0x44 on Sun, 1 Aug 2010 17:32:59 -0700 (MST)


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [s-b] [s-d] [Oracle] CFI 123a


Too the public forum I VACATE the answer returned by the previous judge in 123.

- 0x44

On Aug 1, 2010, at 7:26 PM, 0x44 <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I VACATE the answer returned by the previous judge in 123. 
> 
> - 0x44
> 
> On Aug 1, 2010, at 6:28 PM, James Baxter <jebaxter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> 
>>> Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2010 16:21:03 -0700
>>> From: gvistica@xxxxxxxxx
>>> To: spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
>>> Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] [Oracle] CFI 123a
>>> 
>>> This is an invalid ruling.
>>> 
>>> Per Rule 42, "an Appeals Court shall give one of the following responses to the 
>>> Appeal: 1.) AFFIRMS  - The appeals court affirms the decision made in the prior 
>>> Judgement. 2.) VACATES  - The appeals court reverses the decision made in the 
>>> prior Judgement. 3.) MODIFIES - The appeals court modifies the decision made in 
>>> the prior Judgement, and includes a new Judgement. 4.) REMAND   - The appeals 
>>> court returns the CFI to the prior Judge for review. "
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ----- Original Message ----
>>>> From: 0x44 <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> To: spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
>>>> Sent: Sun, August 1, 2010 4:10:20 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [s-b] [Oracle] CFI 123a
>>>> 
>>>> I answer CFI 123a TRUE, deferring to the arguments of the appellant. 
>>>> On Jul  27, 2010, at 3:58 PM, Craig Daniel wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at  4:45 PM, Gabriel Vistica <gvistica@xxxxxxxxx> 
>>> wrote:
>>>>>> FALSE. The player generally known as teucer does not have the name "Murphy"  
>>>> as
>>>>>> this name is already in use as a unique identifier for another  player. If 
>>>> teucer
>>>>>> were to have the name "Murphy", that would violate  the first paragraph of 
>>>> Rule
>>>>>> 2/0, "All game entities must have  uniquely identifying names", which I 
>>>> interpret
>>>>>> to mean that all  identifying names held by a player [[basically all names 
>>>> that
>>>>>> aren't  titles]].
>>>>> 
>>>>> I appeal the above judgement. Arguments: While the  judge is correct
>>>>> that "All game entities must have uniquely-identifying  names", and
>>>>> this unambiguously means all identifying names held by  players must be
>>>>> unique, the fact that something MUST happen does *not*  mean that it
>>>>> does - merely that players who MUST do something are in  violation of
>>>>> the rule in question. (See Rule 14.) Ergo, the MUST clause  in Rule 2
>>>>> does not block me from becoming a player with the relevant  name; it
>>>>> merely means that the other Murphy is breaking Rule 2. (I do  have to
>>>>> specify a unique name when joining, but as I in fact specified  four of
>>>>> them I should be good.)
>>>>> 
>>>>> - teucer
>> 
>> 
>> Correct, that answer is invalid.
>> 
>> I amend the Oracle's report for nweek 173 to state, in addition to the information previously given, that CFI 123/0A1 is awaiting judgement by the Appeals Court Judge 0x44.
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> spoon-business mailing list
>> spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
>> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-discuss mailing list
> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
_______________________________________________
spoon-business mailing list
spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business