I inform the following defendants of the following criminal cases, and
invite them to rebut the argument for their guilt.
Criminal Plaintiff Defendant
2081 comex Goethe
2082 comex tusho
2083 comex root
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
== CFJ 2070 ==
If there had been no disclaimer in the message sent by comex
with Message-ID
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
comex would have taken at least one action besides submitting a
CFJ
Oh, CFJ 2071 Judgement, too:
Making an announcement is an action, therefore this is trivially TRUE.
-Goethe
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 10:51 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I change all sitting players to standing.
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2064
== CFJ 2064 ==
The message quoted in the evidence
2091 tusho Quazie
I plead INNOCENT. I'm not even fully sure we made a person there. If
we did i can certainly do any action instead of it, which very likely
allows it to have all of its rights uninfringed.
I end the pre-trial phase of this CFJ
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2065a
Appeal 2065a
I intend to announce the following on behalf of the panel with panel
support:
The judge's arguments are
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 11:35 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I intend to announce the following on behalf of the panel with panel
support:
The judge's arguments are reasonable, and the Appellant's arguments
do not convince this panel otherwise. This panel moves to AFFIRM.
I
2008/7/17 Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
2092 tusho tusho
I plead GUILTY:
vi. Every player has the right of participation in the fora.
It certainly does not.
tusho
2008/7/17 Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
2088 Woobletusho
Trivially UNIMPUNGED - this is a nonsense CFJ and I'd bet
everything that it was Wooble's payback for passing a rival
proposal in PerlNomic that distributed the chits more evenly.
I'd also bet that e's going to use the
Quazie wrote:
I judge FALSE. Changes to a public contract must be published before
they take effect by R2178. The change itself was not published by the
above message. If it had included the text 'proposal 2', noting that
those changes were being applied, then this CFJ would be TRUE, but
On Tuesday 15 July 2008 05:18:43 pm comex wrote:
I initiate a criminal CFJ:
I initiate a criminal CFJ:
I initiate a criminal CFJ:
I initiate a criminal CFJ:
I initiate a criminal CFJ:
I initiate a criminal CFJ:
I initiate a criminal CFJ:
I transfer one prop from comex to Murphy, in
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 12:43 AM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2053a
Appeal 2053a
I intent to post the following announcement
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 12:35 AM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2065a
Appeal 2065a
I intend to announce the following on behalf
5640 O1 1.5 Goethe Take it to Equity!
PRESENT
5641 D1 2Taral Pragmatic ribbons
FOR
5642 D1 2Sgeonone
FOR
5643 O1 1comex a probably unsuccessful attempt at
AGAINSTx4
5644 D1 2Murphy Prerogative implies choice
FOR
5645 O1 1.7 Murphy
On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 18:49 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote:
2008/7/16 ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I transfer 1VP to Wooble, as compensation for eir lost chits.
--
ais523
Dude, the PNP gave 75*2 chits to em. Read it carefully.
You accidentally gave the chits to woggle twice and Wooble not at
I submit the following proposal, AI=1.7, II=1, titled No frivolous
prosecution:
{
Amend R1504 by inserting , with 2 Support, after A criminal case
CAN in the first paragraph.
}
Pavitra
On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 15:57 +0100, ais523 wrote:
I call for judgement on the statement {{The PerlNomic Partnership has
transferred a total of 150 chits to woggle in the last week.}}
I retract that CFJ, as it is redundant.
--
ais523
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 10:57 AM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I transfer 1VP to Wooble (again); it only seems fair that to me we
should split the rather ill-advised bribe tusho gave me to cause the PNP
to split its chits like that.
I transfer this VP to the Reformed Bank of Agora in
Unlike CFJ 2079, the statement inquired into by CFJ 2080 and the
statement initiating CFJ 2080 were not the same statement. But
that's actually normal, and CFJ 2079 is the exception.
The initiator did, in fact, CFJ on the statement I CFJ on this
statement. TRUE.
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 12:33 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I initiate a criminal CFJ:
- defendant: comex
- rule: 2149
- action: claiming in eir message with message-id
[EMAIL PROTECTED] that e
intended to appeal ehird's judgement of CFJ 1932, while in fact he did
not intend to
[I'm taking the route of a new CFJ because of the self-negating nature
of an appeal]. I call for judgement on the following two linked
statements:
1. The statement labeled by the CotC as the CFJ statement for
CFJ 2079 was a CFJ statement called by root.
I bar Murphy
2. The
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 12:34 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Too bad, that last one was interesting.
The AFO intends a criminal CFJ identical to the above.
I transfer another prop from myself to Murphy.
And this fails too, because the AFO can't. ugh.
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
Criminal Plaintiff Defendant
2081 comex Goethe
I was listening to the Dead Kennedys' Forward to Death while
typing that message. I recommend EXILE.
