I judged CFJ 3449 on 28 Sep 2015: https://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2015-September/033920.html
It was over a month late, but we're definitely outside the Statute of Limitations. If you're looking at the CFJ database, that is one of several between 3380-3452 where omd's database was only partially complete (assigned-to messages but not judgement messages). Filling those in is on my TODO list. I haven't fully checked, but I don't *think* there are any open CFJs. There used to be punishments for making false accusations... :). On Mon, 22 May 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: > Note that I can’t issue a Card to a non-player: > > The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, impose Summary > Judgment on a player by > issuing a card to em by announcement. > > > Emphasis mine. As G. cannot be a player right now, I cannot issue a card to > em. > > Separately, I’ll need more time to investigate the alleged offence. > > -o > > On May 20, 2017, at 11:10 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > <p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > I would recommend that the referee issue a card for G.'s failure to judge CFJ > 3449, found > at > https://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2015-August/011123.html, > in a timely > manner. > > ----Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > > On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 11:06 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > <p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote: > I judge CFJ 3469 DISMISS because of the typo. However, I find the > statement could be corrected > as "At least one Patent Title is held by something other than a > person." or "At least one > Patent Title is able to be held by something other than a person." I > find the first of these to > be dependent upon the second and as I will find the second FALSE, I > find the first FALSE as > well. I find the second to be FALSE because a Patent Title is "a legal > title given to a person > in recognition of the person's distinction." This suggests to us that > only persons may be given > Patent Titles. However, to analyze this statement we must first list > the verbs that can be > applied to patent titles. In the rules we find the following verbs: > * to award (a patent title) > * to revoke (a patent title) > After reviewing CFJs we find that one is able: > * to possess (a patent title) [CFJ 904] > * to have (a patent title) [CFJ 2306] > * to bear (a patent title) [CFJ 1874] > However, all uses of these verbs have as their subject a person. Given the > way the rule is phrased > that a patent title is "in recognition of the person's distinction." I > believe that there can exist a > patent title in the distinction of anything, which was a person at the time > of the award. However, if > the entity is no longer a person, it can no longer be held by the entity, but > shall still exist and > must be tracked as a patent title "in recognition of the person's > distinction." because it is in > recognition of the person who once existed, but is no longer held by the > entities current state. > Also, a similar, but more person related, CFJ, CFJ 3449, is still assigned to > G. and has not been > judged in a timely manner. > ----Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
