Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Amend Rule 2126 to assign each player a state with a population,
some portion of which supports em.
What will this achieve?
Nothing directly, but maybe others will come up with new effects
based on these populations. (This is roughly inspired by my
"U
Zefram wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
gains two Green VCs if the office has a weekly report, or
one Green VC if the office has only a monthly report,
What if the office has neither?
Then the office has no salary.
What about non-report duties? The office of promotor h
Eris wrote:
On 7/13/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Proto-Proposal: Expanded foreign relations
Upon the adoption of this proposal, the Ambassador is ordered to
seek mutual recognition between Agora Nomic and Canada.
Why?
Why not?
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Mostly just renaming things for flavor, but there is a
bit of substance.]
I dislike most of the renaming.
Meh. I dislike abstract names. (In the first draft of the Card
rules, everything operated directly on "pending draws"; it
root wrote:
On 7/17/07, Peekee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On behalf of Agora I hereby repeal all rules, regulations, terms and
any and all other parts of the Primo Coporation and its charter. The
Primo Coporation no longer exists.
...
As Primo unconditionally allows Agora permission to chang
root wrote:
[the purported judgement of CFJ 1623]
> was also a rather flimsy analysis. It relied upon the assertion that
R754 was not clear on the matter,
Yes.
which is patent nonsense
No.
as "person" is not primarily a legal term.
That's precisely why it asserted that R754 was uncl
root wrote:
On 7/18/07, *Ed Murphy* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
root wrote:
> [the purported judgement of CFJ 1623]
> was also a rather flimsy analysis. It relied upon the assertion that
> R754 was not clear on the matter,
Zefram wrote:
I hereby assign CFJ 1701 to Human Point Two.
I intend to cause Human Point Two to judge this FALSE, with the
following arguments:
Most jurisdictions support a type of partnership in which some or
all partners are responsible for a proper subset of the partnership's
obligations.
Zefram wrote:
If partnerships worked without legislation, the appellate judges for
appeal 1684a are Speaker Human Point Two, CotC Zefram, and BobTHJ.
If partnerships did not work without legislation, the appellate judges
for appeal 1684a are Speaker Murphy, CotC Zefram, and BobTHJ.
I proto-ju
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
is insufficient reason for a REVERSE; if the new judge justifies Eris's
claim and once again judges TRUE, then the goal can still be reached by
ITYM "FALSE" here.
Yes.
Zefram wrote:
I call for appeal of Primo's judgement of CFJ 1694. Arguments:
[snip]
This case has similarities to CFJ 1704. In that case, concerning Primo
Corporation, the judge ruled that the possibility of direct modification
of Primo's charter by the adoption of an Agoran proposal satisfi
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Gunneran rule 358 copies Agoran Rule 106's force of law to Gunner
in exactly the same fashion as Primo charter section 1 copies it
to Primo.
No it doesn't. Primo charter section 1 gives Agoran law the capacity
to modify Primo by the statement
Zefram wrote:
Kerim Aydin wrote:
But a CFJ on the statement "a proposal (in general) can get around
R101" would have to be judged on the "current" ruleset, and it's
unclear to me whether the judge should judge it using (1) or (2).
There's nothing magical about rule changes that prevents a jud
Zefram wrote:
[The Order system is obsolete. With Timing Orders gone, the only
remaining type of Order would be Legislative Orders, but a proposal
can do whatever it wants anyway without requiring this bulky mechanism
in the ruleset.]
Proposals with ongoing effects have always been a bit fuzz
Proto-Proposal: Interest Index
(AI = 2, please)
Change the title of Rule 2153 to "Interest Index", and amend it to read:
The interest index of a proposal is a non-negative integer with
a default value of 1 and a maximum value of 3. Before the
Promotor distributes a proposal,
Zefram wrote:
Second thoughts: with Red VC rewards now varying massively in magnitude,
the one-per-week clause needs to be refined. I think that in each week
each proposer should receive the largest single Red VC reward available
from eir proposals that week, rather than whichever was chronolog
I wrote:
Zefram wrote:
I hereby assign CFJ 1707 to Human Point Two.
