Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2886 assigned to G.
G. wrote: > On Sun, 17 Oct 2010, Ed Murphy wrote: >> G. wrote: >> >>> Therefore, in light of this complete silence, I use the powers granted >>> me by R217, and state that it is (a) for the good of the game; (b) in >>> keeping with game custom; and (c) in keeping with the primacy of R754(2) >>> definitional clauses (if "definitions" are extended to "descriptions"), >>> to assume, prima facie, that when a document defers to other descriptions >>> without stating a location for the descriptions, or while stating >>> "elsewhere", that said locations must occur within the same document >>> unless the document explicitly delagates description abilities to some >>> other entity. In this case, the Rule doesn't. >> >> Are you treating the ruleset as a single document? > > I generally was; is there something that contradicts this? -G. No, I thought you might be treating each rule as a separate document, which would be overly restrictive.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6858-6892
Taral wrote: >> 6858 O 1 1.0 G. The Robot >> 6859 O 1 2.0 ais523 Distributed Proposal 6830 >> 6860 O 2 2.0 KebaA Perpetuum mobile is possible >> 6861 O 1 1.0 omd Make anarchy more interesting >> 6862 O 0 1.0 Wooble Refugitivize > > FOR all of these. Ineffective, you're inactive.
DIS: Re: BUS: Fees
coppro wrote: > I vote FOR the Decisions to adopt proposals 6858, 6861 and 6862 and > AGAINST the Decisions to adopt any other proposals that I can vote on. These were ineffective, you still have 21 Rests.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2886 assigned to G.
On Sun, 17 Oct 2010, Ed Murphy wrote: > G. wrote: > > > Therefore, in light of this complete silence, I use the powers granted > > me by R217, and state that it is (a) for the good of the game; (b) in > > keeping with game custom; and (c) in keeping with the primacy of R754(2) > > definitional clauses (if "definitions" are extended to "descriptions"), > > to assume, prima facie, that when a document defers to other descriptions > > without stating a location for the descriptions, or while stating > > "elsewhere", that said locations must occur within the same document > > unless the document explicitly delagates description abilities to some > > other entity. In this case, the Rule doesn't. > > Are you treating the ruleset as a single document? I generally was; is there something that contradicts this? -G.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2890 assigned to coppro
coppro wrote: >> === CFJ 2890 (Interest Index = 0) > TRUE. Not being permitted to perform something is different than being NttPF
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2890 assigned to coppro
On 10-10-17 05:25 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2890 === CFJ 2890 (Interest Index = 0) It is generally POSSIBLE for me to make a proposal Undistributable for a fee. Caller: omd Judge: coppro Judgement: History: Called by omd: 15 Oct 2010 04:00:11 GMT Assigned to coppro: (as of this message) Caller's Arguments: Rule 2283 states: To perform a fee-based action, a Player (the Actor) who is not otherwise forbidden to perform the action CAN perform it by announcing that e is performing the action while also announcing that there is a fee for that action. However, I am "otherwise forbidden to perform the action": there is no other way for me to make a proposal Undistributable than by announcing I am performing the action while also announcing that there is a fee for that action, etc. TRUE. Not being permitted to perform something is different than being forbidden from performing it. The rule thus means "a player CAN do this unless some other rule says he can't". It is, thus, a manner of subtly deferring to any rule, including one of lower power. Now, someone is invariably going to complain about the rules defining precedence and this getting around it not working, however, since there is never an actual contradiction of rules, precedence need not apply. -coppro
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2886 assigned to G.
G. wrote: > Therefore, in light of this complete silence, I use the powers granted > me by R217, and state that it is (a) for the good of the game; (b) in > keeping with game custom; and (c) in keeping with the primacy of R754(2) > definitional clauses (if "definitions" are extended to "descriptions"), > to assume, prima facie, that when a document defers to other descriptions > without stating a location for the descriptions, or while stating > "elsewhere", that said locations must occur within the same document > unless the document explicitly delagates description abilities to some > other entity. In this case, the Rule doesn't. Are you treating the ruleset as a single document?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [CotC] CFJ 2888 assigned to Tanner L. Swett
Tanner L. Swett wrote: > On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: >>> === Â CFJ 2888 (Interest Index = 0) Â >> >>> Judge: Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Tanner L. Swett >> >> CoE, accepted: Â this was ineffective, Tanner was supine (I hadn't >> yet updated the DB to be aware of it). > > Presumably, the same goes for 2882. No, you were assigned that one before you became supine.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [CotC] CFJ 2888 assigned to Tanner L. Swett
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: >> === CFJ 2888 (Interest Index = 0) > >> Judge: Tanner L. Swett > > CoE, accepted: this was ineffective, Tanner was supine (I hadn't > yet updated the DB to be aware of it). Presumably, the same goes for 2882. —Tanner L. Swett
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2884 assigned to coppro
coppro wrote: > I set the II of this case to 1, judge it TRUE, and create a capacitor in > my possession for the judgment. NttPF
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2884 assigned to coppro
On 10-10-17 04:46 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2884 === CFJ 2884 (Interest Index = 0) Bucky CAN register by announcement I set the II of this case to 1, judge it TRUE, and create a capacitor in my possession for the judgment. -coppro
DIS: Re: BUS: Piling on the Pariah some more; remanding to omd
On Sun, 2010-10-17 at 14:01 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: > NoV: Tanner L. Swett violated Rule 911 (Appeal Cases) by failing to > publish an opinion for 2871a. > > Only one of the three panelists (Yally) has opined, which is not a > majority. The overtime period has recently ended, so as CotC, I act > for the panel to judge REMAND without prejudice (omd already informally > acknowledged the thinko). IIRC, e resigned Pariah? (I still think it's hilarious having an office whose main purpose is to be picked on, though.) -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: back to work then
G. wrote: > I sit up. You were standing, so by CFJ 2607 this is ineffective. > I make myself Supreme (if I'm not already). You were already.
DIS: Re: BUS: Resetting and empowering myself
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 5:49 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: > CFJ, disqualifying Tanner L. Swett: In the message quoted in > evidence, Tanner L. Swett gained at least one erg. I don't think you've assigned this CFJ yet. Do you intend to? —Tanner L. Swett
