On 12:53 Sat 23 Feb , Zefram wrote:
> This distribution of proposals 5451-5457 initiates the Agoran
> Decisions on whether to adopt them. The eligible voters for ordinary
> proposals are the active players, the eligible voters for democratic
> proposals are the active first-class players, and
root wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Not unappealable. AFFIRM reassigns the prior judgement, which starts a
>> fresh two-week timer for appealing that assignment.
>
> No, AFFIRM and OVERRULE both prevent further appeal of the case. From
> Rule
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 6:55 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 12:26 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Arguments:
> > The arguments given in Wooble's purported causing the panel to judge
> > CFJ 1903a are not labeled as a concurring opinion and th
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not unappealable. AFFIRM reassigns the prior judgement, which starts a
> fresh two-week timer for appealing that assignment.
No, AFFIRM and OVERRULE both prevent further appeal of the case. From
Rule 911:
However, ru
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 12:26 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Arguments:
> The arguments given in Wooble's purported causing the panel to judge
> CFJ 1903a are not labeled as a concurring opinion and therefore do not
> constitute one. While it could be argued that the satisfying t
woggle wrote:
> woggle's consent in CFJ 1903a required the panel to publish a
> concurring opinion if it judged AFFIRM, which is only possible if done
> simulatenously with the assigning of judgement.
Gratuituous counterargument: Your consent could have been reasonably
parsed as either "I consen
On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 2:01 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1897
>
> == CFJ 1897 ==
>
> BobTHJ is a player
>
> ===
Pavitra wrote:
> Speaking of bugs, does R101.iii (right to CFJ) negate R2175.b (judicial
> excess)?
No, because R2175(b) doesn't block the right, merely delays it.
root wrote:
> And FWIW, I think that assigning an unappealable judgement while
> making no attempt whatsoever to actually address the serious question
> at hand is simply deplorable.
Not unappealable. AFFIRM reassigns the prior judgement, which starts a
fresh two-week timer for appealing that as
Wooble wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 2:18 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I assign Default Officeholder to Levi.
>
> Can non-Players have prerogatives?
Yes. R2019 does not require playerhood, only on MwP. R1922 requires
playerhood to gain MwP, but not to keep it.
Pavitra wrote:
> On Saturday 01 March 2008 1:18 Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Original Message
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dice server)
>> Subject: Prerogative assignments for March 2008
>> Date: Sat, 01 M
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> CFJ 1894's equivalence in my mind only applies for the purposes of
> determining the subject and validity of a call for judgement. I think
> the text must be evaluated independently of its use or non-use in
> calls for j
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 02 March 2008 1:26 Charles Reiss wrote:
> > The prior judge was improperly relied on a newer version of the rule
> > that included a bugfix for precisely this reason.
> >
> > The judgement is still appropriate, ho
On Sunday 02 March 2008 1:26 Charles Reiss wrote:
> The prior judge was improperly relied on a newer version of the rule
> that included a bugfix for precisely this reason.
>
> The judgement is still appropriate, however, because there is not a
> general equivalence of yes/no questions and statemen
On 10:58 Sat 01 Mar , Ed Murphy wrote:
> Sorry for being late again; I was badly ill on Wednesday. I'll
> take care of it later this morning.
>
> On the presumption that BobTHJ remains a player, I request that
> H. Herald pikhq award em Ministry Without Portfolio, so that e
> may take part in
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 2:00 PM, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Speaking of bugs, does R101.iii (right to CFJ) negate R2175.b (judicial
> excess)?
>
I doubt it. iii. only gives us the right to initiate a process to
resolve matters of controversy, which "This is Sparta"... isn't
really.
On Sunday 02 March 2008 12:43 Ian Kelly wrote:
> And FWIW, I think that assigning an unappealable judgement while
> making no attempt whatsoever to actually address the serious question
> at hand is simply deplorable.
If it really comes down to it, we could always initiate a new CFJ, identical
to
On Sunday 02 March 2008 12:14 Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 2:18 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I assign Default Officeholder to Levi.
>
> Can non-Players have prerogatives?
>
Oh, that's an interesting bug.
Yes. Only a Minister Without Portfolio can gain a Prerogati
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 11:11 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 1:01 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I support Murphy's call for appeal of CFJ 1903. In spite of reading this
> > > in the caller's arguments, I looked at the ruleset that contained
On Sunday 02 March 2008 12:11 Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 1:01 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I support Murphy's call for appeal of CFJ 1903. In spite of reading this
>>> in the caller's arguments, I looked at the ruleset that contained R591/23,
>>> not the recently pa
On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 2:18 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I assign Default Officeholder to Levi.
Can non-Players have prerogatives?
On Saturday 01 March 2008 1:18 Ed Murphy wrote:
> Original Message
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dice server)
> Subject: Prerogative assignments for March 2008
> Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2008 12:16:21 -0700
>
22 matches
Mail list logo
