DIS: Re: OFF: Short Logical Ruleset

[Charles Reiss]

On 1/13/13 12:34 PM, omd wrote:
> THE SHORT LOGICAL RULESET
> 
> Last updated: 16 October 2012
> 
> Last proposal with recorded effect on this ruleset: 7317
> Last change to this ruleset: by Rule 2380
> 
> Last ratification: Short Logical Ruleset of 24 June 2012
> Last ratification date: 7 July 2012
> 
> Highest Rule ID number ever assigned: 2384

Claim of error: This ruleset fails to incorporate the effects of passed 
proposals 7319, 7321, 7325,
and 7326.

- woggle

DIS: Re: BUS: Intents

[Charles Reiss]

On 1/14/13 6:54 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> For each of the following players, I intent, without objection, to
> make em inactive:
> 
> Arkady
> FKA441344
> moonroof
> Phlogistique
> Yally
> 
> (None have sent a message to the lists in at least 2 months as far as
> I can tell, some of them as much as 5 months. Also, it's shocking to
> me that I'm still Active, but I appear to be.)

I believe FKA441344 was already made inactive by omd around 18 Dec 2012.

- woggle

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1831b: assign Iammars, OscarMeyr, root

[Charles Reiss]

On Jan 1, 2008 11:28 AM, Iammars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When you say concurring opinion, do you want an opinion on the original
> statement or an opinion on why it should be appealed?

Rule 911 defines the term:
  A panel CAN publish a concurring opinion when judging AFFIRM,
  and SHALL do so if and only if the reasoning by which the prior
  judge reached eir judgement was incorrect in whole or part.
  Each concurring opinion SHALL explain the nature of the error(s)
  in the prior judge's reasoning.  Each concurring opinion has an
  error rating, an integer from 1 to 99; it CAN be specified by
  the panel when the concurring opinion is published, or else
  defaults to 50.

Concurring opinions were added by proposal 5359, which is rather
recent, and I don't think they've been used yet (and thus it seems the
mark penalty originally envisioned will never take effect).

- woggle

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1846a: assign Goethe, root, woggle (fwd)

[Charles Reiss]

On Jan 7, 2008 2:08 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Now combined with root's.
>
> I intend to act as following on behalf of the Panel:
>
> The panel overrules to TRUE.  The judge has only been cursory in examining
> the purpose of words: eg, communication.  In particular, for the purposes
> of apology, we have been flexible in the past, allowed nonsense or difficult
> words so that the apology means something (or is colorful).  We have a
> history of allowing color at the expense of strictness here, for example, the
> wordlist in CFJ 1424 included a three word phrase ("peanutty caramel sauce")
> as one word.  This word list(*) (2 obscure words, 2 "nonsense" words that have
> previously gained an Agoran context) is not even a particularly egregious
> example of nonsense, and communicates the spirit of an apology to be written
> in the context of the Agoran culture of the moment.
>
> (*)Analysis by Justice root: Zenzizenzizenzic is indeed an English word,
> albeit obsolete, meaning the eighth power of a number.  I've never heard of
> ishkabibble before, but it has 31,400 hits on Google and an Urban Slang
> Dictionary entry, so I'm willing to accept it.  Fookiemyartug is clearly
> acceptable as the name of an entity relevant to Agora.  The only question
> in my mind is whether nkep can at this point be considered an established word
> with an established definition.  Since the word was selected by BobTHJ, who
> has in the past clearly indicated the definition e prefers for it, I think
> that it is reasonably acceptable.

I consent to this judgement.

The rule does not appear to impose any limitations on the choice of
words and how they must be used in the apology, so I do not believe
there is any reason to verify that they meet any thresholds of
meaningfulness.

-woggle

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 1850

[Charles Reiss]

On Jan 7, 2008 6:02 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> I intend to appeal this judgement.

Maybe you'd like to describe the method of dependent action as rule
1728 would seem to require to initiate an Agoran decision on this
matter?

- woggle

DIS: Re: BUS: Fixing the Right of Attorney system

[Charles Reiss]

On Jan 8, 2008 6:26 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I submit the following proposal (AI=2, coauthor to anyone who tells me what
> needs to be fixed, if anything):
> Create a rule title "Power of Attorney", Power 2, with the following text:
> A Power of Attorney is a kind of public contract with two parties, referred to
> as the Granter and the Grantee.
> The Granter of a Power of Attorney is in no way restricted from acting on eir
> own behalf. The Grantee may only act on behalf of the Granter as permitted by
> the contract, and only as allowed by the rules.
> A Power of Attorney may be disbanded by any player with 2 support. When a

You should prevent them from quickly creating a new Power of Attorney
afterwards -- especially if the requirement is changed from 2 support
to Agoran consent, in which case it would take 4 days to disband each
new PoA. In this time (and with a sufficiently well written PoA), I
think a crafty grantee could create a new PoA contract and agree to it
on behalf of the granter.

> Power of Attorney is disbanded in this faction, then, without objection, the
> Granter is deregistered.
>
> Amend rule 1504 by adding, after "The CotC's report includes the status of all
> active sentences.", the following:
> If a Grantee of a Power of Attorney caused the Granter to breach a rule, then
> the sentence shall be applied to the Grantee rather than the Granter, if the
> Grantee is a player.

-woggle

Re: DIS: Proto-Judgement CFJ 1862

[Charles Reiss]

On Jan 10, 2008 4:58 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 10, 2008 2:38 PM, Iammars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > FACT 4: Bearing Patent Titles isn't limited to persons. (Only being awarded
> > a patent title is limited to persons.)
>
> Devil's advocate here.  What about the first sentence of Rule 649: "A
> Patent Title is a legal item of recognition of a person's
> distinction"?  If HP2 ceases to be a person, then eir patent titles
> cease to recognize eir distinction, so they cease to be patent titles.
>  The question then is whether they cease to exist entirely, or whether
> they regain their patent title status upon HP2 regaining its
> personhood.

Counter-argument: since "[t]he status of Bearing a Patent Title can
only be changed as explicitly set out in the Rules" and removing the
patent-title for non-personhood would be only implicitly set out in
the rules, it stays regardless of what the definition would seem to
imply. But then there's the problem of how one can read the definition
at the beginning of a rule consistently given this. Perhaps most
reasonable would be that it is the recognition of the distinction of a
person at the time conditions for award of the title were met.

-woggle

DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1860a: assign Murphy, root, woggle

[Charles Reiss]

On Jan 11, 2008 5:49 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I hereby assign the judicial panel of Murphy, root, and woggle as judge
> of CFJ 1860a.

Proto-judgement here:

With the consent of Murphy and root, I intend to have the panel rule REASSIGN.

Arguments:
The original judge's ruling is clearly wrong, since it is clearly a
violation of rule 2159 to claim (to any nomic) a document to be a
protective decree even if that document does not meet the definition
of protective decree and even if the alleged protective decree does
not apply to the nomic in question. I think that BobTHJ's ruling is
too tainted to allow a simple ruling of REMAND.

Upon reassigning, the new judge is advised to consider BobTHJ's
arguments on the nomichood of Steve Wallace but also consider:
* whether Steve Wallace was a representative of or forum specified by
a nomic such that proclaiming to him would be proclaiming to that
nomic, including specifically, whether Steve Wallace's attempted
participation in Agora had this effect; and
* whether the statement's use of the vague "something" instead of
"document" matters.

-woggle

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1860a: assign Murphy, root, woggle

[Charles Reiss]

On Jan 11, 2008 4:50 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Friday 11 January 2008 10:55:49 Ian Kelly wrote:
> > On Jan 11, 2008 7:55 AM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Jan 11, 2008 5:49 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > I hereby assign the judicial panel of Murphy, root, and woggle as judge
> > > > of CFJ 1860a.
> > >
> > > Proto-judgement here:
> > >
> > > With the consent of Murphy and root, I intend to have the panel rule
> > > REASSIGN.
> > >
> > > Arguments:
> > > The original judge's ruling is clearly wrong, since it is clearly a
> > > violation of rule 2159 to claim (to any nomic) a document to be a
> > > protective decree even if that document does not meet the definition
> > > of protective decree and even if the alleged protective decree does
> > > not apply to the nomic in question. I think that BobTHJ's ruling is
> > > too tainted to allow a simple ruling of REMAND.
> > >
> > > Upon reassigning, the new judge is advised to consider BobTHJ's
> > > arguments on the nomichood of Steve Wallace but also consider:
> > > * whether Steve Wallace was a representative of or forum specified by
> > > a nomic such that proclaiming to him would be proclaiming to that
> > > nomic, including specifically, whether Steve Wallace's attempted
> > > participation in Agora had this effect; and
> > > * whether the statement's use of the vague "something" instead of
> > > "document" matters.
> >
> > I agree to this.
> >
> > -root
>
> I observe, for the sake of all it concerns, that Steve Wallace was not (as far
> as I'm aware) in a nomic at the time.

This, too, was my impression, and I'm not expecting fantastic evidence
to show that Steve Wallace was an ambassador for some other nomic. I
am more interested in whether UNDETERMINED may be applicable given our
incomplete information about other nomics.

-woggle

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Nominations

[Charles Reiss]

On Jan 11, 2008 7:13 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why would automatic assignment be too difficult? Posture and activity
> changes can easily be tracked manually, and if an occasional invalid
> judge were to be assigned due to the manual changes not being updated
> the judge assignment would still stand, no?

Assigning a poorly qualified judge (e.g. a sitting or leaning player
as a judge) would expose the CotC to criminal liability (breaking rule
1868) and would be easy for a player to cause deliberately given an
automated system.

(Assigning unqualified judges is IMPOSSIBLE, so it would just be
confusing until an effective assignment was made.)

-woggle

DIS: Proto-Proposal: Determined Partnerships

[Charles Reiss]

Proto-Proposal:
Title: "Determined Partnerships" (AI=2)
{
Amend rule 2145 by replacing the text:
  A partnership that is a public contract and whose basis contains
  at least two persons is a person.
with:
  If, using information required to be in officers' reports, it can be
  determined that a contract is a partnership whose basis contains
  at least two persons, then that contract is a person.
}

-woggle

DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1855: recuse, assign woggle

[Charles Reiss]

On Jan 14, 2008 10:51 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I hereby recuse comex from CFJ 1855.  I hereby assign woggle as judge
> of CFJ 1855.
>
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1855
>
> ==  CFJ 1855  ==
>
> Type:   inquiry case
>
> Statement: The AFO is not part of the basis of Agora's Child, but is a
>partner of Agora's Child.
[snip]
> 
>
> Initiator's Arguments:
>
> The AFO ceased to be a member of Agora's Child.
> The AFO is still named as an Ambassador of Agora's Child, and thereby is a
> partner by the rules of Agora (due to the duties of an Ambassador in Agora's
> Child).

I'm tempted to just rule IRRELEVANT because, as far as I can tell,
'partner' is not a term used or defined by the rules.

Otherwise a longer proto-judgement:
The AFO is trivially not part of the basis of Agora's Child because
there is no way for any person's basis to contain a non-first-class
person.

Though the exact definition of partner is unclear, being a partner in
a partnership would clearly require one or more of:
(a) being a party to the contract; and
(b) having the partnership's legal obligations devolved onto oneself.

If the AFO in fact ceased to be a party to Agora's Child, then it
could not have Agora's Child's legal obligations devovled onto itself:
Though Agora's Child recognizing, as a legal fiction within itself,
the AFO has an ambassador onto which its obligations are devolved,
absent a requirement in the Agoran rules for the AFO to follow this
agreement to which it is not a party, the obligations are not devolved
onto the AFO for the purposes of the rules of Agora.

The AFO purported to cease to be a player through the internal
mechanisms of Agora's Child. The clause in Agora's Child that permits
this is:
> '113.' A player always has the option to forfeit the game rather than continue
> to play or incur a game penalty. No penalty worse than losing, in the
> judgment of the player to incur it, may be imposed.
It would seem against the spirit of this clause (which takes
precedence over the clause which devolved Agora's Child's obligations
onto the AFO) for the AFO to continue to be bound in any way by the
Agora's Child agreement after forfeiting. Furthermore, the text of
Agora's Child does not explicitly define who the parties to the
agreement are; however, its rule 101 (All players must always abide by
all the rules then in effect, in the form in which they are then in
effect.), its mechanisms for adding and removing players, and that the
AFO was apparently considered a player by the internal mechanisms of
the Agora's Child agreement when it was formed between pikhq and the
AFO strongly suggest that Agora's Child's players are equivalent to
its parties. Thus, I conclude that by ceasing to be a player the AFO
ceased to be a party to the Agora's Child despite text in Agora's
Child that might appear to continue to bind it.

Thus, I proto-judge FALSE.

-woggle

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1860a: assign Murphy, root, woggle

[Charles Reiss]

On Jan 11, 2008 9:55 AM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 11, 2008 5:49 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I hereby assign the judicial panel of Murphy, root, and woggle as judge
> > of CFJ 1860a.
>
> Proto-judgement here:
>
> With the consent of Murphy and root, I intend to have the panel rule REASSIGN.

Having achieved the necessary consent, I cause the panel to judge
REASSIGN in CFJ 1860a.

>
> Arguments:
> The original judge's ruling is clearly wrong, since it is clearly a
> violation of rule 2159 to claim (to any nomic) a document to be a
> protective decree even if that document does not meet the definition
> of protective decree and even if the alleged protective decree does
> not apply to the nomic in question. I think that BobTHJ's ruling is
> too tainted to allow a simple ruling of REMAND.
>
> Upon reassigning, the new judge is advised to consider BobTHJ's
> arguments on the nomichood of Steve Wallace but also consider:
> * whether Steve Wallace was a representative of or forum specified by
> a nomic such that proclaiming to him would be proclaiming to that
> nomic, including specifically, whether Steve Wallace's attempted
> participation in Agora had this effect; and
> * whether the statement's use of the vague "something" instead of
> "document" matters.

