COURT GAZETTE (Arbitor's weekly report)
Disclaimer: Informational only. No actions are contained in this report.
Information in this report is not self-ratifying.
Open cases (CFJs)
-----------------
3645 called by Aris 20 June 2018, assigned to V.J. Rada 26 August 2018:
"G. has satisfied eir weekly obligation with regard to the FLR and SLR."
3648 called by G. 24 June 2018, assigned to V.J. Rada 26 August 2018:
"The fine levied on Corona for late Herald Tournament Regulations is
unforgivable for the purposes of R2559."
3652 called by G. 20 July 2018, assigned to Corona 26 August 2018: "If a
person pays the (nonzero) upkeep cost for eir Rank 1 facility and then
upgrades it to Rank 2 in the same month, e must pay the full Rank 2
upkeep cost to prevent its end-of-the-month destruction."
(13 August 2018: G. submitted a CFJ, then withdrew it)
3655 called by twg 25 August 2018 (barring G.), assigned to Murphy 26
August 2018: "Aris CAN add Proposal 8077 back to the Proposal Pool by
announcement."
3656 called by D. Margaux 25 August 2018 (barring twg), assigned to
Murphy 26 August 2018: "D. Margaux currently has in eir possession 5
incense."
(27 August 2018: twg submitted another CFJ in same message as 3658, then
retracted it on 30 August)
3658 called by twg 27 August 2018, assigned to G. 9 September 2018: "The
Treasuror's report of August 27, 2018, or a portion thereof, is
doubted."
Highest numbered case: 3658
Context/arguments/evidence are included at the bottom of this report.
Recently-delivered verdicts and implications
--------------------------------------------
3653 called by G. 20 July 2018, judged FALSE by Aris 26 August 2018: "If
a facility has an upkeep cost of 0 (i.e. null), the owner must announce
an attempt to pay 0 in a month (or otherwise publicly note) the upkeep
cost of 0 to prevent its end-of-the-month destruction."
3657 called by twg 26 August 2018, judged FALSE by G. 26 August 2018:
"This message contains a valid Notice of Honour."
Day Court Judge Recent
------------------------------
Corona 3641, 3638, 3645, 3652
[06/17 07/08 07/31 08/26]
Murphy 3628, 3633, 3654, 3655, 3656
[03/01 07/08 07/31 08/26 08/26]
V.J. Rada 3649, 3643, 3638, 3648, 3645
[07/01 07/22 07/31 08/26 08/26]
Weekend Court Judge Recent (generally gets half as many cases)
------------------------------
ATMunn 3648
[06/24]
G. 3657, 3658
[08/26 09/09]
D. Margaux ----
(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
--------------------------
*** 3645 caller Aris's evidence, quoting G.:
The FLR and SLR are up to date (up to Proposal 8052, and including
revision for the recent CoE on the Treasuror Rule):
https://agoranomic.org/ruleset/slr.txt
https://agoranomic.org/ruleset/flr.txt
I'm not publishing them, because there is (or was) a message size-
limit on BUS that was specifically removed in OFF for the purpose of
ruleset publication. I don't want to add to any confusion in case
the rulesets bounce from BUS.
*** 3645 caller Aris's arguments, responding to ais523:
> Are you sure this isn't publishing them? People have been able to
> publish things as attachements, hidden in headers, etc. with a
> reference to them in the main message, so I don't see why posting a URL
> that has consistent, known information would necessarily be different.
>
> This may satisfy a requirement to post the rulesets, and if it doesn't
> it's probably because of your disclaimer.
I'm inclined to think that the disclaimer is ineffective for that purpose.
A report occurs when an officer publishes certain information, whether they
want it to or not. Posting the links may count for that purpose, as long as
the text on the other end is labeled as a report, and has all required
information.
*** 3645 G.'s gratuitous arguments:
Well considering I've still got a terminal window open, I could change the
link contents instantly to anything before most people will have seen
it. Definitely not out of my TDOC if the content of those links is the
only evidence.
I suppose (now that those links are tied to a github repo) one could
cross-reference my message timing to commit timing.
