BUS: Re: DIS: Re: Re: Re: Re: 蘭亭社の憲章の修正箇条 2017/05/19

[Owen Jacobson]

> On May 19, 2017, at 3:41 PM, Josh T  wrote:
> 
> Nobody seems to mind when CFJ 3478 was presented with "I present no 
> arguments, largely out of spite" ;P.

Having one’s CFJ dismissed does seem like a consequence, of sorts.

> I pledge to not object to nichdel should they wish to assign themselves the 
> below-quoted CFJs:
> * "Agora need not be played in English."
> * "Agora can be played in any language.”

Gratuitous argument applicable to either, should either statement be the 
subject of a CFJ at any point:

https://hackage.haskell.org/package/nomyx-server 
 purports to be a nomic played 
primarily in a non-English language. Its rule implementing democracy is 
available for consideration at 
http://www.nomyx.net:8000/Nomyx/menu/rules/%20Foundation%20-%20Second%20Republic?ruleNumber=2&decl=Nomyx/Library/Democracy.hs
 
.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3465

[Owen Jacobson]

In partial satisfaction of my pledge, if I inherited G.’s Shinies, I pay 
nichdel 20 shinies for rendering judgement on one of the listed CFJs while it 
remained unjudged.

-o

> On May 19, 2017, at 3:21 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:
> 
> CFJ 3465 reads:
> 
>  If Proposal 7821 were resolved right now, the outcome would be
>  ADOPTED.
> 
> Because I agree with the arguments included by Alexis [1] and because the 
> proposal was in fact adopted shortly after the CFJ was called, I find CFJ 
> 3465 TRUE.
> 
> [1] {
> 
> Caller's Arguments:
> 
> Rule 683, as amended by Proposal 7814, gives the requirements for a
> valid ballot:
> 
>  An entity submits a ballot on an Agoran decision by publishing a
>  notice satisfying the following conditions:
> 
>  (a) The ballot is submitted during the voting period for the
>  decision.
> 
>  (b) The entity casting the ballot (the voter) was, at the
>  initiation of the decision, a player.
> 
>  (c) The ballot clearly identifies the matter to be decided.
> 
>  (d) The ballot clearly identifies a valid vote, as determined by
>  the voting method.
> 
>  (d) The ballot clearly sets forth the voter's intent to place the
>  identified vote.
> 
>  (e) The voter has not publicly retracted the ballot during the
>  voting period.  ("Changing" a vote is equivalent to
>  retracting it and casting a vote with the new value.)
> 
>  (f) It is the most recent of the voter's otherwise-valid
>  ballots.
> 
> Note the first sentence "An entity submits a ballot... by *publishing a
> notice satisfying the following conditions*". By rule 478, a player
> "publishes" something by sending a public message, which this is. While
> "notice" is not defined by the rules, it is clear from context, from
> Rule 107's use of the same term, and from the ordinary language
> definition of the word that a "notice" is a form of document.  In
> particular, this means that the evaluation as to whether a ballot is
> properly submitted is performed by determining whether the
> document---the notice---satisfies the conditions listed at the time of
> its publication. Moreover, there is nothing in this or any other rule
> which provides for the automatic revocation, withdrawal, or otherwise
> invalidation of a validly submitted ballot.
> 
> Thus, we can evaluate each of the conditions on each of the 100 notices
> given above indicating that vote FOR Proposal 7821.
> 
> (a) The ballots are submitted in this message, which I am sending
> moments prior to the end of the voting period.
> (b) It is without a doubt that I was a player when the decision was
> initiated.
> (c) The ballots each clearly identify Proposal 7821's adoption as the
> matter to be decided.
> (d) The ballots each clearly identify FOR, a valid vote.
> (d) The ballots clearly set forth that I intend to place that vote.
> (e) I have not publicly retracted any of the ballots.
> (f) At the time of the submission of each ballot, it was the most
> recent of my valid votes. While each (except for the last) was
> almost immediately supplanted by its successor in the position of
> the most recent of my ballots, and it has long been possible to
> take multiple actions sequentially in the same message.
> 
> Thus, each of those is a valid ballot. Now, in order to determine the
> outcome on the decision, we must follow the procedure in Rule 955, as
> amended by Proposal 7816:
> 
>  Each Agoran decision has a voting method, which determines how
>  voters may vote on it and how to calculate the outcome. The
>  strength of a ballot is the voting strength of the voter who
>  cast it on that Agoran decision.
> 
>  The following voting methods are defined:
> 
>  (1) AI-majority: the valid votes are FOR and AGAINST. Let F be
>  the total strength of all valid ballots cast FOR a decision,
>  A be the same for AGAINST, and AI be the adoption index of
>  the decision. The outcome is ADOPTED if F/A >= AI and F/A >
>  1 (or F>0 and A=0), otherwise REJECTED.
> 
> Since 100 ballots were cast by myself, and I have voting strength of 1,
> the total length of FOR is at least 100, while the small number of
> ballots cast AGAINST it certainly do not have total strength greater
> than 33 1/3. Consequently, the outcome of the decision must be ADOPTED.
> 
> }



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: BUS: [ADoP] Election of Assessor, Promotor, Rulekeepor, and Arbitor

[Owen Jacobson]

I vote on the following decisions as indicated.

> I initiate an election for Assessor, as there has been no election since the 
> last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new Assessor. For 
> this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and the valid options are the 
> players (PRESENT is also a valid vote).

[nichdel]

The incumbent has been doing an admirable job, and I see no reason e should be 
ousted unless e chooses to resign.

As it is vital to the continued functioning of Agora that this office’s reports 
arrive in a timely manner, I suggest that its pay rate be no higher than 2 
Shinies and its report rate be no lower than 8 Shinies.

> I initiate an election for Promotor, as there has been no election since the 
> last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new Promotor. For 
> this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and the valid options are the 
> players (PRESENT is also a valid vote).

[Aris]

The incumbent has been doing an admirable job, and I see no reason e should be 
ousted unless e chooses to resign.

As it is vital to the continued functioning of Agora that this office’s reports 
arrive in a timely manner, I suggest that its pay rate be no higher than 2 
Shinies and its report rate be no lower than 8 Shinies.

> I initiate an election for Rulekeepor, as there has been no election since 
> the last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new Rulekeepor. 
> For this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and the valid options are 
> the players (PRESENT is also a valid vote).

[Gaelan]

The incumbent has been doing an admirable job, and I see no reason e should be 
ousted unless e chooses to resign.

As it is vital to the continued functioning of Agora that this office’s reports 
arrive in a timely manner, I suggest that its pay rate be no higher than 2 
Shinies and its report rate be no lower than 8 Shinies.

> I initiate an election for Arbitor, as there has been no election since the 
> last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new Arbitor. For 
> this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and the valid options are the 
> players (PRESENT is also a valid vote).

[ais523]

The incumbent has been doing an admirable job, and I see no reason e should be 
ousted unless e chooses to resign.

As it is vital to the continued functioning of Agora that this office’s 
non-report activities be performed in a timely manner, I suggest that its pay 
rate be no lower than 8 Shinies and its report rate be no higher than 2 Shinies.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement on CFJ 3479

[Owen Jacobson]

Interesting.

Your message 
mailto:CAK-5aj_Vf=nLrCkevyPeyE=f=rbvlnb1hjar096n_extjgi...@mail.gmail.com>> 
appears to spend the Shinies, and was correctly sent to the public forum. 
Stripping off the public forum mail cruft, it reads:

> I hereby pay 4 shinies to pend this proposal.

I’m not sure whether the Secretary’s report or the Distributor’s is in error.

In any case, it’s probably irrelevant now. That payment appeared in a report 
that has since been ratified, dated May 7th. More than the 7 days generally 
allowed for timely  notice has 
elapsed.

I think it’s unfair that you should lose your shinies through the action of one 
office, and yet fail to gain the intended results through the action of another 
office, and invite you to open an appropriate CFJ if you can think of one, but 
I think I have to deny this claim of error, and do so.

