Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Mess in CFJ 3509 (attn: Cuddlebeam)
The other assignable ones are sproklems CFJ on whether or not I barred ais in a previous CFJ. And Gael an has 2 linked ones outstanding On Wednesday, June 28, 2017, V.J Rada wrote: > Yes, PSS made the motion. However, a recent CFJ explicitly ruled that this > case could be reassigned. O was the judge. Youre good. > > On Wednesday, June 28, 2017, Kerim Aydin > wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, 27 Jun 2017, Alex Smith wrote: >> > On Sat, 2017-06-10 at 13:48 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> > > First, CuddleBeam clearly delivered a judgement in 3509, then filed a >> > > Motion to Reconsider it. That first part worked fine. >> > >> > Can someone point me to the Motion to Reconsider? Looking back through >> > the lists, I've found two attempts to resolve one and no intent. >> > Obviously, if the CFJ wasn't Reconsidered, I can't reassign it. >> >> Ok, re-reading everything I can find, I agree, there's nothing I can find >> actually worded as an Intent (and CuddleBeam supported a supposed intent >> but didn't actually file). I must have misread something when I posted >> the above. Sorry about the confusion. >> >> > (Sorry for not catching up on this earlier. I've been short on time, >> > especially for Agora, and handling tardy judges and >> > recusals/reassignments/reconsiderations is much more timeconsuming than >> > the initial assignment, in addition to not currently having a rules- >> > mandated deadline, so I keep postponing it.) >> >> I intended to do a weekly update to the archives including a "these >> judgements >> are late" informational post, but I, too, have fallen behind in the time- >> consuming stuff these past couple weeks. Sorry. >> >> >>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Mess in CFJ 3509 (attn: Cuddlebeam)
Yes, PSS made the motion. However, a recent CFJ explicitly ruled that this case could be reassigned. O was the judge. Youre good. On Wednesday, June 28, 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Tue, 27 Jun 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > > On Sat, 2017-06-10 at 13:48 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > First, CuddleBeam clearly delivered a judgement in 3509, then filed a > > > Motion to Reconsider it. That first part worked fine. > > > > Can someone point me to the Motion to Reconsider? Looking back through > > the lists, I've found two attempts to resolve one and no intent. > > Obviously, if the CFJ wasn't Reconsidered, I can't reassign it. > > Ok, re-reading everything I can find, I agree, there's nothing I can find > actually worded as an Intent (and CuddleBeam supported a supposed intent > but didn't actually file). I must have misread something when I posted > the above. Sorry about the confusion. > > > (Sorry for not catching up on this earlier. I've been short on time, > > especially for Agora, and handling tardy judges and > > recusals/reassignments/reconsiderations is much more timeconsuming than > > the initial assignment, in addition to not currently having a rules- > > mandated deadline, so I keep postponing it.) > > I intended to do a weekly update to the archives including a "these > judgements > are late" informational post, but I, too, have fallen behind in the time- > consuming stuff these past couple weeks. Sorry. > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Mess in CFJ 3509 (attn: Cuddlebeam)
On Tue, 27 Jun 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > On Sat, 2017-06-10 at 13:48 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > First, CuddleBeam clearly delivered a judgement in 3509, then filed a > > Motion to Reconsider it. That first part worked fine. > > Can someone point me to the Motion to Reconsider? Looking back through > the lists, I've found two attempts to resolve one and no intent. > Obviously, if the CFJ wasn't Reconsidered, I can't reassign it. Ok, re-reading everything I can find, I agree, there's nothing I can find actually worded as an Intent (and CuddleBeam supported a supposed intent but didn't actually file). I must have misread something when I posted the above. Sorry about the confusion. > (Sorry for not catching up on this earlier. I've been short on time, > especially for Agora, and handling tardy judges and > recusals/reassignments/reconsiderations is much more timeconsuming than > the initial assignment, in addition to not currently having a rules- > mandated deadline, so I keep postponing it.) I intended to do a weekly update to the archives including a "these judgements are late" informational post, but I, too, have fallen behind in the time- consuming stuff these past couple weeks. Sorry.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Mess in CFJ 3509 (attn: Cuddlebeam)
On Wed, 14 Jun 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > On Tue, 2017-06-13 at 09:29 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > All sorts of titles for omd (in caller's arguments): > > > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3422 > > I've just noticed that the gratuitous arguments by me in CFJ 3422 have, > in the Court record, an additional line labelling them as being by you > (thus they're incorrectly attributed to two different people); it looks > rather like I submitted the fact that you made those arguments as > evidence. If I remember correctly (but it was a few years ago now so > maybe I don't), they were in fact written by me, and I quoted your > signature (and the quote of your signature has somehow become garbled > in the Court record). Yep, you quoted me, and it was a cut/paste error. Fixed now (in both 3421 and 3422). Here's how it looked in your email: On Mon, 2014-06-30 at 12:00 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > CFJ: omd is known as offense most dire. I bar Henri > CFJ: omd is known as oddly marked derriere. I bar Henri Gratuitous arguments: Many players seem to be interpreting the signature rule as allowing a particular signature /pattern/. For instance, omd signs eir messages using words that start with "o", "m", and "d"; [...]
