Oh, my, this is getting interesting. We'll just have to see how the judge
rules.
-Aris
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:41 PM Ned Strange <edwardostra...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> So I do just want to respond to that.
> [quote]The Promulgator of a regulation is an officer, not a person[/quote]
> The term "officer" is defined by rule 1006 as "the holder of an
> office". The holder of an office is a person who holds it at a
> particular time. Rule 1006 also states that "If the holder of an
> office is ever not a player, it becomes vacant". That rule therefore
> compels the reading that the holders of offices are (usually) players.
> Players are people. Therefore, while not all people are officers,
> officers are all people. There is no distinction between an officer
> and a person who holds an office at a particular time.
> [quote]o only promulgated the regulation in eir persona as Notary,
> which has now passed to you[/quote]
> But the Promulgator of a Regulation (the word Promulgator is
> inconsistently capitalised btw, add that to your bugfixes) is
> explicitly defined as an officer. An officer is someone who holds an
> office at a particular time.
> [quote]I will also note that an assumption to the contrary risks
> entanglement of official powers and responsibilities from personal
> ones[/quote]
> Indeed it does. These official powers and responsibilities are already
> entangled by the rules in the most obvious way possible. The
> punishments for missing a deadline are the same as the punishments for
> personal crimes like breaking a contract. If President Trump's
> Executive Orders are found unconstitutional, he is not getting thrown
> into jail or being found civilly liable in his own right. However,
> that _is_ the Agoran way of doing things. An office is not some
> separate persona, but merely a set of powers and responsibilities laid
> on a player for a temporary period.
> [quote] In general, we have assumed that a responsibility ascribed to
> an officer changes hands with the office, and this case could call
> that into dispute[/quote]
> An office is a set of responsibilities superimposed upon a player's
> existing set. Once a player leaves an office, they no longer have said
> responsibilities. But that does not mean that the player entering an
> office is the same _officer_ as the player who left it.
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 3:32 PM, Aris Merchant
> <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Arguments (partly quoted from above):
> >
> > The Promulgator of a regulation is an officer, not a person. In this
> > case, the Promulgator is the Notary, not o. o only promulgated the
> > regulation in eir persona as Notary, which has now passed to you. I
> > therefore believe that V.J. Rada has the power to repeal the
> > regulation. I will also note that an assumption to the contrary risks
> > entanglement of official powers and responsibilities from personal
> > ones. Rule 2526 clearly states that "[t]he Notary CAN, by regulation,
> > exempt a contract from the preceding paragraph", which assigns the
> > power to the Notary, not some random player who happens to be Notary
> > at the moment. In general, we have assumed that a responsibility
> > ascribed to an officer changes hands with the office, and this case
> > could call that into dispute. If the honorable judge of this case
> > cares to rule that official and personal personalities are separate, I
> > recommend the use of the word persona, since person is already
> > defined.
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 10:15 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> I favor this one.
> >>
> >> As we haven't heard from the Arbitor for a bit, I intend to assign it
> >> to myself without 3 objections.
> >>
> >> On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote:
> >>
> >>> I call a CFJ with the following statement: V.J. Rada (The current
> >>> Notary) has the power to repeal Regulations promulgated by o. in
> >>> hisofficial capacity as Notary.
> >>>
> >>> The rules state that regulations are promulgated by "an officer (known
> >>> as the Promulgator)". An officer is (to quote google dictionaries) "a
> >>> person holding a position of authority". O was that person holding the
> >>> position of Notary. I am an officer, holding the same office, but I am
> >>> not the same officer, and therefore am not the Promulgator of those
> >>> regulations.
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 12:46 PM, Aris Merchant
> >>> <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> > I disagree. The Promulgator of a regulation is an officer, not a
> person. In
> >>> > this case, the Promulgator is the Notary, not o. o only promulgated
> the
> >>> > regulation in eir persona as Notary, which has now passed to you. I
> >>> > therefore believe that you have the power to repeal the regulation.
> >>> >
> >>> > -Aris
> >>> >
> >>> > On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 7:44 PM Ned Strange <
> edwardostra...@gmail.com>
> >>> > wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >> Do other people believe my interpretation is correct?
> >>> >>
> >>> >> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 5:07 PM, Ned Strange <
> edwardostra...@gmail.com>
> >>> >> wrote:
> >>> >> > The Regulations rule states that "Regulations may be repealed by
> their
> >>> >> > promulgator". o. was the promulgator of the regulation you refer
> to, so I
> >>> >> > believe I cannot repeal or amend that Regulation.
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 5:59 PM, Aris Merchant
> >>> >> > <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 11:53 PM, Aris Merchant
> >>> >> >> <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >> >> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> >> >> > Regulation 1.2
> >>> >> >> > Contract Sustenance Exemptions
> >>> >> >> > Parent rule(s): 2526 ("Sustenance Payments", Power 2.4)
> >>> >> >> >
> >>> >> >> >
> >>> >> >> > The following contracts are exempt from paying sustenance
> payments,
> >>> >> >> > until the date specified:
> >>> >> >> >
> >>> >> >> > * Order of the Occult Hand, until January 31st, 2018.
> >>> >> >> >
> >>> >> >> > History:
> >>> >> >> > Promulgated upon recommendation by o, 16 November 2017
> >>> >> >> >
> >>> >> >> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> Our honorable new Notary is reminded that e may want to repeal
> this,
> >>> >> >> and also to start publishing eir report soon.
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> -Aris
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > --
> >>> >> > From V.J. Rada
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> --
> >>> >> From V.J. Rada
> >>> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> From V.J. Rada
> >>>
> >>
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada
>