-woggle

DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1868: notify woggle

[Charles Reiss]

On Jan 14, 2008 7:09 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> H. woggle, I hereby inform you of criminal case 1868 in which you are
> the defendant, and invite you to rebut the argument for your guilt.
>
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1868
>
> ==  CFJ 1868  ==
>
> Type:   criminal case
>
> Defendant:  woggle
>
> Rule:   911
>
> Action: assigning an inappropriate judgment to CFJ 1860a
>
> Initiator:  BobTHJ
>
> 
>
> Judge:  
>
> Culpability:inapplicable, open
>
> Sentencing: inapplicable, open
>
> 
>
> History:
>
> Initiated by BobTHJ:14 Jan 2008 23:43:10 GMT
> Defendant notified: (as of this message)
>
> 
>
> Initiator's Arguments:
>
> As H. Goethe pointed out, there was no serious doubt over
> the appropriateness of the judgment in CFJ 1860. Instead the decision
> to REASSIGN was made based upon the appeal panel's distaste for the
> bribery involved in my original judgment. R911 says:
>
> REASSIGN, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the
> appropriateness of the prior judgement
>
> Since this criteria was not met, the appeals panel assigned an
> inappropriate judgment.
>
> 
>

Proto-arguments in my defense:

Rule 911 does not impose any requirement on me, though it does define
when a judgement of REASSIGN is appropriate. Rule 2158 does impose a
requirement that the judge assign an appropriate judgement, but in CFJ
1860a I was not the judge, the judicial panel of root, woggle, and
Murphy was. If REASSIGN was an inappropriate judgement, then I may
have violated rule 2157 by failing to act to ensure that the panel
fulfills its obligations.

Nevertheless, I believe that REASSIGN was an entirely appropriate
judgement. In my arguments for the judgement I identified flaws in the
judge's final reasoning and issues that the judge's reasoning did not
consider at all. Each of these, alone, should be enough reason to cast
"serious doubt" on the appropriateness of BobTHJ's judgement.

Furthermore, even if I did consider BobTHJ's use of bribery to decide
to REASSIGN rather than REMAND or similar, which I assert I did not,
using this, combined with the flimsiness of BobTHJ's last paragraph of
arguments, as a reason to consider the appropriateness of the
judgement to be in serious doubt would be legitimate.

Even more generally, the appropriateness of a judgement of IRRELEVANT
on any question of whether an action violates a rule is almost always
of "serious doubt" if it were possible to perform the alleged action
(which it clearly is in this case). Performing the alleged action
could result in a criminal case with a judgement of, for example,
GUILTY - CHOKEY, which would clearly by itself make it relevant to the
game. In this case the argument for irrelevance is even more weak
because the pikhq has alleged that e has falsely claimed something to
be a protective decree to Steve Wallace.

Since it is likely to be an issue I will give an expanded version of
my judgement's critique of the arguments in BobTHJ's last paragraph
(the judge of this criminal case is also advised to read the
suggestions for the new judge in the judgement).

This relevant portion of BobTHJ's arguments:
> In the end however, despite whatever reasoning there may be for or
> against the nomichood of persons, Steve Wallace is not a protectorate.
> Protectorate decrees by definition only apply to Protectorates of
> Agora. Therefore I judge this CFJ to be IRRELEVANT.

and the most relevant rule text:
> All players are prohibited from falsely claiming, to any nomic,
> that a document is a protective decree.

The relevant rule's prohibition quite clearly does not care if the
thing claimed to be a protective decree meets the definition of
protective decree; in fact, it would be rather pointless to have a
rule against falsely claiming something is a protective decree apply
only to things that meet the definition of a protective decree -- such
a rule would be impossible to violate. Also, the rule quite clearly
does not require the false claim be made to a protectorate. (For
example, making such false claims to Agora could clearly violate the
rule.)

-woggle

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1872: assign BobTHJ

[Charles Reiss]

On Jan 15, 2008 4:34 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 15, 2008 2:33 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Fortunately, the rules don't provide any way for a nonperson to become
> > a person (other than by ceasing to exist).
>
> That should be "for a person to become a nonperson"...
>
> -root
>

This is not true for partnerships. They can cease to devolve their
obligations onto two people momentarily and then resume devolving the
obligations onto two people.

-woggle

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Non-Assessor] Voting Limits Non-Report

[Charles Reiss]

On Thursday 17 January 2008 00:23:55 Benjamin Schultz wrote:
> On Jan 16, 2008, at 7:18 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
> >> From R869:
> >> A player CAN deregister by announcement.  E CANNOT register
> >>  within thirty days after doing so.
> >>
> >> Enjoy your vacation!
> >
> > But e didn't deregister by announcement.  The CotC deregistered em
> > in a Writ of FAGE.  So this limit doesn't apply (well found bug,
> > BobTHJ).  -Goethe
>
> Interesting bug, indeed.
>
> Proposal: Fix the FAGE bug
> (AI = 1, please)
> Amend R869 by replacing the text:
>   A player CAN deregister by announcement.  E CANNOT register
>within thirty days after doing so.
> With the text:
>   A player CAN deregister by announcement.  E CANNOT register
>within thirty days after deregistering.
>
> -
> Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
> OscarMeyr

This breaks sentences of GUILTY - EXILE with a tariff shorter than 30 days.

-woggle

DIS: Re: BUS: Ratification

[Charles Reiss]

On Thursday 17 January 2008 22:45:30 Ed Murphy wrote:
> pikhq wrote:
> > On Thursday 17 January 2008 14:56:13 Josiah Worcester wrote:
> >> I intend to ratify Murphy's report on the voting results on proposals
> >> 5390-5404.
> >
> > I claim this as erroneous.
>
> The purported report, or your intent to ratify it?  Does your statement
> of intent, in fact, have a valid referent?
>
> (Oh boy, the doublethink is piling up quickly.)
>
> I intend to ratify my message alleging to announce the voting results of
> proposals 5390-5404.

I was thinking of doing this earlier, but then noticed that the resolution
of an Agoran decision probably wasn't an official report for the purposes
of R1551. Is there some precedent that says otherwise?

-woggle

Re: DIS: On second thought, let's not wait

[Charles Reiss]

On Thursday 17 January 2008 21:52:25 Ed Murphy wrote:
[snip]
> Net changes:
>pikhq would have 4 more Rests and a Blue Ribbon.
pikhq has a Blue Ribbon regardless (from eir judgement on culpability in CFJ 
1866 if the original resolution was valid, from VC conversion otherwise).

- H. Possibly Nominated For Tailor woggle

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Pledge and Location CFJs

[Charles Reiss]

On Friday 18 January 2008 02:46:23 Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Jan 17, 2008 7:14 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Obtaining agreement requires that two people be involved, but "all
> > parties" is just one person in such a case.
>
> The precedent in CFJs 1682 and 1683 suggests that this is probably correct.
>
> > Clearly, it would against the intention of the Pledges rule (which allows
> > the pledge to be changed without Objection) if a single party to a pledge
> > could cease to be a party to it by agreeing with themselves.
>
> Yes, but I don't think that a ruling based on the argument above would
> necessarily uphold this intention any better.  Consider the case where
> the single party to a pledge invites another person to join, and they
> then agree to terminate the contract.
>
> -root

A properly written pledge could probably prevent the joining, though to be a 
contract, it would need to have had 2 parties at some point. But, regardless, 
I think the contract rules are generally pretty poor, if not seriously 
flawed, regarding 0 and 1 person contracts. There probably needs to be more 
explicit regulation of creating, becoming a party to, ceasing to be a party 
to, and changing pledges and locations.

-woggle

DIS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] updated report

[Charles Reiss]

On Saturday 19 January 2008 22:56:48 Levi Stephen wrote:
>[...]
> Date of this report:  Sat 19 Jan 08
>[...]
> Fri 18 Jan 01:34:12  Murphyinstalled as Assessorby Murphy (DO)
>[...]
> Office Holder  Since  Last R2154  Stability
> 
>[...]
> Assessor   17 Jan 08 T

Looks like you forgot to update this table?

-woggle

Re: DIS: Proto-notification 2

[Charles Reiss]

On Monday 21 January 2008 00:08:41 Josiah Worcester wrote:
> The Office of Ambassador of Agora Nomic presents its compliments to
> the Canadian Embassy in Denver and directs the attention of the latter

I think you mean the Consulate General.

-woggle

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Ratification

[Charles Reiss]

On Tuesday 22 January 2008 02:45:09 Levi Stephen wrote:
> Josiah Worcester wrote:
> > On Monday 21 January 2008 19:37:28 Ian Kelly wrote:
> >> On Jan 21, 2008 7:21 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  I intend to ratify my message alleging to announce the voting results
>  of proposals 5390-5404.
> >>>
> >>> Support:  me (implicitly)
> >>> Object:  none
> >>>
> >>> I hereby ratify the message described above.
> >>
> >> This doesn't work, because the voting results aren't part of an official
> >> report.
> >>
> >> -root
> >
> > However, my claim of error was denied, and the document has not been
> > challenged since. So, the voting results self-ratified.
>
> I would say even that is not certain. As Murphy was not assessor at the
> time it could be claimed it wasn't a valid publication in the first
> place. e.g., if I published voting results, they wouldn't self-ratify
> (well, I assume they wouldn't).
>
> Levi

They would self-ratify. Quoth R2034:
  A public document purporting to resolve an Agoran decision is
  self-ratifying.

-woggle

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Smaller Contracts

[Charles Reiss]

On Thursday 24 January 2008 17:20:44 Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Jan 24, 2008 9:46 AM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think this still leaves small contracts in a bad state under the rules,
> > given that amending, terminating and changing the parties (except by
> > adding new parties (?(*))) to contracts with <= 1 parties basically can't
> > happen, except through pledge's without-objection mechanism.
>
> That's really a separate issue.  To fix it, I think we should just
> replace "by agreement between all parties" with something more
> number-neutral, such as "by obtaining the consent of all parties".
>
> > ((*) Precedenct appears to be that joining new contracts is unregulated
> > except when the contract makes a prohibition against it.
>
> If by unregulated you mean "any person can join with unanimous
> agreement between emself and the existing parties", then I agree, but
> your proposal seems to enshrine a different interpretation.  I haven't
> specifically noticed any contracts using an implicit "join by
> announcement" mechanism, but if there are, I would assert they don't
> work that way.

CFJ 1796 says that "[p]recedent holds that agreement is not regulated and that
contracts are entered into by agreement" which thus allowed comex to enter 
into an agreement that was apparently already a contract and apparently 
without explicit consent of the members of the agreement.

>
> > But I don't know if it's
> > that clear what a mechanism for adding a party has to look like to fall
> > under the forming-an-agreement interpretation (fine for 0 and 1 party
> > contracts) and what it has to look like to fall under the "changing the
> > set of parties" (requires agreement, which can be manifested in the
> > contract).)
>
> I don't see the problem.  IMO, it should ultimately be left up to the
> contract, not to Agora, to decide whether a change to it is valid or
> not.

I agree. But I don't think under the current rules that a 0 or 1 party 
contract can make such decisions since they cannot manifest the state of 
agreement between all parties.

> > [Prevent annoyances like "This contract CAN be amended by announcement
> > if Goldbach's Conjecture is true."]
>
> Why?  It's their contract.  Let them screw it up in weird ways if they want
> to.

My intention here is to dissaude people from trying to create situations where 
it may UNDECIDABLE whether, for example, a contract is a player or, more 
simply, whether the Notary violated eir duty to have eir report include the 
text of each public contract.

For example (I do NOT agree to be bound by this alleged contract):
{{ 1. This is a public contract governed by the rules of Agora.
   2. Any party CAN amend this contract without 2 Objections of any party.
   3. Any party amending this contract without 2 Objections of any party is 
IMPOSSIBLE.
   4. No clause of this contract takes precedence over any other clause, 
except this one, which takes precedence over every other clause.
}}
... and then amending (with 1 party objecting to make sure it doesn't fall 
under "agreement of all parties" in an obvious way) this contract to fit the 
criteria of a partnership...
... and then having it register.

Goldbach's conjecture I guess is a bad example of this because that's pretty 
clearly UNDETERMINED and not UNDECIDABLE and thus isn't much of a problem.

-woggle

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Smaller Contracts

[Charles Reiss]

On Thursday 24 January 2008 20:04:04 comex wrote:
> On Jan 24, 2008 11:46 AM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Enact a new rule titled "Defining Contract Changes", with Power 1.5:
> >
> > A Contract Change can be one or more of any of the following:
> >
> > (a) a person who intends to be bound by a contract becoming a party
> > to the contract;
> >
> > (b) a person ceasing to be a party to the contract;
> >
> > (c) amending a contract; and
> >
> > (d) terminating a contract
>
> What about game actions? i.e.
>
> Any player CAN by announcement cause the Elephant Contract to
> deregister if and only if there are elephants to the left.

Since that would not (directly) change the parties or the text of the elephant 
contract, I don't intend to regulate it through this proposal (and I defined 
Contract Change and capitalized it to avoid covering "other" changes of this 
sort).

-woggle

DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1882 assigned to woggle

[Charles Reiss]

On Friday 25 January 2008 04:02:07 Ed Murphy wrote:
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1882
>
> ==  CFJ 1882  ==
>
>  watcher is a Player
>
> 
>
> Caller: comex
>
> Judge:  woggle
> Judgement:
>
> 
>
> History:
>
> Called by comex:25 Jan 2008 03:55:47 GMT
> Assigned to woggle: (as of this message)
>
> 


Proto-judgement:

There are two seperate issues here:
(1) Whether the entity with the e-mail address [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
(henceforth Pavitra) successfully registered;
(2) Whether watcher is a valid way of referring to em.

On issue (1):
The exact text of Pavitra's relevant announcement is:
{{
I request to be registered as a "watcher".
If the above causes me to be registered as a player, then I switch my
posture to Leaning.