-o

> On May 19, 2017, at 5:59 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
>  wrote:
> 
> TTttPF
> 
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> 
> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 5:58 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
>  > wrote:
> If this is the case then there was an error in the last report of the office 
> tracking shinies, because I was charged the pending fee. Anyways,I submit the 
> following proposal:
> 
>  {{{
>  Title: Agora's To-Do List (v2/ov1)
>  Adoption index: 1.0
>  Author: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> 
>  Enact a rule titled, "To-Do List", reading: "Any player MAY without two 
> objection
>  add an item to the to-do list with a specified number of
>  Shinies associated with it. Any to-do list item must have a clear set
>  of requirements for completion. The to-do list shall be maintained by
>  the Lister. Any person MAY complete an item on the to-do list and
>  claim the specified number of Shinies associated with it by notifying
>  the Lister of their completion of the task. If the Lister agrees with
>  the claimee, the Lister shall without two objection pay the claimee the 
> specified number of
>  Shinies from Agora. Any disagreement regarding completion shall be
>  resolved via a CFJ. After an item has been completed, the Lister shall
>  remove it from the to-do list."
> 
>  Enact a rule titled, "The Office of the Lister", reading: "The Lister
>  is an office; its holder is responsible for maintaining the to-do of
>  Agora.
> 
>  The Lister's Weekly report includes the current state of the Agoran
>  to-do list and any recent events thereof."
>  }}}
> 
> 
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> 
> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 11:38 PM, Sprocklem S  > wrote:
> I judge CFJ 3479 FALSE.
> 
> Judges arguments:
> 
> I'm inclined to agree that “formatting errors” is not an objective
> criteria. Additionally, even if it weren't too ambiguous, it seems like
> it would set a bad precedent to allow such difficult to determine
> conditionals. It's a lot easier just to have people just resubmit the
> proposal if a (formatting) error is found.
> 
> 
> Since the context is lacking in the CFJ itself, I have included it below.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus called the CFJ:
> > Agora's To-Do List is a proposal that was in the proposal pool and has
> > been pended.
> 
> This was caused by objections raised by Aris about the validity of the
> conditional clause of the submission:
> > "Formatting errors" is highly ambiguous. Unless you can clarify it
> > down to something easily checkable, I'm going to count that statement
> > as void.
> 
> The relevant text of PSS's submission is duplicated below:
> > I submit the following proposal if it has no formatting errors and its
> > passage would create two new rules:
> >
> > {{{
> > Title: Agora's To-Do List
> > Adoption index: 1.0
> > Author: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> >
> > Enact a rule titled, "To-Do List", reading: "Any player MAY with 1
> > support add an item to the to-do list with a specified number of
> > Shinies associated with it. Any to-do list item must have a clear set
> > of requirements for completion. The to-do list shall be maintained by
> > the Lister. Any person MAY complete an item on the to-do list and
> > claim the specified number of Shinies associated with it by notifying
> > the Lister of their completion of the task. If the Lister agrees with
> > the claimee, the Lister shall pay the claimee the specified number of
> > Shinies from Agora. Any disagreement regarding completion shall be
> > resolved via a CFJ. After an item has been completed, the Lister shall
> > remove it from the to-do list."
> >
> > Enact a rule titled, "The Office of the Lister", reading: "The Lister
> > is an office; its holder is responsible for maintaining the to-do of
> > Agora.
> >
> > The Lister's Weekly report includes the current state of the Agoran
> > to-do list and any recent events thereof."
> > }}}
> 
> 
> --
> Sprocklem
> 
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: [Arbitor] OFF: [Deputy Arbitor] Judge assignments

[Owen Jacobson]

In partial satisfaction of my pledge to pay for judgements on six outstanding 
CFJs, if I inherited G.’s shinies, then I pay 20 Shinies to Gaelan, and I pay 
20 Shinies to Gaelen.

-o

> On May 19, 2017, at 12:26 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> 
> I judge 3463 and 3464 as TRUE.
> 
> My reading of the rules (person can communicate logical thoughts, player is a 
> registered person) makes me believe that Alexis and scshunt refer to the same 
> player, and therefore are synonyms. Therefore, I believe that the “ratified" 
> Tailor’s report is equivalent to this:
> 
> Alexis: CWY
> Alexis: ROCBMUPKY
> 
> R1551 states that “An internally inconsistent document generally cannot be 
> ratified. Therefore, the tailor’s report never ratified. Because Alexis and 
> scshunt are the same person, they share a ribbon switch and therefore Alexis 
> has all ribbons from both sets.
> 
>> On May 18, 2017, at 9:19 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:
>> 
>> On Thu, 2017-05-18 at 20:54 -0700, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>>> My reading of the rules (person can communicate logical thoughts,
>>> player is a registered person) makes me believe that Alexis and
>>> scshunt refer to the same player, and therefore are synonyms.
>>> Therefore, I believe that the ratified Tailor’s report is equivalent
>>> to this:
>>> 
>>> Alexis: CWY
>>> scshunt: ROCBMUPKY
>>> 
>>> Do we have a CFJ precedent on duplicate entries in reports?
>> 
>> Not a CFJ, but Rule 1551 contains the following:
>> 
>>>  An internally inconsistent document generally cannot be
>>>  ratified
>> 
>> That seems potentially relevant here.
>> 
>> --
>> ais523
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Arbitor] Judge assignments

[Owen Jacobson]

On May 18, 2017, at 8:43 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:

>  >
> CFJ 3486 is "My heir switch is now set to Publius Scribonius
> Scholasticus.", called by o. I assign this CFJ to Aris.

Gratuitous Argument:

I believe this to be FALSE, as the condition was not determinate at the time I 
claimed to perform the action, and had not taken any steps to retry the action 
after the condition had become determinate at the time I called the CFJ.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: (no subject)

[Owen Jacobson]

> On May 18, 2017, at 4:32 PM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> 
> As per nichdel's arguments, I Point my Finger at Publius Scribonius
> Scholasticus (Rule 2478). I accuse em of violations of Rule 2143
> and/or Rule 2471, as well as any other rule rule violations e may have
> committed in publishing eir purported report by deputization. I
> recommend a light sentence, probably a Yellow Card.

As it happens, I hadn’t read this message when I issued P.S.S. eir card. 
However, I’m entertained by it. As is required by the rules:

I have investigated Publius Scribonius Scholasticus’ alleged publication by 
alleged deputisation, and found that a rules violation is likely. The arguments 
have been presented comprehensively by other parties, and are reproduced here:

On May 18, 2017, at 4:04 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:
> When you published you called it the Registrr's report. If you don't believe 
> it's the Registrar's report, then you've violated a SHALL NOT in R2143:
> 
> A person SHALL NOT publish information that is inaccurate or misleading while 
> performing an official duty, or within a document purporting to be part of 
> any person or office's weekly or monthly report.

Held.

On May 18, 2017, at 4:09 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:
> If you don't believe it was fulfilling a duty, then you purported to deputise 
> when it was impossible, which is a violation of R2471 "No Faking":
> 
> A person SHALL NOT attempt to perform an action which e knows is IMPOSSIBLE 
> so as to deceive others.

Also held, albeit in the loosest grip possible. P.S.S.’ intention to deceive 
is, at best, inferred and not shown.

Given the minor and purely technical nature of the infraction, and Publius 
Scribonius Scholasticus’ short tenure in the office of Registrar, material 
punishment is not merited. A minor misstep as to the correct application of 
rules does not merit a formal apology on first offence - to do otherwise would 
render the game unplayable.

As no rule requires any specific card, I deny the request for a Yellow Card, 
and have instead issued a Green Card, as of my message with Message-ID 
<6e383971-b39d-448f-b8b0-c5329d80d...@grimoire.ca>. The official reason is 
given in that message.

This concludes the official investigation.

-o


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: (no subject)

[Owen Jacobson]

TTttPF.

> On May 20, 2017, at 12:51 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> 
> It’d be nice if those links included an effective date or some other revision 
> identifier, to make them stable against future rule changes. Maybe I’ll hack 
> something up.
> 
> Since it appears that P.S.S. has broken at least one rule regardless of eir 
> beliefs about eir job, and for lack of a better name for the “offence," I 
> issue em a Green Card for Ambiguity.
> 
> -o
> 
>> On May 18, 2017, at 4:09 PM, Nic Evans > > wrote:
>> 
>> If you don't believe it was fulfilling a duty, then you purported to 
>> deputise when it was impossible, which is a violation of R2471 "No Faking":
>> A person  SHALL NOT 
>>  attempt to perform an 
>> action which e knows is IMPOSSIBLE so as to deceive others.
>> 
>> 
>> On 05/18/17 15:05, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
>>> Then, I accept the CoE and publish the so-titled Agora Official email as a 
>>> revised version. Further, if it was not a report, then it was not an 
>>> official duty and it could not violate said SHALL NOT.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>>> 
>>> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 4:04 PM, Nic Evans >> > wrote:
>>> When you published you called it the Registrr's report. If you don't 
>>> believe it's the Registrar's report, then you've violated a SHALL NOT in 
>>> R2143:
>>> 
>>> A person  SHALL NOT 
>>>  publish 
>>>  information that is 
>>> inaccurate or misleading while performing an official duty, or within a 
>>> document purporting to be part of any person 
>>>  or office's weekly or 
>>> monthly report.
>>> 
>>> Note that it and CoEs both apply to *documents* not reports.
>>> 
>>> On 05/18/17 14:52, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
 CFJ : This report was not actually an officer's report as I published it 
 via deputisation, but I held the office.
 
 
 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
 
 On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 3:51 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
 >>> > wrote:
 I hereby deputise for the registrar to publish the weekly Registrar's 
 report as follows:
 
 
Registrar's Weekly Report
 
 
 (all times UTC)
 
 Date of last report: 18 Apr 2017
 Date of this report: 18 May  2017
 
 Recent events:
 
 G. deregistered
 
 Players (17) (Rule 869, self-ratifying)
 
 Player   Contact Registered
 --   --- --
 ais523   callforjudgement at yahoo.co.uk 
  [1] 20 Mar 11
 aranea   aranea at aixea.de  
  31 Aug 14
 Aris thoughtsoflifeandlight17 at gmail.com 
    13 Sep 16
 Charles  charles.w.walker at gmail.com  
   11 Jul 16
 Henrihenrib736 at gmail.com 
   07 May 13
 Murphy   emurphy42 at zoho.com   
  27 Oct 07
 nichdel  nichdel at gmail.com   
   01 Dec 15
 oowen at grimoire.ca  
 12 Jul 16
 omd  comexk at gmail.com  [2]   
   03 Feb 11
 Roujojonathan.rouillard at gmail.com 
  16 Dec 10
 Sci_Guy12jwc.science at gmail.com   
   14 Jul 16
 Sprocklemsprocklem at gmail.com 
   19 Oct 13
 Tekneek  tekgora at theglycerintekneek.com 
    12 Jun 15
 Warrigal, the [3]tannerswett at gmail.com   
   25 Apr 15
 Yallyaarongoldfein at gmail.com 
   11 Jul 16
 天砫ç‹Âdraconicdarkness at gmail.com 
    06 Nov 16
 Zachary Watterson [4]tannerswett at gmail.com   
   26 Mar 17
 Quazie ​ ​ ​  ​ q uazienomic at gmail.com 
 1

BUS: The Most Active Month Ever

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I would like it to be known that based on the number of characters sent
through the mailing lists, this is now the most active month ever.
Therefore, I pledge to issue intent to award the Patent Title of Active
Game to any player serving as a complete manifestation of the Game of
Agora. Disclaimer: This is intentionally interesting.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

BUS: Judgements of CFJs 3499 and 3500

[Nic Evans]

I judge 3499 and 3500 DISMISS and submit the following arguments:

The rules of Agora, as written, require no specific language to be used. 
In fact, the language of R869/3 seems to go out of its way to avoid 
mentioning any languages [1]. When words and phrases are defined by the 
rules they become part of the embedded language of the game, and cannot 
be said to be 'English' any more than the keywords and syntax of a 
programming language can be.


