Ed Murphy | 1 Feb 01:01 2007
Picon

DIS: Re: BUS: Appeal of CFJ 1594

Eris wrote:

> On 1/31/07, Zefram <zefram <at> fysh.org> wrote:
>> I hereby appeal Sherlock's judgement of CFJ 1594.
> 
> I also appeal this Judgement, because I've always wanted to try this.

This is explicitly allowed by Rule 101, but contributes nothing toward
Rule 1564's prerequisites for initiating an appeal.

I am reminded of the Inalienable Rights scene from _Life of Brian_.

Ed Murphy | 1 Feb 01:04 2007
Picon

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: No Silly Orders

Grey Knight wrote:

> Amend Rule 1793, "Orders" by appending the following paragraph:
> 
>     Any Order which requires any entity to perform an impossible or
> illegal action, or to refrain from performing an action which that
> entity is either legally required to perform or which it is impossible
> not to perform, is considered an invalid order.

"is invalid."

Zefram | 1 Feb 01:11 2007

DIS: Re: BUS: Orange you glad I didn't...

Kerim Aydin wrote:
>I deem myself to not be a banana,

Michael, in your theory of an arbitrary set of legal fictions that are
part of the game state, does Goethe's deeming here have any effect on it?

If I deem Rule 101 to have a different text from what it actually has,
does that affect the game?

-zefram

Ed Murphy | 1 Feb 01:48 2007
Picon

Re: DIS: Proto: Revise Rotation

Zefram wrote:

> Ed Murphy wrote:
>>      The Clerk of the Courts may (without 2 objections) turn a player
>>      e expects to judge CFJs slowly or not at all.
> 
> What's this supposed to mean?  Sounds like a barbecuing procedure.

"cause a player to become turned", then.

>>      When the Clerk of the Courts publishes a Notice of Rotation, all
>>      players become unturned.  The Clerk of the Courts shall only do
> 
> Please explicate whether a Notice of Rotation is effective when published
> illegally.

The intent was that it would be.

>>      so when all open CFJs without a Trial Judge have no players
>>      eligible to be assigned, and at least one of them has at least
>>      one player ineligible solely to being turned; e shall list all
>>      CFJs in the first set, and at least one in the second.
> 
> Listing all outstanding CFJs is a tricky requirement.

Not if the database is up to date, simply go to
   http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/pending.php
and pick all lines with Action = Assignment of Judge.

> I see why you
(Continue reading)

Ed Murphy | 1 Feb 01:59 2007
Picon

Re: DIS: A bit of heresy...

Sherlock wrote:

> Goethe wrote:
>> Boy, wouldn't that be the surest way of ensuring I never, ever, ever
>> re-registered.
> 
> Well, let's look at what's happening with my recent ruling regarding the Cantus Cygnaeus CFJ.  No one
complained about my judgment or argument at the time.  Now it's probably going to be appealed and
overturned not on the basis of the facts, but so that you can remain a player.  
> 
> And how is that more intellectually honest than a coin toss?

In the specific case of an ambiguous statement, with two alleged
judgements that are opposite in value, both reasonable, but both
inconsistent with their underlying conditions, I don't think it's
intellectually dishonest for the appeals process to break the tie
on grounds other than reasonable-ness.

Furthermore, the reason I suggested overturning your judgement
rather than Goethe's is not a desire to convince Goethe to
re-register in future - I believe that any judicial resolution
would convince em, or at least go as far as we can toward that
end - but rather a desire to minimize the impact of the
unfortunately worded Proposal 4882.

Zefram | 1 Feb 02:06 2007

Re: DIS: Proto: Revise Rotation

Ed Murphy wrote:
>>What's this supposed to mean?  Sounds like a barbecuing procedure.
>
>"cause a player to become turned", then.

It's the whole thing that I have a problem with, not the verb "turn".
I really can't make head or tail of it.  What's it for?

>>Listing all outstanding CFJs is a tricky requirement.
>
>Not if the database is up to date,

A new CFJ can always be called while the Notice is being prepared or
in transit.

