Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2796-98 assigned to coppro
--- On Tue, 11/5/10, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: coppro wrote: I sit up. ITYM I stand up. Last I checked, players couldn't stand by announcement; has that changed? (However, given that we're apparently in an emergency session, it's unlikely to make much of a difference given that the CFJ judging pool is so small; CFJs being shut down by coups is probably an unintended consequence of the rules, unless it was worked in there deliberately.) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2796-98 assigned to coppro
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 7:27 AM, Alex Smith callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: --- On Tue, 11/5/10, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: coppro wrote: I sit up. ITYM I stand up. Last I checked, players couldn't stand by announcement; has that changed? (However, given that we're apparently in an emergency session, it's unlikely to make much of a difference given that the CFJ judging pool is so small; CFJs being shut down by coups is probably an unintended consequence of the rules, unless it was worked in there deliberately.) -- ais523 You can stand up if you judge a disinterested case in the same message. -coppro
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2796-98 assigned to coppro
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: You can stand up if you judge a disinterested case in the same message. Which means that the CotC can pretty much judge every case.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2796-98 assigned to coppro
Wooble wrote: On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: You can stand up if you judge a disinterested case in the same message. Which means that the CotC can pretty much judge every case. Until people start specifying a non-zero interest index and/or submitting cases to the Justiciar.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2796-98 assigned to coppro
On Wed, 12 May 2010, Geoffrey Spear wrote: On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: You can stand up if you judge a disinterested case in the same message. Which means that the CotC can pretty much judge every case. If e abuses it we can submit our cases as Interested. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2796-98 assigned to coppro
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 2:02 AM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: === CFJ 2797 (Interest Index = 0) If the proposal entitled Reassign the name passed, it would successfully null-amend a Rule with Power 1.7. Trivially FALSE; the proposal lacks the Power to amend a Rule of greater Power. Wouldn't this be trivially TRUE per your statement that null-amendment is not actually any change?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2796-98 assigned to coppro
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 9:26 AM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 2:02 AM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: === CFJ 2797 (Interest Index = 0) If the proposal entitled Reassign the name passed, it would successfully null-amend a Rule with Power 1.7. Trivially FALSE; the proposal lacks the Power to amend a Rule of greater Power. Wouldn't this be trivially TRUE per your statement that null-amendment is not actually any change? I interpreted it 'null-amend' as 'an amendment with no substantiative change', which would still be prohibited if it could exist. I wrote that judgment before the previous one; citing the first judgment would have been a valid alternate way to resolve it, but it would still be FALSE (since then a null-amendment could not exist)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2796-98 assigned to coppro
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: I interpreted it 'null-amend' as 'an amendment with no substantiative change', which would still be prohibited if it could exist. Ah, I disagree with you on this point. Power Controls Mutability explicitly does not prohibit an unsubstantive change.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2796-98 assigned to coppro
coppro wrote: I sit up. ITYM I stand up. I award myself two capacitors. This should be reasonably unambiguous, as the only other CFJ you've attempted to judge this month was 2790 (II=0) on the 4th.
