DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] Docket
CFJ 3383 has been appealed, but I don't see any mention of CFJ 3383a anywhere. —Machiavelli
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] Docket
Ooops, missed that. Got it. ~ Roujo On 2013-07-28 10:54 PM, "Fool" wrote: > On 28/07/2013 10:52 PM, Jonathan Rouillard wrote: > >> Naughtiness (Rule 2356) >> --- >> PVN: 1 >> Unvirtuous: Fool >> >> > By the way, naughtiness no longer exists. >
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] Docket
On 28/07/2013 10:52 PM, Jonathan Rouillard wrote: Naughtiness (Rule 2356) --- PVN: 1 Unvirtuous: Fool By the way, naughtiness no longer exists.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] Docket
On Fri, 5 Apr 2013, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Thu, 4 Apr 2013, Tanner Swett wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 12:29 AM, omd wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 12:08 AM, Tanner Swett > > > wrote: > > >> I call a CFJ on the following statement: A person CAN violate Rule 101 > > >> by failing to treat Agora right good forever without violating any > > >> other regulation found in Rule 101. > > > > > > Evidence: CFJ 2515. > > > > I intend, with such-and-such support, to file a Motion to Reconsider > > CFJ 2515. Arguments: in my opinion, the requirement is too vague to be > > enforceable. > >If a non-Appeals judicial case (1) has a judgement that has been >in effect for less than seven days and not been appealed, > > > [FWIW, I agree with you]. Aaaand you sent that to discussion, so you knew that. More coffee for me.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] Docket
On Thu, 4 Apr 2013, Tanner Swett wrote: > On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 12:29 AM, omd wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 12:08 AM, Tanner Swett wrote: > >> I call a CFJ on the following statement: A person CAN violate Rule 101 > >> by failing to treat Agora right good forever without violating any > >> other regulation found in Rule 101. > > > > Evidence: CFJ 2515. > > I intend, with such-and-such support, to file a Motion to Reconsider > CFJ 2515. Arguments: in my opinion, the requirement is too vague to be > enforceable. If a non-Appeals judicial case (1) has a judgement that has been in effect for less than seven days and not been appealed, [FWIW, I agree with you].
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] Docket
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 12:29 AM, omd wrote: > On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 12:08 AM, Tanner Swett wrote: >> I call a CFJ on the following statement: A person CAN violate Rule 101 >> by failing to treat Agora right good forever without violating any >> other regulation found in Rule 101. > > Evidence: CFJ 2515. I intend, with such-and-such support, to file a Motion to Reconsider CFJ 2515. Arguments: in my opinion, the requirement is too vague to be enforceable. —Machiavelli
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] Docket
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 12:08 AM, Tanner Swett wrote: > I call a CFJ on the following statement: A person CAN violate Rule 101 > by failing to treat Agora right good forever without violating any > other regulation found in Rule 101. Evidence: CFJ 2515.
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] Docket
> Inquiry Initiator Judge Judgement due > > (none) > > Criminal PlaintiffDefendant Judge Judgement due > > (none) > > AppealInitiator(s) Panel Judgement due > > (none) I call a CFJ on the following statement: A person CAN violate Rule 101 by failing to treat Agora right good forever without violating any other regulation found in Rule 101. —"NTTPF" Machiavelli
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] Docket
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: > > >Inactive: ais523 (standing) > BobTHJ > Flameshadowxeroshin > justine sells > Ozymandias > Roujo > scat > Sgeo > Walker > Yally (leaning) > Yep, still active.
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] Docket
On 27 September 2012 02:23, Ed Murphy wrote: > Clerk's Docket > > Date of this report: Thu 26 Sep 12 > Date of last report: Thu 23 Aug 12 > (All times are UTC) > > Unqualified (Rule 1868) > --- > > All of these players are supine, except as noted. > >Inactive: ais523 (sitting) > Arkady > BobTHJ > CoE: I am active
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] Docket
On 12/11/2011 10:57 AM, Elliott Hird wrote: > On 11 December 2011 07:07, Mister Snuggles wrote: >> coe: i should not be on this list. >> >> mister snuggles > > Whoever is doing this, stop it. However much you find mister snuggles > annoying, this is bad form. > > (My remarks stand even if whoever controls the real mister snuggles is > doing it.) Agreed. One of the most important things about mister snuggles is that e's up front about eir shenanigans: we know right away that something's up. Identity games that are easy to overlook are a breach of trust.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] Docket
On 11 December 2011 07:07, Mister Snuggles wrote: > coe: i should not be on this list. > > mister snuggles Whoever is doing this, stop it. However much you find mister snuggles annoying, this is bad form. (My remarks stand even if whoever controls the real mister snuggles is doing it.)