..
Pavitra
}}

R869's define the verb "to be registered" and, since there is no other 
rule-recognized defintion, its definition should take precedence per R754. 
Thus, the message in fact announces in the R869 sense that Pavitra "requests 
registration", which is sufficient to cause Pavitra to become a player unless 
otherwise prohibited. All indications are that Pavitra is a first-class 
person, and there is no record of Pavitra being prohibited from registering 
by an active sentence of EXILE or by having deregistered by announcement in 
the past 30 days, thus this registration was effective.

There is some evidence that Pravita did not intend to become a player. This 
might be seen to create a R101 issue, since per R2171, the registration 
process is to preserve player's rights as if entering the rules were a 
binding agreement. Problematically, every relevant rule here takes precedence 
over R2171, so R2171's declaration cannot make ineffective R869's process for 
registration in spite of R101's requirement for "explicit and willful 
consent" to become party to a binding agreement. Ignoring R2171, the rules 
cannot constitute a binding agreement that is joined by becoming a player as 
they (as far as the rules themselves are concerned) are equally binding on 
players as non-players. (This is especially relevant in this case as Pravita 
is party to an R2145 agreement and thus was already subject to some 
obligations under the rules.)

On issue (2):
"watcher" is a valid way of referring to Pavitra because eir announcement of 
registration can be reasonably interpreted as requesting the 
nickname "watcher".

Thus the question is whether "watcher" is ambiguous -- perhaps designating one 
or more of the (non-rule-recognized) "watchers" that appear in the 
Registrar's report. The statement's use of "watcher" clearly implies that it 
is intended to name an single, unique entity. Since the 
Registrar-recognized "Watcher" is an unofficial title or position and not a 
name and since there are many watchers unofficially recognized by the 
Registrar, this usage cannot be reasonably attributed as referring to those 
watchers. Thus, the Registrar report watchers do not create sufficient 
ambiguity to require a judgement of UNDETERMINED.

Therefore, I proto-judge TRUE.

-woggle

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1882 assigned to woggle

[Charles Reiss]

On Friday 25 January 2008 05:36:18 Ed Murphy wrote:
> woggle wrote:
> > There is some evidence that Pravita did not intend to become a player.
> > This might be seen to create a R101 issue, since per R2171, the
> > registration process is to preserve player's rights as if entering the
> > rules were a binding agreement. Problematically, every relevant rule here
> > takes precedence over R2171, so R2171's declaration cannot make
> > ineffective R869's process for registration in spite of R101's
> > requirement for "explicit and willful consent" to become party to a
> > binding agreement. Ignoring R2171, the rules cannot constitute a binding
> > agreement that is joined by becoming a player as they (as far as the
> > rules themselves are concerned) are equally binding on players as
> > non-players. (This is especially relevant in this case as Pravita is
> > party to an R2145 agreement and thus was already subject to some
> > obligations under the rules.)
>
> Counterargument:  Pavitra's following statement indicated that e
> understood and accepted the possibility that e was becoming subject
> to the rules.

I noticed this (and I think I will mention it in my final judgement, as it 
weighs heavily in favor of not trying to give another meaning to 'registered' 
in eir message, not that R754 would even allow that absent another announced 
definition or similar). But I don't think Pavitra's implied consent would 
have been sufficient to consitute "explicit and willful consent", were that 
relevant. My primary concern would have been that the consent would have been 
conditioned on a misunderstanding of the agreement (believing that watchers 
are players) and thus would not be willful.

- woggle

Re: DIS: Proto: Quorum Busting

[Charles Reiss]

On Monday 28 January 2008 21:02:55 Jeremy Koo wrote:
> With the following I hope to eliminate situations where a vote of
> OBJECT would result in a given vote achieving quorum, making the
> objector's vote that allows the vote to be accepted.

Uh, perhaps you didn't notice that the quorum on dependent actions (the only 
Agoran decisions for which SUPPORT or OBJECT is a sensible option) is zero? 
Also perhaps you didn't notice that SUPPORT and OBJECT are not valid options 
on Agoran decisions on whether to adopt proposals (though perhaps they are 
valid synonyms for such options).

-woggle

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1882a assigned to Levi, Goethe, root

[Charles Reiss]

On Wednesday 30 January 2008 17:43:08 Levi Stephen wrote:
> I agree to REMAND also.
>
> Is it also worth considering the possibility that the registration
> notice registered a player 'Pavitra', rather than 'watcher'? (I believe
> this was the initial interpretation from the registrar?)

I believe that to be the better interpretation of the message, but there's no 
reason why a player can't have two (or more) nicknames by which they can be 
referred to (see also CFJ 1361).

-woggle

DIS: Re: BUS: Mad Scientist Duties

[Charles Reiss]

On Friday 01 February 2008 18:35:15 Nick Vanderweit wrote:
> As my official duties as Mad Scientist, I submit the following proposal
> (AI=3):
>
> Amend rule 2034 to read:
>
>  Any proposal that would otherwise change the validity of any
>  existing vote on any specific unresolved Agoran decision is
>  wholly without effect, Monsters to the contrary notwithstanding.
>  This does not prevent amendment of the Monsters governing the
>  validity of votes on Agoran decisions in general.
>
>  Once an Agoran decision has been resolved, votes on it CANNOT be
>  validly submitted or retracted, and its outcome CANNOT be
>  changed in any way, Monsters to the contrary notwithstanding.  This
>  does not prevent correcting errors in reporting its resolution.
>
>  A public document purporting to resolve an Agoran decision is
>  self-ratifying.

This proposal does not have interest index 0 and thus does not satisfy your 
duties as Mad Scientists.

-woggle

DIS: Proto-judgement of CFJ 1882

[Charles Reiss]

Soliciting comments/things I may have forgotten here:

Examining Pavitra's message in the context of the panel's concerns, I must 
examine what effect the modifier 'as a "watcher"' as upon Pavitra's alleged 
message of registration. There are several plausible interpretations:
(1) Pavitra intends to be unofficial recognized as a Watcher in the next 
unofficial Registrar's report;
(2) Pavitra intends to be known as watcher;
(3) Pavitra is merely acknowledging that e is currently a watcher of the game 
and that eir interest is registering is dervied from this status;

Because of Pavitra's admission that e might become registered by the 
message -- and a definite attempt to participate (by setting eir posture to 
sitting) in that case -- interpretation (1) is not as believable as it would 
ordinarily be.

Because watcher is quoted (2) is an especially plausible interpretation in 
this case. The use of 'a' obviously makes it less plausible but can be 
excused as an inconsequential typo. Perhaps the best argument against this 
interpretation is that E signed eir message Pavitra and not watcher; however, 
there is no restriction against players holding two or more nicknames.

Interpretation (3) would be more plausible if 'as a "watcher"' were somewhat 
parenthetical and didn't seem to then be a misplaced modifier under this 
interpretation.

Because interpretation (2) and (3) are plausible (even if less likely intended 
than interpretation (1)), we must interpret the message as causing Pavitra to 
become a player per R754, which requires the rules' definitions to prevail by 
default. (The relevant definition in this case being contained in R869.) This 
is well within the spirit of the Agoran game: traditionally, the rules 
prevail over game custom. Had the game custom of recognizing Watchers not 
existed, Pavitra would trivially have become a player as a result of this 
message (some form of interpretation (1) might still exist, but it would be 
highly unlikely); so making the registration unsuccessful would effectively 
be giving game custom precedence over an explicit definition of the rules.

--

As for H. Appeleate Panelist Goethe's arguments, I do not believe that R101's 
requirement of consent applies to becoming bound by the rules. The rules are 
not a binding contract (they are not structured as one, they are not 
adjucated as one), and as I discussed in my original arguments R2171's 
attempts to make them into a binding contract for R101 purposes are 
ineffective due to precedence. Even if they do trigger consent conditions 
under R101, this does not apply in this case because Pavitra was already 
materially subject through the rules through the binding public rule-governed 
contract the Perl Nomic Parntership and because Pavitra provided some consent 
in this message. The only issue is whether eir consent was willful. Eir later 
statements about eir intent in registering explicit state that e believed eir 
message would cause em to become a player. Given this belief, and eir prior 
knowledge of the rules from having previous been a player, this is no reason 
to believe that eir consent was not explicit and willful.

Regarding the game custom that it be easy for players to register H. Goethe 
mentions, I believe this is enshrined in the very explicit defintion 
of "register" of R869 (as well as the many accepted forms of announcement of 
registration in R869). That Pavitra in fact registers in this case is a side 
effect of how this game custom has become enshrined in the rules.

--

H. Levi asks me to consider whether the message did not register a player 
called 'watcher' but did register a player. I do believe that Pavitra 
intended to be known as Pavitra, but because interpratation (2) was plausible 
and there was no other referrent for 'watcher' as in this CFJ's 
statement, 'watcher' was an unambiguous way of referring to em. As long as 
they are unambiguous, nicknames chosen for players need not be chosen by or 
even consented to by the players themselves.

I proto-judge CFJ 1882 TRUE.

-woggle

Re: DIS: Proto-judgement of CFJ 1882

[Charles Reiss]

On Saturday 02 February 2008 11:12:00 Zefram wrote:
> Charles Reiss wrote:
> >Because watcher is quoted (2) is an especially plausible interpretation in
> >this case. The use of 'a' obviously makes it less plausible but can be
> >excused as an inconsequential typo.
>
> The quotes can also be excused as an inconsequential grammatical
> mistake, or as indicating unfamiliarity with the terminology, supporting
> interpretation (1).

I will note this (though I believe the quoting still weighs more in favor of 
interpretation (2) than (1)).

> >Because interpretation (2) and (3) are plausible (even if less likely
> > intended than interpretation (1)), we must interpret the message as
> > causing Pavitra to become a player per R754, which requires the rules'
> > definitions to prevail by default.
>
> This doesn't follow.  It's most sensible to choose the most plausible
> interpretation.  Rule 754's "default" clause does not mean that rule
> definitions are to be used implausibly.

I strongly disagree. R754's preference for rule-defined definitions would be 
of little effect is we always choose the most plausible interpretation 
instead of choosing the rule-defined one whenever it might reasonably apply. 
This means doing so even when the rule-defined definition-based 
interpretation is not the most plausible. And I do believe that the 
rule-defined interpretation is not "implausible" in this case.

> You also have the option to determine that the message is void due
> to ambiguity.

Is there precedent on doing this when deciding between a rule-recognized 
action and a non-rule-recognized one? I'm rather hesitant to allow 
non-rule-recognized meanings to make otherwise valid rule-recognized actions 
ineffective. And given that the rules "don't see" the non-rule-recognized 
action, is there a reason both can't happen?

-woggle

DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1889 assigned to woggle

[Charles Reiss]

On Friday 01 February 2008 23:44:07 Ed Murphy wrote:
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1889
>
> ==  CFJ 1889  ==
>
>  Zefram violated Rule 2149 in the above message by making the
>  statement "I intend to deputise for BobTHJ to deregister em."
>  while not reasonably believing it to be true.
>
> 
>
> Caller: Wooble
> Barred: Zefram
>
> Judge:  woggle
> Judgement:
>
> 
>
> History:
>
> Called by Wooble:   01 Feb 2008 14:14:33 GMT
> Assigned to woggle: (as of this message)
>
> 

Though rule 2149 requires players to believe their statement is the truth, it 
makes no requirements that those beliefs are reasonable. So why should I not 
just judge UNIMPUNGED?

I recognize that judges often use a standard of reasonableness of belief in 
determining guilt in these matters -- and that is indeed appropriate given 
that a SLIPPERY judgement requires "reasonable doubt" that they believed 
their statement to be untrue. But the rule plainly does not prohibit people 
from making claims that it is not reasonable to believe if it can somehow be 
shown that they actually believe them.

If I don't judge UNIMPUNGED, I'll probably judge SLIPPERY. There's no reason 
to doubt that Zefram will attempt to deputise to deregister BobTHJ at some 
point in the future: the rule, as recently amended, only requires that 
a "position" be deputised for. As the courts have not determined in any 
relevant way and it is not obvious whether or not this covers BobTHJ's 
obligation, it is plausible that this deputisation would be legal. This 
plausibility is plenty sufficient to create reasonable doubt against Zefram 
not believing eir statement.

-woggle

Re: DIS: Proto-judgement of CFJ 1882

[Charles Reiss]

On Saturday 02 February 2008 15:57:40 Zefram wrote:
> Charles Reiss wrote:
> >I strongly disagree. R754's preference for rule-defined definitions would
> > be of little effect is we always choose the most plausible interpretation
> > instead of choosing the rule-defined one whenever it might reasonably
> > apply.
>
> We're not dealing with a rule definition versus customary definition
> of the same term here, so the precedence of rule definitions doesn't
> apply in this way.  We have the rule definition of "registered" versus
> customary "listed as a watcher".  If the phrase used were "registered"
> then certainly the rule definition would apply.  What we actually have
> is a phrase that's textually a mixture of the two.  The R754 precedence
> merely means that if it is decided that e meant "registered" then it
> is the rule-defined meaning of that term that applies.  R754 does *not*
> tell you how to decide which term is being used.

I'm aware that it does not. However, I think not giving strong preference to 
the rule's definition when it might be implicated would make R754's provision 
without any real effect. I imagine many pieces of genuine ambiguity between a 
rule-defined term and another term could be argued to be "really" be the 
other term with some more elements from the context grabbed. Thus, there 
should be some non-trivial burden of proof before we decide that it's 
actually another term. This could be met in clearer cases (a message merely 
stating 'I register as a watcher', without the quotes and conditional actions 
on being a player, would probably qualify), but I don't think there's enough 
here to decide with reasonable certainty that the rule-defined term is not 
meant. In the absence of clarity to the contrary, I don't want to make a 
rule's definition irrelevant.

