I submit the following CFJ (II=2) to the Justiciar: {There is 1 light.}
I submit the following CFJ (II=2) to the Justiciar: {There are 2 lights.}
I submit the following CFJ (II=2) to the Justiciar: {There are 3 lights.}
I submit the following CFJ (II=2) to the Justiciar: {There are 4 lights.}
I
On 10-12-19 02:39 PM, Elliott Hird wrote:
I submit the following CFJ (II=2) to the Justiciar: {There is 1 light.}
I submit the following CFJ (II=2) to the Justiciar: {There are 2 lights.}
I submit the following CFJ (II=2) to the Justiciar: {There are 3 lights.}
I submit the following CFJ (II=2)
For each elected office, I intend, with notice and acting as Grand
Vizier, to resign it.
-scshunt
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Elliott Hird
penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
I submit the following CFJ (II=2) to the Justiciar: {There are 250 lights.}
Proposal (II=0, Distributable): There are FIVE CFJs!
Amend Rule 2175 (Judicial Retraction and Excess) by inserting the
following text
On Sun, 2010-12-19 at 16:58 -0500, omd wrote:
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Elliott Hird
penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
I submit the following CFJ (II=2) to the Justiciar: {There are 250 lights.}
Proposal (II=0, Distributable): There are FIVE CFJs!
Amend Rule 2175 (Judicial
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 5:10 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 2:50 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
I intend, with notice, to amend Rule 2324 by appending the following
paragraph:
omd CAN ಠ_ಠ an Agoran decision by announcement. This extends
the length of
I judge CFJ 2921 FALSE. The rule implies that making a claim, in the
context of the rule in question, is something that has to be done
deliberately (by making it illegal to do so falsely); and I wasn't
intending to do so. (In fact, I vaguely remembered the rule in question
existed, looked for it
omd wrote:
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
wrote:
-1. I judge them all FALSE, except for the fourth, which I judge TRUE. I
award myself 175 ergs and 150 capacitors for these cases.
I intend, with 2 support, to appeal the CFJs about there being 1-3
CFJ: The voting period of Proposal 6938 has ended.
Arguments: Proposal 6938 is Urgent, and it has been between four and
seven days since it was distributed. Rule 2313 states that
Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the Voting Period of an
Agoran Decision to adopt an Urgent
On 10-12-19 07:30 PM, omd wrote:
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 7:24 PM, Sean Huntscsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
I disagree and in any case, the original (blocked for moderation) message
made it quite explicit. As a result: CoE against the PSM's report: I have
far more ergs than that and also my
scshunt wrote:
On 10-12-16 10:55 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
On 10-12-16 07:12 PM, omd wrote:
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Sean
Huntscsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
The jurisprudence is that if the Promotor errs in describing a
proposal e
authored, e actually submits an alternate proposal
If possible, I create myself 250 ergs for judging each of the CFJs
numbered -1. Then, if I did that, I pay fees to:
- Destroy all ergs owned by players other than myself and ehird.
- Raise ehird to Kitchen Staff Supervisor
- Raise myself to Chief Justice
- Destroy all Rests owned by myself
scshunt wrote:
On 10-12-16 10:55 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
On 10-12-16 07:12 PM, omd wrote:
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Sean
Huntscsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
The jurisprudence is that if the Promotor errs in describing a
proposal e
authored, e actually submits an alternate proposal
These voting periods were extended (at most three voters apiece, and
scshunt didn't rubberstamp until after the extension). The following
eligible voters have not yet voted: ais523, ehird, Flameshadowxeroshin,
omd (voted only on 6921), Sgeo, Tanner L. Swett.
6914 O 1 1.0 Warrigal
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 8:42 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2923
=== CFJ 2923 (Interest Index = 0)
scshunt did not have enough ergs to pay the above quoted fees.
