Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1805: result TRUE
On Nov 28, 2007 2:24 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I intend, with Agoran Consent, to nkeplwgplxgioyzjvtxjnncsqscvntlbdqromyeyvlhkjgteaqnneqgujjpwcbyfrpueoydjjk. What rule defines that as a dependent action? Or did you mean on behalf of Agora? -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1805: result TRUE
On Nov 28, 2007 2:30 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 28, 2007 2:24 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I intend, with Agoran Consent, to nkeplwgplxgioyzjvtxjnncsqscvntlbdqromyeyvlhkjgteaqnneqgujjpwcbyfrpueoydjjk. What rule defines that as a dependent action? Or did you mean on behalf of Agora? -root Of course, on behalf of Agora. I would be embarrassing to nkeplwgplxgioyzjvtxjnncsqscvntlbdqromyeyvlhkjgteaqnneqgujjpwcbyfrpueoydjjk for myself. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1805: result TRUE
On Nov 28, 2007 2:38 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 28, 2007 2:34 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Of course, on behalf of Agora. I would be embarrassing to nkeplwgplxgioyzjvtxjnncsqscvntlbdqromyeyvlhkjgteaqnneqgujjpwcbyfrpueoydjjk for myself. Then I think that you need to specify that in your notice of intent. -root How silly of me. Very well then: I intend, on behalf of Agora, with Agoran Consent, to nkeplwgplxgioyzjvtxjnncsqscvntlbdqromyeyvlhkjgteaqnneqgujjpwcbyfrpueoydjjk. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1805: result TRUE
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Ian Kelly wrote: I'm not comfortable with this. We know that the nonsense phrase means neither to act nor to not act. This leads to a judgment of FALSE, not UNDETERMINED. I'm afraid I disagree. I know nothing of the kind. We don't have enough information to determine what it means. (By the way, the to is not part of the nonsense phrase, that's important in construing a possible verb). For example, nkep could be a contract action in a private contract, which is permissible or not permissible by the contract (and thus answerable to in Agoran courts). Additionally, wouldn't a finding of UNDETERMINED cause a split in the gamestate around the question of whether or not comex wins? Unfortunate perhaps, but I prefer not to judge based on convenience of implications. A compromise offer: nkep is clearly not understandable to most Agorans, and thus the burden falls onto the users of the term to show it is an action. If they can provide evidence in four days that nkep is an action (e.g. a copy of a contract, with reasonably acceptable evidence dated to before the CFJ in question), we can find otherwise, else we'll find FALSE. We can't Order this (no Orders anymore) but we can post the request... -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1805: result TRUE
On Nov 28, 2007 2:49 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 28, 2007 2:43 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I intend, on behalf of Agora, with Agoran Consent, to nkeplwgplxgioyzjvtxjnncsqscvntlbdqromyeyvlhkjgteaqnneqgujjpwcbyfrpueoydjjk. In the event that the above is a valid notice of intent, I vote SUPPORT. Or at least I would if the notice of intent were posted on the PF. :-) -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1805: result TRUE
On Nov 28, 2007 2:49 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm afraid I disagree. I know nothing of the kind. We don't have enough information to determine what it means. (By the way, the to is not part of the nonsense phrase, that's important in construing a possible verb). For example, nkep could be a contract action in a private contract, which is permissible or not permissible by the contract (and thus answerable to in Agoran courts). Anything could be defined in a private contract, so by your argument, all hypothetical cases should be judged UNDETERMINED. A compromise offer: nkep is clearly not understandable to most Agorans, and thus the burden falls onto the users of the term to show it is an action. If they can provide evidence in four days that nkep is an action (e.g. a copy of a contract, with reasonably acceptable evidence dated to before the CFJ in question), we can find otherwise, else we'll find FALSE. We can't Order this (no Orders anymore) but we can post the request... I can accept that. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1805: result TRUE
On Nov 28, 2007 2:49 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm afraid I disagree. I know nothing of the kind. We don't have enough information to determine what it means. (By the way, the to is not part of the nonsense phrase, that's important in construing a possible verb). You're assuming that to nkep... is intended as a verb phrase. Perhaps nkep... is an entity, and the statement is that the unknown antecedent of it is in some way permissible to that entity. The way I see it, if part of a clause is nonsense, then the whole clause is nonsense. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1805: result TRUE
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Roger Hicks wrote: I believe I can furnish such proof, although it may take me several days to have it ready. Would you be willing to extend the window? No. I can't think of a valid reason why legitimate evidence (that existed at the time, no retconning) can't be produced immediately. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1805: result TRUE