>  "CFJ 1607 is assigned to Quazie.
>   This is a Notice of Rotation, pointing out CFJ 1600.
>   CFJ 1608 is assigned to Quazie.
>   This is a Notice of Rotation, pointing out CFJ 1600.
>   CFJ 1609 is assigned to Quazie."

Hmm.  In that case we'd want to require a Judge to be assigned to CFJ
1600 before any others.  Perhaps that should be part of a Notice of
Rotation: a newly unturned Player must be assigned to the cited CFJ.
That would enormously reduce the scope for abuse.

Another way to express it: assigning a turned player has the side effect
of unturning everyone else.  That could even be made implicit.

>Allowing reassignment when an error is caught quickly leads to greater
(Continue reading)

Ed Murphy | 1 Feb 02:36 2007
Picon

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: some deeming

Grey Knight wrote:

> Some of the rules use the word "person" in places (a particular point
> of interest is Rule 869, "How to Join and Leave Agora"), but we'd have
> to call a CFJ on whether or not a banana capable of using email and
> other computing facilities should be a person. :-)

I am reminded of my all-time favorite card game, Doomtown.  The card
"Kenny", among a few others, is (1) a Goods (can be attached to a Dude)
at all times, and (2) a Dude in its own right while the Dude it's
attached to is in a shootout.

Ed Murphy | 1 Feb 02:37 2007
Picon

Re: DIS: OFF: Judgement of CFJ 1597

Michael Norrish wrote:
> Kerim Aydin wrote:

>  > Let's say, in this case, the decision is "OVERTURN AND REVERSE".
>  > Did that "OVERTURN AND REVERSE" apply to Goethe's FALSE or
>  > Sherlock's TRUE?  There's no legal distinction the appeals court can
>  > make to distinguish them.
> 
> I don't imagine the Appeals Court will make that decision then.  I
> suspect instead they'll suggest that the case be re-assigned.

I envisioned conditional responses like

   "I move to sustain X's judgement of CFJ 5000.
    I move to overturn and reverse Y's judgement of CFJ 5000."

but reassignment is unquestionably more elegant.

> If you like, I think my argument is in the best interests of the game:
> do you really want an unresolvable CFJ paralysing the system for
> evermore?  (You might call the same CFJ again I suppose.)

Which, in fact, e did.

Ed Murphy | 1 Feb 03:02 2007
Picon

Re: DIS: Proto: Revise Rotation

Zefram wrote:

> Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> What's this supposed to mean?  Sounds like a barbecuing procedure.
>> "cause a player to become turned", then.
> 
> It's the whole thing that I have a problem with, not the verb "turn".
> I really can't make head or tail of it.  What's it for?

Shortly after you last deregistered, we repealed the requirement for
judges to be selected randomly.  Turns for All was a response to that,
to ensure that players would still be assigned to roughly equal numbers
of cases over time.  "Turned" is a subtly amusing gloss for "had eir
turn".

>>> Listing all outstanding CFJs is a tricky requirement.
>> Not if the database is up to date,
> 
> A new CFJ can always be called while the Notice is being prepared or
> in transit.

So you do one more download before sending it.  Big deal.

>>  "CFJ 1607 is assigned to Quazie.
>>   This is a Notice of Rotation, pointing out CFJ 1600.
>>   CFJ 1608 is assigned to Quazie.
>>   This is a Notice of Rotation, pointing out CFJ 1600.
>>   CFJ 1609 is assigned to Quazie."
> 
> Hmm.  In that case we'd want to require a Judge to be assigned to CFJ
(Continue reading)

Kerim Aydin | 1 Feb 03:08 2007

DIS: Re: BUS: Orange you glad I didn't...


Zefram wrote:
> If I deem Rule 101 to have a different text from what it actually has,
> does that affect the game?

You can play as if R101 deemed you Prince of the Moon.  It can be
your own game.  Whoever joined you would be playing the same game.  
You could use the same mailing list.  If no one agreed with you, 
we could call you crazy.  If one person agreed with you, we might 
call it a conspiracy. If everyone on the mailing list agreed, you 
could call it Agora.  It might not be, though.

By the way, CFJ 1441 may or may not be relevant.  

-Goethe


Gmane