Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2090 judged TRUE by ais523
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 1:26 AM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does this mean 2019 is now back on ais523's plate? And if so aren't they WAY overdue for a judgement? The panel in 2019a was WAY overdue in judging. ais523 still has 6+ days to judge, since the case was just remanded to em.
DIS: Re: BUS: I do.
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 1:03 AM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i act? I doubt any of that was sufficiently unambiguous to cause any actions. Possibly the I lean. I sit. which would have had no net effect anyway as you were already sitting.
DIS: Re: BUS: I do.
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 1:03 AM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I run. i eat. I jump. I dance. I sing. I stand. i spread. I rip. i trip. i lie. I spin. i rotate. I taste. I present. I contribute. I register. i concur. I support. i object. I walk. I I I lean. I sit. I cfj. i explode. I implode. I flip. I recuse. I vote. I live. I die. I bleed. I slip. I exfoliate. I undress. I lick. I like. I look. I spill. i milk. I type. I email. I send. I receive. I bookmark. I hem. i haw. I hug. I submit. I propose. I proto-propose. i message. I do. I don't. I want. I need. I act. I will. I call. I judge. I paint. i draw. I deal. I chase. I spell. I order. i climb. I dig. I descend. i win. I lose. I condition. i shower. i wander. I am. i sail. I ship. I inactive. I shutdown. i powerup. i level. I enbiggen. I break a world record. i speak. i act? ihope. --ihope127
DIS: Re: BUS: reregistering
2008/8/13 Chester Mealer [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I resume being cdm014. If the previous statement was not a possible action, I register or reregister under the name cdm014 choosing the action which best communicates that I was previously an active player called cdm014 and wish to be so again. Aren't you just inactive?
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 11:50 AM, Chester Mealer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gender Neutral pronouns(e.g eir, e, and e's) are words granted meaning and usage under the set of rules excluding 754(4). I believe it's 754(1) that grants them meaning, since those words have no ordinary-language meaning. I'd say they represent either a difference in spelling or dialect, depending on your view of whether a language variation with a tiny number of adherents that isn't geographically constrained really constitutes a dialect or not. And, I suppose, your view of whether e could really be considered a different spelling of something like he, she, or it.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ
2008/8/13 Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I believe it's 754(1) that grants them meaning, since those words have no ordinary-language meaning. I'd say they represent either a difference in spelling or dialect, depending on your view of whether a language variation with a tiny number of adherents that isn't geographically constrained really constitutes a dialect or not. And, I suppose, your view of whether e could really be considered a different spelling of something like he, she, or it. he or she, surely. We don't call objects e do we?
DIS: Re: BUS: I do.
On Wednesday 13 August 2008 12:03:46 am Quazie wrote: I stand. Ineffective, you cannot generally flip your own posture to standing. I register. Ineffective, you are already a player. I support. i object. Ineffective, it's not clear what you're supporting/objecting to. I I I lean. I sit. Probably effective. I cfj. i explode. Probably ineffective, as 'cfj' is followed by a period rather than a colon, 'i explode' seems to be a separate statement rather than the question of inquiry. I recuse. I vote. Probably ineffective due to lack of direct objects to transitive verbs. I hem. i haw. I hug. Probably effective. We have a tradition of respecting creative paraphrases like I lie down for I become supine. I submit. I propose. Probably ineffective, no direct object. I call. I judge. Ditto. i win. False, hence ineffective. I lose. This may be relevant to The Game, if it's still around. I inactive. Probably effective. Net effect: you become sitting, hugging, and inactive. I think. Pavitra
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I do.
Pavitra wrote: I I I lean. I sit. Probably effective. I hem. i haw. I hug. Probably effective. We have a tradition of respecting creative paraphrases like I lie down for I become supine. These two are no-ops. I'm treating them as successful. I inactive. Probably effective. This one confuses and frightens me. I'm treating it as unsuccessful.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 12:25 PM, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: he or she, surely. We don't call objects e do we? We have players that aren't humans and thus have no gender, and the rules do use e when referring to players, so yes.
DIS: Re: BUS: I do.
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Quazie wrote: [snip] TIATEOISIRIEIJIDISISISIRITILISIRITIPICIRICISIOIWIIILISICIEIIIFIR IVILIDIBISIEIUILILILISIMITIEISIRIBIHIHIHISIPIP-PIMIDIDIWINIAIWICIJIP IDIDICISIOICIDIDIWILICISIWIAISISIIISIPILIEIBAWRISIATHPAFALT.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I do.