Overall though, I'm pretty sure we've been strong on "publishing X" means
actually publishing the full contents of X, otherwise it's ISID. The cases
that allowed outside references are generally by-announcement actions,
where outside references work because the specification is like this:
"clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs it"
for this, "announcing e performs it" must be included in the actual
announcement, but the "clearly specifying" part can lead to a link that
has a clear specification.
So this would work: "I do as in link X" -> [link X] "I support" because
e announces "I do...", but just providing the same link without an
announced verb/context doesn't do the trick.
There are currently several people who can push to those links (via GitHub)
without the push/overwrite being visible or evident to someone following the
link. However, the underlying github repo (not findable from those links)
would show the commit history that can be cross-referenced link publication
timestamps (e.g. as CFJ evidence).
The judge should consider whether it's "beyond a reasonable effort" for a
typical player to check the underlying evidence (including comparing message
and github date stamps) when verifying whether a document is the correct
one.
(this is a "if the rules are silent...for the good of the game" argument if
the matter is otherwise unclear).
I'm thinking of this in terms of trying out github as a public forum,
I'm not
opposed in principle, but the default interface of github focuses on the
Now,
and requires more digging to go through history as opposed to say the mail
archives (e.g. if an officer is ordering transactions in a log or needs to
know if A happened before B). Not sure if there's some tools that I don't
know about that would make it easier.
*** 3648 caller G.'s evidence:
Published by G. on 20 Jun 2018 09:39:27 -0700 (PDT):
> I impose summary judgement as follows: I levy a fine of 2 Blots on
> Corona for failure to propose a set of Birthday Regulations in a timely
> fashion after June 1 (R2495).
*** 3648 caller G.'s arguments:
R2559 reads in part:
> 2. For each office, if a single player held that office for 16 or
> more days in the previous month and no unforgivable fines were
> levied on em for eir conduct in that office during that time,
> the following assets are created in the possession of that
> player:
"Unforgivable" isn't directly defined in the Ruleset. The definition
is by inference in R2557:
> Optionally, in the same message in which e imposes justice, the
> investigator CAN specify that the violation is forgivable,
> specifying up to 10 words to be included in an apology.
which implies that violations that aren't forgivable are unforgivable.
However, R2557 defines "forgivable" in the context of imposing justice
as per an investigation of a finger-pointing. The fine in question
was levied using R2479:
> The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, impose
> Summary Judgment on a person who plays the game by levying a fine
> of up to 2 blots on em.
which does not mention any notion of forgiveness.
There are two reasonable readings, I'm not sure which is correct:
1. Since the fine isn't defined as forgivable, it's unforgivable.
2. Since the rule under which the fine was levied do not mention the
concept, the fine is neither forgivable nor unforgivable.
FWIW, I didn't think about it one way or the other when I imposed the
fine, if I'd thought about it I would have (tried to) specify it as
forgivable.
After reading Rules a few more times, I think this is answered by this
clause in R2479:
> Summary Judgement is imposed on the
> Referee's own initiative, and not in response to any official
> proceeding.
I think the Finger -> Investigation -> Forgiveness is an "official
proceeding", and since summary judgement is explicitly stated to be
outside of that, any resulting penalties are neither forgivable or
unforgivable.
*** 3652 caller G.'s arguments:
Rule 2560 (Facilities) reads in part:
If an entity other than Agora owns any facilities with upkeep
costs, e must pay them before the first day of the next Agoran
month. Failing to do this destroys the facility. In the second to
last Eastman week of the Agoran Month, the Cartographor SHOULD
issue a humiliating public reminder to all those who have not paid
upkeep fees on any of eir facilities.
There's a few ways of interpreting this clause:
1. At the end of the month, the facility is Rank 2 and has a Rank 2 Upkeep
cost. Has the Rank 2 Upkeep cost been paid? If not, the facility is
destroyed. (argument for TRUE).
2. At the end of the month, has e paid an appropriate upkeep cost for that
facility at any point in the month? If so, e has met the conditions, even
if the upkeep cost later changes, and the facility is not destroyed
(argument
for FALSE).
3. Upkeep costs are additive - if e payed the Rank 1 fee, e can later pay
the difference after e upgrades (FALSE with different implications - I don't
think this one holds up under precedent of single payment for fees, but
including for completeness).