Rules that refer to ambiguity and resolvability are asking for player 
agreement that something occured a specific way, not that the thing 
itself be objective truth. The entire existence of the CFJ system is 
evidence of this. Given this, if a majority of players decide something 
is 'unknowable', for any reason including eir own inability to speak a 
language, then for game purposes it is. Conversely, if players agree 
that a thing is knowable or a message intelligible, even if it is not 
knowable or intelligible to anyone outside the community, it is for game 
purposes.


There also exists a considerable body of practical evidence that Agora 
is not played only or strictly in English:


-Text in R2029/4 defies any recognizable version of English's grammar [2].
-CFJ 915 explicitly rejects any attempt to require "any particular 
language, method, or format for communications". It also acknowledges 
that not every player need comprehend a message for it to be successful [3].
-CFJ 1460 rejects a message in Turkish, not because it is not English 
but because it is not intelligible to any players [4].
-CFJ 1439 finds that there is no language requirement, and at least one 
decidedly non-English message has succeeded in the past [5].
-The existence of at least one Organization whose charter is not in 
English has been repeatedly ratified and upheld.


Agora, the game, does not require or prohibit any language. Agora, the 
community, is limited to only the messages it can collectively comprehend.


[1] "Any organism that is generally capable of freely originating and 
communicating independent thoughts and ideas is a person."


[2] "Look on our works, ye Marvy, but do always Dance a Powerful Dance."

[3] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?915

[4] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1460

[5] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1439

BUS: A new Era?

[Quazie]

I intend, with Agoran Consent, to initiate a new Era (Henceforth known as
the `Era of so much sudden activity and scams that we drove G. to quit, at
least for a short while.` if these things have a name.), but with the new
Era I specify that no rules with power less than 1 should be repealed.

Fwd: DIS: Re: BUS: Another agency, this time with feeling

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

This Time to the Real Email (TTttRE)

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

-- Forwarded message --
From: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com>
Date: Fri, May 19, 2017 at 4:25 PM
Subject: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Another agency, this time with feeling
To: agora-busin...@agoranomic.com


Accepted, I establish the following Agency: (This is my 24 hours notice)
Title: Scribonius Scholasticus and the Pledges (SSP)
Agents: All Players
Powers: If Publius Scribonius Scholasticus makes a pledge in which e
pledges X Shinies in return for an action or statement, the first player to
fulfill the action/statement in the pledge can transfer X Shinies from
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus to emself.


Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 4:22 PM, caleb vines  wrote:

> CoE: The acronym is improperly formatted according to 2467. It is only
> legally formatted as (SSP).
>
> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> I establish the following Agency: (This is my 24 hours notice)
>> Title: Scribonius Scholasticus and the Pledges (PSSP)
>> Agents: All Players
>> Powers: If Publius Scribonius Scholasticus makes a pledge in which e
>> pledges X Shinies in return for an action or statement, the first player to
>> fulfill the action/statement in the pledge can transfer X Shinies from
>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus to emself.
>>
>> 
>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>>
>> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
>> p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for pointing that out.
>>>
>>> 
>>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 4:02 PM, Quazie  wrote:
>>>
 Thanks for.. groking the mistake in his agency (HA)

 On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 1:02 PM caleb vines 
 wrote:

> Yes. 2467 requires the acronym be formed by the first letters of the
> non-contraction, non-article, non-preposition words in the title, in 
> order.
> Additionally, I suspect the powers are invalid (unless you have an agency
> allowing you to pay your debts with Quazie's shinies).
>
> -grok
>
> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Must the acronym match? I intentionally left it as is, but I can
>> change it?
>>
>> 
>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>>
>> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 3:58 PM, Quazie 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The acronym is wrong this time.
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 12:57 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
>>> p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>
 That is weird, but I establish the following Agency: (This is my 24
 hours notice)
 Title: Scribonius Scholasticus and the Pledges (PSSP)
 Agents: All Players
 Powers: If Publius Scribonius Scholasticus makes a pledge in which
 e pledges X Shinies in return for an action or statement, the first 
 player
 to fulfil the action/statement in the pledge can transfer X Shinies 
 from
 Quazie to emself.

 
 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

 On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Quazie 
 wrote:

> The above isn't valid as the Title is invalid.
>
>A title, which must be exactly three words, not
>counting conjunctions, articles or prepositions.
>
>
> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 12:54 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> This is a good idea, therefore I establish the following Agency:
>> (This is my 24 hours notice)
>>
>> Title: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus and the Pledges (PSSP)
>> Agents: All Players
>> Powers: If Publius Scribonius Scholasticus makes a pledge in
>> which e pledges X Shinies in return for an action or statement, the 
>> first
>> player to fulfil the action/statement in the pledge can transfer X 
>> Shinies
>> from Quazie to emself.
>>
>> 
>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>>
>> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 3:51 PM, Quazie 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I establish the following Agency: (This is my 24 hours notice)
>>>
>>> Title: Quazie will Pay the Shinies (QPS)
>>> Agents: All Players
>>> Powers: If Quazie makes a pledge in which e pledges 1 Shiny in
>>> return for an action or statement, the first player to fulfil the
>>> action/statement in the pledge can transfer a Shiny from Quazie to 
>>> emself.
>>>
>>
>>

>>
>
>>>
>>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Another agency, this time with feeling

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I establish the following Agency: (This is my 24 hours notice)
Title: Scribonius Scholasticus and the Pledges (PSSP)
Agents: All Players
Powers: If Publius Scribonius Scholasticus makes a pledge in which e
pledges X Shinies in return for an action or statement, the first player to
fulfill the action/statement in the pledge can transfer X Shinies from
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus to emself.


Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Thanks for pointing that out.
>
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>
> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 4:02 PM, Quazie  wrote:
>
>> Thanks for.. groking the mistake in his agency (HA)
>>
>> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 1:02 PM caleb vines  wrote:
>>
>>> Yes. 2467 requires the acronym be formed by the first letters of the
>>> non-contraction, non-article, non-preposition words in the title, in order.
>>> Additionally, I suspect the powers are invalid (unless you have an agency
>>> allowing you to pay your debts with Quazie's shinies).
>>>
>>> -grok
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
>>> p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>
 Must the acronym match? I intentionally left it as is, but I can change
 it?

 
 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

 On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 3:58 PM, Quazie  wrote:

> The acronym is wrong this time.
>
> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 12:57 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> That is weird, but I establish the following Agency: (This is my 24
>> hours notice)
>> Title: Scribonius Scholasticus and the Pledges (PSSP)
>> Agents: All Players
>> Powers: If Publius Scribonius Scholasticus makes a pledge in which e
>> pledges X Shinies in return for an action or statement, the first player 
>> to
>> fulfil the action/statement in the pledge can transfer X Shinies from
>> Quazie to emself.
>>
>> 
>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>>
>> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Quazie 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The above isn't valid as the Title is invalid.
>>>
>>>A title, which must be exactly three words, not
>>>counting conjunctions, articles or prepositions.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 12:54 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
>>> p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>
 This is a good idea, therefore I establish the following Agency:
 (This is my 24 hours notice)

 Title: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus and the Pledges (PSSP)
 Agents: All Players
 Powers: If Publius Scribonius Scholasticus makes a pledge in which
 e pledges X Shinies in return for an action or statement, the first 
 player
 to fulfil the action/statement in the pledge can transfer X Shinies 
 from
 Quazie to emself.

 
 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

 On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 3:51 PM, Quazie 
 wrote:

> I establish the following Agency: (This is my 24 hours notice)
>
> Title: Quazie will Pay the Shinies (QPS)
> Agents: All Players
> Powers: If Quazie makes a pledge in which e pledges 1 Shiny in
> return for an action or statement, the first player to fulfil the
> action/statement in the pledge can transfer a Shiny from Quazie to 
> emself.
>


>>

>>>
>

BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3501 assigned to ais523

[Alex Smith]

On Fri, 2017-05-19 at 20:50 +0100, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-05-19 at 19:46 +, Quazie wrote:
> > I CFJ on the statement Gaelan is a player.
> 
> This is CFJ 3501. I assign it to myself.

