Re: DIS: Re: OFF: assignment of appeal 1684a to HP2/Murphy, Zefram, BobTHJ

Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: is insufficient reason for a REVERSE; if the new judge justifies Eris's claim and once again judges TRUE, then the goal can still be reached by ITYM "FALSE" here. Yes.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: assignment of appeal 1684a to HP2/Murphy, Zefram, BobTHJ

Ed Murphy wrote: >is insufficient reason for a REVERSE; if the new judge justifies Eris's >claim and once again judges TRUE, then the goal can still be reached by ITYM "FALSE" here. -zefram

DIS: Re: OFF: assignment of appeal 1684a to HP2/Murphy, Zefram, BobTHJ

Zefram wrote: If partnerships worked without legislation, the appellate judges for appeal 1684a are Speaker Human Point Two, CotC Zefram, and BobTHJ. If partnerships did not work without legislation, the appellate judges for appeal 1684a are Speaker Murphy, CotC Zefram, and BobTHJ. I proto-ju

DIS: Re: OFF: assignment of CFJ 1701 to Human Point Two

Zefram wrote: I hereby assign CFJ 1701 to Human Point Two. I intend to cause Human Point Two to judge this FALSE, with the following arguments: Most jurisdictions support a type of partnership in which some or all partners are responsible for a proper subset of the partnership's obligations.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: assignment of appeal 1684a to HP2/Murphy, Zefram, BobTHJ

On 7/18/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: root wrote: > On 7/18/07, *Ed Murphy* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > > root wrote: > > > [the purported judgement of CFJ 1623] > > was also a rather flimsy analysis. It relied upon the assertion that >

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: assignment of appeal 1684a to HP2/Murphy, Zefram, BobTHJ

root wrote: On 7/18/07, *Ed Murphy* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: root wrote: > [the purported judgement of CFJ 1623] > was also a rather flimsy analysis. It relied upon the assertion that > R754 was not clear on the matter, Yes. > which

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: assignment of appeal 1684a to HP2/Murphy, Zefram, BobTHJ

On 7/18/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: root wrote: > Sorry, I forgot to add: For that reason, CFJ 1684 may merit remanding or > reassignment, but it should not properly be reversed, as the subject still > merits scrutiny by a trial judge. With this rejudgment/appeal occurring so l

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: assignment of appeal 1684a to HP2/Murphy, Zefram, BobTHJ

On 7/18/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: root wrote: > [the purported judgement of CFJ 1623] > was also a rather flimsy analysis. It relied upon the assertion that > R754 was not clear on the matter, Yes. > which is patent nonsense No. > as "person" is not primarily a legal term.

DIS: Re: OFF: assignment of appeal 1684a to HP2/Murphy, Zefram, BobTHJ

root wrote: > Sorry, I forgot to add: For that reason, CFJ 1684 may merit remanding or > reassignment, but it should not properly be reversed, as the subject still > merits scrutiny by a trial judge. With this rejudgment/appeal occurring so long after the original "judgments", finding a single t

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: assignment of appeal 1684a to HP2/Murphy, Zefram, BobTHJ

root wrote: [the purported judgement of CFJ 1623] > was also a rather flimsy analysis. It relied upon the assertion that R754 was not clear on the matter, Yes. which is patent nonsense No. as "person" is not primarily a legal term. That's precisely why it asserted that R754 was uncl

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: assignment of appeal 1684a to HP2/Murphy, Zefram, BobTHJ

On 7/18/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 7/18/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ian Kelly wrote: > >The problem here is that if CFJ 1684 is overturned on the grounds of > the > >assumed precedent of CFJ 1623, > > It's not, if the other appellate judges agree with me. I did no

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: assignment of appeal 1684a to HP2/Murphy, Zefram, BobTHJ

On 7/18/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ian Kelly wrote: >The problem here is that if CFJ 1684 is overturned on the grounds of the >assumed precedent of CFJ 1623, It's not, if the other appellate judges agree with me. I did not treat CFJ 1623 as binding precedent. I treated the Pineappl

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: assignment of appeal 1684a to HP2/Murphy, Zefram, BobTHJ

Ian Kelly wrote: >The problem here is that if CFJ 1684 is overturned on the grounds of the >assumed precedent of CFJ 1623, It's not, if the other appellate judges agree with me. I did not treat CFJ 1623 as binding precedent. I treated the Pineapple Partnership's purported judgement of CFJ 1623 a

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: assignment of appeal 1684a to HP2/Murphy, Zefram, BobTHJ

On 7/18/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In appeal 1684a I proto-judge REVERSE. Reasoning: As noted by appellant Zefram, the trial judge's reasoning fails to properly address the arguments made in the judgement of CFJ 1623. Its claim to find a defect in that argument is not substantiated

DIS: Re: OFF: assignment of appeal 1684a to HP2/Murphy, Zefram, BobTHJ

In appeal 1684a I proto-judge REVERSE. Reasoning: As noted by appellant Zefram, the trial judge's reasoning fails to properly address the arguments made in the judgement of CFJ 1623. Its claim to find a defect in that argument is not substantiated by anything except the mistake pointed out by the

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: assignment of CFJ 1703 to root

Kerim Aydin wrote: >CFJ 1361 may (Judge Steve's opinion on "what is a nickname" primarily) >might have some precedent that's applicable or counter to your argument. Ah, thanks. Here's the relevant bit: |What is a name, or a nickname? It is, among other things, a way of |referring to an entity.

