:-D >From Aris:
> > And very specifically, in the above, you must be "(including the value of > N and/or T for each method)". In eir announcement of intent, e refers to > 1728(1) which is "without N Objections", and e didn't specify that N=1. > While "without objection" is "shorthand" for 1, 1 is not the "default" > N for 1728(1) if the words "without objection" are left out. Saying > "if any one objects then I won't" is a stated plan, but it is not > synonymous with nor generally accepted (i.e. "clear") shorthand for N=1. > My response: The intent did clearly and unambiguously set N=1. As a result, the CFJ is TRUE. In particular, as Aris emself acknowledges, my reference to Rule 1728(1) made it clear and unambiguous that I intended to take action under the "without N Objections" method. That is not in dispute. My announcement set N=1 when I said I would not perform the intended action if any one (1) person objected: "if any /one/ objects, then I won't [undertake the stated intent]." That language is clear and unambiguous. It clearly states that the intent would not be executed if I received any one (1) objection. It unambiguously set N=1, because the intent cannot be read to set N equal to any other number besides 1. Aris's reasons do not establish any unclarity or ambiguity about whether N=1. E says that "'if any one objects then I won't' is a stated plan", but it was not a "plan"--it was a clear statement that I would not execute the intent if "one" person objected (thereby setting N=1). Aris does not explain why anyone could be "unclear" about the number of objections required to prevent me from taking the action. And Aris does not claim it is "ambiguous", I think, because e does not offer an interpretation of the intent that would set N equal any number other than 1. In sum, the announcement clearly and unambiguously declared that the stated intent would not be executed if there was one (1) objection, and that is all the Rule requires to set N=1. The CFJ should be judged TRUE. On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 3:50 PM Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > > Fun!! > > CFJ, barring D Margaux (and noting to the Arbitor that twg is self- > interested): > > D Margaux has won the game by apathy. > > > Arguments: > > There's strong language in the rules for specifying intent announcements, > and I believe precedents hold that you have to be really really darn > clear about intent announcements: > > R1728: > 1. A person (the initiator) announced intent to perform the > action, unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and > method(s) (including the value of N and/or T for each method), > at most fourteen days earlier. > > "Unambiguously and clearly" is a strong standard, and I'm not sure the > announcement in question is "clear". > > And very specifically, in the above, you must be "(including the value of > N and/or T for each method)". In eir announcement of intent, e refers to > 1728(1) which is "without N Objections", and e didn't specify that N=1. > While "without objection" is "shorthand" for 1, 1 is not the "default" > N for 1728(1) if the words "without objection" are left out. Saying > "if any one objects then I won't" is a stated plan, but it is not > synonymous with nor generally accepted (i.e. "clear") shorthand for N=1. > > > [Not part-of-arguments note: I'm maybe 50/50 on this, a v. nice attempt, > but one way or the other definitely worth a CFJ!] > > > On Thu, 13 Sep 2018, D Margaux wrote: > > Having heard no objection, I DECLARE APATHY pursuant to Rule 2465, > > specifying all players currently located at (-2, 2), in particular, myself > > and twg. > > > > In celebration thereof, > > > > I give one incense to Agora, as an offering to the Gods of the Game, > > and > > > > I give one incense to twg, in gratitude to em for not raining on this > > parade. > > > > -D Margaux > > > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > > From: D Margaux <dmargaux...@gmail.com> > > Date: Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 3:09 PM > > Subject: Fair Warning re Blots/Reports/Etc. > > To: Agora Business <agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> > > > > > > The enforcement of late reports has been lax in recent weeks, so it seems > > only fair to warn everyone--I plan to issue 2 blot unforgiveable fines this > > upcoming Thursday for any weekly/monthly reports that are due today and are > > not submitted by end of day on this upcoming Wednesday. If there are more > > than 3 such late reports, then I plan to invoke R2532 to have my zombie > > Point eir Finger at the additional people, since I can't issue SJ to more > > than three people. I suspect that use of my zombie could be controversial, > > but Finger Pointing isn't listed as an excluded action by R2532, so I think > > it is permitted. Let me know if any one disagrees with that, though, and I > > might not do it that way. Also, maybe somewhat less controversially, I > > note that per the method in R1728(1) I plan to use/invoke R2465 on Thursday > > with regard to any players at that time who are located on (-2, 2), which I > > think is my land, but if any one objects to that then I won't. Thanks. > > >
