Re: DIS: Proto: It Takes Two to Tango
2008/9/5 Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Proto: It Takes Two to Tango (AI=1.7) [ Generalizes the features of pledges to all contracts. Also adds a small amount of red tape to pledge creation, by requiring the participation of a second person who volunteers to enforce the pledge. ] On second thoughts I don't like this it is kind of defeating the point of pledges. We should just find an adequate deterrant for two certain players.
Re: DIS: Proto: It Takes Two to Tango
On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 3:33 AM, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2008/9/5 Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Proto: It Takes Two to Tango (AI=1.7) [ Generalizes the features of pledges to all contracts. Also adds a small amount of red tape to pledge creation, by requiring the participation of a second person who volunteers to enforce the pledge. ] On second thoughts I don't like this it is kind of defeating the point of pledges. We should just find an adequate deterrant for two certain players. Nobody's making anybody keep track of the pledges I make. --Ivan Hope CXXVII
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Prerogatives for August and September 2008
On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 1:07 AM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Choice? What choice? I think the point has been made clear that the CotC and Poobah must choose as fairly as possible or be removed from office. I submit the Protection Racket and my brief tenure as Grand Poobah as evidence in this case. By rule, the Speaker must assign prerogatives randomly. The CotC and Poobah can choose what they do. The fact that they can be removed if they're blatantly corrupt doesn't mean they have no discretion at all, in fact, even corrupt selections by either don't violate the rules; the only punishment is the displeasure of the other players, who can remove the officer in question.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Prerogatives for August and September 2008
On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 8:06 AM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 1:07 AM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Choice? What choice? I think the point has been made clear that the CotC and Poobah must choose as fairly as possible or be removed from office. I submit the Protection Racket and my brief tenure as Grand Poobah as evidence in this case. By rule, the Speaker must assign prerogatives randomly. The CotC and Poobah can choose what they do. The fact that they can be removed if they're blatantly corrupt doesn't mean they have no discretion at all, in fact, even corrupt selections by either don't violate the rules; the only punishment is the displeasure of the other players, who can remove the officer in question. Yes indeed...but if we are talking about choice as a job perk the only true choice is choose fairly and remain in office or show favoritism and be expelled. I don't see how giving the Speaker the same limited choice does anything to enhance the power of the position. BobTHJ
DIS: Subscribing Nomic Dice to a-b?
When the PBM dice server was functional, we had subscribed it (or otherwise approved it for posting) to a-b, so that dice rolls could be published. Would it be useful to do the same for its clone on nomic.net? - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr
DIS: Reminding ihope
Although the new Freefall is up yet, do read it when it is up.
DIS: Re: BUS: Kindness
Goethe wrote: I'd better switch myself to hemming and hawing. I do so. -Goethe This was a no-op, you already were h-and-h.
Re: DIS: Reminding ihope
On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 7:14 PM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Although the new Freefall is up yet, do read it when it is up. Google doesn't turn up anything. What is it?
DIS: Re: BUS: Prerogatives for August and September 2008
ais523 wrote: For September: Default Officeholderais523 Justiciar (nobody) Wielder of Veto BobTHJ Wielder of Rubberstamp Zefram Wielder of Extra Votes pikhq Have tusho and Levi lost MWP?
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2132a assigned to woggle, comex, BobTHJ
comex wrote: Having achieved 2 support, I judge this ancient appeal REASSIGN. Ineffective, panel already recused (and even if it hadn't been, more than 14 days have elapsed since the relevant statement of intent).