The relevant excerpt from rule 869:
{{{
  A person CAN (unless explicitly forbidden or prevented by the
  rules) register by publishing a message that indicates
  reasonably clearly and reasonably unambiguously that e intends
  to become a player at that time.
}}}

The original message had a subject line of "BUS: Registration", and
nothing in the message body contradicts the initial impression (that
most players would get upon seeing a message with that subject from a
nonplayer) that the message was indeed an attempt to register. Gaelan
has been a player before, and is likely aware of Agoran customs related
to registration; I think it's reasonably clear that Gaelan expected to
become a player as a result of the message, which in turn implies that
e intended to become a player (otherwise e would not have sent it).
The other possible interpretations would involve the message being a
discussion of, or otherwise comment on, registration, but those don't
seem to be compatible with its content.

It's worth noting that registration intentionally has a lower standard
for ambiguity/clarity than most other actions; an action such as
registering with a suggestive subject line works when restricted to
registration, but would likely fail for any of our wide range of by-
announcement actions.

I judge CFJ 3501 TRUE.

-- 
ais523
Judge, CFJ 3501

Re: BUS: Another agency, this time with feeling

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

This is a good idea, therefore I establish the following Agency: (This is
my 24 hours notice)

Title: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus and the Pledges (PSSP)
Agents: All Players
Powers: If Publius Scribonius Scholasticus makes a pledge in which e
pledges X Shinies in return for an action or statement, the first player to
fulfil the action/statement in the pledge can transfer X Shinies from
Quazie to emself.


Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 3:51 PM, Quazie  wrote:

> I establish the following Agency: (This is my 24 hours notice)
>
> Title: Quazie will Pay the Shinies (QPS)
> Agents: All Players
> Powers: If Quazie makes a pledge in which e pledges 1 Shiny in return for
> an action or statement, the first player to fulfil the action/statement in
> the pledge can transfer a Shiny from Quazie to emself.
>

BUS: Another agency, this time with feeling

[Quazie]

I establish the following Agency: (This is my 24 hours notice)

Title: Quazie will Pay the Shinies (QPS)
Agents: All Players
Powers: If Quazie makes a pledge in which e pledges 1 Shiny in return for
an action or statement, the first player to fulfil the action/statement in
the pledge can transfer a Shiny from Quazie to emself.

Re: BUS: Registration

[Quazie]

I CFJ on the statement Gaelan is a player.

I submit the following message as evidence:

On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 11:33 PM Gaelan Steele  wrote:

> Let’s see if I can make a CFJ out of this.
>
> Gaelan


Arguments:
At no point in the above message does Gaelan state that he intends to
register.  E merely titled the message Registration, which doesn't tell me
that E intends to register.  Though his actions after the fact have noted
that e seems to think eir registration in the above message succeeded.



Additionally, I note that i've had doubts of Gaelan playership since I sent
the message potentially giving em a Shiney, and such I believe that if E is
indeed a player, then my message purporting to give em a shiney if there is
doubt of eir playership [Though i'm unsure if this part succeeds]

BUS: Fwd: DIS: Re: Re: Re: Re: 蘭亭社の憲章の修正箇条 2017/05/19

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

TTttPF, I am sorry about having to resend this because I explicitly tried
to send it to the right place.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

-- Forwarded message --
From: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com>
Date: Fri, May 19, 2017 at 3:38 PM
Subject: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Re: Re: 蘭亭社の憲章の修正箇条 2017/05/19
To: "Agora Nomic discussions (DF)" 


I am sorry, I did not realize that that was the expectation. Further, I
hereby pledge to any CFJs without providing evidence.


Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:

> Honestly, there should be a punishment for calling CFJs without evidence.
> You're creating extra work for at least three other people (ais, the judge,
> G), the least you can do is put some effort into it.
>
> I pledge to dismiss both quoted CFJs if assigned to me without evidence by
> the end of the day.
>
> On 05/19/2017 02:30 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
>
> CFJ: "Agora need not be played in English."
> CFJ: "Agora can be played in any language."
>
>
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>
> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 2:54 PM, caleb vines  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Kerim Aydin 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, 19 May 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
>>> > It came up as a CFJ when 天火狐 first registered.
>>>
>>> If you follow the actual precedent, it actually *didn't* accept the
>>> Japanse-character nickname, but instead recommended transliteration:
>>>https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3467
>>>
>>> However, that has faced a "soft overrule" in that everyone ignored it
>>> and continued to use the Japanese characters.  And regardless, it goes
>>> out of its way to mention that Registration is a special, lenient case.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, 19 May 2017, caleb vines wrote:
>>> > Are there any pending CFJ's regarding Organization 蘭亭社?  I don't see
>>> > any, but I did join after the organization was already chartered so I'd
>>> > rather be sure.
>>>
>>> Not pending, but this one was DISMISSED:
>>> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3478
>>>
>>> while noting there was no way to join the organization, so maybe you
>>> didn't actually join?  Dunno if it's relevant to the current text of
>>> the organization, haven't been following since that CFJ.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Following this discussion, I submit a Call for Judgment for each of the
>> following statement:
>>
>> "天火狐 is a member of 蘭亭社."
>>
>>
>> Please accept into caller's evidence for "天火狐 is a member of 蘭亭社.":
>>
>> The decision in CFJ 1460
>> The decision in CFJ 3478, specifically the following two excerpts:
>>
>> >There are plenty of lines which are potentially ambiguous; for example,
>> >paragraph 5 machine-translates as "suitable", and uses the characters
>> >｢相応し｣ to represent the word (as opposed to ｢相応しい｣, which is defined to
>> >mean "Appropriate"). However, some experimentation shows that when the
>> >word is followed by ｢くない｣, the final ｢い｣ is dropped (both incorrect
>> >combinations are flagged up as a typo by the autocorrect on the machine
>> >translator I'm using, which is about as clear a message as a computer
>> >can give on the subject). As such, it seems most reasonable to
>> >interpret ｢相応しくない｣ as meaning "Inappropriate", even if this definition
>> >cannot be determined via a simple matching of character sequences in an
>> >editor.
>>
>> ---
>>
>> >However, some lines are very clear. Line 3, for example, is a very
>> >clear statement of possibility for a Budget switch flip. Unfortunately,
>> >it does not use the word "Appropriate" anywhere, neither in its
>> >English form, nor anything resembling the specified Japanese
>> >translations ｢ふさわしい｣ or ｢相応しい｣. An Organization merely
>> >stating that something is possible has no effect; it needs to specify
>> >that the action is Appropriate. As such, I conclude that there's no
>> >actual way to join this Organization.
>>
>
>
>

BUS: Re: DIS: Re: Re: 蘭亭社の憲章の修正箇条 2017/05/19

[Nic Evans]

Honestly, there should be a punishment for calling CFJs without 
evidence. You're creating extra work for at least three other people 
(ais, the judge, G), the least you can do is put some effort into it.


I pledge to dismiss both quoted CFJs if assigned to me without evidence 
by the end of the day.



On 05/19/2017 02:30 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:

CFJ: "Agora need not be played in English."
CFJ: "Agora can be played in any language."



Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 2:54 PM, caleb vines > wrote:




On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Kerim Aydin
mailto:ke...@u.washington.edu>> wrote:



On Fri, 19 May 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> It came up as a CFJ when 天火狐 first registered.

If you follow the actual precedent, it actually *didn't*
accept the
Japanse-character nickname, but instead recommended
transliteration:
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3467


However, that has faced a "soft overrule" in that everyone
ignored it
and continued to use the Japanese characters.  And regardless,
it goes
out of its way to mention that Registration is a special,
lenient case.


On Fri, 19 May 2017, caleb vines wrote:
> Are there any pending CFJ's regarding Organization 蘭亭社?  I
don't see
> any, but I did join after the organization was already
chartered so I'd
> rather be sure.

Not pending, but this one was DISMISSED:
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3478


while noting there was no way to join the organization, so
maybe you
didn't actually join?  Dunno if it's relevant to the current
text of
the organization, haven't been following since that CFJ.



Following this discussion, I submit a Call for Judgment for each
of the following statement:

"天火狐 is a member of 蘭亭社."


Please accept into caller's evidence for "天火狐 is a member of
蘭亭社.":

The decision in CFJ 1460
The decision in CFJ 3478, specifically the following two excerpts:

>There are plenty of lines which are potentially ambiguous; for example,
>paragraph 5 machine-translates as "suitable", and uses the characters
>｢相応し｣ to represent the word (as opposed to ｢相応しい｣, which is defined to
>mean "Appropriate"). However, some experimentation shows that when the
>word is followed by ｢くない｣, the final ｢い｣ is dropped (both incorrect
>combinations are flagged up as a typo by the autocorrect on the machine
>translator I'm using, which is about as clear a message as a computer
>can give on the subject). As such, it seems most reasonable to
>interpret ｢相応しくない｣ as meaning "Inappropriate", even if this definition
>cannot be determined via a simple matching of character sequences in an
>editor.

---

>However, some lines are very clear. Line 3, for example, is a very
>clear statement of possibility for a Budget switch flip. Unfortunately,
>it does not use the word "Appropriate" anywhere, neither in its
>English form, nor anything resembling the specified Japanese
>translations ｢ふさわしい｣ or ｢相応しい｣. An Organization merely
>stating that something is possible has no effect; it needs to
specify
>that the action is Appropriate. As such, I conclude that there's no
>actual way to join this Organization.

Re: BUS: CFJ: Ambiguity

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I would like to judge this.


Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Quazie  wrote:

> I explicitly ask to not judge this CFJ
>
> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 12:06 Josh T  wrote:
>
>> I submit a Call for Judgement for the following statement:
>>
>> "Every statement is ambiguous."
>>
>> I present the following argument as caller's evidence:
>> * Every statement is written in one language.
>> * Translation between any two languages is inherently ambiguous.
>> * Therefore, every statement is ambiguous at least in every language
>> the statement was not originally written in.
>> * Agora does not formally make preference to any one language, and
>> recognizes differences in dialect (CFJ 1439).
>> * Thus, every statement is ambiguous.
>>
>> 天火狐
>>
>

BUS: Re: DIS: Re: Re: 蘭亭社の憲章の修正箇条 2017/05/19

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

CFJ: "Agora need not be played in English."
CFJ: "Agora can be played in any language."



Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 2:54 PM, caleb vines  wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 19 May 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
>> > It came up as a CFJ when 天火狐 first registered.
>>
>> If you follow the actual precedent, it actually *didn't* accept the
>> Japanse-character nickname, but instead recommended transliteration:
>>https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3467
>>
>> However, that has faced a "soft overrule" in that everyone ignored it
>> and continued to use the Japanese characters.  And regardless, it goes
>> out of its way to mention that Registration is a special, lenient case.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 19 May 2017, caleb vines wrote:
>> > Are there any pending CFJ's regarding Organization 蘭亭社?  I don't see
>> > any, but I did join after the organization was already chartered so I'd
>> > rather be sure.
>>
>> Not pending, but this one was DISMISSED:
>> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3478
>>
>> while noting there was no way to join the organization, so maybe you
>> didn't actually join?  Dunno if it's relevant to the current text of
>> the organization, haven't been following since that CFJ.
>>
>>
>>
> Following this discussion, I submit a Call for Judgment for each of the
> following statement:
>
> "天火狐 is a member of 蘭亭社."
>
>
> Please accept into caller's evidence for "天火狐 is a member of 蘭亭社.":
>
> The decision in CFJ 1460
> The decision in CFJ 3478, specifically the following two excerpts:
>
> >There are plenty of lines which are potentially ambiguous; for example,
> >paragraph 5 machine-translates as "suitable", and uses the characters
> >｢相応し｣ to represent the word (as opposed to ｢相応しい｣, which is defined to
> >mean "Appropriate"). However, some experimentation shows that when the
> >word is followed by ｢くない｣, the final ｢い｣ is dropped (both incorrect
> >combinations are flagged up as a typo by the autocorrect on the machine
> >translator I'm using, which is about as clear a message as a computer
> >can give on the subject). As such, it seems most reasonable to
> >interpret ｢相応しくない｣ as meaning "Inappropriate", even if this definition
> >cannot be determined via a simple matching of character sequences in an
> >editor.
>
> ---
>
> >However, some lines are very clear. Line 3, for example, is a very
> >clear statement of possibility for a Budget switch flip. Unfortunately,
> >it does not use the word "Appropriate" anywhere, neither in its
> >English form, nor anything resembling the specified Japanese
> >translations ｢ふさわしい｣ or ｢相応しい｣. An Organization merely
> >stating that something is possible has no effect; it needs to specify
> >that the action is Appropriate. As such, I conclude that there's no
> >actual way to join this Organization.
>

Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3465

[Nic Evans]

To be absolutely thorough: I resolve my intent to assign this CFJ to 
myself by announcement, and submit the following judgement if my 
previous attempt was unsuccessful.



On 05/19/2017 02:21 PM, Nic Evans wrote:

CFJ 3465 reads:

  If Proposal 7821 were resolved right now, the outcome would be
  ADOPTED.

Because I agree with the arguments included by Alexis [1] and because 
the proposal was in fact adopted shortly after the CFJ was called, I 
find CFJ 3465 TRUE.


[1] {

Caller's Arguments:

Rule 683, as amended by Proposal 7814, gives the requirements for a
valid ballot:

  An entity submits a ballot on an Agoran decision by publishing a
  notice satisfying the following conditions:

  (a) The ballot is submitted during the voting period for the
  decision.

  (b) The entity casting the ballot (the voter) was, at the
  initiation of the decision, a player.

  (c) The ballot clearly identifies the matter to be decided.

  (d) The ballot clearly identifies a valid vote, as determined by
  the voting method.

  (d) The ballot clearly sets forth the voter's intent to place the
  identified vote.

  (e) The voter has not publicly retracted the ballot during the
  voting period.  ("Changing" a vote is equivalent to
  retracting it and casting a vote with the new value.)

  (f) It is the most recent of the voter's otherwise-valid
  ballots.

Note the first sentence "An entity submits a ballot... by *publishing a
notice satisfying the following conditions*". By rule 478, a player
"publishes" something by sending a public message, which this is. While
"notice" is not defined by the rules, it is clear from context, from
Rule 107's use of the same term, and from the ordinary language
definition of the word that a "notice" is a form of document.  In
particular, this means that the evaluation as to whether a ballot is
properly submitted is performed by determining whether the
document---the notice---satisfies the conditions listed at the time of
its publication. Moreover, there is nothing in this or any other rule
which provides for the automatic revocation, withdrawal, or otherwise
invalidation of a validly submitted ballot.

Thus, we can evaluate each of the conditions on each of the 100 notices
given above indicating that vote FOR Proposal 7821.

 (a) The ballots are submitted in this message, which I am sending
 moments prior to the end of the voting period.
 (b) It is without a doubt that I was a player when the decision was
 initiated.
 (c) The ballots each clearly identify Proposal 7821's adoption as the
 matter to be decided.
 (d) The ballots each clearly identify FOR, a valid vote.
 (d) The ballots clearly set forth that I intend to place that vote.
 (e) I have not publicly retracted any of the ballots.
 (f) At the time of the submission of each ballot, it was the most
 recent of my valid votes. While each (except for the last) was
 almost immediately supplanted by its successor in the position of
 the most recent of my ballots, and it has long been possible to
 take multiple actions sequentially in the same message.

Thus, each of those is a valid ballot. Now, in order to determine the
outcome on the decision, we must follow the procedure in Rule 955, as
amended by Proposal 7816:

  Each Agoran decision has a voting method, which determines how
  voters may vote on it and how to calculate the outcome. The
  strength of a ballot is the voting strength of the voter who
  cast it on that Agoran decision.

  The following voting methods are defined:

  (1) AI-majority: the valid votes are FOR and AGAINST. Let F be
  the total strength of all valid ballots cast FOR a decision,
  A be the same for AGAINST, and AI be the adoption index of
  the decision. The outcome is ADOPTED if F/A >= AI and F/A >
  1 (or F>0 and A=0), otherwise REJECTED.

Since 100 ballots were cast by myself, and I have voting strength of 1,
the total length of FOR is at least 100, while the small number of
ballots cast AGAINST it certainly do not have total strength greater
than 33 1/3. Consequently, the outcome of the decision must be ADOPTED.

}

BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3465

[Nic Evans]

CFJ 3465 reads:

  If Proposal 7821 were resolved right now, the outcome would be
  ADOPTED.

Because I agree with the arguments included by Alexis [1] and because 
the proposal was in fact adopted shortly after the CFJ was called, I 
find CFJ 3465 TRUE.


[1] {

Caller's Arguments:

Rule 683, as amended by Proposal 7814, gives the requirements for a
valid ballot:

  An entity submits a ballot on an Agoran decision by publishing a
  notice satisfying the following conditions:

  (a) The ballot is submitted during the voting period for the
  decision.

  (b) The entity casting the ballot (the voter) was, at the
  initiation of the decision, a player.

  (c) The ballot clearly identifies the matter to be decided.

  (d) The ballot clearly identifies a valid vote, as determined by
  the voting method.

  (d) The ballot clearly sets forth the voter's intent to place the
  identified vote.

  (e) The voter has not publicly retracted the ballot during the
  voting period.  ("Changing" a vote is equivalent to
  retracting it and casting a vote with the new value.)

  (f) It is the most recent of the voter's otherwise-valid
  ballots.

Note the first sentence "An entity submits a ballot... by *publishing a
notice satisfying the following conditions*". By rule 478, a player
"publishes" something by sending a public message, which this is. While
"notice" is not defined by the rules, it is clear from context, from
Rule 107's use of the same term, and from the ordinary language
definition of the word that a "notice" is a form of document.  In
particular, this means that the evaluation as to whether a ballot is
properly submitted is performed by determining whether the
document---the notice---satisfies the conditions listed at the time of
its publication. Moreover, there is nothing in this or any other rule
which provides for the automatic revocation, withdrawal, or otherwise
invalidation of a validly submitted ballot.

Thus, we can evaluate each of the conditions on each of the 100 notices
given above indicating that vote FOR Proposal 7821.

 (a) The ballots are submitted in this message, which I am sending
 moments prior to the end of the voting period.
 (b) It is without a doubt that I was a player when the decision was
 initiated.
 (c) The ballots each clearly identify Proposal 7821's adoption as the
 matter to be decided.
 (d) The ballots each clearly identify FOR, a valid vote.
 (d) The ballots clearly set forth that I intend to place that vote.
 (e) I have not publicly retracted any of the ballots.
 (f) At the time of the submission of each ballot, it was the most
 recent of my valid votes. While each (except for the last) was
 almost immediately supplanted by its successor in the position of
 the most recent of my ballots, and it has long been possible to
 take multiple actions sequentially in the same message.

Thus, each of those is a valid ballot. Now, in order to determine the
outcome on the decision, we must follow the procedure in Rule 955, as
amended by Proposal 7816:

  Each Agoran decision has a voting method, which determines how
  voters may vote on it and how to calculate the outcome. The
  strength of a ballot is the voting strength of the voter who
  cast it on that Agoran decision.

