Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Judicial Assignments
On 1/31/07, Ed Murphy wrote: What about Manu? (The web database incorrectly listed em as being on hold. Fixed now.) Sshhh! Don't tell anyone! ~Manu
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC, on behalf of] CFJ 1606 assigned to Quazie
On 1/31/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1606 == CFJ 1606 == Goethe was deregistered in a Writ of FAGE in December 2006. Caller: Goethe Barred: Murphy, Sherlock Judge: Quazie Judgement: History: Called by Goethe: 11 Jan 2007 18:38:57 GMT Assigned to Quazie: 31 Jan 2007 13:03:46 GMT Interestingly if i judge this as true, then it could never have been called and I never could have judged it, as (unless i'm mistaken) deregistred players cant CFJ. And i am mistaken it seems, which leaves a very interesting hole open in the event that some non-player wanted to create havoc, as any person can call any number of CFJs
Re: DIS: A bit of heresy...
Michael Slone wrote: Kelly's drafting is about the best I've ever seen (but I only started watching in 1998), but it tends to be hard to amend parts of her legislation without introducing subtle errors. My recollection is that it tends to have plenty of subtle errors to start with. And I consider the baroque complexity to be a bad thing. -zefram
DIS: OFF: Judgement of CFJ 1597
Michael wrote: If you like, I think my argument is in the best interests of the game: do you really want an unresolvable CFJ paralysing the system for evermore? (You might call the same CFJ again I suppose.) I called CFJ 1606 specifically to fix it. I explained that at the time. It creates a CFJ identical in substance to the paradoxical one. That one could be judged on its merits, and therefore set the precedent for how the paradoxical one should have been treated had its judge been resolvable. If desired, CFJ 1606 could be appealed, and the appeals court could use that to bring the CFJs into harmony. This was done before the voting period for the retcon proposal ended. Now that the retcon proposal has passed, I'm pretty much washing my hands of actually trying to resolve it legally aside from quibbling details in the discussion forum. -Goethe
DIS: Re: BUS: Appeal of CFJ 1594
Eris wrote: On 1/31/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I hereby appeal Sherlock's judgement of CFJ 1594. I also appeal this Judgement, because I've always wanted to try this. This is explicitly allowed by Rule 101, but contributes nothing toward Rule 1564's prerequisites for initiating an appeal. I am reminded of the Inalienable Rights scene from _Life of Brian_.
Re: DIS: OFF: Judgement of CFJ 1597
Michael Norrish wrote: Kerim Aydin wrote: Let's say, in this case, the decision is OVERTURN AND REVERSE. Did that OVERTURN AND REVERSE apply to Goethe's FALSE or Sherlock's TRUE? There's no legal distinction the appeals court can make to distinguish them. I don't imagine the Appeals Court will make that decision then. I suspect instead they'll suggest that the case be re-assigned. I envisioned conditional responses like I move to sustain X's judgement of CFJ 5000. I move to overturn and reverse Y's judgement of CFJ 5000. but reassignment is unquestionably more elegant. If you like, I think my argument is in the best interests of the game: do you really want an unresolvable CFJ paralysing the system for evermore? (You might call the same CFJ again I suppose.) Which, in fact, e did.
Re: DIS: Proto: Revise Rotation
Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: What's this supposed to mean? Sounds like a barbecuing procedure. cause a player to become turned, then. It's the whole thing that I have a problem with, not the verb turn. I really can't make head or tail of it. What's it for? Shortly after you last deregistered, we repealed the requirement for judges to be selected randomly. Turns for All was a response to that, to ensure that players would still be assigned to roughly equal numbers of cases over time. Turned is a subtly amusing gloss for had eir turn. Listing all outstanding CFJs is a tricky requirement. Not if the database is up to date, A new CFJ can always be called while the Notice is being prepared or in transit. So you do one more download before sending it. Big deal. CFJ 1607 is assigned to Quazie. This is a Notice of Rotation, pointing out CFJ 1600. CFJ 1608 is assigned to Quazie. This is a Notice of Rotation, pointing out CFJ 1600. CFJ 1609 is assigned to Quazie. Hmm. In that case we'd want to require a Judge to be assigned to CFJ 1600 before any others. Perhaps that should be part of a Notice of Rotation: a newly unturned Player must be assigned to the cited CFJ. That would enormously reduce the scope for abuse. If my conditions are in place, then only newly unturned players would be eligible anyway. Another way to express it: assigning a turned player has the side effect of unturning everyone else. That could even be made implicit. I have a bad feeling that that would eventually lead to some sort of Platonic mess.
Re: DIS: Proto: Revise Rotation
On 1/31/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:The intent was to jump ahead and make more Turns-for-All assignments to the greatest extent possible. As things currently stand, and even under your suggested middle ground, the CotC could have done this: CFJ 1607 is assigned to Quazie. This is a Notice of Rotation, pointing out CFJ 1600. CFJ 1608 is assigned to Quazie. This is a Notice of Rotation, pointing out CFJ 1600. CFJ 1609 is assigned to Quazie. For the love of agora, please don't do that.
DIS: Definitions
OK, I've drafted an unpublished protoDecision on the CFJ I was assigned. But before I submit it, I was just wondering if anybody had some rules or past judicial precedent to advise me of related to: * definition of terms, and * handling of terms which were formally defined under the rules. Cecilius [EMAIL PROTECTED]