> >> You also have the option to determine that the message is void due
> >> to ambiguity.
> >
> >Is there precedent on doing this when deciding between a rule-recognized
> >action and a non-rule-recognized one?
>
> Not sure.  It doesn't happen awfully often for *any* type of competing
> meanings, because Agorans tend to make game actions abundantly clear.
> Also, game terminology is largely disjoint from customary and natural
> terminology, so such clashes are less likely than rule-versus-rule.
>
> The most recent case that I recall was when pikhq sent to the PF, in
> error, what e intended to be a distribution of Agora's Child proposals.
> As it wasn't labelled as applying only to Agora's Child, an attempt
> had to be made to apply it in Agora, and that task fell mostly to me as
> promotor.  I found that it wasn't clear about whether it was submitting
> or distributing proposals, and treated it as void for that reason.
> That's rule-regulated action versus rule-regulated action, of course.
> (This interpretation was not motivated by convenience.  A later public
> message from pikhq that was also intended for AC clearly constituted a
> submission of proposals and I treated it as such.)

Was there a CFJ for this?

>
> >  I'm rather hesitant to allow
> >non-rule-recognized meanings to make otherwise valid rule-recognized
> > actions ineffective.
>
> This is a better argument than those that you've previously deployed,
> or at least a better way of expressing it.
>
> I note that allowing "registered as a watcher" (or even the form with
> quotes) to mean something entirely different from "registered" doesn't
> place much of a burden on those who wish to invoke the rule definition of
> "registered": they just need to refrain from adding the modifying clause.
> So if your motivation is that the rule definition should be readily
> available (which I've argued is an important criterion in CFJ 1885),
> that does not particularly argue against "registered as a watcher"
> meaning "listed as a watcher" in this case.
>
> If your motivation is the principle that nothing outside the rules
> should influence the rules' interpretation of messages, I point
> once again to the "by default" aspect of R754, which is explicitly
> permitting rule-defined terms to be employed with other meanings in some
> (unspecified) circumstances.  I also point out that if the rules were to
> completely ignore customary definitions then "TTttPF" et al wouldn't work.

This is close to my motivation. I recognize that game custom has an effect on 
message interpretation; however, I do not think things outside the rules 
should influence the rules' interpret

DIS: Re: BUS: Scam-busting

[Charles Reiss]

On Saturday 02 February 2008 21:24:37 Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Feb 2, 2008 9:58 AM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I CFJ on the following: comex's non-binding agreement 'X' is a
> > contract.
>
> This may not be sufficient; there are other reasons that the scam may
> have failed.
>
> I CFJ on the following: comex successfully caused at least one player
> other than emself to cast a vote on Proposal 5419.
>
> I disqualify comex from judging this case.
>
> In addition to the issue of contracthood in the case initiated by
> pikhq, I request that the judge consider:
>
> 1) whether "agreement between all parties" to change the membership of
> a "non-binding contract" must include the agreement of the prospective
> parties in addition to the agreement of the prior parties;
>
> and
>
> 2) whether delegation of powers can be effected by a "contract" that
> is not binding.  I suggest that CFJs 1833-1835 may be useful
> precedents here.

I would also suggest that the contract may be binding dispite its explicit 
statement to the contrary due to R1742's requirement to abide by it.

It would be good to know what exactly makes an agreement binding, anyways... 
Since the contract in question didn't seem to ever impose any obligations on 
comex, if imposing obligations is necessary for a contract to be binding on 
someone, then the contract in question may have not been made "intention that 
it be binding upon" both the AFO and comex.

-woggle

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Scam-busting

[Charles Reiss]

On Saturday 02 February 2008 21:53:12 comex wrote:
> On Feb 2, 2008 9:44 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It would be good to know what exactly makes an agreement binding,
> > anyways... Since the contract in question didn't seem to ever impose any
> > obligations on comex, if imposing obligations is necessary for a contract
> > to be binding on someone, then the contract in question may have not been
> > made "intention that it be binding upon" both the AFO and comex.
>
> But in that case, I wouldn't have been able to form, say, the contract
> referenced in CFJ 1833 which, similarly, only had a clause allowing X
> to act on behalf of Y.

It also had clauses governing how it could be amended and have its set of 
parties changed, which could be argued to create obligations to agree or not 
agree to certain changes to the parties and text of the contract. But, a more 
reasonable interpretation (and what I was expecting most people to conclude) 
is that the obligations an agreement purports to impose or not impose are not 
a good basis for determining if a agreement is binding.

-woggle

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1892 assigned to Goethe

[Charles Reiss]

On Saturday 02 February 2008 22:27:05 Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >comex's non-binding agreement 'X' is a contract.
>
> Proto-judgement:  FALSE.  a "non-binding contract" is a contradiction
> in legal terms, and a meaningless semantic construct.  R1742, and R2169,
> both explicitly and explicitly link the concept of "contract" with the
> concept of it being binding in law.  Further, the primary definition of
> "Contract" (M-W online) is:  "a binding agreement between two or more
> persons or parties; especially : one legally enforceable".
>
> By both common definition and Agoran Law, a contract is a contract
> only as long as it is binding, and when it ceases to be binding (or if
> it never binding), it ceases to be legally enforceable, or have a legal
> impact on the Rules (for example, it ceases to govern delegations,
> powers of Attorney, devolution of obligations, transfer of rights
> and/or duties).
>
> -Goethe

I don't think relying on an ordinary-language definition of contract is 
warranted because R1742 seems to define it. I think you should also examine 
the possiblity that the X agreement is a contract but is binding (in spite of 
its text).

-woggle

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Scam-busting

[Charles Reiss]

On Sunday 03 February 2008 13:12:29 Iammars wrote:
> On Feb 2, 2008 9:24 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I CFJ on the following: comex successfully caused at least one player
> > other than emself to cast a vote on Proposal 5419.
>
> Wouldn't he have caused the AFO to vote even if the others didn't work?
> This should probably be "more than one player".

E didn't attempt to cause the AFO to vote. (Read the message!) It wouldn't 
have made sense to do so since 5419 was Democratic proposal.

-woggle

Re: DIS: Proto-judgement of CFJ 1882

[Charles Reiss]

On Saturday 02 February 2008 20:51:24 Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Feb 2008, Zefram wrote:
> > The rules do not explicitly define the meaning of "registered as a
> > watcher".  I wonder how "I wish to be registered as a carpenter." would
> > be interpreted.
>
> You would clearly become a player with the nick "a carpenter."
>
> Compare "I wish to register as Goethe."  "I wish to register as root."
> Anything with that phrasing looks an awful lot lick choosing a nickname.

Thinking over this further, I believe that for consistency's sake I'm going to 
have to argue that even "I wish to register as a watcher" causes an actual 
registration. As much as I would like to "I wish to register as a watcher" to 
have its intended effect, R869 has redefined the term "register" with a 
definition very much unlike its ordinary language definition and the rules do 
not recognize the existence of watchers.

Thus, a modified protojudgement:

Examining Pavitra's message in the context of the panel's concerns, I must 
examine what effect the modifier 'as a "watcher"' as upon Pavitra's alleged 
message of registration. There are several plausible interpretations:
(1) Pavitra intends to be unofficial recognized as a Watcher in the next 
unofficial Registrar's report;
(2) Pavitra intends to be known as watcher (or as 'a "watcher"');
(3) Pavitra is merely acknowledging that e is currently a watcher of the game 
and that eir interest is registering is dervied from this status;

Because of Pavitra's admission that e might become registered by the 
message -- and a definite attempt to participate (by setting eir posture to 
leaning) in that case -- interpretation (1) is not as believable as it would 
ordinarily be.

Because watcher is quoted (2) is an especially plausible interpretation in 
this case (though this can also be used to support interpretation (1) as a 
indicating a lack of familiarity with termionlogy). The use of 'a' obviously 
makes it less plausible but can be excused a simple typo or as an attempt to 
be known by the literal nickname 'a "watcher"' or 'a watcher'. Perhaps the 
best argument against this interpretation is that E signed eir message 
Pavitra and not watcher; however, there is no restriction against players 
holding two or more nicknames.

Interpretation (3) would be more plausible if 'as a "watcher"' were somewhat 
parenthetical and didn't seem to then be a misplaced modifier under this 
interpretation.

Both (2) and (3) are, however, made more plausible by the game custom of 
supplying a nickname when registering.

Because interpretation (2) and (3) are sufficiently plausible (and it is not 
very clear that interpretation (1) was intended) and defined in a rule, I 
choose to favor the message causing Pavitra to register. This is the only 
choice consistent with the spirit of R754 and the general principle that the 
rules remain supreme. Allowing otherwise would be allowing a 
non-rule-recognized game custom to override what would otherwise be a fairly 
straightforward interpration given the rules by themselves. (If there were no 
evidence of a listing-watchers game custom, "I register as a watcher" would 
almost certainly be considered a player-registration due to R869's 
definition.) It would be far less surprising to allow "I register as a 
watcher" to work as its writers would probably intend; however, given the 
rules' definition of "register" with a rather different meaning than the 
ordinary-language term, this cannot be supported without generally allowing 
the plain text of the rules to be subverted by game custom.

Zefram has put forward the argument that "register as a watcher" is a 
different term, and thus not subject the R754's default definition. I believe 
that "register as a watcher", in the game custom usage, is most plausibly 
interpreted as an attempt to use the ordinary-language term "register", 
modified by the adverbial phrase "as a watcher". (The relevant 
ordinary-language definition is in this case "To enter oneself or have one's 
name recorded in a list of people (freq. as a legal requirement), as being of 
a specified category or having a particular eligibility or entitlement." 
(OED).) This yields exactly the game custom definition of "register as a 
watcher". This is unlike genuinely multiple word terms such as "run out" in 
the sense of coming to the end of one's resources. There, the 
ordinary-language definitions of the parts obviously do not suffice to create 
the ordinary-language definition of the larger unit.

--

As for H. Appeleate Panelist Goethe's arguments, I do not believe that R101's 
requirement of consent applies to becoming bound by the rules. The rules are 
not a binding contract (they are not structured as one, they are not 
adjucated as one), and as I discussed in my original arguments R2171's 
attempts to make them into a binding contract for R101 purposes are 
ineffective due to precedence. Even if they do trigger consent conditions 
under R101, thi

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1903a assigned to root, woggle, comex

[Charles Reiss]

On Feb 7, 2008 6:02 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 7, 2008 3:50 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1903a
>
> > Appellant Goethe's Arguments:
> >
> > I support Murphy's call for appeal of CFJ 1903.  In spite of reading this
> > in the caller's arguments, I looked at the ruleset that contained R591/23,
> > not the recently passed R591/24 (which contains the above clause), and this
> > clause calls into question my otherwise impeccable reasoning.
>
> In light of the prior judge's arguments, I move to remand in CFJ 1903a.
>

I agree to this.

-woggle

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: 1903a

[Charles Reiss]

On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 10:04 PM, Ben Caplan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 2008 6:40 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  > In the matter of the appeal of CFJ 1903, I intend to cause the panel
>  > to judge AFFIRM.
>
>  Given that the original judge supported the appeal, shouldn't you at
>  least write a concurring opinion?
>

If Wooble or comex writes a concurring opinion that arguably
acknowledges Goethe's argument on appeal, I consent to the panel
judging AFFIRM and publishing that concurring opinion.

-woggle

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: 1903a

[Charles Reiss]

On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 3:19 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 2:54 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  >  The "question yes/no = equivalent statement true/false" is a legal fiction
>  >  that applies only after the CFJ is initiated.  Until that CFJ is clearly
>  >  initiated, the answer to the question (yes/no) is clearly different than
>  >  the action effect of a directive statement "I hereby DO".  *sigh* you're
>  >  going to make me answer this, aren't you?
>
>  I was happy to let your koan stand, but since you've already written
>  up a fairly convincing (to me, anyway) more, uh, Agora-typical
>  reasoning, I consent to have the penal judge REMAND as well.

I also consent to this judgement.

-woggle

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: 1903a

[Charles Reiss]

On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 02 March 2008 1:26 Charles Reiss wrote:
>  > The prior judge was improperly relied on a newer version of the rule
>  > that included a bugfix for precisely this reason.
>  >
>  > The judgement is still appropriate, however, because there is not a
>  > general equivalence of yes/no questions and statements as some has
>  > suggested in the best interpretation of CFJ 1894 for this purpose. The
>  > question can take the role of statement (without the newer R591)
>  > because the added context that it is the subject of a call for
>  > judgement makes its interpretation unambiguous -- the only sensible
>  > intrepretation of the question is as the statement inquired into. But
>  > this is not true for actions by announcement, like making calls for
>  > judgement, where further context would be required to differentiate
>  > between a genuine non-action question and an announced action.
>
>  Thank you for taking the time to think about it.
>
>  I do have two fidgets with the argument, though. First and more trivially, 
> the
>  first paragraph is technically incorrect: the prior judgement relied on an
>  *older* version of the rule, and the controversy was over the implications of
>  the new patch.
>
>  Second, I'm not completely convinced that the full complexity and ambiguity 
> of
>  the situation is addressed. This argument draws a clear line between inquiry
>  question-statements (where '?'=='.') and actions by announcement
>  (where '?'!='.').
>  However, the case under question was specifically constructed in an attempt 
> to
>  make the equivalence granted to a question statement apply to an action by
>  announcement.
>  The real question is whether that attempt was successful, and I will not feel
>  comfortable with any argument that does not address specifically why that
>  attempt was successful or unsuccessful.

CFJ 1894's equivalence in my mind only applies for the purposes of
determining the subject and validity of a call for judgement. I think
the text must be evaluated independently of its use or non-use in
calls for judgement in determining whether it constitutes an action by
announcement. Of course, this does not mean that implicit quoting,
etc. of the statement that often occurs in making calls for judgement
(as in "I call for judgement on the following: ") need be ignored in making this determination, but this
is a matter more of ordinary language interpretation than of the exact
requirements on subjects of calls for judgement.

-woggle

DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1897 judged FALSE; appeal assigned to woggle, OscarMeyr, Iammars

[Charles Reiss]

On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 2:01 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1897
>
>  ==  CFJ 1897  ==
>
> BobTHJ is a player
>
>  
[snip]
>    Appeal 1897a  
>
>  Justice:woggle
>  Decision:
>
>  Justice:OscarMeyr
>  Decision:
>
>  Justice:Iammars
>  Decision:

Accepting the appellants' arguments, I intend (with the consent of my
fellow panelists) to cause the panel to judge OVERRULE - TRUE.