  The following voting methods are defined:

  (1) AI-majority: the valid votes are FOR and AGAINST. Let F be
  the total strength of all valid ballots cast FOR a decision,
  A be the same for AGAINST, and AI be the adoption index of
  the decision. The outcome is ADOPTED if F/A >= AI and F/A >
  1 (or F>0 and A=0), otherwise REJECTED.

Since 100 ballots were cast by myself, and I have voting strength of 1,
the total length of FOR is at least 100, while the small number of
ballots cast AGAINST it certainly do not have total strength greater
than 33 1/3. Consequently, the outcome of the decision must be ADOPTED.

}

Re: BUS: CFJ: Ambiguity

[Quazie]

I explicitly ask to not judge this CFJ

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 12:06 Josh T  wrote:

> I submit a Call for Judgement for the following statement:
>
> "Every statement is ambiguous."
>
> I present the following argument as caller's evidence:
> * Every statement is written in one language.
> * Translation between any two languages is inherently ambiguous.
> * Therefore, every statement is ambiguous at least in every language
> the statement was not originally written in.
> * Agora does not formally make preference to any one language, and
> recognizes differences in dialect (CFJ 1439).
> * Thus, every statement is ambiguous.
>
> 天火狐
>

BUS: CFJ: Ambiguity

[Josh T]

I submit a Call for Judgement for the following statement:

"Every statement is ambiguous."

I present the following argument as caller's evidence:
* Every statement is written in one language.
* Translation between any two languages is inherently ambiguous.
* Therefore, every statement is ambiguous at least in every language
the statement was not originally written in.
* Agora does not formally make preference to any one language, and
recognizes differences in dialect (CFJ 1439).
* Thus, every statement is ambiguous.

天火狐

BUS: Re: DIS: Re: Re: 蘭亭社の憲章の修正箇条 2017/05/19

[caleb vines]

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, 19 May 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> > It came up as a CFJ when 天火狐 first registered.
>
> If you follow the actual precedent, it actually *didn't* accept the
> Japanse-character nickname, but instead recommended transliteration:
>https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3467
>
> However, that has faced a "soft overrule" in that everyone ignored it
> and continued to use the Japanese characters.  And regardless, it goes
> out of its way to mention that Registration is a special, lenient case.
>
>
> On Fri, 19 May 2017, caleb vines wrote:
> > Are there any pending CFJ's regarding Organization 蘭亭社?  I don't see
> > any, but I did join after the organization was already chartered so I'd
> > rather be sure.
>
> Not pending, but this one was DISMISSED:
> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3478
>
> while noting there was no way to join the organization, so maybe you
> didn't actually join?  Dunno if it's relevant to the current text of
> the organization, haven't been following since that CFJ.
>
>
>
Following this discussion, I submit a Call for Judgment for each of the
following statement:

"天火狐 is a member of 蘭亭社."


Please accept into caller's evidence for "天火狐 is a member of 蘭亭社.":

The decision in CFJ 1460
The decision in CFJ 3478, specifically the following two excerpts:

>There are plenty of lines which are potentially ambiguous; for example,
>paragraph 5 machine-translates as "suitable", and uses the characters
>｢相応し｣ to represent the word (as opposed to ｢相応しい｣, which is defined to
>mean "Appropriate"). However, some experimentation shows that when the
>word is followed by ｢くない｣, the final ｢い｣ is dropped (both incorrect
>combinations are flagged up as a typo by the autocorrect on the machine
>translator I'm using, which is about as clear a message as a computer
>can give on the subject). As such, it seems most reasonable to
>interpret ｢相応しくない｣ as meaning "Inappropriate", even if this definition
>cannot be determined via a simple matching of character sequences in an
>editor.

---

>However, some lines are very clear. Line 3, for example, is a very
>clear statement of possibility for a Budget switch flip. Unfortunately,
>it does not use the word "Appropriate" anywhere, neither in its
>English form, nor anything resembling the specified Japanese
>translations ｢ふさわしい｣ or ｢相応しい｣. An Organization merely
>stating that something is possible has no effect; it needs to specify
>that the action is Appropriate. As such, I conclude that there's no
>actual way to join this Organization.

BUS: Shiny Releveling Event

[Quazie]

I submit the following proposal entitled "Shiny Releveling Event" AI=2
{{{

  Update the text of rule 2487 to be the following:
  {{{
The Supply Level is 1000.

When a Shiny Releveling event occurs, Agora's Balance is increased
or decreased such that all Balances add up to the Supply Level.

When the Supply level Changes, a Shiny Releveling event occurs.

The Secretary may cause a Shiny Releveling event to occur without 3
Objections.
  }}}

  Upon the adoption of this proposal a Shiny Releveling Event occurs.
}}}

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [ADoP] Election of Assessor, Promotor, Rulekeepor, and Arbitor

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

TTttPF


Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 2:02 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> I endorse nichdel for the rulekeepor, arbitor, promotor, and assessor
> elections.
>
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>
> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 1:13 PM, Quazie  wrote:
>
>> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 9:48 AM Nic Evans  wrote:
>>
>>> I initiate an election for Assessor, as there has been no election since
>>> the last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new Assessor.
>>> For this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and the valid options are
>>> the players (PRESENT is also a valid vote).
>>>
>> For the Assessor election I endorse nichdel.
>>
>>
>>> I initiate an election for Promotor, as there has been no election since
>>> the last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new Promotor.
>>> For this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and the valid options are
>>> the players (PRESENT is also a valid vote).
>>>
>> For the Promotor election I endorse nichdel.
>>
>> I initiate an election for Rulekeepor, as there has been no election
>>> since the last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new
>>> Rulekeepor. For this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and the valid
>>> options are the players (PRESENT is also a valid vote).
>>>
>> For the Rulekeepor election I endorse nichdel.
>>
>>
>>> I initiate an election for Arbitor, as there has been no election since
>>> the last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new Arbitor.
>>> For this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and the valid options are
>>> the players (PRESENT is also a valid vote).
>>>
>> For the Arbitor election I endorse nichdel.
>>
>
>

Fwd: DIS: Re: BUS: [ADoP] Election of Assessor, Promotor, Rulekeepor, and Arbitor

[caleb vines]

TTttPF
-- Forwarded message --
From: caleb vines 
Date: Fri, May 19, 2017 at 12:28 PM
Subject: DIS: Re: BUS: [ADoP] Election of Assessor, Promotor, Rulekeepor,
and Arbitor
To: "Agora Nomic discussions (DF)" 




On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Nic Evans  wrote:
>
> I initiate an election for Assessor, as there has been no election since
> the last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new Assessor.
> For this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and the valid options are
> the players (PRESENT is also a valid vote).
>
For the Assessor election, I endorse Quazie

>
> I initiate an election for Promotor, as there has been no election since
> the last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new Promotor.
> For this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and the valid options are
> the players (PRESENT is also a valid vote).
>
For the Promotor election, if nichdel's vote would be for a player other
than grok, I endorse Quazie. Else, I vote Present.

>
> I initiate an election for Rulekeepor, as there has been no election since
> the last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new
> Rulekeepor. For this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and the valid
> options are the players (PRESENT is also a valid vote).
>
For the Rulekeepor election, if Gaelan's vote would be for a player other
than grok, I endorse Gaelan. Else, I endorse ais523.

>
> I initiate an election for Arbitor, as there has been no election since
> the last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new Arbitor.
> For this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and the valid options are
> the players (PRESENT is also a valid vote).
>
for the Arbitor election, I endorse Quazie.

Re: BUS: [ADoP] Election of Assessor, Promotor, Rulekeepor, and Arbitor

[Quazie]

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 9:48 AM Nic Evans  wrote:

> I initiate an election for Assessor, as there has been no election since
> the last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new Assessor.
> For this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and the valid options are
> the players (PRESENT is also a valid vote).
>
For the Assessor election I endorse nichdel.


> I initiate an election for Promotor, as there has been no election since
> the last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new Promotor.
> For this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and the valid options are
> the players (PRESENT is also a valid vote).
>
For the Promotor election I endorse nichdel.

I initiate an election for Rulekeepor, as there has been no election since
> the last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new
> Rulekeepor. For this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and the valid
> options are the players (PRESENT is also a valid vote).
>
For the Rulekeepor election I endorse nichdel.


> I initiate an election for Arbitor, as there has been no election since
> the last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new Arbitor.
> For this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and the valid options are
> the players (PRESENT is also a valid vote).
>
For the Arbitor election I endorse nichdel.

Re: BUS: [ADoP] Election of Assessor, Promotor, Rulekeepor, and Arbitor

[Nic Evans]

Also note the following incompatibilities: ADoP and Promotor, Promotor 
and Assessor, Referee and Arbitor.


On 05/19/2017 11:49 AM, Nic Evans wrote:
I initiate an election for Assessor, as there has been no election 
since the last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the 
new Assessor. For this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and 
the valid options are the players (PRESENT is also a valid vote).
For the Assessor election I vote 'nichdel' followed by any other player 
that votes for emself in the order that eir votes are submitted.


Since the Assessor doesn't actually have a report, it'd be best to set 
its Payrate higher than average.


I don't feel any changes to Assessor are necessary, unless people want 
to remove the ability to re-arrange resolution (though I think that may 
be useful to prevent dangerous scams in the future).