I intend to cause Human Point Two to judge TRUE.
Arguments:
The statement "This nomic allows Agora unrestricted access to make
changes to its ruleset" is reasonably equivalent to "This nomic's
rules change whenever the rul
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Player VLDP EVLOP VVLOP VCs (* = Gray)
root 1 6 1111* 1B
You haven't applied the end-of-week change that copies VVLOP to
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Ambassador Protectorates *Tue 17 Jun 07
Wooble recently reported on protectorates.
Message-ID? I don't see this one in the a-o archive.
Additional reports that you don't list:
* CotC: open judicial cases (R1868)
* CotC: post
Rule 1551 says, in part:
When a document is ratified, the gamestate is modified so that
the ratified document was completely true and accurate at the
time it was published. Nevertheless, the ratification of a
document does not invalidate, reverse, alter, or cancel any
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Zefram wrote:
Wooble recently reported on protectorates.
Message-ID? I don't see this one in the a-o archive.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
It was to a-o. It replaced an earlier attempt at an ambassador's report,
also to a-o, on the same day.
Oh, I
Zefram wrote:
open judicial cases
For the benefit of those who prefer tables:
Case Question Applicable Open Assigned Judge / Panel
1621 veracity 8 Feb 07 26 Jun 07 18 Jul 07 OscarMeyr
1651 verac
I've changed "Lying down" to "Supine". I've added UNDECIDABLE,
IRRELEVANT, UNDETERMINED (veracity), AFFIRM and OVERRULE
(disposition) to the list of possible judgements.
I have not altered any data on past cases.
There is no code for recording judgements for culpability or
sentencing, nor (due
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
I recommend a proposal to clarify this paragraph of Rule 1551 (which
Proposal 5101 does not attempt to alter),
P5101 makes the scope of ratification clearer. What aspect of R1551 do
you think needs to be further clarified?
What happens if the ratified
Zefram wrote:
Ian Kelly wrote:
It would be good to have R2117 subsumed into deputation as well, but
that's a more complex change.
Yes, it seems odd to me that we have such a different procedure for that.
R2117 was one of the specific instances from which deputation was
generalized; the othe
Zefram wrote:
The idea with these proposals is that you vote for your preferred minimum
quorum and also for all the higher ones. Presumably if you want a minimum
quorum of three then you also think that four would be an improvement
(though a lesser one) on the present five. If three doesn't at
BobTHJ wrote:
On 7/23/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Upon the adoption of this proposal, Zefram incurs a requirement
to publish a sonnet within three minutes after the adoption of
this proposal.
That's a bit harsh isn't it? I mean I would give em 5 minutes at l
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Proto-Proposal: Why not to repeal Rule 1795
R1795 wouldn't do much to stop you if you wanted to do that. My favoured
arrangement is that proposals should not be able to impose obligations
directly (no more than they can create legal fictions), so i
BobTHJ wrote:
On 7/23/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I hereby change all sitting players to standing.
I hereby assign BobTHJ as judge of CFJ 1699.
I hereby rule FALSE. From the nature of the message in question it is
clear that Comex was not attempting to deliberatly or recklessly mak
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Each player has a State with one or more Districts, a Base, and
a Constituency.
These names are quite opaque as to the significance of the parameters,
and the relationships that the names evoke don't match the behaviour of
the concepts.
"
Zefram wrote:
== CFJ 1699 ==
[snip]
Judged FALSE by BobTHJ: 24 Jul 2007 17:12:45 GMT
BobTHJ's message was NttPF. Rule 2158.
Proto-Proposal: Civil cases revisited
A criminal case has the additional purpose of punishing the
guilty. A civil case's purpose is limited to determining
guilt; any response to this determination is left to the
agreement.
Alternate version:
A criminal case ha
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Unnecessary generality. First come up with a method for
non-reflexive registration that we might actually want to use.