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] Docket
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 2:07 AM, Mister Snuggles wrote: > coe: i should not be on this list. > > mister snuggles can we get these fake mister snuggles messages filtered somehow? everyone shouldn't have to look at the headers to see who is who. mister snuggles
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] Docket
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: > Posture (Rule 1871) of active players > - > > Standing: (none) > > Sitting: ais523(3130) > G.(3128) > Murphy(3133) > omd (3124) > Pavitra (3129) > scshunt (3127) > woggle(3120) > > Leaning: Yally > >Supine: Arkady > Benu > ehird > pikhq > Roujo > Tanner L. Swett > Walker > Wooble coe: i should not be on this list. mister snuggles
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] Docket
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 4:41 AM, Ed Murphy wrote: > Hawkishness (Rule 1871) of active players > - > > Hovering: Tanner L. Swett > Taral > > All other active players are hemming-and-hawing. CoE: this is no longer defined. —Tanner L. Swett
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
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] Docket
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: > The detail script (draws.php) has a 30-day cutoff, but doing that in > the summary script would generally cut off mid-week. The messy corner > case occurs when the time period crosses a year boundary. Thinking > about it, I should be able to make it Good Enough later on, basically > (same year and week# >= current week# - 5) > or (previous year and week# >= 49 and current week# <= 5) > Ah, right, I see what you mean. I'll look into it when I implement the lookup for my code and tell you what I find. -coppro
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] Docket
coppro wrote: > On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: >> To be more specific: Â Each draws_by_week.php script works correctly, as >> far as it goes. Â What they is a "leave out data more than X weeks old" >> cutoff; instead, they include every week from (hardcoded start date) to >> (end of the most recent week that has already ended). Â If you just go >> by my published reports, then you can ignore this problem (I'll manually >> trim the published list). > > Ah... couldn't you limit the query to WHERE date > DATE_SUB(UTC_NOW(), > 1 MONTH) or something like that (disclaimer: I may have the functions > and/or syntax wrong). The detail script (draws.php) has a 30-day cutoff, but doing that in the summary script would generally cut off mid-week. The messy corner case occurs when the time period crosses a year boundary. Thinking about it, I should be able to make it Good Enough later on, basically (same year and week# >= current week# - 5) or (previous year and week# >= 49 and current week# <= 5)
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] Docket
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: > To be more specific: Each draws_by_week.php script works correctly, as > far as it goes. What they is a "leave out data more than X weeks old" > cutoff; instead, they include every week from (hardcoded start date) to > (end of the most recent week that has already ended). If you just go > by my published reports, then you can ignore this problem (I'll manually > trim the published list). Ah... couldn't you limit the query to WHERE date > DATE_SUB(UTC_NOW(), 1 MONTH) or something like that (disclaimer: I may have the functions and/or syntax wrong). -coppro
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] Docket
coppro wrote: > On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 4:07 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: >>> (This goes back to September 21, the first full week in which the >>> current "1 draw per interested case" clause was in effect. Â draws.php >>> goes back 30 days from today's date. Â Side note: Â computing week-based >>> cutoffs is more tedious than it should be.) >>> >>> Which would people prefer to see in the report? >>> >>> >> It has to be less tedious than actually implementing history scanning >> from scratch, which I should probably do if it looks like Amethyst >> Card Repeal is going to pass. >> >> -coppro >> > > That should be if Amethyst Card Repeal is NOT going to pass. To be more specific: Each draws_by_week.php script works correctly, as far as it goes. What they is a "leave out data more than X weeks old" cutoff; instead, they include every week from (hardcoded start date) to (end of the most recent week that has already ended). If you just go by my published reports, then you can ignore this problem (I'll manually trim the published list).
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] Docket
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 4:07 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: > On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: >> (This goes back to September 21, the first full week in which the >> current "1 draw per interested case" clause was in effect. draws.php >> goes back 30 days from today's date. Side note: computing week-based >> cutoffs is more tedious than it should be.) >> >> Which would people prefer to see in the report? >> >> > > It has to be less tedious than actually implementing history scanning > from scratch, which I should probably do if it looks like Amethyst > Card Repeal is going to pass. > > -coppro > That should be if Amethyst Card Repeal is NOT going to pass. -coppro
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] Docket
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: > (This goes back to September 21, the first full week in which the > current "1 draw per interested case" clause was in effect. draws.php > goes back 30 days from today's date. Side note: computing week-based > cutoffs is more tedious than it should be.) > > Which would people prefer to see in the report? > > It has to be less tedious than actually implementing history scanning from scratch, which I should probably do if it looks like Amethyst Card Repeal is going to pass. -coppro
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] Docket
I wrote: > http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/draws_by_week.php [snip] > (This goes back to September 21, the first full week in which the > current "1 draw per interested case" clause was in effect. draws.php > goes back 30 days from today's date. Side note: computing week-based > cutoffs is more tedious than it should be.) > > Which would people prefer to see in the report? Additional notes: I adjusted it to omit draws earned during the week currently in progress, to better match R2278. Assessor DB now has a similar script, going back to the week beginning July 13 (the first full week in which R2261 existed).