Re: DIS: Reminding ihope
On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 5:54 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 7:14 PM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Although the new Freefall is up yet, do read it when it is up. Google doesn't turn up anything. What is it? A web comic, I think: http://freefall.purrsia.com/ -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Prerogatives for August and September 2008
On Sun, 7 Sep 2008, Roger Hicks wrote: On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 8:06 AM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 1:07 AM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Choice? What choice? I think the point has been made clear that the CotC and Poobah must choose as fairly as possible or be removed from office. I submit the Protection Racket and my brief tenure as Grand Poobah as evidence in this case. By rule, the Speaker must assign prerogatives randomly. The CotC and Poobah can choose what they do. The fact that they can be removed if they're blatantly corrupt doesn't mean they have no discretion at all, in fact, even corrupt selections by either don't violate the rules; the only punishment is the displeasure of the other players, who can remove the officer in question. Yes indeed...but if we are talking about choice as a job perk the only true choice is choose fairly and remain in office or show favoritism and be expelled. I don't see how giving the Speaker the same limited choice does anything to enhance the power of the position. Because the Speaker isn't elected and can't be kicked out? -Goethe
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2134 assigned to root
On Sep 7, 2008, at 10:02 PM, Ian Kelly wrote: On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 7:37 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2134 == CFJ 2134 == 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 judge UNDETERMINED. 754(4) is not the id number of a rule, so the set of rules excluding 754(4) is not meaningful. As side commentary, R754/4 wouldn't apply either. R754 is currently at amendment 7, and amendment 4 was a while ago: History: Created by Proposal 435 (Alexx), Aug. 30 1993 Amended by Proposal 754 (KoJen), Dec. 1 1993 Amended by Rule 750, Dec. 1 1993 Amended(1) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995 Infected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, Dec. 17 1995 Amended(3) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial Amended(4) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999 Power changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4507 (Murphy), 20 June 2003 Amended(5) by Proposal 4507 (Murphy), 20 June 2003 Amended(6) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 Amended(7) by Proposal 5038 (Zefram), 28 June 2007 - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2082a assigned to root, woggle, Wooble
On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 19:41, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2082a
Appeal 2082a
Panelist: root
Decision:
Panelist: woggle
Decision:
Panelist: Wooble
Decision:
History:
Appeal initiated: 27 Jul 2008 16:17:40 GMT
Assigned to BobTHJ (panelist): 27 Jul 2008 22:45:12 GMT
Assigned to Sgeo (panelist):27 Jul 2008 22:45:12 GMT
Assigned to Quazie (panelist): 27 Jul 2008 22:45:12 GMT
BobTHJ recused (panelist): 13 Aug 2008 23:27:26 GMT
Sgeo recused (panelist):13 Aug 2008 23:27:26 GMT
Quazie recused (panelist): 13 Aug 2008 23:27:26 GMT
Assigned to pikhq (panelist): 13 Aug 2008 23:35:55 GMT
Assigned to Goethe (panelist): 13 Aug 2008 23:35:55 GMT
Assigned to Murphy (panelist): 13 Aug 2008 23:35:55 GMT
pikhq recused (panelist): 08 Sep 2008 00:38:55 GMT
Goethe recused (panelist): 08 Sep 2008 00:38:55 GMT
Murphy recused (panelist): 08 Sep 2008 00:38:55 GMT
Assigned to root (panelist):(as of this message)
Assigned to woggle (panelist): (as of this message)
Assigned to Wooble (panelist): (as of this message)
Appellant tusho's Arguments:
I appeal the question of my culpability on the judgement of CFJ 2082.
This is an utterly preposterous judgement, as I was assisting in Goethe's
demonstration that failing speech acts were not illegal. It was not a threat
in any shape or form.
I intend to send the following message on behalf of the panel in CFJ
2082a (with the support of my fellow panelists or a fellow panelist
and the CotC):
{{
Whether the statement in question was a threat is irrelevant to the
issue of culpability. (It is relevant to the sentence, but that is not
under appeal here.) As no arguments have been presented for why (in
spite of the judge's determination) tusho might have believed that
'[tusho] kills Goethe' was a true statement when e made it, there's no
serious reason to question the verdict on culpability.
Therefore, this panel judges CFJ 2082a AFFIRM.
}}
-woggle
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2086a, 2087a assigned to root, Ivan Hope, OscarMeyr
I'd be willing to support REASSIGN for CJFs 2086-87. - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr
