From - Thu Aug 3 12:01:16 2000 Status: R Return-Path: Received: from gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au ([131.170.42.16]) by osgood.mail.mindspring.net (Mindspring Mail Service) with ESMTP id sohrai.kgt.30ahi43 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 23:56:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) id DAA24337 for agora-official-list; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 03:53:09 GMT Received: from fw.serc.rmit.edu.au (fw-in.serc.rmit.edu.au [131.170.42.1]) by gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id DAA24334 for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 03:53:07 GMT From: magika@aracnet.com Received: (from mail@localhost) by fw.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.1) id NAA29707 for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 13:54:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail3.aracnet.com(216.99.193.38) by fw.serc.rmit.edu.au via smap (V2.1) id xma029705; Thu, 3 Aug 00 13:54:27 +1000 Received: from shell1.aracnet.com (shell1.aracnet.com [216.99.193.21]) by mail3.aracnet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA09519 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 20:52:25 -0700 Received: by shell1.aracnet.com (8.9.3) id UAA19626; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 20:52:23 -0700 Message-Id: <200008030352.UAA19626@shell1.aracnet.com> Subject: OFF: CFJ 1239 Judged TRUE To: agora-official@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (agora-off) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 20:52:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-agora-official@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au Precedence: bulk Reply-To: agora-discussion@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au X-Mozilla-Status: 8001 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 X-UIDL: sohrai.kgt.30ahi43 ============================== CFJ 1239 ============================== Taral objected to both the making of the Proposal "Secret, Unknown and Hidden Proposals 2.1" disinterested and objected to the making of the Proposal "Respect for the dead" disinterested in eir message dated "Mon, 31 Jul 2000 11:33:18 -0500 (CDT)", subject "Re: BUS: disinterested". ======================================================================== Called by: Peekee Judge: Steve Judgement: TRUE Judge selection: Eligible: Steve, t, Taral, Wes Not eligible: Caller: Peekee Barred: - Had eir turn: Blob, Chuck, Elysion, Kelly, lee, Murphy, Oerjan Already served: - Defaulted: - Previously Defaulted: Harlequin, Sherlock By request: Crito, harvel, Michael On Hold: Palnatoke Zombie: Anthony, Harlequin, Novalis, Schneidster ======================================================================== History: Called by Peekee: 01 Aug 2000 11:03:58 BST Assigned to Steve: 01 Aug 2000 14:26:33 -0700 Judged TRUE by Steve: 02 Aug 2000 11:41:23 +1000 Judgement Distributed: 01 Aug 2000 21:31:32 -0700 ======================================================================== Caller's Arguments: Just wondering if e needs to state the Objection a little more clearly. This CFJ should clear it up. ======================================================================== Caller's Evidence: >From: Taral >Reply-To: agora-discussion@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au >To: agora-business@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au >Subject: Re: BUS: disinterested >Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 11:33:18 -0500 (CDT) > >On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, Alan Riddell wrote: > > > I hereby announce my intent to make both of my Proposals "Respect for >the > > dead" and "Secret, Unknown and Hidden Proposals 2.1" disinterested. > >I Object. These are non-trivial changes to the Ruleset and deserve closer >examination. > >-- >Taral > ======================================================================== Judge's Arguments: I Judge the Statement to be TRUE. Since Taral referred to both changes as being non-trivial, it is clear from the context that e meant "I Object to both of these Notices of Intent." I see nothing in the Rules which prevents multiple objections from being phrased in this way. ======================================================================== Judge's Evidence: ========================================================================