Goethe wrote: For example, nkep could be a contract action in a private contract, which is permissible or not permissible by the contract (and thus answerable to in Agoran courts). [snip] A compromise offer: nkep is clearly not understandable to most Agorans, and thus the burden falls onto the users of the term to show it is an action. If they can provide evidence in four days that nkep is an action (e.g. a copy of a contract, with reasonably acceptable evidence dated to before the CFJ in question), we can find otherwise, else we'll find FALSE. We can't Order this (no Orders anymore) but we can post the request... Assuming that no such evidence is produced within four days of this message, I pre-emptively consent to the panel overturning to FALSE with a note to that effect, followed by my arguments.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1805: result TRUE
comex wrote: If I *right now*, to the PF, defined nkep as deregister (not claiming to have defined it beforehand), would TRUE then become appropriate for this appeal? Rule 911 (Appeal Cases) measures appropriateness as follows: AFFIRM - past REMAND - unspecified REASSIGN - unspecified OVERRULE - past (prior judgement), present (new judgement)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1805: result TRUE
On Nov 28, 2007 3:26 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Roger Hicks wrote: I believe I can furnish such proof, although it may take me several days to have it ready. Would you be willing to extend the window? No. I can't think of a valid reason why legitimate evidence (that existed at the time, no retconning) can't be produced immediately. -Goethe Oh, and just to note: The proof already exists. It simply requires time for me to make it public. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1805: result TRUE
Ed Murphy wrote: Rule 911 (Appeal Cases) measures appropriateness as follows: Appropriateness in an inquiry case internally involves considerations of what information was available at particular times. It is intended that appropriateness of a judgement doesn't change after a judgement is given. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1805: result TRUE
BobTHJ wrote: On Nov 28, 2007 5:18 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: BobTHJ wrote: Oh, and just to note: The proof already exists. It simply requires time for me to make it public. I don't buy it. Provide an outline of the proof and I may change my mind. Here's a possibility: The information exists within a private contract. The internal mechanisms of that contract do not allow it to be disclosed without a vote of the parties, and the voting period is longer than 4 days. You've had about 10 days (since CFJ 1799 was called) to make a decision on this. I have zero sympathy.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1805: result TRUE
On Nov 28, 2007 5:18 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: BobTHJ wrote: Oh, and just to note: The proof already exists. It simply requires time for me to make it public. I don't buy it. Provide an outline of the proof and I may change my mind. Here's a possibility: The information exists within a private contract. The internal mechanisms of that contract do not allow it to be disclosed without a vote of the parties, and the voting period is longer than 4 days. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1805: result TRUE
On Nov 28, 2007 5:28 PM, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ian Kelly wrote: One last comment before I get back to work. R591 states regarding the UNDETERMINED judgement that uncertainty as to how to interpret or apply the rules cannot constitute insufficiency of information for this purpose. This could arguably be extended to include uncertainty as to how to apply the text of unknown private contracts. I certainly did not intend such an interpretation. It is crucial to that provision that the rules are entirely public, and that the courts in question are canonical concerning their interpretation. Private contracts meet neither of these conditions. I agree, which is why the text of hypothetical private contracts should have no bearing on the finding of the courts. It's an awfully big stretch, both of literal text and of intent, to claim that private contracts are equivalent to the rules for this purpose. Yes. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1805: result TRUE
On Nov 28, 2007, at 5:45 PM, Roger Hicks wrote: Ho-hum. TTttPF: On Nov 28, 2007 2:43 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I intend, on behalf of Agora, with Agoran Consent, to nkeplwgplxgioyzjvtxjnncsqscvntlbdqromyeyvlhkjgteaqnneqgujjpwcbyfrpueo ydjjk. BobTHJ I vote AGAINT - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1805: result TRUE
On Nov 28, 2007 8:55 PM, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I vote AGAINT Have you made a private arrangement with the vote collector?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1805: result TRUE
{{db-nonsense}}
On Nov 28, 2007, at 4:51 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Roger Hicks wrote:
I intend, on behalf of Agora, with Agoran Consent, to
nkeplwgplxgioyzjvtxjnncsqscvntlbdqromyeyvlhkjgteaqnneqgujjpwcbyfrpueo
ydjjk.
I ogltrwqifdentmaoeficbhapqieflwieeadnttoedmbenotgevcnid.
-Goethe
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1805: result TRUE
On Nov 28, 2007, at 9:03 PM, comex wrote: On Nov 28, 2007 8:55 PM, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I vote AGAINT Have you made a private arrangement with the vote collector? Has BobTHJ made a private arrangment regarding the meaning of nkep...? And kudos on being the first person to note the reference. Have a cookie, it's oatmeal raisin: (:) - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr
