On Jul 15, 2008, at 12:09 AM, ihope wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 11:57 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 8:01 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
{action="X violated Z by Y", rule=Z} -- INNOCENT
This looks like UNIMPUGNED to me.
It's INNOCENT if the action, "X
Taral wrote:
>Well, the problem is that there's two ways to phrase the CFJ:
Back when we started doing criminal CFJs this issue came up. CFJ 1720
decided that by default the rule violated was not part of the action
being tried. That was before we required explicit specification of the
rule alleg
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 11:57 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 8:01 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> {action="X violated Z by Y", rule=Z} -- INNOCENT
>
> This looks like UNIMPUGNED to me.
It's INNOCENT if the action, "X violated Z by Y", did not occur,
UNIMPUGN
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 8:01 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> {action="X violated Z by Y", rule=Z} -- INNOCENT
This looks like UNIMPUGNED to me.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:52 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, the problem is that there's two ways to phrase the CFJ:
>
> "X did Y that violates Z" -- UNIMPUGNED
> "X did something that violates Z" -- INNOCENT(?)
Now that's just confusing. Officially the rule violated isn't even
part
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:57 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I thought I'd protoed a new judgement for "X did something that
> violates Z" - OVERGENERAL, perhaps? Feel free to propose it.
I though put in a proposal to require people to specify which action
violates the rule...
--
Tar
Taral wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 5:56 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The action in question was failure to act in accordance with the contract,
>> and I draft rule that root did not commit such a failure. INNOCENT seems
>> correct here.
>>
>> Would it help if we just mer
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 5:56 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The action in question was failure to act in accordance with the contract,
> and I draft rule that root did not commit such a failure. INNOCENT seems
> correct here.
>
> Would it help if we just merged the two options?
On Jul 13, 2008, at 12:52 PM, Taral wrote:
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 8:22 AM, Benjamin Schultz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
ais523 has pointed out an interesting hole in R2136, that a
contestmaster
does not have to remain a member of the contest. Accordingly,
root's as
contestmaster of Brainfu
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 8:22 AM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ais523 has pointed out an interesting hole in R2136, that a contestmaster
> does not have to remain a member of the contest. Accordingly, root's as
> contestmaster of Brainfuck Golf did not depend on eir being a member
10 matches
Mail list logo
