On Nov 12, 2007 4:55 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Someday I will take over the game with a judgement and award myself the
> title Scamster. I was a vote away from doing it a month and a half ago
> with 'Refactor regulation'...
'Refactor regulation' failed by a lot more than one vote.
-
On Nov 12, 2007 8:24 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All right. I propose that we, as the appeals panel, post the following
> message in the PF:
>
> --
>
> The judge accepted the caller's arguments for UNDECIDABLE, which
> depend in part on FALS
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007, Taral wrote:
> Your arguments above are about UNDECIDABLE vs. IRRELEVANT. I am
> arguing about UNDECIDABLE vs. FALSE. Did I miss something?
I'm sorry, you are correct. I thought I was clear that I was arguing
that UNDECIDABLE was reasonable, full stop. I think it is, but *n
On Monday 12 November 2007 18:56:52 Ian Kelly wrote:
> > floor(-20%)Monthly decay
>
> This should correctly read either -floor(20%) or ceiling(-20%).
>
> -root
>
Come now! I want to gain VC from monthly decay!
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007, comex wrote:
> Someday I will take over the game with a judgement and award myself the
> title Scamster. I was a vote away from doing it a month and a half ago
> with 'Refactor regulation'...
And that, IMO, is one of the main Objects of the Game. Good luck!
-G.
> floor(-20%)Monthly decay
This should correctly read either -floor(20%) or ceiling(-20%).
-root
On Nov 12, 2007 3:16 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I describe exactly what I found reasonable earlier in the thread,
> since you haven't refuted those points, I'll leave it to you to look
> them up and do so. -Goethe
Your arguments above are about UNDECIDABLE vs. IRRELEVANT. I am
a
On Monday 12 November 2007, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Actually you're right, I should have said more, as this exact issue was
> exactly where Lindrum World broke down in the eyes of the
> righteous . If I recall correctly, in that case, Lindrum
> used three minutes, which was clearly insufficient.
So
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007, comex wrote:
> Alright then, I CFJ on the following linked statements:
> * If the announcement of Partnership 1's Contest had been received by the
> listserver sixty seconds before the announcement dissolving it, all other
> factors being equal, Partnership 1's Contest would h
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007, Taral wrote:
> I'm not exactly sure how you find it reasonable. UNDECIDABLE and FALSE
> are mutually exclusive determinations. The rules are very clear about
> the veracity timing issue that Zefram noted, and an appeal is the
> correct place for issues that the judge neglected
On Nov 12, 2007 3:01 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Okay: I support an appeals judgement of SUSTAIN on the grounds that
> Murphy's judgement is reasonable.
I'm not exactly sure how you find it reasonable. UNDECIDABLE and FALSE
are mutually exclusive determinations. The rules are ver
On Nov 12, 2007 4:01 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also, I note that it looks like it's not just the appeals judgement
> itself that has to be consented to, but the "message" of action (e.g.
> the whole text of the message).
This is the case for unanimous agreement as well. We've b
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> This is the reason for "or with the majority agreement of the members
> and the consent of the CotC", although I believe the clause has yet to
> be exercised.
Okay: I support an appeals judgement of SUSTAIN on the grounds that
Murphy's judgement is reasona
On Nov 12, 2007 3:30 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, it seems appeals panels now need unanimous (not majority)
> support for a decision, thus allowing a single activist on the judicial
> panel to hold up a majority, so the only thing to do is remand with an
> argument countera
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007, comex wrote:
> On Monday 12 November 2007, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> I concur and consent to this. -Goethe
>
> You just agreed with root agreeing with Eris agreeing with Zefram (without
> any further discussion of the subject). And I suspect pikhq will agree
> with you in the s
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007, Taral wrote:
> On Nov 12, 2007 1:31 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'll just note in passing that it seems highly unusual to remand a
>> case simply because the judge interpreted the statement in a way that
>> matches or is close to what was intended.
>
> It's al
On Monday 12 November 2007, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I concur and consent to this. -Goethe
You just agreed with root agreeing with Eris agreeing with Zefram (without
any further discussion of the subject). And I suspect pikhq will agree
with you in the same way. ;)
signature.asc
Description: Thi
On Nov 12, 2007 1:31 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'll just note in passing that it seems highly unusual to remand a
> case simply because the judge interpreted the statement in a way that
> matches or is close to what was intended.
It's also highly unusual for a judgement to result
On Nov 12, 2007 2:15 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 12, 2007 7:25 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > perhaps you want to summarize
> > >your side, and I will add my counterarguments, and we'll REMAND to the
> > >judge for further c
On Nov 12, 2007 7:25 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > perhaps you want to summarize
> >your side, and I will add my counterarguments, and we'll REMAND to the
> >judge for further consideration? -Goethe
>
> I consent to a REMAND judgement.
I als
Zefram wrote:
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> But didn't e choose already, and if either was appropriate, shouldn't we
>> SUSTAIN eir choice
>
> Yes. If we are in no doubt that the original judgement was appropriate
> then we are obliged to SUSTAIN, even if there were other appropriate
> judgements avail
root wrote:
> This does not seem incoherent or unrelated to me. The judge accepts
> the initiator's arguments as a reasonable and preferable
> interpretation of the rules, and I see no reason to differ. The
> appellant also argues that the judge has failed to set a concrete
> precedent; this is
On Nov 12, 2007 3:10 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I hereby assign the judicial panel of Goethe, pikhq, and root as judge
> of CFJ 1777a.
>
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1777a
>
> == CFJ 1777a =
>
> Ty
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>But didn't e choose already, and if either was appropriate, shouldn't we
>SUSTAIN eir choice
Yes. If we are in no doubt that the original judgement was appropriate
then we are obliged to SUSTAIN, even if there were other appropriate
judgements available that we would prefer t
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007, Zefram wrote:
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Which would mean that Murphy could perfectly well deliver eir UNDECIDABLE
>> judgement, even if irrelevant would have also been reasonable. Right?
>
> If both are appropriate then e has the choice between them.
But didn't e choose alread
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>Which would mean that Murphy could perfectly well deliver eir UNDECIDABLE
>judgement, even if irrelevant would have also been reasonable. Right?
If both are appropriate then e has the choice between them.
>Should I clip out your original paragraph as your "remand argument"
I
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007, Zefram wrote:
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> The fact that all of the judges felt that
>> they had the duty to judge without dismissal for irrelevance
>
> This is an unsupported jump. A judge can perfectly well give a
> substantive judgement without fee
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> The fact that all of the judges felt that
>they had the duty to judge without dismissal for irrelevance
This is an unsupported jump. A judge can perfectly well give a
substantive judgement without feeling that e has a duty to do so.
>
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007, Zefram wrote:
> CFJ 1677 doesn't go into the question of relevance at all. Dismissal was
> not mandatory for irrelevant CFJs.
If even one judge in these cases had dismissed for irrelevance, I'd see
that your case was supported. The fact that all of the judges felt that
they
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>On deeper inspection, I don't think precedent agrees with you. Recently,
>CFJ 1677 supports judging based on the "far side" of the boundary, not the
>near side.
CFJ 1677 doesn't go into the question of relevance at all. Dismissal was
not mandatory for irrelevant CFJs.
-zef
On Nov 11, 2007 10:00 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> refer to "this CFJ" in a way that would be trivially dismissed if
> Eris's current assertion on timing were part of rules or custom.
> None of the judges questioned the timing or supported Eris's
> assertion. Of particular interest
31 matches
Mail list logo