In interpreting, note the new Rules definition of costs/fees in EVIDENCE,
below.
*** 3653 caller G.'s arguments:
Rule 2560 (Facilities) reads in part:
If an entity other than Agora owns any facilities with upkeep
costs, e must pay them before the first day of the next Agoran
month. Failing to do this destroys the facility. In the second to
last Eastman week of the Agoran Month, the Cartographor SHOULD
issue a humiliating public reminder to all those who have not paid
upkeep fees on any of eir facilities.
Prior to the adoption of Proposal 8055, it was unclear whether a facility
with a defined upkeep cost of 0 (as opposed to no upkeep cost) needed some
kind of announcement to prevent its destruction, but the Cartographer and
the rest of us had assumed it meant "no action necessary" (and all records
have self-ratified with this assumption).
Proposal 8055 created the power-3 "Fee-based Actions" Rule, which includes:
If the Rules associate payment of a set of assets (hereafter
the fee for the action; syns: cost, price, charge) with performing an
action, that action is a fee-based action.
and also:
If the Rules define a fee-based action but the specified
set of assets is the empty set, then the action can be performed by
announcement, but the announcement must include that there
is an (empty or 0) fee for the action.
This implies some kind of announcement is now necessary. However, it's far
from clear. In particular, the "associated action" for Upkeep Costs is not
a direct action, but something like paying the fee itself, or "preventing
end-of-the-month destruction" or something.
*** 3652-53 caller G.'s evidence:
Full text of Fee-based Actions (power-3):
If the Rules associate payment of a set of assets (hereafter
the fee for the action; syns: cost, price, charge) with performing an
action, that action is a fee-based action.
If the fee is a non-integer quantity of a fungible asset, the actual
fee is the next highest integer amount of that asset.
To perform a fee-based action, an entity (the Actor) who is
otherwise permitted to perform the action must announce that e
is performing the action; the announcement must specify the
correct set of assets for the fee and indicate intent
to pay that fee for the sole purpose of performing the action.
Upon such an announcement:
- If the Rules specify a recipient for the fee, and the Actor
CAN transfer that specified fee from emself to the recipient,
then that fee is transferred from the Actor to the recipient
and the action is performed simultaneously;
- If the Rules do not specify a recipient, and the Actor CAN
destroy the specified fee in eir possession, then that fee
in eir possession is destroyed and the action is
performed simultaneously.
- Otherwise, no changes are made to asset holdings and the
action is not performed.
If the Rules define a fee-based action but the specified
set of assets is the empty set, then the action can be performed by
announcement, but the announcement must include that there
is an (empty or 0) fee for the action.
*** 3652 Aris's gratuituous quasi-arguments:
No argument on CFJ 1 yet, although I agree that interpretation 3 seems
rather unlikely. I favor interpretation 2, but haven't come up with a
non-trivial argument for it.
*** 3653 Aris's gratuituous arguments:
Argument for FALSE on CFJ 2:
The relevant portion of R2560 only applies to facilities "with upkeep
costs". It is my contention that this implies that the upkeep cost must be
non-null, or the fee is inapplicable in the first place. Our common sense
assumption is that a fee of 0 is no fee. Fee-based Actions changes the
assumption, but only once a fee is actually imposed. There would be no need
for a conditional imposition in R2560 if that rule meant to impose the null
fee.
*** 3653 judge Aris's arguments:
This will be a summary opinion, I'm afraid, as I'm pretty busy. No fee
is associated with upkeep, because a fee must be associated "with
performing an
action", and paying upkeep is paying the fee, not using it to perform an
action. Now generally, we should apply similar doctrines to similar cases,
so it would make sense to apply the fee-based action rule as guidance
in this case. However, having to announce that one is paying the null fee
makes decidedly more sense when one has to announce that one is taking an
action anyway. For this reason, I rule that no such announcement is required
in this case. FALSE.
*** 3653 judge Aris's evidence:
Fee-based Actions Rule
If the Rules associate payment of a set of assets (hereafter
the fee for the action; syns: cost, price, charge) with performing an
action, that action is a fee-based action.
If the fee is a non-integer quantity of a fungible asset, the actual
fee is the next highest integer amount of that asset.