I end the pre-trial phase. -Goethe
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 12:11 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2077
== CFJ 2077 ==
Ivan Hope is a player
On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 10:48 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 12:11 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2077
== CFJ 2077 ==
Ivan Hope is a player
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 9:48 AM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 12:11 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2077
== CFJ 2077 ==
Ivan Hope is a
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 10:51 AM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 9:48 AM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 12:11 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2077
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 12:04 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2073
== CFJ 2073 ==
Either the sky is always red or, if I do not hereby initiate an
inquiry case on
2008/7/17 Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
2008/7/17 Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
2092 tusho tusho
I plead GUILTY:
vi. Every player has the right of participation in the fora.
It certainly does not.
tusho
I end the pre-trial phase.
2008/7/17 Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 2:31 AM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Such is Agora.
tusho
Don't forget to end your pre-trial periods.
I end the pre-trial phase on the CFJ I gave arguments for two
quotes down.
Taral wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 8:15 AM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're too concerned with the facts of this case.
Patent nonsense. BobTHJ, your arguments lead me to believe that you
have no basis other than personal (or contractual) bias on this issue.
Agreed. BobTHJ
comex wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Partnerships can't initiate criminal cases, either.
I am willing to give chits, VP, and/or crops for a pledge that you
will accept a few more CFJs from me. (The refused ones are more
interesting than the
On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 19:46 -0600, Charles Reiss wrote:
Precedent in CFJ 1334 (referenced by root's arguments) has held that a
statement of intent is ambiguous when it is missing an essential
parameter for the action in question that will need to be assigned
when the action is completed.
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 11:00 AM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
I think the appropriate response at this point would be to call a
press conference and announce how I tried to work for a bi-partisan
compromise but the other side was unwilling to
On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 10:06 -0700, Quazie wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 7:19 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quazie wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 12:03 AM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 11:20 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can't find a
I agree to the following contract:
{
This is a public contract called Vote Market Insurance. Parties to
this contract are known as Insurees.
Any entity that either possesses VP or is bound by the Vote Market may
join this contract by announcement.
Total VP is defined as the total amount of VP
Having received the necessary support, I submit the following on
behalf of the panel for 2065a:
The judge's arguments are reasonable, and the Appellant's arguments
do not convince this panel otherwise. This panel moves to AFFIRM.
-Goethe
On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 20:33 -0400, Sgeo wrote:
This is just a proto of a contract. I do not agree to this contract at
this time.
I intend, without three objections, to amend the Vote Market by removing
the following paragraph:
{{{
10. When the VP of a first-class party falls below 50, e is
On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 18:39 +0100, ais523 wrote:
On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 18:37 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote:
I post the following Buy Ticket:
Cost: 4VP
Action: Vote 'yes' on the PerlNomic proposal
ehird.disperse_chits_fairly and do not retract this vote.
tusho
I accept this ticket.
For
I propose the following proposal, named Demon 1 (AI=1,II=0): {Hello,
world #1!}
I propose the following proposal, named Demon 2 (AI=1,II=0): {Hello,
world #2!}
I propose the following proposal, named Demon 3 (AI=1,II=0): {Hello,
world #3!}
I propose the following proposal, named Demon 4
I propose the following proposal, named Demon 451 (AI=1,II=0):
{Hello, world #451!}
I propose the following proposal, named Demon 452 (AI=1,II=0):
{Hello, world #452!}
I propose the following proposal, named Demon 453 (AI=1,II=0):
{Hello, world #453!}
I propose the following proposal, named Demon
I propose the following proposal, named Demon 901 (AI=1,II=0):
{Hello, world #901!}
I propose the following proposal, named Demon 902 (AI=1,II=0):
{Hello, world #902!}
I propose the following proposal, named Demon 903 (AI=1,II=0):
{Hello, world #903!}
I propose the following proposal, named Demon
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 1:14 PM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/7/17 Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Is there an objective here? (apart from annoyance?)
BobTHJ
Consider it a verbose and chaotic version of We should really have a
proposal limit like CFJs.
This'll play havoc
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
Um, that'll be distributed along with mine.
Doesn't have to be. Zefram tends to distribute twice a week, but can
legally hold them up to a week, do the cancel one immediately, etc.
I CoE on the Agoran Decision about whether to adopt proposal 5582,
stating that OscarMeyr actually
voted AGAINST.
tusho
Official Claim of Error:
I believe/claim that to the best of my knowledge, the results of
Proposal 5582 have been incorrectly reported in a manner that would
change their outcome, by leaving out OscarMeyr's vote AGAINST.
This is directed at the publisher of the results, deputy ihope.
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 6:03 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I intend with the majority consent of the Dons to transfer chits from
the protection racket to the Dons as follows:
I consent.
5636: FOR
5637: 7 x AGAINST, I'd prefer a simplification of the system.
5638: 7 x FOR
5639: FOR
5640: 7 x FOR
5643: 7 x AGAINST
5645: 7 x FOR
5646: FOR
5647: 7 x FOR
5648: AGAINST
On 5641, 5642, and 5644, I denounce tusho.
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr
On Jul 17, 2008, at 1:56 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2072
= Criminal Case 2072
=
the CotC (Murphy) violated R2019 by not assigning the Default
Justice (myself) to be member of this
49 matches
Mail list logo