Not that we want to use it, but it's happened before. I believe you
were around when Morendil became Speaker while not a Player, and
Eris wrote:
On 7/27/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
a) Should Rule 754 (3)'s "primarily used in ... legal contexts" be
interpreted as "primarily used by Agora in legal contexts", or
"primarily used by the English-speaking populatio
comex wrote:
On Monday 23 July 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
Wooble wrote:
I believe my votes on these proposals were submitted within the voting
period to the proper forum and were not counted.
Correct. Those votes were as follows:
5080 5081 5082 5083 5084 5085 5086
Zefram wrote:
I hereby recuse BobTHJ from CFJ 1651. I hereby assign Murphy as judge
of CFJ 1651.
Statement: if a R107 notice initiating an Agoran decision does not contain
an explicit list of the eligible voters, and there is later a
dispute (evidenced by submission of
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Per the judgement of CFJ 1703, comex's claim was false. However,
only "deliberately or recklessly" making a false statement
violates Rule 2149, and per the judgement of CFJ 1699, comex
did neither. Accordingly, I judge UNIMPUGNED.
Y
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
I call for judgement to determine whether CotC Zefram violated
Rule 1871 (The Standing Court) by changing all sitting players
to standing on or about Mon, 30 Jul 2007 22:11:48 +0100.
"determine whether" indicates an inquiry case, although your me
root wrote:
On 8/1/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
For each decision, the options available are
ADOPTED, REJECTED, and FAILED QUORUM.]
No they're not. The options are FOR, AGAINST, and PRESENT.
There's a distinction between the opti
comex wrote:
Perhaps I need to read the archives, but I am uncertain of what is the
default for regulated actions.
Game custom is CANNOT and (not MAY NOT).
A simple example of an action allowed only
with CAN is in Rule 1868; one allowed only with "MAY" is in Rule 1607. If
the actions CAN b
comex wrote:
On Wednesday 01 August 2007, Ed Murphy wrote
Neither CAN nor MAY is explicitly defined by Rule 2152, so ordinary
language applies. Game custom for both is (not CANNOT) and (not
MAY NOT).
This is severely broken. Certainly MAY/CAN are not capitalized merely for
emphasis
Zefram wrote:
proto-proposal: clarify Mother, May I?
* CAN : it is POSSIBLE for to .
* CANNOT : it is IMPOSSIBLE for to .
This eliminates " CAN only if " as a synonym for
" CANNOT if not ". Similarly for the other cases.
In particular, we might want to amend Rule 101 to
comex wrote:
On Friday 27 July 2007, Antonio Dolcetta wrote:
I was wandering if anyone is interested in creating a faction.
Since the faction rules have been introduced no one has made one, Is
there any interest at all in playing factions out ?
I cause Agora to join B Nomic per rule 5-2.
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
This eliminates " CAN only if " as a synonym for
" CANNOT if not ". Similarly for the other cases.
Those semantics are the usual meaning of "only if", aren't they?
How else might "only if" be interpreted?
As &q
Peekee wrote:
I
register
as
a
*player*
.
Channeling Syllep
root wrote:
On 8/12/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dates given are generally from the "Date:" header of the applicable
message. This is not the legally effective time (CFJ 1646), but is an
approximation of it. See the message in question for exact timing.
Eep. Looking at CFJ 1646, I
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
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
If such a proposal received no AGAINST votes, its proposer
gains one Zinnwaldite VC.
Zinnwaldite isn't a colour AFAICT. Otherwise I like the proto.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_colors
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinnwaldite_(color)
root wrote:
Incidentally, I don't like these new dependent action rules; all the
Agoran decision cruft makes them much more heavyweight than they
really have any need to be. When are we ever going to use a dependent
action with a majority index other than one?
When we think of something impor
comex wrote:
Amend the rule titled "Truthiness, or the Island of
Knights and Knaves" by replacing the entire text of the rule with:
Knight and Knave are player switches with values NAY and YAY,
tracked by the Speaker, with default values of YAY and NAY,
respectively.
Eww.
Co
comex wrote:
For the agoran decision I initiated in this message:
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2007-August/007098.html
(published 7 days ago)
the options available are APPROVED and REJECTED.
No votes were made.
The option therefore selected by Agora is APP
comex wrote:
On Monday 13 August 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
No, it isn't. S/(S+O) = 0/(0+0) = 0/0 = 0 (Rule 2146), which
is <= 1/2 (Rule 2124), so the OSbA is REJECTED (Rule 955).
You're right. Therefore, my notice resolving the decision was invalid, so
the decision is still a
comex wrote:
On Monday 13 August 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
Eww.
I couldn't think of a better way to allow a player to be a Knight and a
Knave at the same time.
Smullyan is rolling over in his grave. Peekee is jumping for
joy, but you can't tell which ones are him and which one
comex wrote:
On 8/14/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I hereby agree to be bound by the following agreement:
This contract does not exist until someone else agrees to it, correct?
Someone has. Two someones, in fact.
d) 1 point to a contestant who was an officer al
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Sheqalim
Typo?
Google and Wikipedia both say no.
(S, sing. sheqel) are a measure of each player's
ability to gerrymander the redistricting process.
I dislike the "are a measure of" wording. The important bit here
Zefram wrote:
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
I'm open to suggestions on an appropriate color. Mauve is my
current choice.
I suggest sticking to the primary colours, because they have well-known
letter abbreviations. So far we're not using any of the subtractive
primaries (C, M, Y) or the endpoin
1) Amend R955(d)(3) to make majority index actions require the ratio
be greater than or equal to the index if the actor is an (active)
first-class player; strictly greater otherwise.
I prefer amending R1728(d) so that the vote collector is generally
allowed to vote on actions with Agoran consent
root wrote:
On 8/16/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(a) With N Supporters. For this method, the support index is N,
and the tally of votes need only include a number of SUPPORT
votes sufficient to approve the action. "With
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Proto-Proposal: Republic repair
I'm opposed to this being a separate proposal from the Republic of Agora.
Merge the fixes into the main proposal.
I plan to; that was written before I saw the votes swinging
roughly 2 to 1 against.
Zefram wrote:
proto-proposal: reward for deputisation
AI: 2
{{{
Amend rule 2126 by appending to the list of ways that VCs can be gained:
d) When a player deputises for an office e gains one Cyan VC,
unless someone previously gained a VC in this manner for the
same offi
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Proto-Proposal: Transfinite arithmetic
Do you have a use for more of those identities, then?
Variety Show agreement, item 6c. Standard arithmetic covers that
particular case, but still.
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
I suggest Magenta (opposite of Green) for this,
Pavitra already claimed magenta as the celebratory colour.
Mauve, actually.
I was thinking orange would be suitable for zeitgeist, being adjacent
and similar to red.
Orange alert. Orange alert.
I was
Proto-Proposal: Transfinite arithmetic
d) 0 / Y = 0
+inf / +inf = undefined
+inf / Y= +inf otherwise
X/ +inf = 0otherwise
(-X) / Y = X / (-Y) = -(X/Y)
X / 0 = +inf if X > 0
X / 0 = -inf if X < 0
+inf's could also be sorted base
Zefram wrote:
Here's a list of things that you could get Boons for, about a year ago:
What was a Boon?
Boons and Albatrosses were Ephemeral Patent Titles. At the end of each
quarter, each player's Kudos (used to pay for various interesting
actions) were reset to a baseline + #Boons - #Albat
Zefram wrote:
Amend Rule 106 (Adopting Proposals) by replacing the paragraph
containing "The adoption index of a proposal is" with this text:
Since you've moved the change in the "Support Democracy" procedure to
a separate proposal, this amendment to R106 should not be inserting
the word "init
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
A permissively regulated attribute CANNOT be modified, and a
permissively regulated action CANNOT be performed, except by an
instrument with power at least as great as that of the rule
defining that attribute or action as permissively
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
An action is regulated if any of the following is true:
What is the effect of an action being regulated?
