Work and life have both been busy this week, and I unfortunately haven't had
time to update the context/arguements/evidence section below. Very sorry. I
hope to have time to update it in a revised version at some point this week.
I publish this report:
COURT GAZETTE (Arbitor's weekly report)
Date of last report: 07 Feb 2019
Date of this report: 17 Feb 2019
Version of this report: 1
Disclaimer: Informational only. No actions are contained in this report.
Information in this report is not self-ratifying. The
context/arguements/evidence section is in need of updating, and will hopefully
be updated in a forthcoming revised version.
Open cases (CFJs)
-----------------
3701 called 01 February 2019 by G., assigned 03 February 2019 to Trigon, reassigned 17
February 2019 to D. Margaux: "If the definition of quanging a player had not been
explicitly included in the message in evidence, the attempt to transfer currencies on
behalf of Tenhigitsune would have failed."
3704 called 05 February 2019 by D. Margaux, assigned 07 February 2019 to Murphy, Murphy
recused 10 February 2019, reassigned to Trigon 10 February 2019: "There were no
objections made to D. Margaux’s January 29 intent to transfer to players other than emself
and eir zombie the spaceships in the lost & found department."
*3712 called 14 February 2019 by Falsifian, assigned 15 February 2019 to Trigon:
"Agora is not Satisfied with an intent to perform an action unless it is to be
performed With Notice or With T Notice. In particular, Gaelan's recent attempt to Declare
Apathy on February 7, 2019 was ineffective, and D. Margaux's dependent actions in their
recent message that starts 'I thought for sure people would object...' were
ineffective."
Highest numbered case: 3715
Context/arguments/evidence are included at the bottom of this report.
Recently-delivered verdicts and implications
--------------------------------------------
3700 called 01 February 2019 by G., assigned 03 February 2019 to Trigon, judged TRUE 06
February 2019 by Trigon, self-filed motion for reconsideration and recusal 07 February
2019 by Trigon, reassigned 07 February 2019 to Murphy, judged TRUE 10 February 2019 by
Murphy: "In the message quoted in evidence, D. Margaux earned at least 1 coin."
3702 called 01 February 2019 by Cuddle Beam, assigned 03 February 2019 to ATMunn,
reassigned 12 February 2019 to D. Margaux, judged TRUE 12 February 2019 by D. Margaux:
"Gaelan's (only) ship is at Sector 4."
3703 called 6 February 2019 by twg, assigned 6 February 2019 to Murphy, judged IRRELEVANT
10 February 2019 by Murphy: "If and when -N (negative N) coins are revoked from an
entity, where N is a natural number, that entity's coin balance increases by N."
*3705 called 9 February 2019 by twg, assigned 10 February 2019 to G., judged FALSE 10
February 2019 by G.: "I own an Indigo Ribbon."
*3706 called 9 February 2019 by twg, assigned 10 February 2019 to G., judged TRUE 14
February 2019 by G.: "All Players are parties to the Rules as a contract."
*3707 called 9 February 2019 by twg, assigned 10 February 2019 to G., judged DISMISS 11
February 2019 by G.: "The Ruleset (as a contract) now has 1 coin."
*3708 called 10 February 2019 by D. Margaux, assigned 10 February 2019 to G., judged
FALSE 13 February 2019 by G.: "The parties to an existing contract CAN agree to
amend it by adding additional players as parties, even if those additional players did
not expressly agree to be party to that contract apart from agreeing to be bound by the
Rules generally."
*3709 called 7 February 2019 by Gaelan, assigned 7 February 2019 to Aris, judged FALSE 7
February 2019 by Aris, motion for reconsideration filed 7 February 2019 by G., judged
TRUE 14 February 2019 by Aris: "Gaelan won the game by one of the above declarations
of apathy."
*3710 called 7 February 2019 by Gaelan, assigned 7 February 2019 to Aris, judged FALSE 7
February 2019 by Aris, motion for reconsideration filed 7 February 2019 by G., judged
TRUE 14 February 2019 by Aris: "Gaelan won the game twice by the above declarations
of apathy."
*3711 called 12 February 2019 by Falsifian, assigned 12 February 2019 to D. Margaux,
judged FALSE 13 February 2019 by D. Margaux: "It is Falsifian's Agoran Birthday
today (the day beginning at midnight UTC on February 13, 2019)."
*3713 called 13 February 2019 by twg, assigned 13 February 2019 to G., judged FALSE 15
February 2019 by G.: "Gaelan is impure."
*3714 called 30 January 2019 by G., assigned 15 February 2019 to D. Margaux, judged
DISMISS 15 February 2019 by D. Margaux: "Prior to calling this CFJ, G. earned 5
coins for judging CFJ 3698."
*3715 called 17 February 2019 by D. Margaux, assigned 17 February 2019 to ???, judged ???
17 February 2019 by ???: "This CFJ is FALSE."
-----
* Indicates that the context/evidence/arguements section is in need of updating
for this CFJ.
Day Court Judge Recent
------------------------------
D. Margaux 3685, 3686, 3690*, 3691*, 3694, 3702*, 3711, 3714,
3715(?), 3701
[11/02 11/02 12/25 12/25 01/20 02/12 02/12 02/15 02/17(?)
