business flowing as I have done so far.
-zefram
viewpoint. See CFJ 1687 for a similar application of
this principle.
-zefram
, and presence of doubt results in a SLIPPERY
judgement. Your judgement of EXCUSED cannot be supported by such doubt.
-zefram
in a message that
has other concerns.
-zefram
Ian Kelly wrote:
Good point. I suggest that this illustrates a flaw in our definition
of person.
I think it's a good reason why obligations ought to survive an
interruption of personhood.
-zefram
comex wrote:
-- From CFJ 1750 to 1800, the average time from being called to
assignment was about 13 hours. Daunting,
As e's doing such a good job of advertising my achievements, I hereby
assign comex as my re-election campaign manager.
-zefram
some nomic.
Since Steve Wallace is not a game, he cannot be a nomic either. Since he is
a nomic,
^ not
-zefram
this isn't a forum
... says Iammars in the discussion forum.
so I don't have
avatars to associate you with.
What, our writing styles and opinions aren't distinctive enough?
-zefram
up than a picture next to your
names.
Pictures. How quaint.
-zefram
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
A player CAN deregister by announcement. E CANNOT register
within thirty days after doing so.
BobTHJ was deregistered by writ, not by eir own announcement. There's no
auto-exile in this case.
-zefram
of deregistration. I suggest that it should
be fixed by adding an auto-exile clause to the Cantus Cygneus rule.
-zefram
. For that matter, it's also a good idea to explicitly delimit
your proposal text to separate it from the surrounding message.
-zefram
in multiple parts, a better form is
Amend rule 649 by ... and by ... and by ... and by
-zefram
stays vacant,
but we'd still have deputisation available.
-zefram
to be the office of
assessor.) I don't see a need for deputisation for any other Agoran
Decisions.
-zefram
-person, the PT is recognising something that
was achieved by a person.
-zefram
.
-zefram
.
And I'd have to change the dates in the ruleset records, and add another
tranche of date correction records to my historical rule data aggregator.
-zefram
might
go with one of the offices located in the geographically dominant nomic
in your region:
http://geo.international.gc.ca/can-am/main/offices/default-en.asp
-zefram
.
-zefram
, for this as well as the
reasons you pointed out. If CFJ 1860 is not judged on time then I'll
reassign it to you.
-zefram
,
such as law enforcement and public roads.
Agora serves to better Agoran society by providing essential services,
such as rule enforcement and public recordkeeping.
-zefram
Levi Stephen wrote:
I hereby install Murphy as Clerk of the Courts.
I've just posted an up-to-date judicial status report. I presume that
Murphy has up-to-date case files for the open cases, by virtue of eir
database.
-zefram
Ian Kelly wrote:
Yes, but we still require explicit redefinition, don't we?
There's no rule saying so.
-zefram
that is is of course determined by the time-honoured custom of the
registrar listing watchers in eir report.
-zefram
Ed Murphy wrote:
CFJ 1659 found that even a contract can't override an explicit rule
definition, much less a long-standing but still unlegislated custom.
And as a result we amended the rule that led to that judgement.
Contextual modifications now can override rule definitions.
-zefram
-amended current
rule, and in fact the second-most-ameneded rule ever (after R1671, the
Frankenstein Rule). Now it's in danger of being repealed, due to the
unpopularity of ribbons, even though the concept that got it amended so
much is still going strong.
-zefram
to deregister. Please get on with it.
-zefram
Ed Murphy wrote:
So two partnerships with the same basis can both be qualified?
Yes, but Rule 2144 still lets any player deregister one of them
with Agoran Consent.
R2144 only applies to partnerships with identical bases. I'm also
concerned about overlapping non-identical bases.
-zefram
be qualified?
-zefram
accepted
by the courts as authoritative, er, codification of the uncodified law.
-zefram
to distinguish between nomics and non-nomic
rule systems.
-zefram
. Or, for a slight finesse, the basis of
another otherwise-well-qualified player. The CotC has to track bases
and apply the knowledge case by case, but of course partnerships are
public now.
-zefram
with whether such redefinition is possible in Agora.
-zefram
digit rotation done alongside rot13. I'd say leaving
digits unchanged is canonical behaviour.
-zefram
of the statement, and so would not believe it to be true, so they would
indeed by violating rule 2149 if they stated it.
-zefram
think the use of watcher
in the statement of the CFJ is not as well supported as root makes out.
-zefram
invalid, because woggle is not a candidate, but the
valid vote values for elections are generally taken from the category
of player identities, so it could perfectly well have been valid.)
-zefram
Ed Murphy wrote:
Denied. This is true in the passive sense.
The case history is a listing of events, not samplings of states.
-zefram
comex wrote:
... therefore the outcome is APPROVED, and I hereby appeal the
judgement of CFJ 1879.
What's the status of this appeal?
-zefram
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On the grounds that BobTHJ isn't a position
I think e is, and so is eir membership in the Vote Market. Position
is a very broad term, which is why I voted against proposal 5414.
-zefram
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
I initiate a criminal CFJ with Zefram as the defendant, alleging e
violated Rule 2149 in the above message by making the statement I
intend to deputise for BobTHJ to deregister em. while not reasonably
believing it to be true.
On what grounds do you think I didn't intend
in decisions on dependent actions.
They seem eminently reasonable substitutions, which fall under the purview
of R754(1). The same provision likewise makes AGAINT an acceptable
synonym for AGAINST, and it has been so interpreted (recently by Murphy
as assessor).
-zefram
with IANA.) I echo
Pavitra's suggestion of contacting the Minister of Foreign Affairs
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED].
-zefram
Nick Vanderweit wrote:
Hey, all. I wanted a more reliable way to generate random rules than
with my brain,
$ perl -we '@r=grep{/^Rule \d/};[EMAIL PROTECTED]' current_flr.txt
-zefram
Nick Vanderweit wrote:
I like actually readable code. Perl makes me want to vomit.
I like code that I can type without noticeably wearing my fingers down.
-zefram
require?
Ostensibly it merely requires, but we've read SHALL ... by announcement
as also empowering by virtue of supplying a mechanism.
-zefram
Kerim Aydin wrote:
[I think there's still some long-service awards missing that Zefram made a
long time ago, but I can't find them].
There are some that I *received* that are missing from your list.
As for the awards I `made', the rule was platonic back then, so my role
as deputy herald
by means of the non-rule-defined
action of random selection, though in that case there's conspicuously
no obligation to announce the assignments.
I'd just like to point out that I voted against it.
-zefram
Panelist Goethe's arguments, I do not believe that R101's
requirement of consent applies to becoming bound by the rules.
Good analysis in this paragraph.
-zefram
of connotation (subtext) is an orthogonal concept.
-zefram
always been done with
conditional votes prior to BobTHJ's new type of condition, and it's what
makes the tally most comprehensible.
-zefram
the rules -- and certainly not when the
rules explicitly define this interpretation.
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.
-zefram
that an ostracism
should occur, *then* it is decided *who* will be ostracised. It's a
way of defusing political conflict. Importantly, there is no ignominy
in being ostracised.
-zefram
,
those arguing for ostracism would point to the comex/pikhq conflict.
If the first vote went in favour of ostracism, the leading candidates for
expulsion would be comex and pikhq, though under the Athenian procedure
the valid vote values would be all the players.
-zefram
be ignored.
-zefram
encompass all sorts of things, some but not all of which
can be vacant.
-zefram
Ed Murphy wrote:
A judgeship is such a position.
Mm, applying deputisation to judges. That's ringing alarm bells.
-zefram
in.
-zefram
*in place of the entire panel*.
-zefram
of the defendant
and the defendant's closure of the pre-trial period.
-zefram
of
agency is an obligation for this purpose. Obviously we're in easier
territory if it is, but the theoretical basis for treating it this way
needs to be worked out.
-zefram
entirely, and do *all* punishment by bill
of attainder?
-zefram
player to do it.
-zefram
first-class persons in favour and one person being able
to do it on eir own. That's too big a difference to gloss over.
-zefram
started a rather famous war,
which resulted in a rather famous bill of rights.
-zefram
the initiator.
-zefram
Kerim Aydin wrote:
You no longer count
yourself in support.
You brought back the bug where the initiator is otherwise disqualified
from voting.
-zefram
include more.
Similarly
the tally of votes only needs to include N valid votes if there
are more, or all valid votes if there are not.
I suggest that you also ament rule 1728 to make the implicit SUPPORT
ballot explicitly conditional on SUPPORT being a valid vote value.
-zefram
smoothly for years).
