On 7/10/09 10:39 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Charles Reiss wrote:
>> On 7/9/09 10:58 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2628
>>>
>>> == CFJ 2628 ==
>>>
>>> My judicial rank is 4.
>>>
>>> ===
Sean Hunt wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Benjamin
> Caplan wrote:
>> Sean Hunt wrote:
>>> I believe e is aware of one contract to which I am a party.
>> Oh well.
>>
>>> I intend, with consent of its members, to terminate it, by the way.
>> NttPF.
>>
>
> Wooble is not party to it, and it
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Benjamin
Caplan wrote:
> Sean Hunt wrote:
>> I believe e is aware of one contract to which I am a party.
> Oh well.
>
>> I intend, with consent of its members, to terminate it, by the way.
> NttPF.
>
Wooble is not party to it, and it's not a dependent action, so th
Sean Hunt wrote:
> I believe e is aware of one contract to which I am a party.
Oh well.
> I intend, with consent of its members, to terminate it, by the way.
NttPF.
Benjamin Caplan wrote:
> Although you may not reveal the text or membership of private contracts,
> you may divulge their existence. How many private contracts are you
> currently aware of? (If the answer is four, I can infer FALSE, since
> according to the Notary wiki there are four publicly known
ais523 wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-07-10 at 03:56 -0500, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
>> I hereby request any and all persons to submit evidence and arguments,
>> either publicly or by private email to me, that may be relevant to this
>> case. In particular, I would be interested in hearing from H. Caller c.,
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 5:27 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> You're half right, but you're missing my point. What I'm saying is that
> the second mention of the "exploit" refers to the exploit on the card in
> the player's hand. So right now, it reads that "If a card has an exploit"
> (which is true, I
Elliott Hird wrote:
> 2009/7/10 comex :
>> I withdraw all of my current objections to dependent actions.
>>
>> --
>> -c.
>>
>
> I object to all dependent actions comex was objecting to before that message.
The only one I can think of was my action to amend Cookie Jar; please
withdraw that.
On Fri, 10 Jul 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> The scam? As I said in an earlier email, the articles and clauses
>> are a little unclearly placed but hardly strongly supporting comex's
>> interpretation, and you'd need very strong support as the intended
>> reading is abundantly cl
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> The scam? As I said in an earlier email, the articles and clauses
> are a little unclearly placed but hardly strongly supporting comex's
> interpretation, and you'd need very strong support as the intended
> reading is abundantly clear.
The intent is irrelevant. The actual
On Fri, 10 Jul 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Jul 2009, comex wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 2:09 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
I also intend, without objection (independently), to ratify the
following (definitively) incorrect document:
{
The first pa
comex wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> We decided a while back that "X SHALL Y" implies "X CAN Y". Probably
>> should be legislated explicitly, though.
>
> Only when a mechanism is specified.
>
Publishing is a mechanism.
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> We decided a while back that "X SHALL Y" implies "X CAN Y". Probably
> should be legislated explicitly, though.
Only when a mechanism is specified.
--
-c.
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jul 2009, comex wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 2:09 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>>> I also intend, without objection (independently), to ratify the
>>> following (definitively) incorrect document:
>>>
>>> {
>>> The first paragraph of Rule 2256 reads as follows:
>
> Just
c-walker wrote:
> I CFJ {{ The Conductor CAN publish a self-ratifying report. }}
>
> Evidence:
>
> R2126 states:
>
> The Conductor is an office. As soon as possible after this text
> becomes a part of this rule, the Conductor SHALL publish a
> self-ratifying report containing
On Fri, 10 Jul 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 2:56 PM, ais523 wrote:
>> e CAN certainly publish a report; but I don't see how R101 makes it a
>> self-ratifying report.
>
> Precedent says that if you SHALL perform an action by some mechanism,
> you CAN do it by that mechanism
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 2:56 PM, ais523 wrote:
> e CAN certainly publish a report; but I don't see how R101 makes it a
> self-ratifying report.