- woggle

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: 1903a

[Charles Reiss]

On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 6:55 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 12:26 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  >  Arguments:
>  >  The arguments given in Wooble's purported causing the panel to judge
>  >  CFJ 1903a are not labeled as a concurring opinion and therefore do not
>  >  constitute one. While it could be argued that the satisfying the
>  >  rule's requirement for a concurring opinion ("explain the nature of
>  >  the error(s) in the prior judge's reasoning") in arguments given while
>  >  affirming constitute publishing a concurring opinion, this given as a
>  >  SHALL requirement and not as a definition, so the validity of
>  >  publishing a concurring opinion is unaffected by that requirement. It
>  >  would also be against the original intent of the concurring opinion
>  >  rule (which fined the original judge marks) to have concurring
>  >  opinions published by accident.
>
>  More to the point, it's not a concurring opinion because it lacks an
>  error rating.
>

Error ratings have a default (50), so no error rating being specified
is irrelevant.

-woggle

Attn OscarMeyr, Iammars (was Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1897 judged FALSE; appeal assigned to woggle, OscarMeyr, Iammars)

[Charles Reiss]

OscarMeyr, Iammars: Do you consent to the judgement I propose below?
Have any opinions on the case?

[Since OscarMeyr has not agreed to this judgement, Iammars past
blanket consent won't apply.]

- woggle

On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 5:42 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 2:01 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1897
>  >
>  >  ==  CFJ 1897  ==
>  >
>  > BobTHJ is a player
>  >
>  >  
>  [snip]
>  >    Appeal 1897a  
>  >
>  >  Justice:woggle
>  >  Decision:
>  >
>  >  Justice:OscarMeyr
>  >  Decision:
>  >
>  >  Justice:Iammars
>  >  Decision:
>
>  Accepting the appellants' arguments, I intend (with the consent of my
>  fellow panelists) to cause the panel to judge OVERRULE - TRUE.
>
>  - woggle
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Correct assignment of CFJs 1911-13

[Charles Reiss]

On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 4:18 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd missed updating the database to reflect that OscarMeyr had
>  gone on hold.  The alleged assignments were ineffective.
>
>  I hereby assign CFJs 1911-13 to BobTHJ.  These are linked assignments.
>

Since I'm not likely to get OscarMeyr's consent, can I recieve your
consent as CotC for the panel in CFJ 1897a to judge OVERRULE - TRUE?

-woggle

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Correct assignment of CFJs 1911-13

[Charles Reiss]

On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 4:34 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 4:18 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  > I'd missed updating the database to reflect that OscarMeyr had
>  >  gone on hold.  The alleged assignments were ineffective.
>  >
>  >  I hereby assign CFJs 1911-13 to BobTHJ.  These are linked assignments.
>  >
>
>  Since I'm not likely to get OscarMeyr's consent, can I recieve your
>  consent as CotC for the panel in CFJ 1897a to judge OVERRULE - TRUE?
>
>  -woggle

Hm. Looking at the timing, I guess this is irrelevant because the
original panel assignment was invalid... *sigh*

- woggle

DIS: Re: BUS: Shall we people-ify our fellow nomics?

[Charles Reiss]

On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 9:05 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Proposal: Empersonation of Nomics (AI=1, aye?)
>
>  [Amend Rule 2200 by adding the following sentence at the end of its
>  third paragraph: "A foreign nomic is a person."]

Try again. Power 1 rules can't make things persons.

-woggle

DIS: Re: BUS: Deputization kickstart

[Charles Reiss]

On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>  I intend to deputise the delivering of a judgement by the judicial panel of
>  Appeal 1897a.

Note that no judicial panel has been assigned in CFJ 1897a because the
assignment of a panel including inactive player OscarMeyr was invalid.

-woggle

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 1908 + 1909

[Charles Reiss]

On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 7:25 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 8:32 AM, Iammars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  > comex hasn't agreed to anything in panel 1903a, so it can't be judged and a
>  > concurring opinion hasn't been published. I judge FALSE on both 1908 & 
> 1909.
>
>  I intend to appeal CFJ 1908.

Uh, did you mean to appeal or also appeal CFJ 1909? If you really want
to argue CFJ 1908, then can you please explain exactly what concurring
opinion you think the panel published? If it's comex's, then, well, it
seems that that wasn't ever sent to the public forum (the part of it
quoting verbatim Goethe's arguments was, but not AFAICT the part of it
that was comex's actual commentary).

>  The reasoning with which I caused the panel to judge AFFIRM in 1903a
>  was provided by comex and labeled by em "Concurring opinion:".  It was
>  posted in reply to woggle's consent to any have the panel judge remand
>  as long as comex or I provided a concurring opinion.  The context,
>  including woggle's quoted message, clearly shows that e intended eir
>  message to satisfy woggle's request for a concurring opinion.

-woggle

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 1908 + 1909

[Charles Reiss]

On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 4:12 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  > On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 7:25 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  >  > On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 8:32 AM, Iammars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  >  >  > comex hasn't agreed to anything in panel 1903a, so it can't be 
> judged and a
>  >  >  > concurring opinion hasn't been published. I judge FALSE on both 1908 
> & 1909.
>  >  >
>  >  >  I intend to appeal CFJ 1908.
>  >
>  >  Uh, did you mean to appeal or also appeal CFJ 1909? If you really want
>  >  to argue CFJ 1908, then can you please explain exactly what concurring
>  >  opinion you think the panel published? If it's comex's, then, well, it
>  >  seems that that wasn't ever sent to the public forum (the part of it
>  >  quoting verbatim Goethe's arguments was, but not AFAICT the part of it
>  >  that was comex's actual commentary).
>
>  I don't believe a panel's deliberations need to be made in the public
>  forum.  [snip]

I agree, but publishing something, like a concurring opinion, does.

-woggle

DIS: Re: BUS: 1903a

[Charles Reiss]

On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 8:17 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Regarding 1903, I intend to cause the panel to judge AFFIRM with the
>  following concurring opinion:
>
>  Goethe's original judgement of CFJ 1903 alludes to the following
>  interpretation:
>
>Questions are not statements.  An inquiry case must be initiated via
>statement, and must reference a statement being inquired into, so
>Pavitra's question fails on both counts.
>
>  However, the opposite interpretation was chosen by pikhq in CFJ 1894,
>  then legislated by Proposal 5425 before CFJ 1903 was initiated.  Goethe
>  admitted having overlooked the proposal.
>
>  The remaining issue is whether a statement claiming to initiate an
>  inquiry case into itself (as opposed to merely a clause of itself,
>  e.g. "I initiate an inquiry case into the statement 'X'") can be
>  effective.  Goethe argued that it can't:
>
>Not every question is a CFJ, any more than every statement ever made
>in Agora Business is a CFJ.  A specific directive is needed: eg "I
>call for judgement on the following question:"  This directive is
>explicitly external to the statement itself.   For example, to call
>CFJ 1676, comex used the following (Message-ID:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>   ' I call for judgement on the statement "this is a CFJ" '
>
>  as did woggle, for different reasons:
>
>The judgement is still appropriate, however, because there is not a
>general equivalence of yes/no questions and statements as some has
>suggested in the best interpretation of CFJ 1894 for this purpose.
>The question can take the role of statement (without the newer R591)
>because the added context that it is the subject of a call for
>judgement makes its interpretation unambiguous -- the only sensible
>intrepretation of the question is as the statement inquired into. But
>this is not true for actions by announcement, like making calls for
>judgement, where further context would be required to differentiate
>between a genuine non-action question and an announced action.
>
>  In the apparent absence of arguments to the contrary, the panel accepts
>  these interpretations and concludes that the original judgement of FALSE
>  was appropriate.
>

I consent to this judgement.

-woggle

DIS: Re: BUS: Correct assignment of 1897a

[Charles Reiss]

On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 6:10 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ed Murphy wrote:
>  >I assign 1897a to the panel of woggle, Zefram, and Iammars.
>
>  I intend to cause the panel in CFJ 1897a to judge OVERRULE to TRUE.
>  Arguments:
>
>  The judge in CFJ 1899 determined, with good arguments, that BobTHJ is
>  a player.  Judge BobTHJ has not given any reason to doubt this precede

I consent to this judgement.

-woggle

DIS: Re: BUS: [Mad Scientist] It's Alive!

[Charles Reiss]

On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 6:38 PM, Nick Vanderweit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I come off hold (Guatemala was amazing, thanks for asking).
>
>  I submit the following proposal, titled, "Grarrgghh!", with AI=2 and II=3:

Uh, that's not very disinterested, H. Mad Scientist.

-woggle

DIS: Re: BUS: Criminal Cases

[Charles Reiss]

On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 9:24 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 15:24 Sun 30 Mar , Ed Murphy wrote:
>  > Iammars wrote:
>  >
>  > > I initiate a criminal case on pihkq for misrepresenting Agora on the
>  > > Nomic Wiki by failing to include my name in the players list.
>  > > I initiate a criminal case on pihkq for neglecting his duty to update
>  > > the Nomic Wiki page in the month of February. At that time the page not
>  > > only included an incorrect playerlist, but also wrote that many jobs
>  > > were empty, which were filled by the end of January.
>  > > I request linked assignment for the above cases.
>  > > -
>  > > http://www.nomic.net/~nomicwiki/index.php/Agora
>  > > -
>  > > Rule 2135/2 (Power=1)
>  >
>  > pikhq, you are hereby informed of these criminal cases and invited to
>  > rebut the argument against your guilt.
>
>  Guilty as charged.
>
>  However, I would like to be a bit of a bitch:
>  I disqualify Agora Nomic from this case.
>
>  (Agora Nomic, by rule 2145, is a partnership, and therefore a
>  person. I can disqualify any person I damned well want to. Have fun
>  judging this one!)

I'm pretty sure Agora isn't a contract, let alone a public contract
that devolves its obligations onto at least two persons.

-woggle

DIS: Re: BUS: Asset testing

[Charles Reiss]

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 9:40 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree to this:
>
>   1) This public contract is named Universe 1.
>   2) Beans are a class of assets.
>   3) The recordkeepor of beans is Murphy.
>   4) Beans are restricted to the class of players whose nickname
>is Murphy or pikhq.
>
>  and this:
>
>   A) This public contract is named Universe A.
>   B) Beans are a class of assets.
>   C) The recordkeepor of beans is Murphy.
>   D) Beans are restricted to the class of players whose nickname
>is Murphy or comex.
>
>  The AFO agrees to both of these.
>
>  I create 2 beads in my possession.
>  I transfer 1 bead to pikhq.
>
>  I call for judgement on the following statements:
>
>   * Murphy has a bead.
>   * pikhq has a bead.

Trivially FALSE. Beads certainly aren't beans.

Regardless, I think you want to think you should always go for broke
on these things/discourage judgements of UNDECIDABLE, and so call for
judgement on "It is possible for Murphy to destroy a bean by
announcement" or similar.

-woggle

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Notary Report, Take 1

[Charles Reiss]

On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 8:41 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 8:23 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  >  Claim of error: This fails to list comex's pledge and public contract
>  >  which purports to make persons assets.
>  That pledge has been terminated in accordance with R2198, and despite
>  CFJ 1876 which is no longer relevant.

When was this termination announced? (I know CFJ 1876 isn't an issue
here. I'm referring to this contract (from around 10 Mar 2008 18:26:17
-0400), for clarity (and not the contract concerning rules with ID
2166):
{
1) This is a public contract.

2) This contract is a pledge.

3) Persons are a class of fixed assets.  comex is the recordkeeper of persons.

4) comex CAN create persons arbitrarily by announcement.

5) This contract can be terminated by comex by announcement.
}...)

-woggle

Re: DIS: Proto-Pledge: The Note Exchange

[Charles Reiss]

On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 5:34 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> {This is a public contract and a pledge by the name of "The Note Exchange".
>
>  For each pitch of Note, the corresponding Credit is a currency, and
>  the corresponding Marker is a fixed currency. Ivan Hope CXXVII is the
>  recordkeepor of Credits and Markers, and generally cannot create them
>  by announcement. Markers generally cannot be destroyed by
>  announcement.
>
>  If a person holds more Notes of a pitch than Markers of that pitch, e
>  can, by announcement, award eirself both a Credit and a Marker of that
>  pitch. A person shall not take any action that would cause em to hold
>  less Notes of a pitch than Markers of that pitch. [Don't you think a
>  sentence of FINE would be silly in this case?]
>
>  If a person holds a Credit and a Marker of the same pitch, e can by
>  announcement destroy both of them.
>
>  If a person holds two Credits of a pitch, e can, by announcement,
>  redeem them, naming a person who holds two Markers and two Notes of
>  that pitch. When this is done, the two Credits are destroyed, and the
>  named person SHALL as soon as possible spend two Notes of the pitch to
>  make the redeeming person gain one. If e does so, the two Markers are
>  destroyed; otherwise, the two Credits are recreated.}
>
>  Sound good?

After a quick read-through:
* You probably should restrict the ownership of these currencies; at
least of Markers. A marker-holder cannot be obliged to redeem unless
the Marker-holder bound by the contract.
* Needs an exit clause;
{When a party to this contract holds no markers of any pitch, e may
leave this contract by announcement.}?
* Name the recordkeepor position something amusing;
* Allow the recordkeepor to adjust Marker holdings down when they
exceed actual note holdings, probably in marker/credit pairs whenever
possible.
? Consider allowing acting on behalf for the purpose of fulfilling
marker-holder's obligations?
? Consider allowing more complex spending requests? (E.g. redeeming
credits of a major chord...)
* Someone destroying credits screws over the marker/credit balance.
Proto-solution: disallow credit destruction (they can be transferred
away nicely enough)?

-woggle

Re: DIS: Proto-Pledge: The Note Exchange

[Charles Reiss]

On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 6:37 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12/04/2008, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
>  >  ? Consider allowing acting on behalf for the purpose of fulfilling
>  >  marker-holder's obligations?
>
>  Good idea. Could this be automatic? It is triggered manually, after
>  all, and so far I seem to be getting away with it in the Bank of
>  Agora.

