On 9/10/09 4:32 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> coppro wrote:
>
>> Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> comex wrote:
>>>
Appeal 2670a
Panelist: BobTHJ
Decision:
Panelist: Wo
coppro wrote:
> Ed Murphy wrote:
>> comex wrote:
>>
>>> Appeal 2670a
>>>
>>> Panelist: BobTHJ
>>> Decision:
>>>
>>> Panelist: Wooble
>>> Decision:
>>>
>>> Panelist:
Ed Murphy wrote:
comex wrote:
Appeal 2670a
Panelist: BobTHJ
Decision:
Panelist: Wooble
Decision:
Panelist: ehird
Decision:
I missed recordin
comex wrote:
> Appeal 2670a
>
> Panelist: BobTHJ
> Decision:
>
> Panelist: Wooble
> Decision:
>
> Panelist: ehird
> Decision:
I missed recording
Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009, comex wrote:
so we're now waiting on the Justiciar to "deliver a judgement
of either REMAND or REASSIGN, whichever e feels is most appropriate".
I intend to deputise for em to do so.
I don't think you can deputise for the non-office position of
Justic
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009, comex wrote:
so we're now waiting on the Justiciar to "deliver a judgement
> of either REMAND or REASSIGN, whichever e feels is most appropriate".
>
> I intend to deputise for em to do so.
I don't think you can deputise for the non-office position of
Justiciar, even if the
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> I opted for no judgment in hopes that the Justicar REASSIGNs to a new
> judge who will give a true judgment. Yes it delays the process, but no
> it doesn't permanently prevent a judgment.
This deliberately subverts the appeals process by holdin
Roger Hicks wrote:
> I opted for no judgment in hopes that the Justicar REASSIGNs to a new
> judge who will give a true judgment. Yes it delays the process, but no
> it doesn't permanently prevent a judgment.
Fair enough. In that case I recommend, as before, a nonzero but minimal
punishment.
si
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 14:35, Pavitra wrote:
> Roger Hicks wrote:
>> I too would like to see a judgment, but I'll stop short of taking
>> action that would permit what I believe to be a false judgment (even
>> if it costs me rests). Since there are two seemingly valid
>> interpretations, why not
BobTHJ wrote:
> I wasn't doing more than proto-ing this at the moment. However, out of
> curiosity, why? In the past there was made an argument that permitting
> the CotC to choose among the eligible judges allows assigning more
> experienced judges to more difficult cases, etc. However, Judicial
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> I agree completely, and that is exactly what I am trying to prevent in
> this case. I believe that dependent actions ARE NOT broken. I have
> interpreted the rule differently than comex. By preventing this
> judgment from moving forward I have
Roger Hicks wrote:
> I too would like to see a judgment, but I'll stop short of taking
> action that would permit what I believe to be a false judgment (even
> if it costs me rests). Since there are two seemingly valid
> interpretations, why not choose the one which is in the best interests
> of Ag
Roger Hicks wrote:
> On another note, if we were to adopt random judge selection from among
> eligible candidates, favoring a case could be changed to 'double' the
> chances of a paticular judge being selected. This would effectively
> un-break the automatic selection when a single judge favors a c
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 14:05, Ed Murphy wrote:
> BobTHJ wrote:
>
>> Now that we have favoring, disfavoring, II, Hem&Hawing, and posture to
>> section judicial eligibility perhaps its time to assign judges
>> randomly from among those eligible. This would help prevent judicial
>> scams and also li
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 13:56, Pavitra wrote:
> Roger Hicks wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 13:36, Pavitra wrote:
>>> Roger Hicks wrote:
Arguments: I will accept whatever penalty the courts determine. In my
defense I note that I am attempting to act within the best interests
of t
BobTHJ wrote:
> Now that we have favoring, disfavoring, II, Hem&Hawing, and posture to
> section judicial eligibility perhaps its time to assign judges
> randomly from among those eligible. This would help prevent judicial
> scams and also limit the "CFJ to justicar, assign to self, judge as
> des
Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 13:36, Pavitra wrote:
>> Roger Hicks wrote:
>>> Arguments: I will accept whatever penalty the courts determine. In my
>>> defense I note that I am attempting to act within the best interests
>>> of the game (IMHO it is in the best interests of Agora for
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 13:36, Pavitra wrote:
> Roger Hicks wrote:
>> Arguments: I will accept whatever penalty the courts determine. In my
>> defense I note that I am attempting to act within the best interests
>> of the game (IMHO it is in the best interests of Agora for dependent
>> actions to
Roger Hicks wrote:
> Arguments: I will accept whatever penalty the courts determine. In my
> defense I note that I am attempting to act within the best interests
> of the game (IMHO it is in the best interests of Agora for dependent
> actions to not have been broken for quite some time, which is -
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009, Roger Hicks wrote:
> Now that we have favoring, disfavoring, II, Hem&Hawing, and posture to
> section judicial eligibility perhaps its time to assign judges
> randomly from among those eligible. This would help prevent judicial
> scams and also limit the "CFJ to justicar, assi
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 13:30, ais523 wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-09-09 at 14:37 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> 6486 D 1 2.0 BobTHJ Audit Cleanup
> AGAINST; Laundering is just too utterly difficult to prove here.
Just because it may be difficult to prove doesn't mean it shouldn't be
crimin
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> There is still dispute on that issue. Even if they are broken however
> this shouldn't prevent the contract defined mimic of a dependent
> action. Worst case it would still work using the common definition of
> objection.
Before the last para
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 05:57, comex wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 4:20 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> CFJ: It is legal to announce that CFJ 2670 was appealed.
>
> TRUE or FALSE, possibly UNDETERMINED, but not UNDECIDABLE. It's
> either one or the other, and either way the final outcome of CFJ 2670
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 02:03, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Having received no objections, I make the above contract change.
>
> Aren't dependent actions still broken?
>
>
There is still dispute on that issue. Even if they are broken however
this shouldn't prevent the contract defined mimic of a dependent
c-walker wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Charles
> Walker wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> 2675: FALSE
>> Accepting this judgement, I do the following:
>>
>> I act on behalf of the LNP to cause it to intend, with Agoran Consent,
>> to register.
>>
>> I inten
25 matches
Mail list logo