DIS: Re: OFF: assignment of CFJ 1703 to root

Zefram wrote: > I think the whole concept of a person having exactly one nickname (such > that one can speak of "Ian Kelly's nickname", for example) is broken. CFJ 1361 may (Judge Steve's opinion on "what is a nickname" primarily) might have some precedent that's applicable or counter to your arg

DIS: Re: OFF: assignment of CFJ 1703 to root

root wrote: > But R1586 specifically says "rules-defined entities", not "rules-defined > nicknames" or "entities possessing rules-defined traits". In any case, > player nicknames aren't actually defined anywhere by the rules. I concede, mine was a very weak devil. More like an imp. Carry on!

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: assignment of CFJ 1703 to root

Ian Kelly wrote: >Comments? I think the whole concept of a person having exactly one nickname (such that one can speak of "Ian Kelly's nickname", for example) is broken. A nickname is not inherently a feature of a person; it is more a feature of the community that uses the nickname. Really it is

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: assignment of CFJ 1703 to root

On 7/18/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: root wrote: > Arguments: The entities Comex and Murphy are physical in nature, not > rule-defined, and hence their names and nicknames are not governed by Rule > 1586. Just for fun playing Devil's advocate here... Counterargument: "Player"-

DIS: Re: OFF: assignment of CFJ 1703 to root

root wrote: > Arguments: The entities Comex and Murphy are physical in nature, not > rule-defined, and hence their names and nicknames are not governed by Rule > 1586. Just for fun playing Devil's advocate here... Counterargument: "Player"-ness and "Players" are rules defined, so "nickname of

DIS: Re: OFF: assignment of CFJ 1703 to root

On 7/18/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I hereby assign CFJ 1703 to root. Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1703 == CFJ 1703 == Comex successfully changed eir nickname to Murphy on 9 July 2007. ==

DIS: sentence due in CFJ 1611

comex, as you judged CFJ 1611 TRUE, you're obliged by rule 1504 to execute a sentencing order. You haven't done so yet. Do you intend to? R1504 doesn't give a time limit for the execution of the sentencing order. -zefram

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: assignment of appeal 1684a to HP2/Murphy, Zefram, BobTHJ

Ian Kelly wrote: >Either way, a somewhat abusive choice of assignment IMO. All three judges >are players who it seems would be strongly inclined to overturn. There were only five first-class players to choose those three from. root was ineligible due to having called CFJ 1684, and not wishing to

DIS: Re: OFF: assignment of appeal 1684a to HP2/Murphy, Zefram, BobTHJ

On 7/18/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Appeal 1684a is the appeal of Eris's judgement in CFJ 1684. If partnerships worked without legislation, the appellate judges for appeal 1684a are Speaker Human Point Two, CotC Zefram, and BobTHJ. If partnerships did not work without legislation, th

DIS: proto: revise ratification

proto-proposal: revise ratification AI: 3 {{{ Amend rule 1551 to read Any player CAN ratify any purported publication of all or part of an official report, without objection. When a document is ratified, the gamestate is modified so that the ratified document was complet

DIS: Re: OFF: [Ambassador] Ambassador's report for July 17, 2007

Peekee wrote: > From the outside what counts as an action by Agora? Heh. This is a stretch, but it's possible that the closest thing to the undefined "unrestricted" access in R2147 is "unregulated" access, in other words, to qualify as a protectorate, the nomic must let any "Agoran" attempt to

DIS: proto: clarify Mother, May I?

proto-proposal: clarify Mother, May I? AI: 2 {{{ Amend rule 2152 to read The following terms are defined for the discussion of situations concerning attempts by some entity to perform some action. These terms are spelled in all capitals. Where these words are used in low

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5088-5097

Roger Hicks wrote: >I vote as follows: NttPF. -zefram

DIS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5088-5097

I vote as follows: On 7/17/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: NUM FL AI SUBMITTER TITLE 5088 Oi 1Murphy Compensate for vacant offices and speake... FOR 5089 Di 2Zefram encourage meeting quorum nope, not voting 5090 Di 3Zefram fix judicial rights FO

DIS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5088-5097

I vote as follows: On 7/17/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 5088 Oi 1Murphy Compensate for vacant offices and speake... FOR * 4 5089 Di 2Zefram encourage meeting quorum AGAINST 5090 Di 3Zefram fix judicial rights FOR 5091 Di 2Zefram prot

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Ambassador] Ambassador's report for July 17, 2007

I was not really expecting that to work. What I was trying to point out is that Primo needs to define how Agora is allowed to alter its charter. I think it would be possible for there to be a protectorate with a badly worded charter that allowed any post to Agora's public forum to alter i