root wrote:
On Nov 7, 2007 10:53 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Nov 7, 2007 12:47 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* GUILTY, appropriate if the defendant breached the specified
rule via the specified act and none of the above judgements
is appropri
On Nov 7, 2007 10:53 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 7, 2007 12:47 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >* GUILTY, appropriate if the defendant breached the specified
> > rule via the specified act and none of the above judgements
> > is appropriate
On Nov 7, 2007 12:47 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>* GUILTY, appropriate if the defendant breached the specified
> rule via the specified act and none of the above judgements
> is appropriate
What judgement would then be appropriate if none of the "above"
judg
On Nov 7, 2007 12:28 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Zefram wrote:
>
> > == CFJ 1786a =
>
> > Judge: judicial panel of Murphy,
> > pikhq, root
>
> I intend t
On 11/7/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I support Comex and the AFO.
>
> I also support OscarMyer's nomination of Zefram.
NttPF.
-root
On Nov 7, 2007, at 1:22 PM, Ian Kelly wrote:
By my reckoning, the only player registered continuously since before
August 6, 2005 is OscarMeyr. However, there are 4 players who were
deregistered involuntarily in that timeframe: Kolja, RedKnight, Manu,
and Quazie.
...
Unless Manu and Quazie
On 11/5/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/5/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I hereby assign pikhq as judge of CFJ 1784.
> You're a very efficient CotC. Nevertheless...
> I nominate AFO, Pineapple Partnership, Human Point Two, myself, and
> Goethe for the office of CotC.
>
I su
On 11/7/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So to sum up:
> 1. Players may make announcements or announce things, as defined
> in the rules by "announce" or "announcement."
> 2. Non-players may do the same, but by common definition of
> "announce" or "announcement" combined with
On Wed, 7 Nov 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> I understood your previous post as arguing that the common definition
> of "announcing" could be used, but not "by announcement". Did I
> misunderstand you?
I think either works. The rules have continuously described what
constitutes "public" and "public m
On 11/7/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On 11/5/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > This still depends on P5111 having been adopted, which it wasn't; it
> > was distributed by Zefram, who registered after August 6, 2005 but
> > before August 2, 2007, and who is therefo
> On 11/5/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This still depends on P5111 having been adopted, which it wasn't; it
> was distributed by Zefram, who registered after August 6, 2005 but
> before August 2, 2007, and who is therefore not a player.
Um, the August 6, 2005 Proposal 4833 adopte
On 11/5/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> root wrote:
> > Since August 2, registration has been performed "by announcing", which
> > R478 also defines only for players, so actually the registrations
> > since then are in the same uncertain state as those before August 2.
>
> For this c
On 11/7/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1786a
>
> == CFJ 1786a =
>
> Type: appeal case
>
> Prior question: 1786 culpa
On 11/7/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> if the original judgement was made in the last week it can be appealed
> again.
Eek, that's a bug. A particular judgement should only be appealable
once; the rules aren't written to support multiple concurrent appeals
of the same judgement.
-root
On 11/7/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/7/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > (if it's a case of conflict with R101, it may end up back in appeals
> > anyway).
>
> Unfortunately, a case can only be appealed once these days.
The way I read R1504 etc., only SUSTAIN and OV
root wrote:
> Now that you mention it, you're right; I've been misreading that paragraph.
It also looks like the enabling mechanism differs if the defendant appeals
the criminal verdict [R1504]:
An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a criminal
case within the past week,
On 11/7/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> root wrote:
> > Unfortunately, a case can only be appealed once these days.
>
> Is it a case that can only be appealed once, or a particular
> judgement in a case? It should be the latter. -Goethe
An appeal concerning any assignment of
root wrote:
> Unfortunately, a case can only be appealed once these days.
Is it a case that can only be appealed once, or a particular
judgement in a case? It should be the latter. -Goethe
On 11/7/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (if it's a case of conflict with R101, it may end up back in appeals anyway).
Unfortunately, a case can only be appealed once these days.
-root
On Wed, 7 Nov 2007, Taral wrote:
> You want arguments? File an inquiry case.
I don't consider this an acceptable reply. An inquiry case could
have performed the task, but when presented with a set of arguments
weighed on both sides of a criminal case, the judge still has a
duty to present a reas
On 11/7/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You want arguments? File an inquiry case.
That's ridiculous. Why should the judge not be expected to explain
eir judgement in a criminal case?
-root
On 11/7/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'll support this intent if made publicly. The arguments raise several
> important issues of precedent (is this rule in conflict with R101? am
> I "informed" of contracts posted publicly before I'm a notary?) and this
> judgement doesn't help
You want arguments? File an inquiry case.
On 11/7/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'll support this intent if made publicly. The arguments raise several
> important issues of precedent (is this rule in conflict with R101? am
> I "informed" of contracts posted publicly before I'm a
On Wed, 7 Nov 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> I gather that e accepted the defendant's arguments and had nothing
> further to add.
But which argument? That this rule is entirely against R101, and
as notary I can reveal details of private contracts at will, and the
rule is broken? Or just that I wasn't
Ed Murphy wrote:
>Not sure. Would you see any problems with "To perform an action 'by
>announcement' is to announce that one performs it"?
I see a problem with it. It implies that a rule that says "the speaker
CAN doff eir hat by announcement" are claiming to control the POSSIBILITY
of the speak
I'll support this intent if made publicly. The arguments raise several
important issues of precedent (is this rule in conflict with R101? am
I "informed" of contracts posted publicly before I'm a notary?) and this
judgement doesn't help me perform my duties. -Goethe
On Wed, 7 Nov 2007, comex w
root wrote:
On 11/7/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
5287 AGAINST (these are privileges, not duties)
The speaker's assignment of the privileges is a duty.
I would support that change if it were proposed separately. Also,
when it comes time to revoke MwP from someone, non-players (if
On 11/7/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/7/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The defendant is EXCUSED.
> I intend to appeal this with two support on the grounds that Judge
> Eris did not bother to make any arguments for eir judgement.
I gather that e accepted the defendant's arg
On 11/7/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The defendant is EXCUSED.
I intend to appeal this with two support on the grounds that Judge
Eris did not bother to make any arguments for eir judgement.
On 11/7/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/7/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1786
> >
> > == CFJ 1786 ==
>
> Thankfully, this is a criminal case, not an inquiry ca
On 11/7/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 5287 AGAINST (these are privileges, not duties)
The speaker's assignment of the privileges is a duty.
> 5291 AGAINST (I don't see the need)
The need is that the paragraph has been misinterpreted more than once
recently. If the proposal were disin
On 11/6/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> x5282 O1 1pikhq
On 11/6/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote (in his earlier message):
> *5282 O1 1pikhq
*sniff*
32 matches
Mail list logo