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Mess in CFJ 3509 (attn: Cuddlebeam)
On Tue, 2017-06-13 at 09:29 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > All sorts of titles for omd (in caller's arguments): > > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3422 I've just noticed that the gratuitous arguments by me in CFJ 3422 have, in the Court record, an additional line labelling them as being by you (thus they're incorrectly attributed to two different people); it looks rather like I submitted the fact that you made those arguments as evidence. If I remember correctly (but it was a few years ago now so maybe I don't), they were in fact written by me, and I quoted your signature (and the quote of your signature has somehow become garbled in the Court record). -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Mess in CFJ 3509 (attn: Cuddlebeam)
On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, Quazie wrote: > In fact, I think Gaelan is legally a Ninny as of the most recently resolved > proposals? It is Known.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Mess in CFJ 3509 (attn: Cuddlebeam)
In fact, I think Gaelan is legally a Ninny as of the most recently resolved proposals? On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 09:33 Quazie wrote: > On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 09:32 Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: >> > On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 10:54 PM, Quazie wrote: >> > > SnuggleWand could've indeed - the CFJ is indeed in a peculiar mess, >> which is >> > > why I recently introduced recusal, so if someone gets a case they >> just don't >> > > wanna deal with (which happened to PuddleGleam here) then ey can >> recuse >> > > themselves instead of holding up the judicial system. >> > > >> > > V.J. - It might be good to Point a Finger at TheBeaminator for eir >> pledge >> > > breaking, as that would serve em right for breaking a pledge (I could >> > > obviously do it too, but i'm having too much fun coming up with new >> > > nick-names for Old Beam Boy (or Girl)) >> > >> > Now come on, be reasonable. Whatever mistakes Cuddlebeam may have >> > made, e is a new player. E is therefore entitled to a chance to figure >> > out the game. If you want to point a finger at em, that's your right, >> > but you can stop making fun of the person. There has to be a better >> > solution than that. Maybe someone could mentor em? >> >> It's an old tradition to blow off steam: >> >> Calling someone a pineapple (due to genuine annoyance): >> > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1613 >> >> All sorts of titles for omd (in caller's arguments): >> > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3422 >> >> Name-calling got so bad at one point, someone tried to mousetrap people >> via insults: >> > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1290 >> >> (we generally draw the line at outright insults, though in that last case >> the line was crossed repeatedly). > > > > I was just scheming a system (like via organization) that rewards players > for unambiguously referring to players by not their official nick name. >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Mess in CFJ 3509 (attn: Cuddlebeam)
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 09:32 Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 10:54 PM, Quazie wrote: > > > SnuggleWand could've indeed - the CFJ is indeed in a peculiar mess, > which is > > > why I recently introduced recusal, so if someone gets a case they just > don't > > > wanna deal with (which happened to PuddleGleam here) then ey can recuse > > > themselves instead of holding up the judicial system. > > > > > > V.J. - It might be good to Point a Finger at TheBeaminator for eir > pledge > > > breaking, as that would serve em right for breaking a pledge (I could > > > obviously do it too, but i'm having too much fun coming up with new > > > nick-names for Old Beam Boy (or Girl)) > > > > Now come on, be reasonable. Whatever mistakes Cuddlebeam may have > > made, e is a new player. E is therefore entitled to a chance to figure > > out the game. If you want to point a finger at em, that's your right, > > but you can stop making fun of the person. There has to be a better > > solution than that. Maybe someone could mentor em? > > It's an old tradition to blow off steam: > > Calling someone a pineapple (due to genuine annoyance): > > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1613 > > All sorts of titles for omd (in caller's arguments): > > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3422 > > Name-calling got so bad at one point, someone tried to mousetrap people > via insults: > > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1290 > > (we generally draw the line at outright insults, though in that last case > the line was crossed repeatedly). I was just scheming a system (like via organization) that rewards players for unambiguously referring to players by not their official nick name.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Mess in CFJ 3509 (attn: Cuddlebeam)
On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: > On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 10:54 PM, Quazie wrote: > > SnuggleWand could've indeed - the CFJ is indeed in a peculiar mess, which is > > why I recently introduced recusal, so if someone gets a case they just don't > > wanna deal with (which happened to PuddleGleam here) then ey can recuse > > themselves instead of holding up the judicial system. > > > > V.J. - It might be good to Point a Finger at TheBeaminator for eir pledge > > breaking, as that would serve em right for breaking a pledge (I could > > obviously do it too, but i'm having too much fun coming up with new > > nick-names for Old Beam Boy (or Girl)) > > Now come on, be reasonable. Whatever mistakes Cuddlebeam may have > made, e is a new player. E is therefore entitled to a chance to figure > out the game. If you want to point a finger at em, that's your right, > but you can stop making fun of the person. There has to be a better > solution than that. Maybe someone could mentor em? It's an old tradition to blow off steam: Calling someone a pineapple (due to genuine annoyance): > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1613 All sorts of titles for omd (in caller's arguments): > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3422 Name-calling got so bad at one point, someone tried to mousetrap people via insults: > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1290 (we generally draw the line at outright insults, though in that last case the line was crossed repeatedly).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Mess in CFJ 3509 (attn: Cuddlebeam)