On Wednesday 13 August 2008 12:38:12 pm Kerim Aydin wrote: On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Quazie wrote: [snip] TIATEOISIRIEIJIDISISISIRITILISIRITIPICIRICISIOIWIIILISICIEIIIFIR IVILIDIBISIEIUILILILISIMITIEISIRIBIHIHIHISIPIP-PIMIDIDIWINIAIWICIJIP IDIDICISIOICIDIDIWILICISIWIAISISIIISIPILIEIBAWRISIATHPAFALT. This is a/an (?) example of [I do a bunch of stuff] ... what's THPAFALT?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I do.
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Ben Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wednesday 13 August 2008 12:38:12 pm Kerim Aydin wrote: On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Quazie wrote: [snip] TIATEOISIRIEIJIDISISISIRITILISIRITIPICIRICISIOIWIIILISICIEIIIFIR IVILIDIBISIEIUILILILISIMITIEISIRIBIHIHIHISIPIP-PIMIDIDIWINIAIWICIJIP IDIDICISIOICIDIDIWILICISIWIAISISIIISIPILIEIBAWRISIATHPAFALT. This is a/an (?) example of [I do a bunch of stuff] ... what's THPAFALT? That has plagued agora for a long time.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I do.
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Quazie wrote: On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 10:38 AM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Quazie wrote: [snip] TIATEOISIRIEIJIDISISISIRITILISIRITIPICIRICISIOIWIIILISICIEIIIFIR IVILIDIBISIEIUILILILISIMITIEISIRIBIHIHIHISIPIP-PIMIDIDIWINIAIWICIJIP IDIDICISIOICIDIDIWILICISIWIAISISIIISIPILIEIBAWRISIATHPAFALT. Fantastic. Unfortunately, I remembered the ISID[stuff] part, but forgot the TID[stuff] part :) -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I do.
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Quazie wrote: On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Ben Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wednesday 13 August 2008 12:38:12 pm Kerim Aydin wrote: On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Quazie wrote: [snip] TIATEOISIRIEIJIDISISISIRITILISIRITIPICIRICISIOIWIIILISICIEIIIFIR IVILIDIBISIEIUILILILISIMITIEISIRIBIHIHIHISIPIP-PIMIDIDIWINIAIWICIJIP IDIDICISIOICIDIDIWILICISIWIAISISIIISIPILIEIBAWRISIATHPAFALT. This is a/an (?) example of [I do a bunch of stuff] ... what's THPAFALT? That has plagued agora for a long time. and (?) = Typical -G.
Re: DIS: Draft FLR(,v)
comex wrote:
Anyone have the script for FLR--SLR?
Attached.
-zefram
#!/usr/bin/perl
use warnings;
use strict;
use IO::Handle;
{
my $peeked_line;
sub peekline() {
unless(defined $peeked_line) {
local $/ = \n;
$peeked_line = STDIN-getline;
die hit EOF unexpectedly unless defined $peeked_line;
die incomplete line unless $peeked_line =~ /\n\z/;
}
return $peeked_line;
}
sub getline() {
my $line = peekline();
$peeked_line = undef;
return $line;
}
}
getline eq THE FULL LOGICAL RULESET\n or die;
print THE SHORT LOGICAL RULESET\n;
until(peekline =~ /\A---/) {
print getline;
}
getline until peekline =~ /\A===/;
CATEGORY: while(1) {
print getline, getline;
getline until peekline =~ /\A---/;
print getline;
while(1) {
die unless getline eq \n;
if(peekline =~ /\A===/) {
print \n;
next CATEGORY;
}
last CATEGORY unless peekline =~
m#\ARule (\d+)/(\d+) \(Power=(\d(?:\.\d+)?)\)\n\z#;
print \n, getline, getline;
die unless getline eq \n;
my $had_any_text = 0;
my $had_non_text = 0;
while(1) {
last if peekline =~ /\A---/;
my $para = ;
$para .= getline while peekline ne \n;
getline;
if($para =~ /\A /) {
die if $had_non_text;
$had_any_text = 1;
print \n, $para;
} elsif($para =~ /\ACFJ /) {
$had_non_text = 1;
print \n, $para;
} elsif($para =~ /\A\[|\AHistory:/) {
$had_non_text = 1;
} else {
die;
}
}
die unless $had_any_text;
print \n, getline;
}
}
die unless peekline eq END OF THE FULL LOGICAL RULESET\n;
print \nEND OF THE SHORT LOGICAL RULESET\n;
die if defined STDIN-getline;
exit 0;
Re: DIS: Draft FLR(,v)
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: comex wrote: Anyone have the script for FLR--SLR? Attached. Excess newline removed, and all of these should be up to date: http://cfj.qoid.us/current_flr.txt http://cfj.qoid.us/current_flr.txt,v http://cfj.qoid.us/current_slr.txt
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I do.