You're probably going to need explicit language to allow the other
person to announce the spending on behalf of the spender. As AFAIK
there are no formal rules governing granting limited power-of-attorney
(ignoring powers to cause partnerships to act), this is governed by
CFJ precedent, see, e.g., CFJs 1833-1835. Your current proto language
might be argued to implicitly grant this (though I'd probably judge
that it didn't), but it'd be wise to be explicit as the precedent on
acting-on-behalf isn't that expansive. And the rules only allow the
spending of notes by announcement, so there's going to have to be an
announcement of it that makes the spending effective.

-woggle

Re: DIS: Proto-Pledge: The Note Exchange

[Charles Reiss]

On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 10:57 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 4:37 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  >  >  ? Consider allowing acting on behalf for the purpose of fulfilling
>  >  >  marker-holder's obligations?
>  >
>  >  Good idea. Could this be automatic? It is triggered manually, after
>  >  all, and so far I seem to be getting away with it in the Bank of
>  >  Agora.
>
>  Doubtful.  The rules do not grant a contract the power to make
>  arbitrary changes to asset holdings, whether the contract happens to
>  be the backing document for that class of assets or not.  I hadn't
>  noticed the Bank of Agora was claiming to do this, but I doubt it
>  works there either.
>
>
>  >  >  * Someone destroying credits screws over the marker/credit balance.
>  >  >  Proto-solution: disallow credit destruction (they can be transferred
>  >  >  away nicely enough)?
>  >
>  >  Also makes sense.
>
>  Maybe I'm missing something, but what's the problem?  Somebody who
>  destroys eir credits is only screwing emself.

When there are fewer credits than markers, then, collectively, those
with the excess markers are unable to promise notes they actually have
to promise since they have no way of redistributing the "lost"
credits.

-woggle

Re: DIS: Proto: Contract Cleanup, take two

[Charles Reiss]

On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> root wrote:
>
>  > On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 12:06 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  >>  [Zefram, root, you voted against the previous version of this; would
>  >>  you support this revision?]
>  >
>  > What's the difference from the previous version?
>
>  Mainly "any of these" in both parts of the revised R2198.
>
>
>  > I voted against the
>  > last one because I generally dislike "cleaning" proposals that don't
>  > have any intended functional effect.
>
>  This started out as a grammar fix for R2197 and R2198.
>
>
>  > Also, looking over this version, I notice:
>  >
>  >> d) By a party without objection, if the minimum number of
>  >>parties for it is less than two.
>  >
>  > This removes the bit about allowing parties to the pledge to block the
>  > change by announcement.  As I recall, the purpose of that clause was
>  > to protect parties to pledges who don't have first-class members in
>  > their basis against the possiblity of undesirable contract changes.  A
>  > bit hypothetical, perhaps, but still worth keeping I think.
>
>  Point, but upon reflection, that can be fixed by replacing "minimum
>  number" with "number" in c) and d).

Issue: A makes a pledge 'if someone X, then I will Y as soon as
possible.' B does X in reference to the pledge. Then before the
deadline arrives, co-conspirator C joins the pledge and terminates it
with the agreement of all parties.

-woggle

DIS: Re: BUS: Behold: Half Pledge, Half Location

[Charles Reiss]

On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 12:06 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree to the following, making it a contract:
>
>  {The name of this contract is Bumblebee. This contract is a pledge.
>  This contract is a location. Any party to this contract can leave it
>  by announcement.}
>
>  I leave the contract Bumblebee. I CFJ on the statement "There is a
>  contract named Bumblebee."

I believe the answer is clearly no, since "requires at least zero
parties" and "requires at least one party" resolve to "requires at
least one party" without precedence issues getting in the way. Even if
rule precedence gets in the way, the location rule is Power 1 and the
pledge rule Power 1.5. And even without that, it's not clear that this
was a public contract as is required for something to be a location...

-woggle

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1927 assigned to Wooble

[Charles Reiss]

On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 7:24 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 7:53 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  > > ==  Equity Case 1927  ==
>  >
>  >  > Judge:  Wooble
>  >
>  >  As a hugging judge, Wooble is poorly qualified for this assignment.  The
>  >  alternative is an early rotation (with comex and Goethe failing to get
>  >  eir turns, though comex is almost a week late on 1921 as it is) and an
>  >  assignment to Iammars or root.  Thoughts?
>  >
>
>  I flip my hawkishness to hemming-and-hawing. Since this has already
>  been assigned to me and I CANNOT assign it a judgment of TRUE, I'm an
>  Outie either way.
>
>  I'm not sure this has any appreciable effect, though, since I was
>  poorly qualified at the time of the assignment.
>
>  In either case, I'm going to need to think about about this case; it
>  seems a bit odd to need to bring a second equity case when the results
>  of the first were completely ignored.

Ordinarily, an obvious solution would be to strength the contract to
allow acting-on-behalf for the ignored obligations but that just won't
work for suggestions and it's hard to imagine that not effecting an
R101 violation here. And if BobTHJ really wants to force comex to
carry out eir obligations, I'm someone surprised that e did not bring
a criminal case (alleging violation of some combination of the
contract ("SHALL act in accordance") and equity case ("is in effect a
binding agreement") rules). Allowing such enforcement was one of my
intentions when I wrote that equation.

Since no one seems to care, you could do some radical judging and have
your equation mandate agreement to dissolve the Vote Market agreement.

-woggle

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: An unconventional way to create a rule

[Charles Reiss]

On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 8:03 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 5:30 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 5:22 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  >  > I agree to the following: "All players SHALL act as if this paragraph
>  >  >  were a rule with power 1 and ID number 2206."
>  >
>  >  I refuse to agree to this.
>
>  It seems to me the contract is basically unenforceable.  R1742, which
>  requires its parties to adhere to it, has lower power than Rule 105,
>  which restricts the ways by which entities can become rules.

I believe it's perfectly enforceable. But by agreeing to the contract, players
might cause themselves to have to choose between violating R1742 and
violating some other rules (and since they had the choice not to agree
in the first
place, EXCUSED should not apply). At least that was my understanding of "This
obligation is not impaired by contradiction between the contract and any other
contract, or between the contract and the rules."

-woggle

Re: DIS: RE: Re: BUS: Re: CFJ

[Charles Reiss]

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 5:41 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am an Agoran, and also a player of IRCnomic. However, I have not (from an 
> Agoran point of view) knowingly joined comex's contract, if it is one. Many 
> IRCnomic rules conflict with Agoran rules anyway. (Doesn't Agora define 
> Player differently, for instance?)

Redefining player in a contract is fine, but of course the contract's
definition likely only applies to contractual affairs. (According to
R754 player only has the Agoran meaning "by default". And, heck, that
definition probably doesn't apply throughout the Agoran rules, as R101
takes precedence over the rule that purportedly defines "player",
despite using the term, and R101's meaning certainly shouldn't be
compromised by lower-level rules creatively redefining things.)

- woggle

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Economic overview

[Charles Reiss]

On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 2:56 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
>  [Current list:
>   Crops (0 through 9)AAA   BobTHJ
>   Mills (+ - * /)AAA   BobTHJ
>   Notes (C through B)Rule 2126 Conductor
>   Pens   Bank of Agora Ivan Hope
>   Points Rule 2179 Scorekeepor
>   Ribbons (ROGCBKWMUVIY) Rule 2199 Tailor
>   Vote Points (VP)   Vote Market   BobTHJ
>   Experience Points (XP) Fight Arena   Iammars]

Unless Universe A and Universe 1 have been dissolved, beans should
also be on this list.

-woggle

Re: DIS: Proto-Judgement of CFJ 1927

[Charles Reiss]

On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 12:21 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 10:08 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  > On 5/1/08, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  >  > 3. After this equation has been binding for 30 days or after all
>  >  > eligible parties have specified Agoran Decisions on which comex shall
>  >  > vote, IF AND ONLY IF Comex has fulfilled all eir obligations in #2,
>  >  > the Broker CAN and SHALL create 50 VP in comex's possession.
>  >
>  >  I don't think this works.  The Broker can't award points arbitrarily
>  >  just because e (whether of eir own volition or not) entered into a
>  >  contract saying so.
>  >
>  Isn't the entire equity court system in violation of our R101 rights
>  by forcing a contract upon possibly un-willing parties?

I think it's unlikely your R101 rights are violated until an
unappealable judgement is entered in an equity case. Even then, there
are other interpretations of the equity system: that the judgement is
in effect a rule-imposed requirement (the equity case rule in effect
simulating the requirements that would be imposed by the contract in
question at Power 1.7); that the judgement is in effect an amendment
of the original contract and thus does not create an R101 binding
problem; or that the judgement is consented to for R101 purposes by
entering into a contract with the clear intention that it be governed
by the Agoran rules while the equity case rules existed...

- woggle

DIS: Re: BUS: Ducks & platypuses

[Charles Reiss]

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 8:27 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I intend to make the following contract with comex:
>
>  {
>  Parties to this contract cannot leave this contract.
>  Parties to this contract are obligated not to consent to making a
>  Contract Change.
>  Parties to this contract are obligated to not be party to this contract.
>  }

The clear course of action here is attempt to destroy the contract by
proposal...

-woggle

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Ducks & platypuses

[Charles Reiss]

On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 11:18 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (I will hereby rebut the argument which is against my guilt and,
> therefore, for my innocence.)
>
> These arguments relate to CFJ 1943.
>
> The Argument:
>
> I should not be found GUILTY because the contract obligated
> its parties to not be party to it, and therefore the contract
> obligated its parties to break the rules. Therefore, since I
> could not have done anything else, I plead EXCUSED.
>
> The Rebuttal:
>
> The argument is invalid because I could have not made the
> contract in the first place, thus avoiding breaking the rules.
> Therefore, I should be found GUILTY.
>
> The Rebuttal of the Rebuttal:
>
> I should not be found GUILTY because my religion -
> Agoracontractian - requires me to make that contract, and
> it is unreasonable to say that I could drop my religion to
> avoid breaking the rules. Therefore, I plead EXCUSED.
>
> The Agoracontractian Religion:
>
> This religion has two commandments, given by God at the
> beginning of time. These commandments MUST be obeyed
> by its adherents. I am the only member of this religion.
>
> 1. A member of the Agoracontractian religion must make
>   the Ducks & Platypuses Agoran contract.
> 2. These commandments are an Agoran public contract.

I think you're trying to say that this is a Public Contract to which
you are a party, but it is not, since if you were the only party it
would dissolve immediately (it requires at least two parties) and no
effective announcement of it having more than two parties has been
made.

Regardless the contract which at issue seems to have a loophole of
allowing you to propose and not oppose a proposal that would modify
the contract. Since you have not done so, I believe a verdict of
EXCUSED is plainly not reasonable. Not that it would be reasonable by
conflict with another contract (as you seem to imply) because of
R1742's clause stating that the obligation is not impaired by
conflicts with other contracts.

-woggle

DIS: Re: BUS: I win

[Charles Reiss]

On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/5/14 Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > I win the game.
>  >
>  > ehird
>  >
>
>  I initiate an inquiry CFJ on the statement: "In the message archived
>  at the URL 
> ,
>  ehird won the game."
>
>  Evidence:
>
>  There are only two rules that could prevent a player from winning the
>  game merely by announcing it: rule 2186/0 and rule 101/7. In addition,
>  it must be established that it is possible to win the game merely by
>  announcing it.
>
>  Rule 101/7(ii) allows players to take actions which are not regulated
>  (and precedent seems to be that in general regulated actions cannot be
>  taken except by virtue of rule 101/7). Therefore, if it is shown that
>  rule 2186/0 is not a problem, and that the action of winning the game
>  by announcement is not regulated, then an attempt to win the game by
>  announcement must succeed.
>
>  Rule 2140(c) implies that no entity with a power less than 3 can
>  modify any substantive aspect of an instrument with power greater than
>  its own, defining a "substantive" aspect of an instrument as any
>  aspect that affects the instrument's operation. Therefore, in order to
>  show that rule 2186/0 does not prevent a player winning the game by
>  announcement, it needs only be shown that given that winning the game
>  by announcement is not regulated, that part of rule 2186/0 affects a


It's clear that R2186 regulates winning the game in general if it at
all possible for any rule to do so. It plainly satisfies R2151(b)'s
criteria "the rules indicate that if certain conditions are satisfied,
then some player is permitted to perform the action", the conditions
being satisfying a Winning Condition and not satisfying any Losing
Condition. Seriously arguing that rules somehow need to regulate every
more specific version is ridiculous, I don't think you'd agree that
"deregistering ehird by wearing a hat" is unregulated.

Also you are mistaken that "winning the game by announcement" is not
directly regulated: for example, if I have initiated a tortoise, I can
then win the game by announcement per R2110 and R2186.