The new Rule 2125 would specify the effect, depending on how
it is regulated. Furthermore, Rule 101 (ii) fails to grant
players the right to perform
Pavitra wrote:
A permissively regulated attribute CANNOT be modified, and a
permissively regulated action CANNOT be performed, except by an
instrument with power at least as great as that of the rule
defining that attribute or action as permissively regulated.
How about:
A
Pavitra wrote:
There's little point in a security level higher than the power of the
securing rule.
Actually, that's under the old system. Under the new system, there
would be little point in a security level higher than the power of the
rule defining security levels. (And so that rule shoul
Zefram wrote:
Amend rule 2149 by inserting the words "or which e is reckless
regarding the veracity of" at the end of each sentence in the second
paragraph.
I still think this should define "reckless", perhaps by example.
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
e.g. why bother enshrining the basic behavior of some concept in a
Power 3 rule if you're going to let Power 2 rules modify that behavior?
Perhaps some aspects need to be power=3 difficult to modify, but other
aspects should be modifiable at power=2 in ce
Zefram wrote:
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
5158 Di 2Zefram Agora is (nearly) a republic
AGAINST
...
5160 Di 2comex Agora is (nearly) a republic
FOR
When I left in a huff in 1997, I did so largely because I perceived that
people bore a grudge against me. I had the impressi
Proposal: Refactor regulation
(AI = 3, please)
Amend Rule 2125 (Regulation Regulations) to read:
An action is regulated if any of the following is true:
(a) The rules specify that the action CANNOT be performed, or
CAN be performed ONLY IF certain conditions are satis
Levi wrote:
By Rule 2136:
A player with 100 or more points may win the game by announcing
this fact. Upon such an announcement, each player's score is
set to zero.
I announce that I now have 100 points. Therefore I win the game.
Actually, you have 101 points.
Peekee wrote:
Problems are the discussion forums defined in the rules? I suspect there
would be little way of regulating protos.
Yes, Rule 478:
Publicity is a forum switch with values Public, Discussion, and
Null (default), tracked by the Registrar.
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
5171 AGAINST (invisible F)
Ah, you're in the "unless" == "iff not" camp too? Curious. I had
no idea that interpretation of "unless" existed in formal logic.
I've always used it to mean "if not".
I'm undecided. I think the matter warrants further discussion.
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Player (* = inactive)VLDP EVLOP VVLOP VCs
eekeeP is not listed.
I expect CFJ 1724 to be judged FALSE.
[When ties for determining Party were broken by alphabetical order,
Quazie's Party was Blue. Now that they are broken by order of VC
comex wrote:
On 8/20/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That's strictly on the merits. With 5159 I nearly voted PRESENT, but
I'm worried that it's a scam setup. I had a nightmare two nights ago
that involved a R2134 win being sprung, which is probably related.)
You're correct in that the
Levi wrote:
In Rule 2139 replace the following text:
The Registrar's report shall include the following:
with:
The Registrar's report SHOULD include the following:
I agree with the idea of saying "The X's report includes Y", and
leaving it to other rules to place requirements on
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
a) Default Officeholder.
We repealed this for a good reason.
And what reason was that, then?
b) Default Justice.
This is a better way to handle a default justice than what we had before.
Why?
c) Wielder of Veto.
Undemocratic
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
And what reason was that, then?
Having a default officeholder makes officeholding indeterminate when
we're not sure who the default officeholder is. It spreads uncertainty
regarding the game state. We ran into this recently regarding the CotC,
when reso
Zefram wrote:
(I think there is CFJ evidence that Jon is a person already)
CFJ 1700. Murphy wants to appeal it.
Not because I doubt the outcome, but because Judge Wooble didn't so
much as ask for Jon to send a message from eir own e-mail address.
Levi wrote:
Just noticed that Rule 2160 uses POSSIBLE.
If it's the reverse of IMPOSSIBLE, it would be defined the same as CAN.
But then, in Rule 2160, I'm not sure POSSIBLE is the right term?
