On Feb 3, 2008 4:03 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > == CFJ 1896 ==
> >
> > There exists a R2160 'position' that is not an office
>
> A judgeship is such a position. I judge FALSE.
>
> root, would you like me to transfer 189
On Feb 3, 2008 2:48 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Append the following text (from rule 2034) to rule 2193:
>
> As rulekeepor I see a potential problem. You claim that the text is from
> rule 2034, but in fact rule 2034 has never contained that text. Indeed,
> it has never contained the
On Saturday 02 February 2008 20:51:24 Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Feb 2008, Zefram wrote:
> > The rules do not explicitly define the meaning of "registered as a
> > watcher". I wonder how "I wish to be registered as a carpenter." would
> > be interpreted.
>
> You would clearly become a player w
> > The problem is that the Vote Market prevents me from leaving under certain
> > circumstances.
> > Suppose I have 49 VP, and someone proposes to add an article reading "At
> > the beginning of each week, if watcher is a party and has at least as many
> > VP as there are parties to this contract,
On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, Ben Caplan wrote:
> On Sunday 03 February 2008 12:54 Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, Ben Caplan wrote:
>>> Oh wait -- would amendment by less than unanimity create a R101(v)
>>> conflict?
>>
>> Nope! Only if the voting process itself were patently unfair. When you
On Sunday 03 February 2008 12:54 Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, Ben Caplan wrote:
> > Oh wait -- would amendment by less than unanimity create a R101(v)
> > conflict?
>
> Nope! Only if the voting process itself were patently unfair. When you
> agree, in joining the contract, to be bound
I SUPPORT.
You beat me to pointing it out.
On Feb 3, 2008 6:05 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wrote:
>
> >> == CFJ 1896
> ==
> >>
> >> There exists a R2160 'position' that is not an office
> >
> > A judgeship is such a p
comex wrote:
>Furthermore, Rule 2160 notes
>> (or, if the position is vacant, would so require if the position were filled)
>
>Makes sense for offices, and maybe other things (vote collector?) but
>is absolutely meaningless if a person is a position.
It's not meaningless. It's obviously not relev
On Sunday 03 February 2008 13:12:29 Iammars wrote:
> On Feb 2, 2008 9:24 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I CFJ on the following: comex successfully caused at least one player
> > other than emself to cast a vote on Proposal 5419.
>
> Wouldn't he have caused the AFO to vote even if the
On Feb 2, 2008 9:24 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I CFJ on the following: comex successfully caused at least one player
> other than emself to cast a vote on Proposal 5419.
>
Wouldn't he have caused the AFO to vote even if the others didn't work?
This should probably be "more than on
On Feb 3, 2008 9:55 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Given the high likelihood that CFJ 1892 will establish a clear
> precedent that a contract that's not binding cannot exist by
> definition, would it be appropriate to wait for its judgment and then
> judge 1893 without considering
On Feb 2, 2008 9:57 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Caller's Arguments:
>
> In addition to the issue of contracthood in the case initiated by
> pikhq, I request that the judge consider:
>
> 1) whether "agreement between all parties" to change the membership of
> a "non-binding contract"
On Feb 2, 2008 10:46 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If none of the clauses have precedence, the status of X may be
> UNDETERMINED (a self-contradictory loop).
This outcome would more properly be UNDECIDABLE.
I think that you also should address comex's claim, i.e. that R1742
defines
On Jan 31, 2008, at 11:14 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
(with a notice similar to mine) to all registered players; relying
on players
subscribing to or reading the archives of a public forum is not
sufficient.
I think you mean "non-public forum" here;
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>In the absence of any explicit guidance in the contract, I rely on
>the game custom (and method for Rules) of using numerical precedence
>within the body of the contract, and find that Clause 1 has precedence
>over Clauses 2-3.
I'm dubious about this. No doubt it would be p
Ian Kelly wrote:
>As a practical matter, how is the first question decided without at
>least some common knowledge as to how the second question will be
>decided?
The decision to ostracise is made in the presence of common knowledge
of the existence of a particular conflict. In the present case,
16 matches
Mail list logo
