DIS: Re: BUS: Rebellion or, Hi Chuck
On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 13:04 -0500, comex wrote: ais523 violated Rule 2158 by failing to assign a judgement to CFJ 2246 ASAP [8 days, 2:54:02] Looking over this one, it seems I did in fact break the letter of the rules. The context was a mousetrap scam against the Protection Racket, where the discussions were reasonably evenly balanced. I protoed arguments for a judgement that didn't lead to a judgement [/within/ the time limit], and asked for feedback. Eventually, I had to choose one judgement or the other after a lack of feedback, but I was slightly over the limit. I think what I did here was more in the interests of Agora than just arbitrarily coming up with a judgement on a difficult issue without gauging consensus first; however, it was indeed slightly overdue, an oversight on my part, and I probably deserve the Rests for it. ais523 violated Rule 2158 by failing to assign a judgement to CFJ 2260 ASAP [12 days, 0:23:33] Hmm... I must have missed the judge assignment to me on this one, it looks like pretty obviously guilty to me. I would close this NoV, but it's been contested. ais523 violated Rule 2158 by failing to assign a judgement to CFJ 2298 ASAP [15 days, 4:08:00] No I didn't, it was judged on time. The deadline for judging that CFJ was extended by the Holiday. I would contest this NoV, but it's already been contested. ais523 violated Rule 2158 by failing to assign a judgement to CFJ 2320 ASAP [14 days, 5:41:48] Same reasoning, this was also a Holiday deadline thing and I was on time. I would contest this NoV, but it's already been contested. If I was feeling Uncharitable, I'd be NoVing comex back for libel. I also haven't considered the appeals NoVs here; there are a lot of them, and it's hard to establish which of the three judges was at fault in any particular case without extensive reading of the archives. Note that now the appeals rules have changed, it should be less of a problem in the future, and NoVs for late judgements/appeals going forwards should be more acceptable. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Rebellion or, Hi Chuck
On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 14:12 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote: I contest all of these. I don't necessarily think they're all unfair or incorrect, but I've carefully weighed the full implications of doing so anyway, most of which involve me not having to count several hundred Rests in 4 days and a large portion of the players not being deregistered. Incidentally, the number of NoVs in comex's message against each person NoVed against (which would create two Rests each): 14 ais523 3 avpx 14 BobTHJ 4 cdm014 26 comex 2 ehird 3 Elysion 7 Goethe 6 harblcat 21 Murphy 12 OscarMeyr 2 pikhq 7 Quazie 22 root 3 Sgeo 7 Sir Toby 8 Taral 1 Warrigal 15 woggle 12 Wooble 3 Zefram -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Rebellion or, Hi Chuck
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 10:04, comex com...@gmail.com wrote: I move to Beer Hall. I become Rebellious. [snip] I publish the following. Each of BobTHJ, woggle, OscarMeyr violated Rule 2157 by failing to act collectively to ensure the panel assigned a judgement to CFJ 2027a ASAP [15 days, 2:29:04] Arguments: Admitted. Each of BobTHJ, Murphy, woggle violated Rule 2157 by failing to act collectively to ensure the panel assigned a judgement to CFJ 2048a ASAP [8 days, 1:42:57] Arguments: I made the first timely intent to judge this. [snip] Each of woggle, comex, Wooble violated Rule 2157 by failing to act collectively to ensure the panel assigned a judgement to CFJ 2086a ASAP [25 days, 1:02:28] Each of woggle, comex, Wooble violated Rule 2157 by failing to act collectively to ensure the panel assigned a judgement to CFJ 2087a ASAP [25 days, 1:02:28] Arguments: These cases were linked, I made an intent and Wooble supported it in a timely manner. Each of woggle, root, Taral violated Rule 2157 by failing to act collectively to ensure the panel assigned a judgement to CFJ 2086b ASAP [11 days, 20:20:35] Each of woggle, root, Taral violated Rule 2157 by failing to act collectively to ensure the panel assigned a judgement to CFJ 2087b ASAP [11 days, 20:20:35] Arguments: These cases were linked, the panel agreed on a verdict of REMAND in time and failed to resolve it in time. woggle violated Rule 2158 by failing to assign a judgement to CFJ 2107 ASAP [12 days, 0:12:04] Arguments: Admitted. woggle violated Rule 2158 by failing to assign a judgement to CFJ 2108 ASAP [7 days, 6:45:01] Arguments: I reasonably believed I wasn't the judge of the case on the basis of being a Vote Market party. Each of woggle, comex, BobTHJ violated Rule 2157 by failing to act collectively to ensure the panel assigned a judgement to CFJ 2132a ASAP [25 days, 1:01:14] Arguments: I made a timely intent in this case. woggle violated Rule 2158 by failing to assign a judgement to CFJ 2149 ASAP [24 days, 4:33:22] woggle violated Rule 2158 by failing to assign a judgement to CFJ 2150 ASAP [24 days, 4:33:22] woggle violated Rule 2158 by failing to assign a judgement to CFJ 2151 ASAP [24 days, 4:33:22] Arguments: Guilty. These cases were linked, so multiple punishments for them would be manifestly unjust. Each of comex, woggle, Wooble violated Rule 2157 by failing to act collectively to ensure the panel assigned a judgement to CFJ 2172a ASAP [10 days, 5:53:53] Arguments: Guilty. Each of woggle, root, Taral violated Rule 2157 by failing to act collectively to ensure the panel assigned a judgement to CFJ 2196a ASAP [7 days, 15:40:45] Arguments: I made a (rather deadline-pushing) intent in this case. Each of woggle, Sir Toby, root violated Rule 2157 by failing to act collectively to ensure the panel assigned a judgement to CFJ 2213a ASAP [12 days, 5:43:11] Arguments: I made a timely intent in this case. [snip] -woggle
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Rebellion or, Hi Chuck
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009, Alex Smith wrote: 14 ais523 3 avpx 14 BobTHJ 4 cdm014 26 comex 2 ehird 3 Elysion 7 Goethe 6 harblcat 21 Murphy 12 OscarMeyr 2 pikhq 7 Quazie 22 root 3 Sgeo 7 Sir Toby 8 Taral 1 Warrigal 15 woggle 12 Wooble 3 Zefram Thus proving: under the current system, the best strategy is to not take on any useful game duties whatsoever. Nice system! -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Rebellion or, Hi Chuck
comex wrote: Please note that the following NoVs may be invalid due to the holiday: Validity = well-formed-ness, not correctness.