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 6:20 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
NUM C I AI SUBMITTER TITLE
6914 O 1 1.0 Warrigal Spelling reform begins with Agora
AGAINST
6915 O 0 2.0 omd Psychohistorical accuracy
FOR
6916 O 0 2.0 omd oops
FOR
6917 O
On 10-12-19 09:01 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2926
== Criminal Case 2926 (Interest Index = 0) ===
omd violated rule 2202, committing the Class 8 Crime of
Endorsing Forgery, by knowingly announcing intent to
On Thu, 2010-12-09 at 18:20 -0500, omd wrote:
NUM C I AI SUBMITTER TITLE
I vote as follows:
6914 O 1 1.0 WarrigalSpelling reform begins with Agora
AGAINST
6915 O 0 2.0 omd Psychohistorical accuracy
PRESENT
6916 O 0 2.0 omd oops
FOR
6928 O 0 3.0 omd Remove a useless SHOULD
AGAINST
6929 O 0 3.0 omd oh and
FOR
6930 O 1 3.0 ais523 Fix ratification
FOR
6931 O 1 1.7 omd Duplicate cases are IRRELEVANT
FOR
6932 O 1 2.0 scshunt Single Positive
AGAINST
I withdraw my previous votes on all agoran decisions in their voting
period and vote PRESENT. (my apologies, I was going to do something
very very different, but with a voting limit of 0 I cannot). -G.
On Sun, 2010-12-19 at 23:04 -0500, omd wrote:
Making incorrect statements is one issue. Attempting to ratify them is
another. I don't think they're the same crime, and indeed, you could be
punished for both.
Pretty damn similar: if I hadn't intended to ratify the document,
publishing it
On Sun, 2010-12-19 at 23:15 -0500, omd wrote:
CFJ (II=100): This CFJ's interest index is 100.
Arguments: Rule 2225 takes precedence over Rule 2153.
I favour this CFJ. (I note that all judges are poorly qualified to judge
it if it does indeed have II 100.)
--
ais523
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 18:26, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
omd wrote:
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
wrote:
-1. I judge them all FALSE, except for the fourth, which I judge TRUE. I
award myself 175 ergs and 150 capacitors for these
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 19:04, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2918
== Criminal Case 2918 (Interest Index = 0) ===
scshunt violated Rule 2283, committing the Class-2 Crime of
Assaulting the
On Sun, 19 Dec 2010, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
I intend, with two support, to appeal this case's question on sentencing. The
DISCHARGE clause seems to apply when players
exceed the number of ergs they have because they do not know how many they
have, which is reasonable given that the PSM's
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 11:41 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
I support. The appropriate question to ask is not whether the
defendant in question misinterpreted, but whether it was a
reasonable misinterpretation to make (I personally don't think it
is, but either way, the judge
On Sun, 19 Dec 2010, omd wrote:
What voting has to do with the CFJ,
I meant to hit reply to Murphy's unofficial order of succession,
and was too lazy to change it.
why your voting limit is 0,
See said unofficial list.
why you are purporting to vote PRESENT if your voting limit is 0.
I
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 11:46 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
On 10-12-19 11:17 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
Arguments: an opinion can be reasonably interpreted as exactly one
opinion, leading to a straightforward judgement of TRUE.
It can't really. This interpretation is generally
The judicial system is pretty important. It used to be more
important; we've had a significant shift over time from ambiguous
text, clarified via precedent, to unambiguous text, amended if a
potential issue is found; and CFJ 2909 is a pretty good, although
unusual, trophy of the latter as it's
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 12:01 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
why your voting limit is 0,
See said unofficial list.
Oh. Of course.
Well, just for fun I pay a fee to move G. up one position on the List
of Succession.
On Sun, 2010-12-19 at 21:16 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Mon, 20 Dec 2010, omd wrote:
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 12:01 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu
wrote:
why your voting limit is 0,
See said unofficial list.
Oh. Of course.
Well, just for fun I pay a fee to move G.
On 10-12-19 07:34 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
I call a CFJ with II 2 explicitly doubting the most recent PSM's report
on {I created 150 or more capacitors last week.}
Arguments:
I certainly forgot about the moderation. There is, to my knowledge, no
documentation of it anywhere. Historically, it has
Proposal: Fix Urgency
(AI = 3, II = 0, co-author = omd, distributable by announcement)
Amend Rule 2313 (Urgent Proposals) by replacing this text:
Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the Voting Period of an
Agoran Decision to adopt an Urgent Proposal is initially four
days,
omd wrote:
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 12:42 AM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
   Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the minimum and initial
   voting period of an Agoran decision to adopt an Urgent Proposal
   is four days.
This doesn't fix it.
I think it does,
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 9:43 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
I retract this CFJ; Taral rejected the message.
For the record: This is (and has always been) my standard practice. If
you get a message about your mail being held for moderation, you can
expect that it will be
I transfer a prop from myself to Yally because I misread my notes on
which case e recently favored. I suppose you and scshunt could agree
to transfer 2929 and 2931 to each other or something.
36 matches
Mail list logo
