I wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=3135
CoE, accepted: the body was correct, the subject was typoed as 3134.
FKA441344 wrote:
Recent and future events (UTC)
Sun 05 Feb 20:58 7154-63 resolved.
Thu 16 Feb 19:49 7174 allegedly distributed (see CFJ 3171).
CoE: the following also happened between these events:
Mon 6 Feb 00:11:58 7164,66-73 distributed
Mon 13 Feb 00:11:58 7164,66-73 voting period
FKA441344 wrote:
I cash the promise titled {Anyone Can Mislead The Leader}.
Note to H. Promotor omd: if this was effective (I don't remember
anyone causing the President to taunt the police), then it caused
FKA441344 to submit two proposals.
The defendant is uncontroversially GUILTY.
The previous report was dated 30 Nov 2011 17:05:05 UTC, the following
one was dated 25 Jan 2012 16:45:53 UTC and included one new event,
all of which is pretty typical for this report.
APOLOGY with the following word list, generated by going to
http:/
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=3164
>
> = Criminal Case 3164 =
>
> ehird committed the Class-14 Crime of Naughtiness. (Rule 2356)
I recuse myself from this case.
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 7:28 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Murphy is a complete idiot.
IRRELEVANT.
I intend, with two support, to make CFJ 3167 Notable.
3165: IRRELEVANT
3174: TRUE
3175: TRUE
Arguments in 3175:
When describing its hypothetical situation, the statement doesn't
specify that the message has the same author, nor the same body (as
opposed to e.g. being included as part of a Cantus Cygneus).
Even interpreting those as implied to
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 7:31 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> = Criminal Case 3168 =
> The Person Formerly Known As 441344 selected the nickname "The
> Person Formerly Known As 441344", violating Rule 2170 (Who Am
> I?).
Whatever the bar for "confu
Arguments on 3174-75:
I think it's generally known to the current players that "comex" refers
to omd (it was eir original nickname), though the history in the
Registrar's report doesn't explicitly state this.
Arguments on 3175:
There might be a Rule 101 argument if omd were a new enough player