Pavitra wrote: On Wednesday 13 August 2008 12:38:12 pm Kerim Aydin wrote: On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Quazie wrote: [snip] TIATEOISIRIEIJIDISISISIRITILISIRITIPICIRICISIOIWIIILISICIEIIIFIR IVILIDIBISIEIUILILILISIMITIEISIRIBIHIHIHISIPIP-PIMIDIDIWINIAIWICIJIP IDIDICISIOICIDIDIWILICISIWIAISISIIISIPILIEIBAWRISIATHPAFALT. This is a/an (?) example of [I do a bunch of stuff] ... what's THPAFALT? http://zenith.homelinux.net/acronyms/
DIS: Re: BUS: TNP2 registers
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 3:43 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 3:40 PM, root [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On behalf of TNP2: TNP2 registers. I nominate TNP2 for Rulekeepor. This was ineffective as the nomination period for the office had ended.
DIS: Re: BUS: too busy
On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 8:01 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I nominate each of ais523, BobTHJ, comex, Goethe, Murphy, OscarMeyr, Quazie, root, Sgeo, Taral, tusho, woggle, and Wooble for each of the offices of Promotor and Rulekeepor. I'm going to treat this self-nomination as an acceptance of the Rulekeepor nomination; if comex didn't intend to accept eir own nomination e can refuse eir nomination during the voting period.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2132a assigned to woggle, comex, BobTHJ
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 8:41 PM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I intend, with the consent of the rest of the panel, to REMAND this case to Sgeo, so that e might judge the case again while thinking more clearly, and also consider the precedent of CFJ 1771. Appeals are support (not consent) now, so you probably need to do that to a public forum. Nevertheless, I support that intent. The quoted intent was sent to a public forum.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2132a assigned to woggle, comex, BobTHJ
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 19:12, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 8:41 PM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I intend, with the consent of the rest of the panel, to REMAND this case to Sgeo, so that e might judge the case again while thinking more clearly, and also consider the precedent of CFJ 1771. Appeals are support (not consent) now, so you probably need to do that to a public forum. Nevertheless, I support that intent. The quoted intent was sent to a public forum. Hm. Indeed it was. Apparently, I'm bad a reading...
DIS: Partnershpis can't do anything anymore
By CFJ 2050 doing x on behalf of another player is really just you doing x. Thus if I make a partnership vote on something, it is really me voting. Thus partnerships can't do anything.
Re: DIS: Partnershpis can't do anything anymore
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 10:45 PM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: By CFJ 2050 doing x on behalf of another player is really just you doing x. Thus if I make a partnership vote on something, it is really me voting. Thus partnerships can't do anything. Umm... that is an absurd precedent. I don't know why I didn't support your attempt to appeal it. In particular, it directly contradicts the precedent of CFJs 1833-5, while citing an irrelevant precedent that deals with one person *becoming* another, rather than just acting on behalf of em. Not to mention that partnerships' R101 rights would be infringed if they couldn't do anything. In other words, although it's too late to appeal it, I think it would be wise to overturn that precedent as soon as possible.
Re: DIS: Partnershpis can't do anything anymore
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 8:14 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 10:45 PM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: By CFJ 2050 doing x on behalf of another player is really just you doing x. Thus if I make a partnership vote on something, it is really me voting. Thus partnerships can't do anything. Umm... that is an absurd precedent. I don't know why I didn't support your attempt to appeal it. In particular, it directly contradicts the precedent of CFJs 1833-5, while citing an irrelevant precedent that deals with one person *becoming* another, rather than just acting on behalf of em. Not to mention that partnerships' R101 rights would be infringed if they couldn't do anything. In other words, although it's too late to appeal it, I think it would be wise to overturn that precedent as soon as possible. Oh, and by the way, comex never took anything back from the AFO, or at least there is a question of if that succeeded until Murphy's recent CFJs are judged.