To perform a fee-based action, an entity (the Actor) who is
otherwise permitted to perform the action must announce that e
is performing the action; the announcement must specify the
correct set of assets for the fee and indicate intent
to pay that fee for the sole purpose of performing the action.
Upon such an announcement:
- If the Rules specify a recipient for the fee, and the Actor
CAN transfer that specified fee from emself to the recipient,
then that fee is transferred from the Actor to the recipient
and the action is performed simultaneously;
- If the Rules do not specify a recipient, and the Actor CAN
destroy the specified fee in eir possession, then that fee
in eir possession is destroyed and the action is
performed simultaneously.
- Otherwise, no changes are made to asset holdings and the
action is not performed.
If the Rules define a fee-based action but the specified
set of assets is the empty set, then the action can be performed by
announcement, but the announcement must include that there
is an (empty or 0) fee for the action.
Rule 2560/1 (Power=2.0)
Facilities
Facilities are liquid assets tracked by the Cartographor. In order
for a facility to exist, it must be built on a Land Unit. Only one
facility is allowed per Land Unit. The Land Unit on which a
Facility is built is considered its Parent Land Unit.
A player CAN create a facility by announcement on the land unit e
is on by specifying which type of facility e intends to build and
destroying the build cost. Facilities on proprietary land can be
destroyed by the owner by announcement. Facilities on public land
can be destroyed Without Objection.
If an entity other than Agora owns any facilities with upkeep
costs, e must pay them before the first day of the next Agoran
month. Failing to do this destroys the facility. In the second to
last Eastman week of the Agoran Month, the Cartographor SHOULD
issue a humiliating public reminder to all those who have not paid
upkeep fees on any of eir facilities.
Facilities always have the same owner as their parent land unit.
If the owner of a facility is ever not the same as that of its
parent land unit, it is transferred to the owner of its parent
land unit.
*** 3655 caller twg's arguments:
Actually, upon re-reading rule 2350/9, I think my statement that
proposals can't be distributed three times may be incorrect. It would
make more sense if the word "once" in the rule meant a proposal could
only be redistributed once each time it failed quorum (which is
eminently sensible - imagine if there were two simultaneous votes on the
same proposal and they had different results!), not that it could only
be redistributed once ever.
(G. replied:)
If I ask the question: "has the Promotor added Proposal 8077 back
to the proposal pool once?" the answer right now would be yes, so if
e added it again it would be twice, which the rule doesn't allow
em to do.
(twg replied:)
Ah, but it does allow em to do that. When the proposal failed quorum the
first time, the rule authorised em to re-add it once, and just now when
it failed quorum again, the rule authorised em to re-add it once again,
for a total of two times. In my opinion, anyway.
*** 3656 caller D. Margaux's arguments:
Argument in favor: R2499 does state quite clearly that, as part of the
Welcome Package, “Agora creates ... the ... /assets/” of “5 incense” in the
welcomed Player’s possession. So I believe that Rule does establish that
incense is an asset (a pointless one, admittedly), and awards it as part of
a Welcome Package, as its text straightforwardly says. Certainly, it is
absurd to create an asset that has no useful purpose and that is referenced
nowhere else in the Rules, but, under R217, such an absurdity affords no
reason to ignore the text of R2499.
*** 3657 text referenced by CFJ:
The following is a Notice of Honour:
+1 Agora (setting up a scenario for a CFJ)
-1 Agora (setting up a scenario for a CFJ)
*** 3657 caller twg's arguments:
CuddleBeam attempted to query this in CFJ 3638, but didn't include the
word "valid", so Judge V.J. Rada interpreted it literally (it is a
Notice of Honour, regardless of whether it is valid or not). But that
didn't resolve the question of whether it is possible to affect Agora's
karma like this: do the addition and subtraction of karma happen
consecutively (meaning Agora's karma moves further away from 0 before
moving back again, making the Notice invalid) or concurrently?
*** 3657 caller twg's later arguments:
Oh dear. I've just noticed that the quoted Notice of Honour was
published last Monday, so my CFJed one about Agora's karma was my second
this week, and therefore invalid regardless of the actual question of
law.