Precedent says that if you SHALL perform an action by some mechanism,
you CAN do it by that mechanism. Is being required to "publish"
something specifyin
On Fri, 2009-07-10 at 12:44 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
> C-walker wrote:
> > I CFJ {{ The Conductor CAN publish a self-ratifying report. }}
> >
> > Evidence:
> >
> > R2126 states:
> >
> > The Conductor is an office. As soon as possible after this text
> > becomes a part of this rule, t
C-walker wrote:
> I CFJ {{ The Conductor CAN publish a self-ratifying report. }}
>
> Evidence:
>
> R2126 states:
>
> The Conductor is an office. As soon as possible after this text
> becomes a part of this rule, the Conductor SHALL publish a
> self-ratifying report containing
On Fri, 2009-07-10 at 10:12 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> Any thoughts on how we should proceed? We could convert this to a
> Card exchange, let an equity judge sort out an equitable way to deal
> with notes disappearing, or just terminate it altogether (which would
> probably be unfair to ais523
Sean Hunt wrote:
> I intend, without objection, to set the II of the Scorekeepor office to
> 2. While none of the duties of the Scorekeepor are particularly
> difficult, there are now a whole lot of them, including recordkeeping
> two assets and a switch and maintaining points limits. II 1 doesn't
comex wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 2:09 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> I also intend, without objection (independently), to ratify the
>> following (definitively) incorrect document:
>>
>> {
>> The first paragraph of Rule 2256 reads as follows:
>> A player CAN play a card in eir possession which
On Thu, 2009-07-09 at 23:17 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> When a judgement is overruled on appeal, if the prior judge's
> rank is higher than 0, then it is decreased by 1, and e CANNOT
> increase it for 30 days afterward (the rest of this rule
> notwithstanding), unless eir new
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 2:09 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I also intend, without objection (independently), to ratify the
> following (definitively) incorrect document:
>
> {
> The first paragraph of Rule 2256 reads as follows:
> A player CAN play a card in eir possession which has an exploit by
>
On Fri, 10 Jul 2009, comex wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 3:22 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> As Grand Poobah, I deal the following cards to the following players
>> (bootstrap deals):
>
> Rule 2256 (Exploit Cards) reads:
>
> If a card has an Exploit, a player CAN play a card in eir
> posse
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Wooble wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 2:41 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> The Speaker CAN form a government this quarter if e desires.
>>
>> H. Assessor Murphy, is there any chance you could fix
>> http://zenith.homelinux.net/assessor/similarity.
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Fri, 10 Jul 2009, comex wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 3:22 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> [Card deals]
>>
>> Psh.
>
> What's the issue here? The randomizer picked these I haven't (or hadn't)
> even looked at what they are yet... -G.
'com
On Fri, 10 Jul 2009, comex wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 3:22 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> [Card deals]
>
> Psh.
What's the issue here? The randomizer picked these I haven't (or hadn't)
even looked at what they are yet... -G.
Wooble wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 2:41 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> The Speaker CAN form a government this quarter if e desires.
>
> H. Assessor Murphy, is there any chance you could fix
> http://zenith.homelinux.net/assessor/similarity.php to make it easier
> to reward people who vote like me
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 3:22 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> To ais523 : Arm-twist
> To ais523 : Roll Call
> To ais523 : No Confidence
> To ais523 : Debate-o-Matic
> To ais523 : Local Election
> To ais523 : Local Election
> To ais523 : Lobbyist
> To ais523 : Roll Call
> To ais523 : Arm-twist
> To ais523 :
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 2:41 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> The Speaker CAN form a government this quarter if e desires.
H. Assessor Murphy, is there any chance you could fix
http://zenith.homelinux.net/assessor/similarity.php to make it easier
to reward people who vote like me with positions in the gov
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 1:54 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> schwa (2625-26) (basis: allispaul, c., coppro,
> Warrigal, teucer)
I believe I'm part of schwa's basis; I know there was sentiment for
kicking me out, but I can't find any public message
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Benjamin
Caplan wrote:
> I CoE this one too, just in case. (The SLR should be non-empty.)
The rules aren't self-ratifying, and can't even be ratified without objection.
> === CFJ 2619 (Interest Index = 0)
>
> Wooble is party to at least one private contract containing the
> word "inferences".
>
>
By the power vested in me by the Crown of Bone,
On Fri, 10 Jul 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> As Grand Poobah, I deal the following cards to the following players
>
> Might want to make clear you do the same by deputization if you aren't
> Poobah.
Can't do that anymore: you're not the default officeholder any more
(just realize
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> As Grand Poobah, I deal the following cards to the following players
Might want to make clear you do the same by deputization if you aren't
Poobah.
36 matches
Mail list logo