02/17]
G. 3679, 3680, 3688, 3691, 3695, 3696, 3697, 3698, 3705-08,
3713
[11/2 11/2 11/11 12/2 01/16 01/16 01/29 01/29 02/10 02/13]
Murphy 3682, 3678, 3687, 3689, 3703, 3700*, 3703, 3704
[11/1 11/4 11/10 11/14 02/06 02/07 02/06 02/07]
Trigon 3683, 3684, 3692, 3699, 3700, 3701, 3704*, 3712
[11/1 11/1 01/08 01/29 02/03 02/03 02/10 02/15]
Weekend Court Judge Recent (generally gets half as many cases)
------------------------------
[none]
---
* Indicates that the CFJ was reassigned to this judge.
? Indicates that it is uncertain whether the CFJ was actually assigned to this
judge.
These are informal designations. Requests to join/leave a given court
will be noted. Individual requests to be assigned a specific case will
generally be honored, even for non-court judges.
Context/arguments/evidence
--------------------------
********************* CFJ 3700
***3700 Caller's message from G.:
Ok the moot ain't happening let's start again.
CFJ: In the message quoted in evidence, D. Margaux earned at least 1 coin.
I bar twg.
(I suggest Trigon as judge if e's willing!)
ARGUMENTS
The requirement for earning a reward is explicit and literal in R2496: a
player does it by "stating how many assets e earns as a result". Accepting
quang in this context means accepting that you can state how many assets you
earn by NOT stating how many assets you earn. This is more nonsensical than
is usual even for Agora, and if Rule text and words are going to mean
anything, it simply shouldn't work.
EVIDENCE
On 1/29/2019 9:17 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
I quang Arbitor and Registrar
***3700 gratuitous arguement by twg:
Counter-argument: To "quang" an office was earlier defined as being to earn 5
coins for publishing that office's most recent report, and appears now to have
entered common Agoran parlance (totally unintentionally on my part, I assure
you). The set of assets "5 coins" is part of the definition of "quang", and
therefore a statement that one quangs _is_ a statement that one earns 5 coins.
A similar situation would be if somebody said, "I earn a number of coins 1
greater than 4 for publishing the most recent Arbitraryofficor report." E would
not have explicitly used the digit "5" in the string of characters making up
eir statement, but it quite clearly means exactly the same thing as "I earn 5
coins for publishing the most recent Arbitraryofficor report.", and should be
acceptable to R2496.
-twg
***3700 gratuitous arguement by Cuddle Beam:
Counter-argument: It's invalid because they obviously didn't shimmy the
dimmies.
***3700 initial judgement by Trigon:
CFJ STATEMENT
===============
CFJ: In the message quoted in evidence, D. Margaux earned at least 1 coin.
EVIDENCE
==========
The message in question, by D. Margaux on January 29:
I quang Arbitor and Registrar
The original definition of "quang" in relation to an office, by twg on
January 8:
To "quang" an office is to earn 5 coins for publishing that office's
most recent report.
ARGUMENTS
===========
From G.:
------------
The requirement for earning a reward is explicit and literal in R2496: a
player does it by "stating how many assets e earns as a result". Accepting
quang in this context means accepting that you can state how many assets you
earn by NOT stating how many assets you earn. This is more nonsensical than
is usual even for Agora, and if Rule text and words are going to mean
anything, it simply shouldn't work.
From twg:
-------------
Counter-argument: To "quang" an office was earlier defined as being to earn 5
coins for publishing that office's most recent report, and appears now to have
entered common Agoran parlance (totally unintentionally on my part, I assure
you). The set of assets "5 coins" is part of the definition of "quang", and
therefore a statement that one quangs _is_ a statement that one earns 5 coins.
A similar situation would be if somebody said, "I earn a number of coins 1
greater than 4 for publishing the most recent Arbitraryofficor report." E would
not have explicitly used the digit "5" in the string of characters making up
eir statement, but it quite clearly means exactly the same thing as "I earn 5
coins for publishing the most recent Arbitraryofficor report.", and should be
acceptable to R2496.
From Cuddlebeam:
--------------------
Counter-argument: It's invalid because they obviously didn't shimmy the
dimmies.
JUDGEMENT
===========
In the same message as quanging was defined ([1]), I believe it's pretty
obvious that quanging works. Using the original example:
I quang Treasuror. I quang Referee. I quang Tailor.
Now, performing the substituion described in the original definition of
quanging:
I earn five coins for publishing the Treasuror's most recent report. I
earn five coins for publishing the Referee's most recent report. I
earn five coins for publishing the Tailor's most recent report.
This results in fifteen coins being gained from these three actions.
Now, apply that to the message in question:
I earn five coins for publishing the Arbitor's most recent report and
I earn five coins for publishing the Registrar's most recent report.
Whether or not most people now use "quang" to mean its original
definition is irrelevant, I believe, as the definition clearly describes
earning five coins as part of the process of quanging.
I'm sorry, G., if you wanted a different outcome, but I'm going to judge
TRUE on this one.
[1] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg33212.html
