| 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