I initiate an election for Promotor, as there has been no election 
since the last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the 
new Promotor. For this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and 
the valid options are the players (PRESENT is also a valid vote).

For the Promotor election I endorse Aris.

Promotor's monthly intake should probably be close to Assessor's.

I don't know of any changes needed for Promotor.


I initiate an election for Rulekeepor, as there has been no election 
since the last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the 
new Rulekeepor. For this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and 
the valid options are the players (PRESENT is also a valid vote).
For the Rulekeepor election, if G. replies with something that would be 
a valid vote if e were a player, I cast that as my vote. Else I endorse 
Gaelan.


Rulekeepor's monthly intake should probably be the highest of all offices.

I don't know of any changes needed for promotor.


I initiate an election for Arbitor, as there has been no election 
since the last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the 
new Arbitor. For this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and the 
valid options are the players (PRESENT is also a valid vote).



For the Arbitor election I endorse ais523.

I'm not certain what's appropriate for Arbitor pay.

I'm fairly convinced self-service is largely useless. If it's nobody's 
responsibility, nobody will do it. It's probably better to encourage 
players to deputize and assign all outstanding CFJs than to only take 
one or two.

Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Tailor] Ribbons

[Alex Smith]

On Thu, 2017-05-18 at 05:55 -0400, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
wrote:
> I award myself a Blue Ribbon.

Which CFJ did you judge?

-- 
ais523

Re: BUS: [ADoP] Election of Assessor, Promotor, Rulekeepor, and Arbitor

[Alex Smith]

On Fri, 2017-05-19 at 11:49 -0500, Nic Evans wrote:
> I initiate an election for Assessor, as there has been no election
> since the last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the
> new Assessor. For this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and
> the valid options are the players (PRESENT is also a valid vote).
I vote for {nichdel}.

> I initiate an election for Promotor, as there has been no election
> since the last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the
> new Promotor. For this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and
> the valid options are the players (PRESENT is also a valid vote).
I vote for {Aris}.

> I initiate an election for Rulekeepor, as there has been no election
> since the last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the
> new Rulekeepor. For this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and
> the valid options are the players (PRESENT is also a valid vote).
I vote for {Gaelan}.

> I initiate an election for Arbitor, as there has been no election
> since the last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the
> new Arbitor. For this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and
> the valid options are the players (PRESENT is also a valid vote).
I vote for {ais523}.

-- 
ais523

BUS: [ADoP] Election of Assessor, Promotor, Rulekeepor, and Arbitor

[Nic Evans]

What follows is the initiation of the Assessor, Promotor, Rulekeepor, and 
Arbitor elections as per the discussion from the Super Election Season thread.

Note for new players: Elections are Instant Runoff, meaning you can cast votes 
as a list. Any portion of your vote, or the entire thing, can be a conditional. 
A vote of 'present' is largely irrelevant for these decisions.

Note for all players: With your vote, please include any thoughts about 
necessary changes to the office and payrates. Since it looks like Granular 
Paydays will pass, consider both Payrate and Report Rate.

I initiate an election for Assessor, as there has been no election since the 
last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new Assessor. For 
this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and the valid options are the 
players (PRESENT is also a valid vote).

I initiate an election for Promotor, as there has been no election since the 
last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new Promotor. For 
this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and the valid options are the 
players (PRESENT is also a valid vote).

I initiate an election for Rulekeepor, as there has been no election since the 
last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new Rulekeepor. For 
this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and the valid options are the 
players (PRESENT is also a valid vote).

I initiate an election for Arbitor, as there has been no election since the 
last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new Arbitor. For this 
decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and the valid options are the players 
(PRESENT is also a valid vote).

BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3490, 3491 assigned to ais523

[Alex Smith]

On Fri, 2017-05-19 at 17:23 +0100, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-05-19 at 11:08 -0500, caleb vines wrote:
> > I issue a Call for Judgment on each of the following statements:
> > 
> > "An Agency's Head and an Agency Director do not have the same
> > powers."
> > "An Agency's Head is currently defined by the rules."
> 
> These are CFJs 3490 and 3491 respectively. I assign them both to
> myself.

The first issue to check here is whether Agencies even /have/ Heads.
The answer to this is clearly "yes"; rule 2468 defines it as ruleset-
tracked information (and thus rule 2125(c) defines any attempt to
change the information as regulated). Rule 2467 gives a list of
"properties" of an Agency (title, Agents, Powers), but rule 2468
strongly implies (twice) that the identity of the Head of an Agency is
not one of its properties (and rather, is separately tracked
information). As far as I can tell, the only security on an Agency's
head is rule 2125; rule 2467 defines restrictions on changing an
Agency's properties, but that wouldn't apply to the Head.

I see no reason why an Agency's Head and Director would necessarily be
the same person; nothing in the ruleset states that they are, and the
words aren't synonyms in standard English usage. The Director appears
to have no gamestate relevance other than to identify the person who
created the Agency.

As such, the remaining question is simply to determine who an Agency's
Head is. As far as I can tell, this is completely unspecified in the
ruleset, meaning that we fall back to rule 217. Game custom is for the
person who created an Agency to be the person who can be acted on
behalf of. Common sense and the best interests of the game both imply,
at least, that the Head of an Agency can't initially be a person /other
than/ its Director; being able to create an Agency that could act on
behalf of someone else is both ridiculous and obviously exploitable. I
don't think there are any relevant past judgements.

This means that I think the situation works as follows: An Agency has a
Head, and a Director; the Head is /initially/ equal to the Director,
but the two could theoretically diverge over time (in fact, we already
have a rules-defined mechanism for changing an Agency's Head: manually
ratifying the Superintendent's report). This makes the verdict of both
CFJs TRUE.

Nonetheless, the rules in question are clearly unclear and should be
fixed.

-- 
ais523
Judge, CFJs 3490, 3491

BUS: CFJ: Agency Heads and Directors

[caleb vines]

I issue a Call for Judgment on each of the following statements:

"An Agency's Head and an Agency Director do not have the same powers."
"An Agency's Head is currently defined by the rules."


I issue the following exhibit for both CFJ statements:

It appears that, according to Rule 2467, an Agency's Head is not selected
in the Agency creation process--only a Director. I thought this strange. So
I did some research and found this message in the archive:

>I retract this proposal and resubmit it with the indicated typo >correction
>and with every instance of "Head" replaced by "Director".


This retraction became an official announcement and proposal on 16
Sept 2016. We don't end there, however.


All previous versions of the Agencies proposal were retracted and
re-submitted on 16 Oct 2016. This submission contained the full text
rather than a "find and replace" as was done on 16 Sept, but the full
text only replaced the first instance of "Head" with "Director." It
fails to replace all subsequent instances of "Head," leaving three
additional references to the "Agency's Head."


This version was adopted as the Rule 2467 we know. Although this may
have been a typographical error or clerical oversight, it is now
written into law. Thus the questions, and my suspicions:


I am led to believe that the Agency Head and Agency Director may not
have the same powers.


I also suspect that while there are powers granted to an Agency Head
and maybe some contextual evidence of its existence, the specific
designation of "Agency Head" may not be currently defined by the
rules.



-grok

BUS: Re: 蘭亭社の憲章の修正箇条 2017/05/19

[Josh T]

I retract my previous intention.

I intend to amend the charter of Organization 蘭亭社 no earlier than May 24th
and no later than May 31st, pursuant to section 6 of the existing charter,
to read as follows:

{{{
1.  この憲章には、以下の同じ行に書かれている用語が同意義である。
* Agora, アゴラ, 阿呉羅
* Announcement, 公表
* Appropriate, ふさわしい, 相応しい
* The Budget Switch for the pair consisting of X and this Organization,
Xの株
* CAN, 得る
* Charter, 憲章
* Duty, 義務
* Estate, 地所
* Estate of X, X地
* Expenditure, 支出
* To flip (switch X to Y), (XがYに)変わる
* IMPOSSIBLE, 不可能
* Organization, 社
* Player, アゴラプレイヤー
* POSSIBLE, 可能
* Shiny, 阿貨、ア宝
* SHOULD, べし
* Switch, スイッチ
2.  当社の正式名称は「蘭亭社」で、「ランテイシャ」と読む。
3.  当社のメンバーならないアゴラプレイヤーは自分の株が１～５０に変わることによって弊社のメンバーになることが相応しいである。
4.  当社が滅びずに登録を解除することが不可能である。
5.  この憲章に記載されていない弊社に影響を及ぼす行為は全部相応しくない。
6.  可能な憲章の修正箇条は当社のメンバーに公表され得て、７日以内に当社のメンバーに日本語で反対されないたら、相応しいになって自動的に批准する。
7.  すべてメンバーは自分の株が低い値に変わることがふさわしい。
8.  当社は紳士を認める。認められる紳士は称号を持って、時折義務もある。各紳士は持参人の株が+εを見なす。
9.  青龍という紳士を認める。当社の最古参のメンバーは青龍を与えて、義務がなし。
10. 福德公という紳士を認める。福德公は毎月の朔日当社の地所や阿貨を公表すべし。怠慢だったら、義務を遂行した当社のメンバーは福德公を獲得し得る。
11. 決断とは当社の採用の決定方法のひとつ。まずメンバー一員が提案を出して、メンバー全員の賛否を問うて、
反対者の株より賛成者の株のほうか多ければ当社は提案を採用する。
12. 当社の阿貨や地所を支出することは決断が必要である。決断された提案が公表されることはふさわしい。
13. 当社はメンバーがスタンスを決断し得る。決断されたスタンスが公表されることはふさわしい。
14. メンバーの間で紛争はリーチ麻雀の東南戦によって解決されるべきである。
}}}