[snip]

-woggle

DIS: Re: BUS: I win

[Charles Reiss]

On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Elliott Hird
>  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  > 2008/5/14 Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>  >
>  > > I win the game.
>  >  >
>  >  > ehird
>  >  >
>  >
>  >  I initiate an inquiry CFJ on the statement: "In the message archived
>  >  at the URL 
> <http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2008-May/010573.html>,
>  >  ehird won the game."
>  >
>  >  Evidence:
>  >
>  >  There are only two rules that could prevent a player from winning the
>  >  game merely by announcing it: rule 2186/0 and rule 101/7. In addition,
>  >  it must be established that it is possible to win the game merely by
>  >  announcing it.
>  >
>  >  Rule 101/7(ii) allows players to take actions which are not regulated
>  >  (and precedent seems to be that in general regulated actions cannot be
>  >  taken except by virtue of rule 101/7). Therefore, if it is shown that
>  >  rule 2186/0 is not a problem, and that the action of winning the game
>  >  by announcement is not regulated, then an attempt to win the game by
>  >  announcement must succeed.
>  >
>  >  Rule 2140(c) implies that no entity with a power less than 3 can
>  >  modify any substantive aspect of an instrument with power greater than
>  >  its own, defining a "substantive" aspect of an instrument as any
>  >  aspect that affects the instrument's operation. Therefore, in order to
>  >  show that rule 2186/0 does not prevent a player winning the game by
>  >  announcement, it needs only be shown that given that winning the game
>  >  by announcement is not regulated, that part of rule 2186/0 affects a
>
>
>  It's clear that R2186 regulates winning the game in general if it at
>  all possible for any rule to do so. It plainly satisfies R2151(b)'s
>  criteria "the rules indicate that if certain conditions are satisfied,
>  then some player is permitted to perform the action", the conditions
>  being satisfying a Winning Condition and not satisfying any Losing
>  Condition. Seriously arguing that rules somehow need to regulate every
>  more specific version is ridiculous, I don't think you'd agree that
>  "deregistering ehird by wearing a hat" is unregulated.
Hm. Immediately after sending that I see that that's a bad example
because it modifies recordkeepor information. So, I'll substitute
"changing the text of a private contract by wearing a hat" as a more
suitable ridiculous example.

-woggle

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Make recordkeepors keep records

[Charles Reiss]

On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 2:04 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I submit a proposal, titled "Recordkeepors must recordkeep", with an
> adoption index of 2:
[snip]
> "The recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity defined as such
> by its backing document.  If the recordkeepor is an office, that
> office's report includes a list of all instances of that class and
> their owners.  This portion of that office's report is self-ratifying.
>  If the recordkeepor is a person, that person SHALL publish a list of
> all instances of that class and their owners once per week.
[snip]

You really should be much more careful about how you'd make the rules
recognize contractually imposed duties, especially given how rich a
source of scams that has been. With the text as you have it, a
contract could assign a non-party person as recordkeepor of some nasty
contractually-defined asset, thereby imposing a burdensome duty to
track those assets on the non-party.

-woggle

DIS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5528-5531

[Charles Reiss]

I vote as follows:

On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 6:53 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> NUM   FL  AI   SUBMITTER   TITLE
> 5528  D1  3ais523  
AGAINST
> 5529  D0  3ais523  
AGAINST
> 5530  O1  1comex   
AGAINST x 5, FOR x 1
> 5531  D2  3Murphy  Rules as Binding Agreement
AGAINST

- woggle

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Rules as Contract

[Charles Reiss]

On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 9:03 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ed Murphy wrote:
>>Proto-Proposal:  Rules as Contract
>>(AI = 3, II = 2, please)
> ...
>>  A rule is a type of instrument with the capacity to govern
>>  the game generally.
>
> This is essentially the current equivalent of the Suber R101.  This is
> the claim that the rules are sovereign.
>
>>  The rules as a whole are a contract that CANNOT be terminated,
>
> And this seems to contradict it.  A contract is binding only on its
> parties, and does not have the capacity to (for example) proscribe the
> wearing of hats by non-parties.
>
>>  Semi-players are non-players who act with the clear intent of
>>  influencing the gamestate.
>
> Nice criterion.  I think with this you don't need to separately handle
> players: requesting registration involves clear intent to influence the
> game state.
>
>>  The jurisdiction of the rules over non-participants is limited
>>  to defining portions of the gamestate relevant to them, including
>>  the revocation of their privileges.
>
> I'm not clear on what this means.
>
> I think the bit about the rules being a contract, and being binding on
> participants, needs to come first.  After that, the existing bit about
> "capacity to govern the game generally" can be used, with explicit
> reference to the restriction on jurisdiction that comes from the contract
> nature of the rules.
>
> I think the "capacity to govern" paragraph should probably stay with the
> "rules have ID numbers" and other text.  The whole of the present R2141
> is about individual rules, whereas the new rule text you want to add
> is about the ruleset as a whole.  I think that's a better division than
> the role vs attributes division that you're trying to do.
>
> How about, say:
>
>   Enact a new power=3 rule, titled "Role of the Ruleset", with text:
>
>  The ruleset as a whole is a contract, and its parties are known
>  as "participants".  This contract CANNOT be terminated, rules to
>  the contrary notwithstanding.  The ruleset consists of all the
>  rules that currently exist.
>
>  Changes to the set of parties to the ruleset are secured.  The
>  proposal, fora, and registration processes are, prima facie,
>  considered protective of a participant's rights and privileges
>  with respect to making and changing the rules and the agreement
>  to be bound by them.
>
>  Any non-participant who acts with the clear intent of
>  influencing the game state thereby becomes a participant.  Any

Do we need to change R101(iv) to make this really work? Or make attempts
to change the game state when R101(iv) consent to the rules has not been
obtained INEFFECTIVE?

- woggle

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1935a assigned to Murphy, OscarMeyr, BobTHJ

[Charles Reiss]

On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 2:51 PM, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 1 June 2008 3:41:29 comex wrote:
>> Except that pledges can't do things automatically.  So really, he's out of 
>> luck.
>
> Why not?

Acting on behalf authority is pretty poorly defined already (being now
primarily a matter of judicial precedent), and trying to extend it to
allow non-persons to act on behalf of someone (remember, there are
special requirements for contracts tobe persons) is pretty dubious.
And it's very dubious to try to make an action effective without an
actual announcement of the action when the rules clearly require the
action be taken by announcement.

Now, without challenging the limits of acting-on-behalf so much,
BobTHJ could just permit the other panelists to act on eir behalf to
support a judgement of REMAND.

- woggle

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: An elephant sometimes forgets

[Charles Reiss]

On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 6:22 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Proposal: An elephant sometimes forgets (AI=1.7, II=0)

I don't think this should be disinterested. It's a rather more than a bug fix.

-woggle

DIS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5541-5545

[Charles Reiss]

I vote as follows:

On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 6:53 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> NUM   FL  AI   SUBMITTER   TITLE
> 5541  O0  1ais523  Motto of the Monster
FOR x 6
> 5542  O1  1.7  Wooble  equation as amendment
FOR x 6
> 5543  D1  2Murphy  Faster support
FOR
> 5544  D1  2.1  ais523  Justice is Injustice
AGAINST
> 5545  O1  1ehird   AGORA
PRESENT x 6

- woggle

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJs on "Refactor Regulation"

[Charles Reiss]

On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I CFJ on the statement:  All actions are regulated.
>
> Arguments: R2125 reads, in part:
>
>  An action is regulated if:
>
>  [...]
>
>d) The rules explicitly state that it MAY be performed while
>   certain conditions are satisfied.  Such an action MAY NOT
>   be performed except as allowed by the rules.
>
> R101 reads, in part:
>
>ii. Every player has the right to perform an action which is
>not regulated.
>
> Thus, R101 indicates that any action MAY be performed while the
> condition of the action not being regulated is satisfied.  This meets
> the criteria of R2125(d), which therefore defines the action as
> regulated.

Gratuitous arguments:

R101(ii) says that it 'may' be performed not that it 'MAY' be
performed. This could be a material difference.

The judge should also consider whether reading R2125(d) this way would
be barred by R101(ii) taking precedence over R2125(d). (Can one read
into R101(ii) that there must exist unregulated actions? Or even
something stronger, like that the rules are inherently limited to
controlling aspects relevant to the game?)

> I CFJ on the statement: The CotC CAN assign a poorly qualified player
> to judge a case.
>
> Arguments: By Rule 1868, the CotC CAN assign a qualified judge to a
> case if it requires one and has no judge assigned.  The action of
> assigning a judge is therefore regulated by both R2125(c) and
> R2125(e), both of which stipulate that the action CANNOT be performed
> except as allowed by the rules.  Rule 1868 also stipulates that the
> CotC SHALL not assign as judge an entity who is poorly qualified to
> judge the case.  Since R1868 makes it possible but does not allow it,
> R2125(c) and R2125(e) both stipulate that the action is in fact
> impossible.

Gratuitous arguments:

"Allowed" may need to be interpreted as, in some cases, being possible
because of and, in others, being permitted because of. ("The pipes
allow water to enter your house"; "The law allows the police officer
to search your vehicle"... "The law allows people to put liens on your
property, but they may be liable if the liens are not legitimate"???)
Assigning a judge to a judicial case is not inherently possible
because judicial cases and their properties are rule-defined entities
and thus cannot be changed for the purposes of the rules except when a
rule makes it possible. (Some related actions are inherently possible,
of course, like announcing such an assignment and publishing a
document that purports to be an official report reflecting such an
assignment. None of these actions, however, have any inherent effect
on the rule-defined state of the rule-defined entity.) Therefore, it
may be reasonable to conclude that R1868 allows the CotC to assign a
qualified judge for the purposes of R2125(c) and R2125(e).

-woggle

DIS: Re: BAK: Hello, B

[Charles Reiss]

On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 7:58 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 7:57 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 7:14 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 7:56 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 My guess is that this has the effect of creating a contract which
 matches the current rules of B Nomic in text, but which is not B Nomic
 and lacks its current gamestate.
>>>
>>> With ehird's consent, I intend to modify our B Nomic contract so that
>>> the rest of its gamestate matches B Nomic's.
>>
>> That's not a defined contract change.
>
> Though I suppose that "amending a contract" is a bit ambiguous in that
> regard, so maybe it can work.

It should be possible to simulate with a series of changes to the text
of the pseudo-B Nomic ruleset that end up with no net change to the
ruleset of the contract, so I see no problem allowing it as amendments
to the contract, which collectively could be a contract change.

-woggle

DIS: Re: BUS: [IADoP] Assessor election

[Charles Reiss]

On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 9:39 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This (very late and overlooked; my apologies) message initiates the
> Agoran Decision to choose the holder of the Assessor office.  The
> valid options are ROOT and MURPHY, the eligible voters are the active
> players, and the vote collector is the IADoP.

I vote ROOT.

-woggle

DIS: Re: BUS: Defendant notification

[Charles Reiss]

On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 8:09 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ivan Hope, I inform you of
>  http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2009
> and invite you to rebut the argument for your guilt.
>

Some gratuitous arguments:

The R101(iii) right may take precedence here (even if Ivan Hope's
contract is successful in penalizing em for taking actions e does not
have an R101 right to do).

-woggle

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: trustees

[Charles Reiss]

On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 11:53 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 10:48 PM, Chester Mealer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I'm about to be busy and ehird gave me an idea.
>>
>  [...]
>
>>
>> 8. Any party with support of a majority of trustees and without objection
>> from cdm014 may make an announcement about how the player cdm014 will act if
>> e does not declare
>>intent to act otherwise by announcing cdm014's intent to act in the
>> form of "cdm014 " the action must be one cdm014 is capable of making
>> according to the rules and laws of agora.
>>
>> I'm buying a house and moving soon but I didn't want to deregister and I
>> wanted to be able to remain an active participant and so I think this is an
>> interesting idea, if I announce my intent to act according to the
>> announcements made by the partnership.
>
>
> There's no reason for this to be a partnership as far as I can tell.
>
> The legislation on acting-on-behalf of first-class persons is pretty
> flimsy, but given the ease with which people can construct duplicate
>

*sigh* s/legislation/regulations (mostly game custom and CFJs)/ -- so, no,
cdm014, you didn't miss some piece in the rules about it. And I could've
sworn I edited that piece.

-woggle

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2018 judged by Goethe

[Charles Reiss]

On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 9:01 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 9:57 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2018
> >
> > ==  Equity Case 2018  ==
> >
> >comex made use of a series of partnerships to rob the bank,
> >which was not envisioned by the contract.
> >
> > 
> >
> > Caller: Wooble
> > Barred: BobTHJ, root, Ivan Hope
> >
> > Judge:  Goethe
> > Judgement:  (see below)
>
> I intend, with 2 support, to appeal this judgement.


Although it's not yet a real judgment, any reason why the AFO wouldn't've
just appealed it instead?

-woggle

Re: DIS: Proto: Scam Busting (with Fruit)

[Charles Reiss]

On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 1:53 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> This is just a rough proto so far.  The idea is to prevent scams that
> involve repeating the same set of actions over and over again within a
> short period of time.
>
> A game action is liberal iff the rules explicitly indicate that it is.
>  A game action that is not liberal is parsimonious.
>
> The following game actions are liberal:
>
> * Casting or retracting votes on Agoran decisions.
>
> * Submitting proposals.
>
> * Assigning a judgement to a judicial case.
>
> * Any action that is required or permitted as a direct result of
> holding an office.


To preserve R101 rights:
* Submitting a non-excess CFJ.
* Initiating an appeal.
* Deregistering.

You should also let contracts make their contract-defined actions be liberal
if they choose (or maybe have fractional "cost" if the contract so chooses?)
and let transferring/destroying/etc. assets be liberal if the asset's
backing document so chooses.

-woggle

DIS: Re: BUS: meh

[Charles Reiss]

On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Elliott Hird <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I leave the pledge that talks about things being able to perform
> actions on my behalf.


How?

DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2032 assigned to woggle

[Charles Reiss]

On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 2:20 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2032
>
> ==  CFJ 2032  ==
>
>The hypothetical contract in the evidence section, if made a
>contest, would be effective, because neither Rule 101 (vi.) nor
>Rule 478 would prevent its operation.
>
> 
[snip]
> 
>
> Caller's Arguments:
>
> The contest egregiously attempts to bribe its parties to not
> participate in the fora, by awarding points only if they don't.
> However, it's just a bribe.  The contest is not actually prohibiting
> participation, i.e. you could not initiate an equity or criminal case
> against a party who initiated CFJs.
>
> You see, I'm thinking (with ais523) about starting a sort of contest
> based on secret rules... I think it might be quite fun.  But if one
> such secret rule was that, say, every CFJ submitted had to be in a
> message with subject "CFJ", or else you lose points, then we might run
> headfirst into Rule 101, because a lot of the contest's parties
> wouldn't know about the rule.
>
> 
>
> Caller's Evidence:
>
> At the end of each week, the contestmaster of this contest SHALL award
> 5 points to each party to this contest that did not initiate any CFJs
> that week.
>
> 
>

Comments please?