There was a proposal to change it to LEGAL, whereupon it was pointed
out that many actions are LEGAL
Levi wrote:
At the end of a proposal's voting period, each player who was
the only player to cast a valid vote for a given option on it
gains one Pink VC.
Not totally sure this is a good idea. I'd be voting FORx1 AGAINSTx1
PRESENTx1 on all Ordinary proposals, and the higher
Zefram wrote:
At the end of a proposal's voting period, each player who cast
at least one valid vote on it, but cast more invalid votes than
valid votes on it, loses one Pink VC.
Cute. BobTHJ will hate you.
It's principle rather than practice. If e believed eir VLOP was
some
Zefram wrote:
[I'm concerned that the fiddliness of the condition might increase the
assessor's workload unreasonably. Murphy?]
I'm already publishing F/A totals, so identical results there would
trigger a count of PRESENT votes. However, checking this condition
would potentially require dig
Zefram wrote:
The distributor is an office. The distributor SHALL send eir
weekly report to each non-null forum at least once each quarter.
This could be a monthly report; it's not like the fora change very
often. I don't know whether the Distributor's workload is large
enough to
Zefram wrote:
proto-proposal: allow non-player wins
Create a rule titled "Non-Player Wins" with this text:
When a non-player wins the game, e becomes a player.
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
This could be a monthly report;
Yes. I wanted to make it a monthly report, but that would depend on
the ability to report switches monthly. You protoed something to that
effect, but it's not in the ruleset yet.
I don't recall that offhand, and
comex wrote:
I submit the following proposal:
Proposal: Refactor regulation
(AI = 3, please)
Murphy is a coauthor of this proposal.
Why? And why did those who voted AGAINST it do so? Perhaps this one
could do with some more cooking time.
comex wrote:
On 8/29/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
comex wrote:
But it is still a quote.
Quotation is an aspect of its construction, yes. That doesn't exempt
it from R2149.
I CFJ, barring Zefram, on the statement:
A part of a message sent to a Public Forum that is quoting another
m
comex wrote:
On 8/29/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I concur with the Initiator's arguments and enter a judgement of TRUE.
I intend, with 2 support, to appeal this.
I vote SUPPORT. At least wait for our sole knave to weigh in on the
discussion (in a-d, so as to avoid further enta
root wrote:
On 8/29/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
comex wrote:
I submit the following proposal:
Proposal: Refactor regulation
(AI = 3, please)
Murphy is a coauthor of this proposal.
Why? And why did those who voted AGAINST it do so? Perhaps this one
could do with som
I've updated the database code to identify criminal cases and recognize
the possible judgements on culpability, and filled in the correct values
for the past judgements. Please let me know if you spot any problems.
Eris, how do I regenerate cotc_amend.pyc from cotc_amend.py? Not that
it matters
comex wrote:
I intend, with Agoran Consent, to make Peekee the holder of the office
of Clerk of the Courts. (E will have a chance to register shortly
before the 14-day limit expires.)
I vote OBJECT.
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
then the knave is considered to /feel/
the announcement to be true, and this rule prohibits neither
the announcement nor the action.
Yuck. If you want to make such an exception, please do it without this
false distinction
I added a "Criminal cases" link, just above "All cases".
comex, your mirror is broken; please let me know if something on
my end's caused it, though I can't think of anything that would.
Zefram wrote:
comex wrote:
but possibly end up just a useless pain.
How exactly was truthiness ever going to avoid this fate?
It was perfectly fine in its original form, if you ask me.
> TITLES OF HONOUR
Listing date-awarded would make for a nice research project.
Ephemera were repealed long ago, so that note can be removed.
> First Speaker: Michael
This is defined by the rules, but not as a Patent Title. If e was
awarded the title as a Patent Title at some point, then
> open judicial cases
Can this be given in tabular format, please? e.g.
Inquiry Caller Called Judge Assigned
---
1729 Zefram 21 Aug root21 Aug
1730 Pavitra 22 Aug BobTHJ 22 Aug
1731 Zefram 23 Aug Murphy 23 Aug
Criminal
301 - 400 of 1672 matches
Mail list logo