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] Docket
coppro wrote: > On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 9:23 AM, Ed Murphy wrote: >> Draws earned (1 per case) >> http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/draws.php >> -- >> Sun 25 Oct 10:26:55  2718 coppro >> Sun 25 Oct 11:28:24  2723 Murphy >> Sun 25 Oct 11:28:24  2722 Murphy >> Sun 25 Oct 11:28:24  2721 Murphy >> Sun 25 Oct 11:48:43  2724 c. >> Thu  5 Nov 19:32:44  2728 coppro >> - time of last report - >> Sun  8 Nov 11:30:54  2696 G. >> Mon  9 Nov 13:08:18  2730 coppro >> Fri 13 Nov 17:44:35  2731 c. > > While I can interpret this listing as a list of draws earned, it would > be easier if it only included draws from the previous week and/or > consolidated the listing by player. http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/draws_by_week.php Week beginning 21 Sep 2009 1 BobTHJ Week beginning 21 Sep 2009 1 c. Week beginning 21 Sep 2009 1 Murphy Week beginning 21 Sep 2009 1 Walker Week beginning 28 Sep 2009 1 c. Week beginning 28 Sep 2009 1 woggle Week beginning 12 Oct 2009 2 ais523 Week beginning 12 Oct 2009 3 coppro Week beginning 12 Oct 2009 1 Walker Week beginning 12 Oct 2009 1 woggle Week beginning 19 Oct 2009 1 c. Week beginning 19 Oct 2009 1 coppro Week beginning 19 Oct 2009 3 Murphy 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 (This goes back to September 21, the first full week in which the current "1 draw per interested case" clause was in effect. draws.php goes back 30 days from today's date. Side note: computing week-based cutoffs is more tedious than it should be.) Which would people prefer to see in the report?
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] Docket
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 9:23 AM, Ed Murphy wrote: > Draws earned (1 per case) > http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/draws.php > -- > Sun 25 Oct 10:26:55 2718 coppro > Sun 25 Oct 11:28:24 2723 Murphy > Sun 25 Oct 11:28:24 2722 Murphy > Sun 25 Oct 11:28:24 2721 Murphy > Sun 25 Oct 11:48:43 2724 c. > Thu 5 Nov 19:32:44 2728 coppro > - time of last report - > Sun 8 Nov 11:30:54 2696 G. > Mon 9 Nov 13:08:18 2730 coppro > Fri 13 Nov 17:44:35 2731 c. While I can interpret this listing as a list of draws earned, it would be easier if it only included draws from the previous week and/or consolidated the listing by player. -coppro
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] Docket
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 1:54 AM, Ed Murphy wrote: > schwa (2625-26) (basis: allispaul, c., coppro, > Warrigal, teucer) I believe I'm part of schwa's basis; I know there was sentiment for kicking me out, but I can't find any public message announcing that it had been done.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] Docket
Quazie wrote: > Non-first-class: Association of Federated Organizations > Left Hand > PerlNomic Partnership > Pineapple Partnership (standing) > Protection Racket > Reformed Bank of Agora > > COE where is HP2? Admitted, fixed in next draft.
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] Docket
Non-first-class: Association of Federated Organizations Left Hand PerlNomic Partnership Pineapple Partnership (standing) Protection Racket Reformed Bank of Agora COE where is HP2?
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] Docket
On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 9:40 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 1937 woggle WoobleWed 28 May 23:28:10 > 1936 ais523, ehird, comex, Pavitra, Thu 29 May 01:37:40 > Ivan Hopepikhq I'm sort of hoping the panel in 1936a will judge more than 2 hours before their deadline so I'll have an appeals ruling to defer to in my judgment here...
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] Docket
Hey Ivan Hope On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 7:10 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Clerk's Docket > > (All times are UTC) > > 1944 Blaise Pascal Ivan Hope*Sun 18 May 04:44:26 I know you've done a proto-judgement, and I know that the CFJ is rather unimportant in the general scheme of things, but could you submit a judgement for it sometime soon?
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] Docket
On Thu, 15 May 2008, Ed Murphy wrote: > > Appeal Initiators PanelJudgement due > > 1932 Goethe, Wooble, Murphy, Goethe, Sun 18 May 05:00:48 > woggle Wooble This has been done. -G.
