root wrote:
I hereby initiate the following inquiry/criminal case:
Statement: This judicial case has more than one subclass.
Defendant: root
Rule allegedly breached: 2149
Alleged action violating Rule 2149: Recklessly claiming that this case
has more than one subclass.
For the moment, this ha
comex wrote:
Proto: Let the AFO vote
Amend 1950 to read:
The eligible voters on a democratic proposal are those entities
that were active players at the start of its voting period and
are either first class players or partnerships. The voting
limit of an eligible voter
root wrote:
On 10/3/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A partnership's extended basis is the set consisting of the
union of the set of its member persons with the extended
bases of each of its partnership members.
Is there any practical difference between basis and
On 10/3/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/3/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Afterthought: an easy fix for your proposal would be to change "SHALL"
> > to "CAN and SHOULD". That lets the CotC avoid spreading uncertainty,
> > at least if e can spot the risk. If you want it stro
On 10/3/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Funny, someone suggested that, but the general consensus at the time
> was that SHALL implies CAN. So what is the difference between "SHALL"
> and "CAN and SHALL"?
The difference is that one CAN and SHALL be more politically correct
On 10/3/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Afterthought: an easy fix for your proposal would be to change "SHALL"
> to "CAN and SHOULD". That lets the CotC avoid spreading uncertainty,
> at least if e can spot the risk. If you want it stronger, you could do
> "CAN, and SHALL unless e reasona
On 10/3/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Taral wrote:
> >Fine. I close the pre-trial period of CFJ 1735.
>
> What, no defence?
I don't believe the State has made its case. :)
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
I wrote:
>the CANs and SHALLs are deliberately different all over the judicial
>system in order to provide a bit of pragmatism.
Afterthought: an easy fix for your proposal would be to change "SHALL"
to "CAN and SHOULD". That lets the CotC avoid spreading uncertainty,
at least if e can spot the ri
Taral wrote:
>That's covered under "with cause", isn't it?
No, that bit (in fact, the whole amendment) is the circumstances under
which the CotC SHALL push the judge over. It doesn't say anything at all
about CAN. It's rather unclear, therefore, whether the CotC still CAN
do this if e misses the
Taral wrote:
>Fine. I close the pre-trial period of CFJ 1735.
What, no defence?
-zefram
On 10/3/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Taral wrote:
> > When the CotC recuses a judge with cause, e SHALL flip that
> > player's posture to supine by announcement within one week.
>
> I still don't like this. It doesn't explicate the circumstances under
> which the CotC CAN push j
Taral wrote:
> When the CotC recuses a judge with cause, e SHALL flip that
> player's posture to supine by announcement within one week.
I still don't like this. It doesn't explicate the circumstances under
which the CotC CAN push judges over.
-zefram
Taral wrote:
>Isn't this dead yet?
Far from it. In a week the pre-trial period expires, and then BobTHJ
has a week to submit judgement. Assuming that e won't, at that point
I get to recuse em and assign someone else, who then has a week to judge.
You could shorten the process by a week by closi
Proto: Let the AFO vote
Amend 1950 to read:
The eligible voters on a democratic proposal are those entities
that were active players at the start of its voting period and
are either first class players or partnerships. The voting
limit of an eligible voter on a democratic
On Wednesday 03 October 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On 10/3/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I hereby recuse the judicial panel of comex, root, and Wooble from CFJ
> > 1711a. I hereby assign the judicial panel of comex, pikhq, and root
> > as judge of CFJ 1711a.
>
> I intend to cause the pan
On Wednesday 03 October 2007, Zefram wrote:
> I hereby recuse comex from CFJ 1749. I hereby assign Zefram as judge
> of CFJ 1749.
Dangit! I had a fun judgement that invoked R101 (iv) to lead to FALSE, as
a roundabout way of complaining that I have no VCs. But I forgot to
submit it...
signat
On 10/3/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/17/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I announce the initiation of an Agoran decision for the position of
> > Scorekeepor as per Rule 2154. The options are Wooble and Zefram.
>
> You know what's funny? There's no requirement to resolve.
Rul
On 10/3/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>A partnership's extended basis is the set consisting of the
>union of the set of its member persons with the extended
>bases of each of its partnership members.
Is there any practical difference between basis and extended ba
On 10/3/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/3/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Amend Rule 2145 (Partnerships) by appending this text:
> >
> >A partnership's extended basis is the set consisting of the
> >union of the set of its member persons with the extended
>
On 9/17/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I announce the initiation of an Agoran decision for the position of
> Scorekeepor as per Rule 2154. The options are Wooble and Zefram.
You know what's funny? There's no requirement to resolve.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if ther
On 10/3/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Amend Rule 2145 (Partnerships) by appending this text:
>
>A partnership's extended basis is the set consisting of the
>union of the set of its member persons with the extended
>bases of each of its partnership members.
>
>
On 10/3/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/3/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I hereby recuse root from CFJs 1750-1751. I hereby, in linked fashion,
> > assign Goddess Eris as judge of CFJs 1750-1751.
>
> Doh! I was going to get to those tonight.
I don't want them. You're
On 10/3/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> H. Goddess Eris, you are hereby informed of CFJ 1735, a criminal case
> in which you are the defendant, and invited to rebut the argument for
> your guilt.
Isn't this dead yet?
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further
Ian Kelly wrote:
>Doh! I was going to get to those tonight.
Ah. If you'd said so then I'd have waited. I used to actively ask
late judges whether they'd be judging any time soon, but with the new
self-recusal process lateness is more easily avoided.
-zefram
On 10/3/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I hereby recuse root from CFJs 1750-1751. I hereby, in linked fashion,
> assign Goddess Eris as judge of CFJs 1750-1751.
Doh! I was going to get to those tonight.
-root
25 matches
Mail list logo
