DIS: Re: BUS: court merry go round

2010-09-10 Thread Sean Hunt

On 09/10/2010 06:21 PM, comex wrote:

As judge of CFJ 2857, I publish the following /incorrect/ judicial declarations:

{ G.'s position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ coppro's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ omd's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ woggle's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ Wooble's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ Tiger's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ Taral's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ ehird's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ Sgeo's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ Tanner L. Swett's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ ais523's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ Murphy's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ Yally's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }

Assuming that announcement is a valid way to publish a judicial
declaration (no particular mechanism is specified in the rules), I
don't know whether that succeeded in doing anything.  In CFJ 1971 it
was ruled that actions like posting a report don't work with excessive
disclaimers (presumably that would include explicitly calling it
incorrect), and in the "five lights" scam it was held (I think?) that
you can't post a NoV without being Truthfulness-liable for its
contents, but we do allow ratifying incorrect documents, and I don't
see a clear distinction between that and this-- both are attempts to
submit incorrect documents to the Rules.

But in any case, since I don't know whether the last action succeeded,
I can quite honestly publish the following judicial declarations (same
as above):

{ G.'s position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ coppro's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ omd's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ woggle's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ Wooble's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ Tiger's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ Taral's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ ehird's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ Sgeo's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ Tanner L. Swett's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ ais523's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ Murphy's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ Yally's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }

...As a certain person would say, in light of this, the issue between
Wooble and Tiger takes on a somewhat academic cast, but I judge FALSE.
  Although the caller's arguments are tempting, out of the three
dictionaries I tried (Merriam-Webster, Google, OS X Dictionary.app),
only Google offers The Hierophant as a definition of "pope", and the
metaphors of court, church, and Tarot deck are a bit too confused to
accept that particular interpretation.


Judicial declarations are only self-ratifying if their publication is 
required, and these certainly were not.


-coppro


DIS: Re: BUS: court merry go round

2010-09-10 Thread Kerim Aydin



On Fri, 10 Sep 2010, Warrigal wrote:
> I submit the following Urgent Proposal, titled "The List of No Doubt",
> AI = 2, II = 1: {In Rule 2314, replace "eir position on the list is
> found by judicial declaration to be unknown or ambiguous" with "eir
> position on the list has been found to be unknown or ambiguous by a
> judicial declaration that has been continuously undoubted for one
> week". Set the List of Succession to what it was at 22:00 UTC on 10
> September 2010.}
   ^^^

Please don't do this.  It will freeze any list activity for the
next 8 days.  And it may not be possible when it gets there, if
for example someone now on the list becomes speaker.

Please just say "the list as of immediately after (time of these
messages) is set to be what it was immediately before those
messages."

-G.





Re: DIS: Re: BUS: court merry go round

2010-09-10 Thread comexk


Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 10, 2010, at 6:27 PM, Sean Hunt  wrote:
> Judicial declarations are only self-ratifying if their publication is 
> required, and these certainly were not.

I'm trying to use the "found by judicial declaration to be unknown or 
ambiguous" clause, not self-ratification. 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: court merry go round

2010-09-13 Thread omd
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Geoffrey Spear  wrote:
> I support.  In any event, the judge did not consider every possible
> reason Tiger could be a pope (including the gratuitous arguments
> regarding Discordian Popeiness), so a judgment of UNDETERMINED should
> be considered.

Said arguments demonstrated that that interpretation is implausible.