the announcement of intent was insufficiently specific. However, that determination hinged around the phrase unambiguously describe, which is not used for deputisation. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to deputise
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 CotC *can* assign sitting judges, e is merely forbidden to do so. Your general train of thought about indirect obligations is sound. The closest thing we've got to a precedent here is CFJ 1488, which argues against the concept of indirect obligations. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to deputise
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 won't matter, and this will convince Zefram to actually assign judges to those CFJs. 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 consider it broken); and changing sitting players to standing, whether or not everyone's sitting, is not explicitly required. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to deputise
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 likely that it won't matter, and this will convince Zefram to actually assign judges to those CFJs. 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 consider it broken); By deputise with an argument, do you mean deputise for a duty that can be satisfied in multiple ways, stating in advance which way you intend to choose? I don't see why this wouldn't work, given that you can do the same thing without the advance statement. and changing sitting players to standing, whether or not everyone's sitting, is not explicitly required. Yes, this set of deputisations definitely wouldn't work.