Note that in these years there weren't partnerships, so no need for a
complication in dependent actions to cope with them.
-zefram
revision was to clearly require that the
vote tally include sufficient votes to be sure of the result (while not
requiring the reporting of any more votes than necessary).
-zefram
on
a dependent action. If you don't get on with this then we risk running
out of time for the appeal.
-zefram
votes
need be reported to show that objection was achieved, but a complete
tally is required to show that there was not sufficient objection.
-zefram
Ben Caplan wrote:
Do I hereby initiate an inquiry CFJ on this sentence?
No, you don't. The question-statement equivalence applies only for
the purposes of the subject of an inquiry case, not for acting by
announcement. Such is my interpretation, at least.
-zefram
in Murphy's reposting).
-zefram
Kerim Aydin wrote:
Actually, only official reports can be ratified. Is the Ruleset
an official report? All other reports are officially called reports.
The ruleset is not itself a report, but the FLR and SLR are reports
(which report on the state of the ruleset).
-zefram
not get distributed to subscribers?
In what way does this qualify as sending a message to the forum?
-zefram
corrupt the historical record by default.
-zefram
be similarly modified, and I suggest that you express it as
half the number of eligible voters (rounded down) so that eligibility
only needs to be edited in one place.
-zefram
those of us who can interpret non-ASCII characters in email, their
presence in any game text would be a hinderance to the normal processes
of official recordkeeping and the production of derivative texts.
-zefram
at all.
-zefram
trumped by R101(v).
What happened to the alleged message on 2008-02-01, sent from dip per
[EMAIL PROTECTED]? Had you sent any other `test' messages from
accounts other than your usual?
-zefram
comex wrote:
CFJ 1772
Thought you'd claim that. The fact that the ruleset isn't a R1742
contract doesn't prevent it being an agreement for the purposes of
R101 rights.
-zefram
comex wrote:
I dare you to propose that.
If e does, then, just for you, I'll vote AGAINT on it.
-zefram
Ben Caplan wrote:
A province is a registered protectorate.
Be careful about the word registered. We've seen a recent case claiming
that it can only refer to playerhood.
-zefram
arbitrarily, including
changes to those rules which govern rule changes.
-zefram
to have
consistent rendering, until that came along.
-zefram
Roger Hicks wrote:
I didn't modify anything except the text.
The text is one of the attributes of a proposal that you can't modify
after submission. I suggest that you withdraw your existing proposal
and submit a new one that has the text that you want.
-zefram
to the point where the CFJ is assigned to another
player.
Also a bad analogy: rule 2158 explicitly governs ability to pass
judgement, without imposing any deadline on the ability. Obligation to
judge, and the time limit therein, is a separate clause.
-zefram
.
CFJ 1898: TRUE Even if CFJ 1897 is reversed, Zefram's message clearly
could not be taken to apply to emself, and would instead
be a failed action.
And I included an interpretation clause, for overkill.
-zefram
* deregistration to satisfy the terms of the
contract?
Er, yes, but I'm not in that position, BobTHJ is.
-zefram
it differently.
-zefram
(a position), I can deputise for BobTHJ-as-player
to deregister BobTHJ(-as-player). Then BobTHJ-as-player, which is
essentially a rule-defined entity, has factually deregistered emself.
-zefram
are enacted
by the Queen-in-Parliament rather than by the Queen per se.
-zefram
that: the ability to deregister (via that clause) is specific
to the player position.
-zefram
by proposal, used in the 1994 era,
which involved proposals along the lines of The judgement in CFJ 123
is hereby changed to TRUE..
-zefram
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
My search-fu through my saved messages is failing me. Would you
please throw me a bone, er, precedent?
CFJ 1765.
-zefram
Taral wrote:
Amend Rule 591 by adding this paragraph at the end:
The Clerk of the Courts CAN disqualify a player from a case
without 2 objections.
Any case (as the wording seems to say), or just inquiry cases (the
subject of R591)?
-zefram
Roger Hicks wrote:
What permits the BobTHJ-in-Vote-Market position to deregister?
Its playerhood, which is tied to the BobTHJ aspect.
-zefram
Kerim Aydin wrote:
Ew, I just can't get line breaks right in Webpine,
No, you got them right. Murphy mangled it.
-zefram
701 - 800 of 937 matches
Mail list logo