(I fixed some typos)

天火狐

2017-05-19 9:54 GMT-04:00 Josh T :

> I intend to amend the charter of Organization 蘭亭社 no earlier than May 24th
> and no later than May 31st, pursuant to section 6 of the existing charter,
> to read as follows:
>
> {{{
> 1.  この憲章には、以下の同じ行に書かれている用語が同意義である。
> * Agora, アゴラ, 阿呉羅
> * Announcement, 公表
> * Appropriate, ふさわしい, 相応しい
> * The Budget Switch for the pair consisting of X and this
> Organization, Xの株
> * CAN, 得る
> * Charter, 憲章
> * Duty, 義務
> * Estate, 地所
> * Estate of X, X地
> * Expenditure, 支出
> * To flip (switch X to Y), (XがYに)変わる
> * IMPOSSIBLE, 不可能
> * Organization, 社
> * Player, アゴラプレイヤー
> * POSSIBLE, 可能
> * Shiny, 阿貨、ア宝
> * SHOULD, べし
> * Switch, スイッチ
> 2.  当社の正式名称は「蘭亭社」で、「ランテイシャ」と読む。
> 3.  当社のメンバーならないアゴラプレイヤーは自分の株が１～５０に変わることによって弊社のメンバーになることが相応しいである。
> 4.  当社が滅びずに登録を解除することが不可能である。
> 5.  この憲章に記載されていない弊社に影響を及ぼす行為は全部相応しくない。
> 6.  可能な憲章の修正箇条は当社のメンバーに公表され得て、７日以内に当社のメンバーに日本語で反対されないたら、相応しいになって自動的に批准する。
> 7.  すべてメンバーは自分の株が低い値に変わることがふさわしい。
> 8.  当社は紳士を認める。認められる紳士は称号を持って、時折義務もある。各紳士は持参人の株が+εを見なす。
> 9.  青龍という紳士を認める。当社の最古参のメンバーは青龍を与えて、義務がなし。
> 10. 福德公という紳士を認める。福德公は毎月の朔日当社の地所や阿貨を公表すべし。怠慢だったら、義務を遂行した当社のメンバーは福德公を獲得し得る。
> 11. 決断とは当社の採用の決定方法のひとつ。まずメンバー一員が提案を出して、メンバー全員の賛否を問うて、
> 反対者の株より賛成者の株のほうか多ければ当社は提案を採用する。
> 12. 当社の阿貨や地所を支出することは決断が必要である。決断された提案が公表されることはふさわしい。
> 13. 当社はメンバーがスタンスを決断し得る。決断されたスタンスが公表されることはふさわしい。
> 公表で賛成することによってスタンスを発表し得ます。賛成者の株より反対者の株のほうか多ければスタンスが撤廃する。
> 14. メンバーの間で紛争はリーチ麻雀の東南戦によって解決されるべきである。
> }}}
>
> For reference, the list of differences is as follows: {Formality changed.
> Revised §§1,3,4,6. Moved and Revised the former §§8,9. Added §§8-12.}
>
> 天火狐
>

BUS: 蘭亭社の憲章の修正箇条 2017/05/19

[Josh T]

I intend to amend the charter of Organization 蘭亭社 no earlier than May 24th
and no later than May 31st, pursuant to section 6 of the existing charter,
to read as follows:

{{{
1.  この憲章には、以下の同じ行に書かれている用語が同意義である。
* Agora, アゴラ, 阿呉羅
* Announcement, 公表
* Appropriate, ふさわしい, 相応しい
* The Budget Switch for the pair consisting of X and this Organization,
Xの株
* CAN, 得る
* Charter, 憲章
* Duty, 義務
* Estate, 地所
* Estate of X, X地
* Expenditure, 支出
* To flip (switch X to Y), (XがYに)変わる
* IMPOSSIBLE, 不可能
* Organization, 社
* Player, アゴラプレイヤー
* POSSIBLE, 可能
* Shiny, 阿貨、ア宝
* SHOULD, べし
* Switch, スイッチ
2.  当社の正式名称は「蘭亭社」で、「ランテイシャ」と読む。
3.  当社のメンバーならないアゴラプレイヤーは自分の株が１～５０に変わることによって弊社のメンバーになることが相応しいである。
4.  当社が滅びずに登録を解除することが不可能である。
5.  この憲章に記載されていない弊社に影響を及ぼす行為は全部相応しくない。
6.  可能な憲章の修正箇条は当社のメンバーに公表され得て、７日以内に当社のメンバーに日本語で反対されないたら、相応しいになって自動的に批准する。
7.  すべてメンバーは自分の株が低い値に変わることがふさわしい。
8.  当社は紳士を認める。認められる紳士は称号を持って、時折義務もある。各紳士は持参人の株が+εを見なす。
9.  青龍という紳士を認める。当社の最古参のメンバーは青龍を与えて、義務がなし。
10. 福德公という紳士を認める。福德公は毎月の朔日当社の地所や阿貨を公表すべし。怠慢だったら、義務を遂行した当社のメンバーは福德公を獲得し得る。
11.
決断とは当社の採用の決定方法のひとつ。まずメンバー一員が提案を出して、メンバー全員の賛否を問うて、反対者の株より賛成者の株のほうか多ければ当社は提案を採用する。
12. 当社の阿貨や地所を支出することは決断が必要である。決断された提案が公表されることはふさわしい。
13. 当社はメンバーがスタンスを決断し得る。決断されたスタンスが公表されることはふさわしい。
公表で賛成することによってスタンスを発表し得ます。賛成者の株より反対者の株のほうか多ければスタンスが撤廃する。
14. メンバーの間で紛争はリーチ麻雀の東南戦によって解決されるべきである。
}}}

For reference, the list of differences is as follows: {Formality changed.
Revised §§1,3,4,6. Moved and Revised the former §§8,9. Added §§8-12.}

天火狐

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement on CFJ 3479

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

TTttPF


Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 5:58 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> If this is the case then there was an error in the last report of the
> office tracking shinies, because I was charged the pending fee. Anyways,I
> submit the following proposal:
>
>  {{{
>  Title: Agora's To-Do List (v2/ov1)
>  Adoption index: 1.0
>  Author: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>
>  Enact a rule titled, "To-Do List", reading: "Any player MAY without two
> objection
>  add an item to the to-do list with a specified number of
>  Shinies associated with it. Any to-do list item must have a clear set
>  of requirements for completion. The to-do list shall be maintained by
>  the Lister. Any person MAY complete an item on the to-do list and
>  claim the specified number of Shinies associated with it by notifying
>  the Lister of their completion of the task. If the Lister agrees with
>  the claimee, the Lister shall without two objection pay the claimee the
> specified number of
>  Shinies from Agora. Any disagreement regarding completion shall be
>  resolved via a CFJ. After an item has been completed, the Lister shall
>  remove it from the to-do list."
>
>  Enact a rule titled, "The Office of the Lister", reading: "The Lister
>  is an office; its holder is responsible for maintaining the to-do of
>  Agora.
>
>  The Lister's Weekly report includes the current state of the Agoran
>  to-do list and any recent events thereof."
>  }}}
>
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>
> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 11:38 PM, Sprocklem S  wrote:
>
>> I judge CFJ 3479 FALSE.
>>
>> Judges arguments:
>>
>> I'm inclined to agree that “formatting errors” is not an objective
>> criteria. Additionally, even if it weren't too ambiguous, it seems like
>> it would set a bad precedent to allow such difficult to determine
>> conditionals. It's a lot easier just to have people just resubmit the
>> proposal if a (formatting) error is found.
>>
>>
>> Since the context is lacking in the CFJ itself, I have included it below.
>>
>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus called the CFJ:
>> > Agora's To-Do List is a proposal that was in the proposal pool and has
>> > been pended.
>>
>> This was caused by objections raised by Aris about the validity of the
>> conditional clause of the submission:
>> > "Formatting errors" is highly ambiguous. Unless you can clarify it
>> > down to something easily checkable, I'm going to count that statement
>> > as void.
>>
>> The relevant text of PSS's submission is duplicated below:
>> > I submit the following proposal if it has no formatting errors and its
>> > passage would create two new rules:
>> >
>> > {{{
>> > Title: Agora's To-Do List
>> > Adoption index: 1.0
>> > Author: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>> >
>> > Enact a rule titled, "To-Do List", reading: "Any player MAY with 1
>> > support add an item to the to-do list with a specified number of
>> > Shinies associated with it. Any to-do list item must have a clear set
>> > of requirements for completion. The to-do list shall be maintained by
>> > the Lister. Any person MAY complete an item on the to-do list and
>> > claim the specified number of Shinies associated with it by notifying
>> > the Lister of their completion of the task. If the Lister agrees with
>> > the claimee, the Lister shall pay the claimee the specified number of
>> > Shinies from Agora. Any disagreement regarding completion shall be
>> > resolved via a CFJ. After an item has been completed, the Lister shall
>> > remove it from the to-do list."
>> >
>> > Enact a rule titled, "The Office of the Lister", reading: "The Lister
>> > is an office; its holder is responsible for maintaining the to-do of
>> > Agora.
>> >
>> > The Lister's Weekly report includes the current state of the Agoran
>> > to-do list and any recent events thereof."
>> > }}}
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sprocklem
>>
>
>