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] Docket
On 06/04/2008, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 1914 comex Ivan Hope Sun 13 Apr 22:09:11 Wait, I've been assigned to a case? > 1890acomex, root, Ivan Hope, Sun 6 Apr 23:02:31 >Zefram Iammars, BobTHJ > 1891acomex, root, Ivan Hope, Sun 6 Apr 23:02:31 >Zefram Iammars, BobTHJ And I'm on a panel assigned to two cases, at that. Hmm. I guess I should get to 1914 quite soon. --Ivan Hope CXXVII
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] Docket
On 2/4/08, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 1881 pikhq comex*Fri 1 Feb 02:57:42 > 1890-91 Goethe comex Sat 9 Feb 04:46:32 will get on these today.
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] Docket
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008, Ed Murphy wrote: > Criminal 1863 trial GoetheMon 28 Jan 03:21:06 Whups. I judge as follows: #1: CFJ 1860, upon reassignment, has been found FALSE. This has not been appealed, and moreover the reasoning in the case points out that BobTHJ was incorrect; using that standard, the judgement of IRRELEVANT is inappropriate for CFJ 1860. So a finding of INNOCENT is inappropriate here (the objections raised by H. comex as to the "directness" of an inappropriate judgement as a mechanism for preventing an appropriate one being delivered on time might be addressable in an inquiry CFJ, but lacking such guidance I find the mechanism reasonably direct). #2: The Appeals Court has instructed me as follows: "However, I do believe that the prior judge should also consider the nature of the bribe on which BobTHJ's judgement was apparently based. E was evidently willing to judge either TRUE or FALSE, which are mutually exclusive judgements, based upon whichever way the bribe went. This is evidence of bad faith on BobTHJ's part that went unaddressed by the prior judge." I will address this more directly. We are all self-interested judges in this small community. Sometimes the self-interest is more direct than others. Previously, when obvious self-interest has come up, we have ethically recused ourselves. But not always! For example, CFJs 1622-1623 were egregious examples of self- interested judgements. In these cases, it was the *arguments* (and not the self-interest) that were the ultimate test. In CFJ 1346, when an inappropriate judgement was made, the appeals court (CFJ1346a) based its overturning on the arguments made by the judge, not on the fact that the judge was (quite, quite obviously) self-interested. I see no reason to differ in standards here. In fact, seeing the self-interest in black-and-white, shown in a manner when any player could have "paid" for the judgement, it is refreshing and straightforward (as opposed to past cases where a scam worked because a secret scam member was assigned as a judge). BobTHJ noted in making the offer that e felt that the judgement could go "either way", this indicates to me that e (in good faith) saw arguments on multiple sides. BobTHJ's only mistake here was in not requiring that reasonable arguments be provided by the buyer! If you want standards to differ, put an explicit crime in the rules for judging in self-interest, and good luck proving it. But until such legislation exists, as I said in my earlier judgement, evidence of faith should arise from the arguments, not additional details of side-interests. (This is not inconsistent: CFJ 1622 would have been good faith, CFJ 1356 bad faith, based on the argument quality and not the self-interest that existed in both cases). #3. So looking at the quality of the arguments, we see that the Appeals Panel states in part: "The judge's arguments were somewhat reasonable, as laid out in the original judgement of CFJ 1863." "Having reread the prior judge's arguments a week later, the finding of good faith in the defendant's judgement seems reasonable to me." I will take this as sufficient guidance that GUILTY is not an appropriate judgement. #4. That only leaves the choice between EXCUSED and UNAWARE. BobTHJ's error was an error in interpretation and logic in the byways of the gray areas of the rules, and *not* an error of being unaware of a particular, solid, obvious fact. I believe that if a judge lays out a good faith argument, e must follow it to its conclusion. If e does so, than e *cannot avoid* making a judgement that e does. So in those cases, EXCUSED remains preferred, even if the UNAWARE option exists (CFJ 1804). This differs from cases where the judge makes an inappropriate judgement due to missing some clear and obvious statement of fact, for which UNAWARE would be appropriate. I note that the difference between the two is a bit hair-splitting, but this court wishes to strengthen the notion that a judge is inexorably bound to follow eir arguments. I'm never aware of what future judges will think, so I'm EXCUSED to not consider future opinions and logic chains. However, I can forecast what I might judge if a vital piece of evidence were presented to me, so for being unaware of such vital pieces of fact, UNAWARE would be appropriate. So again, this court finds EXCUSED. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] Docket
Iammars wrote: Judicial case ID numbers (Rule 2161) Highest orderly: 1880 Disorderly: This should probably be 1882. Ah yes, sorry. I'll move that up top so it's less likely to be overlooked in future.
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] Docket
On Jan 24, 2008 11:51 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Judicial case ID numbers (Rule 2161) > > Highest orderly: 1880 > Disorderly: > This should probably be 1882. -- -Iammars www.jmcteague.com