Proto-judgment:

The proposed contest would not prohibit participants from filing CFJs,
so rule 478 does not stop its operation. R101(vi) is more troubling,
though it is phrased similarly, because R101 rights are more
expansive. For the hypothetical contract, however, I find that
R101(iii)'s right to initiate formal processes to resolve matters of
controversy is more seriously infringed if any R101 right is infringed
by this contract.

The initiation of CFJs is the primary mechanism the rules have for
settling such matters of controversy, and when the other rules have
such a mechanism available to all players, there is no reason to read
another mechanism into R101. Now the alleged contract does not prevent
anyone from initiating CFJs. But R101 rights can be infringed even
when excersizing the right is POSSIBLE. Such a right is indeed
"abridged" when an action is PROHIBITED.

So to analyze the contract at issue, we must determine if it's
treatment of initiating CFJs shares important characteristics with
that of a hypothetical rule or contract prohibiting it. There are two
essential aspects of rules prohibiting actions:
(a) The metagame aspect: Obeying the rules (and through R1742
contracts) is a sacred duty of playing the game.
(b) The punishment aspect: The actions carry a disincentive intended
to discourage the action (with exceptions for cases where the
infringing action was not reasonably avoidable)

Clearly, the alleged contract does meet aspect (a). But it appears to
meet aspect (b). With the hypothetical contract in force, players
initiating a CFJ in a week are effectively penalized 5 points. Now, 5
points are not a punishment currently among the options in the rules,
but it is similar in spirit to a sentence of FINE.

Now, there is a serious difference here in that, unlike all
rule-prohibited actions, the action does not carry a potential
punishment of EXILE or CHOKEY, both of which infringe on perhaps the
most fundamental aspect of the game -- participation in the
rule-changing process. But I think that the hypothetical contest would
still effectively punish the initiation of CFJs.

Of course, the CFJ initiating right is gaurenteed in unlimited scope.
Excess CFJs are not subject to resolution (because they can be
rejected) and used to be punished by VC loss. But, the initiation of
excess CFJs is not essential to the right to resolve matters of
controversy in any normal case; 5 CFJs a week should do the specify
the controversy. The initiation of at least one CFJ in a week is.

So, is that enough that infringe on R101(iii)? The preamble of R101
suggests the rights should be gaurenteed broadly against
"abridgements", "reductions", "limitations", and "restrictions". The
effective punishment of initiating CFJs certainly counts as one of
these.
Therefore, I find that the hypothetical contest would not be
effective, rendering the statement false. I proto-judge FALSE.

-woggle

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report

[Charles Reiss]

On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 11:15 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I might be wrong, but don't reports traditionally go in OFF?

It is equally effective to send a report to agora-business as to
agora-official, and it's not conventional to send reports that aren't
directly required by the rules to agora-official, apparently.

-woggle

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2032 assigned to woggle

[Charles Reiss]

On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 9:25 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 12:57 AM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Comments please?
>>
>> Proto-judgment:
>
> It's a good proto-judgement.
>
> Too bad it doesn't yield my desired outcome... :(
>
> Have you considered Goethe's argument wrt refusing to be a member to a 
> contract?

Not previously, but looking at it, I don't find it convincing.
R101(iv) is phrased in terms of a choice, talking explicitly about
"consent" versus "refusal", suggesting the important aspect of the
right is the ability to choose between becoming party and not becoming
party to an agreement. Most importantly, its phrasing strongly
suggesting that the right should be interpreted so as to prevent
people who 'explicitly' and 'willfully' consent from becoming a party.
I believe this enshrines a game custom of allowing people to agree to
all sorts of ridiculous and unconscionable contracts that might be
otherwise barred by a reasonable reading of R101.

And there's a serious difference in scope here. A "bribing" contract
would only interfere with becoming party to itself, whereas the
hypothetical contract, if made it into a contest, would interfere with
all players initiation of CFJs. In consideration of the small
effective punishment the hypothetical contract provides (it certainly
isn't anything like EXILE or CHOKEY), it is that it would render it
fundamentally impossible to excersize the right in any case without
incurring punishment that renders it objectionable.

-woggle



-woggle

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Hello, world

[Charles Reiss]

On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 2:45 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 4:22 PM, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 2008/6/28 comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> My VP is now 50 or above.
>>>
>>> I give Pavrita 20 Vote Points.
>>
>> You know, ais523 stole VP from me and gave them to you
>> because he thought you desperately wanted to be out of the Vote Market.
>
> Did he?
>
> ...So many messages...
>
> I don't know how many VP I have, so I suppose I will wait for the next
> Vote Market report.

I would suggest taking this opportunity to terminate the equation of CFJ 1915.

-woggle

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Hello, world

[Charles Reiss]

On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 4:08 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I would suggest taking this opportunity to terminate the equation of CFJ 
>> 1915.
>>
>
> With the majority consent of the Vote Market parties I intend to
> terminate the equation of CFJ 1915.

I suggest you read clause one of the equation of CFJ 1915:
1. After comex's VP is at least 50 while this equation is in effect,
any party to the Vote Market CAN terminate this equation by
announcement.

Since it is indeed after that has happened, you don't need consent or
no-objections.

-woggle

Re: DIS: Proto: Mandatory proxy voting

[Charles Reiss]

On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 11:59 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 1:44 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Not really.  You make the contract a partnership, have all the parties
>> sponsor it, and require it to cast the exact number of votes you'd
>> have cast under the old system.  Result: same system we have now, with
>> an added layer of annoyance.
>
> Repeal partnerships
>

Sadly that doesn't solve this problem (though I support the suggestion
for other reasons).

The big issue is that under the hypothetical scheme, the effective
vote power P of sets of players has the property P(S u T) - P(S) =
VVLOD(T) (for |S| >=2). Thus, the effective bargaining power every
non-empty set of players (with any other non-empty set of players) is
always equal to their (summed) VVLOD. That's boring.

-woggle

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2032 judged FALSE by woggle

[Charles Reiss]

On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 8:50 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 5:15 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> ==  CFJ 2032  ==
>>
>>The hypothetical contract in the evidence section, if made a
>>contest, would be effective, because neither Rule 101 (vi.) nor
>>Rule 478 would prevent its operation.
>> Judgement:  FALSE
>
> With 2 support, I intend to appeal this judgement. Punishing people
> for not doing something and rewarding them for doing it are very
> different things. I can go around arbitrarily rewarding people for not
> posting, as long as I have the stuff with which to reward them, and
> this certainly doesn't interfere with their right to post. I can't, on
> the other hand, arbitrarily decide to punish somebody for posting, and
> if I could, doing so would in fact interfere with their right to post,
> as they're losing rather than simply breaking even.

Gratuitous arguments:

Assuming reasonable participation, the net effect in this case is very
similar to taking five points (per week) away from everyone who does
excersize the right. And I think your hypothetical reward, if in a
contract or rule, would probably abridge the right to participation in
the forum.

-woggle

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on "excess" CFJs

[Charles Reiss]

On 7/2/08, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I call a inquiry CFJ on the following statement: "The CotC MAY NOT
>  refuse cases based on cases being excess as defined by Rule 2175"
>
>  Evidence:
>  Rule 101(iii) gives all persons the "right to initiate a formal
>  process to resolve matters of controversy, in the reasonable
>  expectation that the controversy will thereby be resolved."
>  In the event that a person already initiated 5 CFJs during the Agoran
>  week, if the person calls another CFJ to resolve a matter of
>  controversy, and the CotC refuses the case, the person's reasonable
>  expectation that the controversy will thereby be resolved is violated.

Gratuitous arguments:

The statement is definitely too strong as disallowing some CFJs (e.g.
nonsense CFJs, duplicate CFJs) likely do not implicate the R101(iii)
right as either no actual matter of controversy is involved or there
already existed a reasonable expectation that the controversy would be
resolved through a formal process (and there the CotC rejection can be
considered to serve as a formal recognition of that).

It may be the CotC is prevented from excersizing in eir discrestion to
decline excess CFJs in the extraordinarily unlikely and
near-impossible to demonstrate situation where a person would
apparently need to initiate more than an average of more than 5 CFJs
per Agoran week for some non-trivial period of time (being forced to
wait a week or two or three probably does not infringe or
substantially abridge the right, at least so long as no statute of
limitations is implicated) to address actual matters of controversy.
This is doubly hard to do as, per game custom, the reasoning in a
judgement of a CFJ can be reasonably expected to also resolve similar
controversies. So, a person would need to have 5 substantially
different controversies to resolve per week, and that after all
reasonable tricks for combining them into less CFJs.

-woggle

DIS: Re: BUS: Does anyone else want to trade these assets?

[Charles Reiss]

On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 6:11 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I submit the following proposal AI = 2 ii = 1 entitled "Time to trade notes"
> ---
> Remove the word 'fixed' from the first paragraph of R2126
> ---

If you're going to do this, you should also get rid of a note spending method.

-woggle

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2032 judged FALSE by woggle

[Charles Reiss]

On 7/2/08, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
>
> I'm obligating myself to give everyone who has not participated in the
>  fora since April 29 a D note. This is equivalent to giving everyone a
>  D note and then penalizing people D notes for participating in the
>  fora. However, by rule 101, people cannot be penalized for
>  participating in the fora, as they have the right to do so.

Since when is obliging yourself to cause something the same as causing
it directly? So, if you really want to follow this sort of
equalize-the-treatment reasoning, you'd be obliged to cause every
first-class player to be awarded a D note. That'd probably take you a
while. Good luck!

I think, however, a more reasonable interpretation is that
discriminatory aspects of your pledge (that is, essentially all of it)
were never binding on you because R101 took precedence over those
obligations. So you just gave Offhanded a 'free' D note (and lost 2),
and if you missed anyone, they can't win a criminal or equity case
against you for failing to perform that obligation. And if you instead
made a pledge that imposed similar obligations on you on a periodic
basis, it need not have a chilling effect on the right because people
would know you wouldn't actually be obliged to make such rewards.

[And if you really think R101 directly affects the D note holdings,
wouldn't it be more sensible for it to cancel your scheme,
invalidating any note spending, entirely?]

-woggle

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2028 assigned to root ais523

[Charles Reiss]

On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 2:27 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 9:50 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Tue, 2008-07-01 at 14:36 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2028
>>>
>>> =  Criminal Case 2028  =
>>>
>>> the Reformed Bank of Agora violated R2144 by registering while
>>> having the same basis (BobTHJ and Ivan Hope CXXVII) as the
>>> Protection Racket, a registered player.
>>>
>>> 
>
> [SNIP]
>
>> Verdict: GUILTY/APOLOGY (null set of prescribed words)
>
> I CFJ on the statement "The Reformed Bank of Agora is a partnership."
>
> Arguments:
>
> By Rule 2145, a partnership must devolve its obligations onto its
> members.  This necessitates that the members be empowered to cause the
> partnership to meet its obligations.
>
> In the case of criminal apologies, Rule 1504 requires that the apology
> be submitted within 72 hours.  However, the only way for the members
> of the RBoA to cause it to submit an apology is to act on its behalf
> without three objections.  By Rule 1728, the minimum time-frame for
> performing an action without N objections is four days.  Thus, it is
> impossible (without advance warning) for the RBoA to meet an
> obligation to submit an apology.
>
> It follows that the members of the RBoA are not empowered to cause it
> to submit an apology within the time requirements for doing so.  I
> therefore claim that the RBoA does not satisfactorily devolve its
> obligations upon its members, and so it is not a partnership.

Gratuitous:

The partners can enable themselves to fulfill this obligation within
the time limit amending the RBoA with agreement of all parties.

The partners may be able to substantially postpone the obligation
by appealing the sentence before the deadline for the apology is up.

-woggle

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2028 assigned to root ais523

[Charles Reiss]

On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 8:40 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
>>
> I appeal this case.

I think you mean that you intend to appeal either the sentence or the
judgment on culpability with 2 support.

-woggle

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2028 assigned to root ais523

[Charles Reiss]

On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 8:54 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You're half right. I initiate an appeal on the question of sentence in
> this case.

I'm pretty sure that's unsuccessful unless I'm missing something big...

Are you trying to argue R101(iii)?

-woggle

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5577-5584

[Charles Reiss]

On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 11:14 PM, Ben Caplan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >5583  O1  1ais523  Right to Vanish
>> AGAINST*10 (shouldn't be such an easy way out of contracts; if you really
>> want a get-out like that it should have a longer auto-exile)
>
> In particular, it should be at least as long as the maximum possible
> tariff of exile (240 days).

I think the time limit for OVERLOOKED is a better metric. You can
still initiate a criminal case against someone after they vanished in
most cases (which, if bad enough,would effectively extend their
autoexile). There are, of course, cases that are missed for this, but
I don't think they're much of a concern. Anything close the maximum
EXILE tariff is only likely to be done (and sustained after appeal,
proposals modifying things, etc.) to people we really really don't
like: Remember that the EXILE rule says that the middle of the time
period is appropriate for "severe rule breaches amounting to a breach
of trust". So they're likely to be the sort of special case that can
be one-off'd if really necessary.

Now, personally, I'd prefer a sort of vanishing recognition that would
recognize on a _prior_ period of sufficiently long non-participation.
The idea being that this enshrines the idea for R101 that people can
cease to play in lieu of anything else, and so after coming back after
legitimately doing so, we could forget about stupid historical
contracts and the like they entered and treat them basically like a
new player.

-woggle

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report

[Charles Reiss]

On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 10:31 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 10:26 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 4 Jul 2008, Taral wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 6:48 AM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 That depends on the value of 4.
>>>
>>> Please give a value of 4 for which 4 - 4 != 0?
>>
>> 0/0, or infinity.  -G.
>
> One might also imagine an esoteric programming language in which
> accessing a variable inherently changes its value.

Well if you want to go that route: (perl obviously) package F;use base
"Tie::Scalar";sub TIESCALAR{bless[]} sub FETCH{++$i}tie $x, F; print
$x for 1..10;