DIS: Re: BUS: 2082a
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Ed Murphy wrote: 2082a: If tusho's stated belief that failing speech acts were not illegal was reasonable, then UNAWARE was appropriate and thus GUILTY was inappropriate. I intend (with the support of fellow panelists pikhq and Goethe) to cause the panel to judge REMAND, instructing Prior Judge OscarMeyr to consider whether tusho's belief was in fact reasonable. Not sure I agree. UNAWARE isn't appropriate for claiming ignorance in all cases, in fact in many cases it's not appropriate; there was sufficient goings on that e was aware that e could be punished (when one wants to demonstrate an unjust law, one accepts the punishment to show it's unjust; that was my dance intent). -Goethe
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Partnershpis can't do anything anymore
woggle wrote:
Proposal: Overturn CFJ 2050
{{
comex is a co-author of this proposal.
Set the judgment on the question of veracity in CFJ 2050 to TRUE.
This isn't strictly needed. From Rule 591:
The judgement of the question in an inquiry case, and the
reasoning by which it was reached, SHOULD guide future play
(including future judgements), but do not directly affect the
veracity of the statement.
However, to get the formal record updated, it would be cleaner to
allow a late appeal, e.g. create a rule with this text:
Any player CAN appeal CFJ 2050 by announcement, upon which this
rule is repealed.
Rule 2170 (Who Am I?) should probably also be amended to state that
X CAN act on behalf of Y constitutes a legal fiction that Y is the
one acting, and define some useful label for X's role in the matter.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Partnershpis can't do anything anymore
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Charles Reiss wrote:
Proposal: Overturn CFJ 2050
{{
comex is a co-author of this proposal.
Set the judgment on the question of veracity in CFJ 2050 to TRUE.
Oh this is horrid and unneeded though I agree with the arguments.
Just CFJ again, there's no reason a new CFJ can't go against
precedent (as long as it brings up the precedent and says why it
is Wrong). -Goethe
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Partnershpis can't do anything anymore
On Wednesday 13 August 2008 11:03:13 pm Ed Murphy wrote: define some useful label for X's role in the matter. Executor
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Partnershpis can't do anything anymore
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Ed Murphy wrote: Rule 2170 (Who Am I?) should probably also be amended to state that X CAN act on behalf of Y constitutes a legal fiction that Y is the one acting, and define some useful label for X's role in the matter. How about, er, Power of Attorney? Grantor, Holder, and Executor are nice terms to consider. -Goethe
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Partnershpis can't do anything anymore
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Ed Murphy wrote: Any player CAN appeal CFJ 2050 by announcement, upon which this rule is repealed. Why not a rule that allows late appeals with a higher support number (or Agoran Consent, would need that to get this passed anyway). -Goethe
DIS: Re: agora-discussion digest, Vol 1 #2921 - 12 msgs
I had posted a message indicating my intent to deregister. Assuming my deregistering was successful, I don't know why it wouldn't be, I would need to register again. --cdm014
Re: DIS: Re: agora-discussion digest, Vol 1 #2921 - 12 msgs
cdm014 wrote: I had posted a message indicating my intent to deregister. Assuming my deregistering was successful, I don't know why it wouldn't be, I would need to register again. Nothing in the archives (unless you sent it to a-d, or a backup list). Your last two messages prior to your return were: http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/ 2008-June/011420.html (change posture to leaning) http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/ 2008-June/011421.html (vote on 5556-63)
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Partnershpis can't do anything anymore
Goethe wrote: On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Ed Murphy wrote: Rule 2170 (Who Am I?) should probably also be amended to state that X CAN act on behalf of Y constitutes a legal fiction that Y is the one acting, and define some useful label for X's role in the matter. How about, er, Power of Attorney? Grantor, Holder, and Executor are nice terms to consider. -Goethe R2170 already defines Executor (as the first-class person who sends it, or who most directly and immediately causes it to be sent). Going back to Grantor and Holder would work. (History lesson: the rules used to explicitly allow granting power of attorney, then it was repealed during a period of mass simplification, then someone tried it via contract and we decided that that worked.)
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Partnershpis can't do anything anymore
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 12:57 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: R2170 already defines Executor (as the first-class person who sends it, or who most directly and immediately causes it to be sent). Going back to Grantor and Holder would work. (History lesson: the rules used to explicitly allow granting power of attorney, then it was repealed during a period of mass simplification, then someone tried it via contract and we decided that that worked.) By the way, if we're going to make power of attorney explicit, we should learn from Rule 2170-- not all executorships are now nor should be announcements that I act on behalf of you. When Googlebot causes PNP to send a message, there are several different first-class persons about equally likely to have most directly caused the message to be sent, none of which really match what an Executor is supposed to be. We could force Executors to be explicit, but I think it would be better to just not use the concept, so we can let the PNP live naturally as a robot, instead of forcing it into the mold of a traditional partnership.
