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 >