*** 3657 judge G.'s arguments:
First, this is trivially FALSE as the message in question was the second
Notice of Honour submitted by the caller in the week. So I find FALSE.
However, laying aside that trivial issue, I'd like to address this bit
of relevant argument from CuddleBeam, who gives two possibilities:
> - It's not a notice of honor because it causes Agora's Honor to go
> further away from 0 and only an individual action happens per instant
> as per CFJ 2086, so the -1 would need to happen first, but since it
> would make Agora's Honor go further than 0, it doesn't happen.
> - It's a notice of honor because the notice of honor as a single unit
> is the action, not the individual movements it's composed of.
By R2510, a notice of Honour is a single action that a player CAN do:
> A player CAN publish a Notice of Honour...
Since there's no way that a player CAN publish half a notice-of-honour
and have it be valid, it's a single action.
This is further backed later in the rule, where it defines the results
of a Notice of Honour as a "transfer". Using the common sense
interpretation of transfer (as with assets), a transfer is a single
action that happens to simultaneously change two records (the balances
of both parties involved).
Finally it is clear from the list structure in R2510:
> For a Notice of Honour to be valid, it must:
[...]
> 4. Not result in Agora's karma moving farther away from 0.
that the "result" applies to the effects of the overall notice of honour
(the simultaneous increase/decrease), not to the other individual items
on the list (1-3).
So if it weren't for the twice-in-one-week thing, a "to Agora -> from
Agora" Notice of Honour would be valid.
*** 3657 judge G.'s evidence:
Rule 2510/3 (Power=1.0)
Such is Karma
Karma is a person switch tracked by the Herald in eir Weekly
Report. Karma is an Integer switch. Agora also has an instance of
the Karma switch.
A player CAN publish a Notice of Honour. For a Notice of Honour
to be valid, it must:
1. Be clear that it is a Notice of Honour, and be the first valid
Notice of Honour that player has published in the current week;
2. Specify any other player or Agora to gain karma, and provide a
reason for specifying that player; and
3. Specify any player or Agora to lose karma, and provide a reason
for specifying that player.
4. Not result in Agora's karma moving farther away from 0.
When a valid Notice of Honour is published, the entity specified
to gain karma has eir karma increased by one, and the entity
specified to lose karma has eir karma decreased by one. Raising
one entity's karma while lowering another's in this manner is
considered to be a "transfer" of karma.
A player's positions in Court are defined as follows:
- Any player with a karma of 7 or greater is a Samurai.
- Any player with a karma of -7 or less is an Gamma.
- The player with the highest karma (if any) is the Shogun.
- The player with the lowest karma (if any) is the Honourless
Worm.
Each player's positions in Court are part of of the Herald's
Weekly Report.
*** 3658 caller twg's arguments:
On August 27, 2018 5:47 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> CoE: If incense is defined in the new ruleset, it was never repealed
> and we should all have whatever we had when it was last reported,
> unless a report ratified that explicitly stated Incense was 0.
> Only changes would be if, say, some of us transferred it using "all
> liquid currencies" or the like.
>
> Since each asset-type report self-ratifies independently (I think), the
> Treasuror's Reports that were missing incense data should be interpreted
> as just not having that data and being incomplete reports, with no
> implication that the missing data were self-ratified to 0.
>
> (This is just a guess idk, I'm not that bothered but let's not lose all
> our useless stuff if we still got it :P ).
No, I think you're right (though I'm not absolutely sure either). I
initially assumed the lack of a specified incense balance meant it was
at its default value (0), but rule 2166/26 defines any "portion of [a
recordkeepor]'s report" that is "a list of all instances of [a class of
assets] and their owners" - not the entirety of the recordkeepor's
report - as a self-ratifying document.
An interesting repercussion, if that interpretation is correct, is that
CoEs can be made against the balances for _specific asset classes_,
without blocking the rest of the report from self-ratifying. This might
potentially mean that many, many previous CoEs against the Treasuror
report (and possibly other reports?) have never been valid doubts,
because the way we usually phrase it - "CoE: X is wrong" - is ambiguous:
it might be a CoE against any one of the self-ratifying documents that
make up the Treasuror report.
What a headache.