On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 10:54 PM, Quazie wrote: > SnuggleWand could've indeed - the CFJ is indeed in a peculiar mess, which is > why I recently introduced recusal, so if someone gets a case they just don't > wanna deal with (which happened to PuddleGleam here) then ey can recuse > themselves instead of holding up the judicial system. > > V.J. - It might be good to Point a Finger at TheBeaminator for eir pledge > breaking, as that would serve em right for breaking a pledge (I could > obviously do it too, but i'm having too much fun coming up with new > nick-names for Old Beam Boy (or Girl)) Now come on, be reasonable. Whatever mistakes Cuddlebeam may have made, e is a new player. E is therefore entitled to a chance to figure out the game. If you want to point a finger at em, that's your right, but you can stop making fun of the person. There has to be a better solution than that. Maybe someone could mentor em? -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Mess in CFJ 3509 (attn: Cuddlebeam)
SnuggleWand could've indeed - the CFJ is indeed in a peculiar mess, which is why I recently introduced recusal, so if someone gets a case they just don't wanna deal with (which happened to PuddleGleam here) then ey can recuse themselves instead of holding up the judicial system. V.J. - It might be good to Point a Finger at TheBeaminator for eir pledge breaking, as that would serve em right for breaking a pledge (I could obviously do it too, but i'm having too much fun coming up with new nick-names for Old Beam Boy (or Girl)) On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 8:07 PM V.J Rada wrote: > Apologies for the triple-post, but CB could have just expressed > disinterest in the darn thing. > > On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 1:01 PM, V.J Rada wrote: > >> This message is just for the convenience of those not caught up, as I >> was not. >> >> Oh dear God just read the full mess. CB (this is a valid nickname, don't >> even think about it) submitted a message *pledging* not to submit >> judgement. Gaelan then attempted to ratify a document stating that 3509 >> was judgeless, which was objected to by o. The player also known as >> CuddleBeam who I shall now refer to as UberJeff submitted a clearly >> incorrect Judgement of DISMISS, based on the fact that he couldn't be >> bothered to read the rules. Your message states that UberJeff moved for >> reconsideration, but actually Publius moved for it, which UberJeff >> supported. UberJeff then went back to eir original stance of not >> submitting >> one. >> >> It is clear that UberJeff broke eir pledge not to judge the judgement. >> It is also clear that, as UberJeff emself admits, their original >> judgement is >> clearly wrong. UberJeff should be carded, the initial judgement should be >> counted as authoritative, weshould moot that judgement and give the CFJ >> to a different judge. >> >> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 12:41 PM, V.J Rada wrote: >> >>> Is it legal to move for you to reconsider your own judgement and then >>> not judge it? I feel like this should be counted as a refusal to reconsider >>> and we should thus count the original judgement (and Moot it if necessary). >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 5:47 AM, CuddleBeam >>> wrote: >>> I'm not going to give Judgement on that, because while I am honestly able to give Judgement (and would Judge TRUE, because I agree with Gaelan), I won't engage in tit for tat and cards for cards because I believe it's wrong, even if our Justice system commands me to. >>> >>> >> >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Mess in CFJ 3509 (attn: Cuddlebeam)
Apologies for the triple-post, but CB could have just expressed disinterest in the darn thing. On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 1:01 PM, V.J Rada wrote: > This message is just for the convenience of those not caught up, as I > was not. > > Oh dear God just read the full mess. CB (this is a valid nickname, don't > even think about it) submitted a message *pledging* not to submit > judgement. Gaelan then attempted to ratify a document stating that 3509 > was judgeless, which was objected to by o. The player also known as > CuddleBeam who I shall now refer to as UberJeff submitted a clearly > incorrect Judgement of DISMISS, based on the fact that he couldn't be > bothered to read the rules. Your message states that UberJeff moved for > reconsideration, but actually Publius moved for it, which UberJeff > supported. UberJeff then went back to eir original stance of not submitting > one. > > It is clear that UberJeff broke eir pledge not to judge the judgement. > It is also clear that, as UberJeff emself admits, their original judgement > is > clearly wrong. UberJeff should be carded, the initial judgement should be > counted as authoritative, weshould moot that judgement and give the CFJ > to a different judge. > > On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 12:41 PM, V.J Rada wrote: > >> Is it legal to move for you to reconsider your own judgement and then not >> judge it? I feel like this should be counted as a refusal to reconsider and >> we should thus count the original judgement (and Moot it if necessary). >> >> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 5:47 AM, CuddleBeam >> wrote: >> >>> I'm not going to give Judgement on that, because while I am honestly >>> able to give Judgement (and would Judge TRUE, because I agree with Gaelan), >>> I won't engage in tit for tat and cards for cards because I believe it's >>> wrong, even if our Justice system commands me to. >>> >> >> >
