Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2736a assigned to Tiger, G., coppro
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009, Sean Hunt wrote: > Kerim Aydin wrote: >> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009, Sean Hunt wrote: >>> I opine AFFIRM, and I would like a Concurring Opinion on this one. >>> >>> -coppro >> >> You mean you would like to have a concurring opinion, or you would like to >> write one? :) >> >> I think if I officially opine AFFIRM it will prevent us from including an >> official concurrence, but I agree with affirm and if you write a reasonable >> concurrence I'll support the Panel publishing it. -G. > > I want one written; I will do it myself if no one else does before I get to > it. > How's this for a simple concurring opinion: Minor research into the term (which could have been performed by the judge) suggests that "to zoop" something generally means to activate an act-on-behalf contract with respect to a dependent action (particularly with respect to standing instructions for getting Support numbers for a particular class of action). With neither a contract nor a dependent action referred to, ais523's assertion that Agorans "have a basic idea of what it's meant to mean" is false. This Panel really has no idea. The situation is so far removed from the original that the term's relationship to a meaningful action has broken down. Whether situations slightly closer to the original would work - e.g. at least somehow involving act-on-behalf or somehow involving dependent actions - must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. The fact that the original judge, without further research, didn't understand the meaning is an argument towards the term's growing obscurity with time, but that is secondary as it is likely that many Agorans still understand the original context of the term. Error rating: coppro propose one? -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2736a assigned to Tiger, G., coppro
Kerim Aydin wrote: On Sat, 28 Nov 2009, Sean Hunt wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2736a = Appeal 2736a (Interest Index = 0) == Panelist: Tiger Decision: Panelist: G. Decision: Panelist: coppro Decision: I opine AFFIRM, and I would like a Concurring Opinion on this one. -coppro You mean you would like to have a concurring opinion, or you would like to write one? :) I think if I officially opine AFFIRM it will prevent us from including an official concurrence, but I agree with affirm and if you write a reasonable concurrence I'll support the Panel publishing it. -G. I want one written; I will do it myself if no one else does before I get to it. -coppro
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2736a assigned to Tiger, G., coppro
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009, Sean Hunt wrote: > Ed Murphy wrote: >> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2736a >> >> = Appeal 2736a (Interest Index = 0) == >> >> Panelist: Tiger >> Decision: >> >> Panelist: G. >> Decision: >> >> Panelist: coppro >> Decision: >> >> > > I opine AFFIRM, and I would like a Concurring Opinion on this one. > > -coppro You mean you would like to have a concurring opinion, or you would like to write one? :) I think if I officially opine AFFIRM it will prevent us from including an official concurrence, but I agree with affirm and if you write a reasonable concurrence I'll support the Panel publishing it. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2738 assigned to c.
Hmm. I agree with the judgement in that case but completely disagree with the arguments. If we allow "guide play" to mean "do absolutely nothing according to other rules", then the argument easily follows that a rule modifying a proposal's effect would not be blocked, as that rule would just be altering the "further" effects of the proposal, and the proposal is still "guiding play" by activating the relevant clauses in the rules. In other words, Rule 107 is useless. On the other hand, I interpret "must guide play in the form in which it was voted on" as "must, to the extent that it guides play, do so in the form [etc]" rather than "must guide play, and must do so in the form [etc]", so the no bonus clauses rule still works. ...uh, not that that has anything to do with the current case. What was I talking about? Sent from my iPhone On Nov 28, 2009, at 10:09 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Sat, 28 Nov 2009, Ed Murphy wrote: If it were ADOPTED right now, the Citrine Fix proposal would amend a rule. Judge: c. H. Judge c., I forgot to add in my gratuity that a precedent for this (that "take effect" is different then the general idea of "having effects") is available in CFJ 1533 (see last few paragraphs of Judge Murphy's last arguments). -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2728 remanded to coppro by Yally (AFFIRM), Murphy (OVERRULE/TRUE)
Normally, I would commend the lack of arguments for such a stupid CFJ (no offense ais523), but I suppose coppro should at least explain eir reversal. Sent from my iPhone On Nov 28, 2009, at 7:08 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote: On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2728 === CFJ 2728 (Interest Index = 1) G. has opined REASSIGN on CFJ 2696a. === === == TRUE. -coppro I intend, with 2 support, to appeal this judgement. For a contested issue (in which the panel did not agree), you would think coppro would at least give some arguments.
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2738 assigned to c.
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009, Ed Murphy wrote: >If it were ADOPTED right now, the Citrine Fix proposal would >amend a rule. > Judge: c. H. Judge c., I forgot to add in my gratuity that a precedent for this (that "take effect" is different then the general idea of "having effects") is available in CFJ 1533 (see last few paragraphs of Judge Murphy's last arguments). -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: FRContest awards
Ed Murphy wrote: Point-worthy events for the week of Nov 16-22: 11/16 284:9 coppro VALID +0.8 11/16 284:10 coppro VALID +1.2 I award/revoke points as follows: award 6x and 2y to coppro award 6x and 2y to coppro CoE: 284:9 was INVALID. -coppro
DIS: Re: BUS: [Cookie Jar] Report
Ed Murphy wrote: Cookie Jar Report Date of this report: Sat 28 Nov 09 Date of last report: Fri 13 Nov 09 (All times are UTC) Deadline for guesses is the end of Friday each week. Guesses for Nov 2-8 Proposals CFJs --- Tue 27 Oct 21:17:37 coppro156 Tue 27 Oct 21:34:39 Tiger 124 Wed 28 Oct 00:01:03 Yally 53 Wed 28 Oct 14:52:19 BobTHJ117 Guesses for Nov 16-22 Proposals CFJs --- Fri 13 Nov 22:16:43 Yally 105 Guesses for Nov 23-29 Proposals CFJs --- Wed 18 Nov 15:28:40 Wooble 68 CoE: My guess for next week is missing. -coppro
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] Docket
coppro wrote: > Ed Murphy wrote: >> Draws earned >> - >> Week beginning 2 Nov 2009 1 coppro >> Week beginning 2 Nov 2009 1 G. >> Week beginning 9 Nov 2009 1 c. >> Week beginning 9 Nov 2009 1 coppro >> - time of last report - > > Is this correct in listing no draws for last week? Yes, the only judgements from Nov 16 onward have been 2736 (Nov 24, II=0, late) 2734 (Nov 28, II=0, late) 2728a (Nov 28, II=0, late, appeal) 2728 (Nov 28, II=0, on time, will be reported on or after Nov 30)
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] Docket
Ed Murphy wrote: Draws earned - Week beginning 2 Nov 2009 1 coppro Week beginning 2 Nov 2009 1 G. Week beginning 9 Nov 2009 1 c. Week beginning 9 Nov 2009 1 coppro - time of last report - Is this correct in listing no draws for last week? -coppro
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6583-6589
G. wrote: >> 6588 1 3.0 c.GreenR101 changes > AGAlNST >> 6589 0 3.0 c.GreenClarify R101 deregistration > AGAlNST Cute.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Interstellar Manifest
Geoffrey Spear wrote: On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 3:27 AM, Sean Hunt wrote: Scorekeepor Contests, Scores, Medals weekly 2009-11-18 Due CoE: this report was published on 24 November. Admitted.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Interstellar Manifest
Aaron Goldfein wrote: Registrar Players, Fora, Salary weekly 2009-11-16 Due CoE: The Registrar's report was last published 2009-11-23. Admitted. -coppro
