BUS: An apology

[Owen Jacobson]

Prithee forgive my lackadaisical attitude towards my offices of late. I have 
been occupied with other business - forgivable, perhaps, had I made any effort 
to ensure that my duties were fulfilled in my absence. Instead, I was as easily 
found and as sturdy as a cumulonimbus drifting over the great mountain 
Kilimanjaro, in far-off and long-gone Tanganyika.

I won't stultify you with the details of my distractions. Suffice it to say 
I've had my shot of caffeine, and that I return to my duties with a frisk and a 
vigor. While I may take my time, as molasses on a slope, I will move ever, 
unstoppably, forward. No more the three-toed sloth, I.

There is one issue to which I must give vent. Through the trepans of this 
apology, perhaps we can reach some useful matter that may avoid this issue if 
the office of Referee should ever fall silent in the future. As things stand, 
the Referee is judge, jury, and executioner, and is charged with keeping a 
perfect and omniscient watch over the activities of Agora. Even had I been a 
present and obedient servant, I am only human, and my watch must fail. It seems 
unwise to rely so heavily on a single Agoran when we each desire to see the 
rules followed!

Regardless, I hope I can amend this lapse and maintain your trust.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer lottery

[Owen Jacobson]

On Jun 15, 2017, at 5:40 PM, CuddleBeam  wrote:

> With an emulation of 2 Agoran Support, I'm going to add to the "rules" of the 
> lottery the following:
> 
> - Purchasers of a HAFL Ticket must also choose a 5-number string for their 
> ticket, which is that "ticket's number" (which defaults to being 0).

I support this intention, within the context of CuddleBeam’s emulation of 
Agoran Consent. See my next message for discussion as to whether this is 
meaningful.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

BUS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Kerim Aydin]

On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Secretary's Weekly Report

I pledge that I SHALL NOT deny any CoE concerning this alleged report.

I note that I do NOT give any willful consent to be bound by the Rules.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Alex Smith]

On Thu, 2017-06-15 at 18:23 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> 
> 
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> > there's at least one error in it. Thus, in order to block ratification,
> > I picked the mistake in the report that was a) most clearly a mistake, 
> > and b) hardest for you to correct.
> 
> But I don't need to correct that for this particular self-ratification to
> function!

OK, I guess the argument here is about the semantics of "identifying a
document and explaining the scope and nature of a perceived error in
it:" in rule 2201. Note that pointing out *any* error in a document
prevents *the entire document* self-ratifying. I was under the
impression that the "error" identified need not be an error, or indeed
have any relationship to the document (i.e. it's just there for
informing people about the reason behind the CoE), but I'm now not
entirely sure that's correct.

Let me make my CoE a bit more specific to address this point:

CoE: the implicit claim made by the document in question (that was
recently published by G., purporting to be the Secretary's Report) to
contain a section of the Secretary's Report is invalid, because a
Secretary's Report can only be published by the Secretary.

(Note that the implicit claim is necessarily part of the document, or
otherwise the document would not be self-ratifying in the first place.)

Normally we don't bother with this level of specificity in Agora, but I
agree that when someone's attempting a scam (and this is a scam-like
action, even if it isn't necessarily intended to gain an advantage), it
pays to be as precise as possible.

-- 
ais523

Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer lottery

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I object to all rule changes proposed by V.J. Rafa. Also, your interpretation 
of the rules, CFJs, and the ruleset is significantly non-standard.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On Jun 15, 2017, at 6:53 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:
> 
> I would like to change the rules to 
> I pledge to run a lottery and pay the lottery victor(s) according to the 
> following:
> I will divide all my shinies and other assets into three pieces, to be given 
> to V.J. Rada and the first two players who support this rule change, on June 
> 30.
> 
> plz support.
> 
> On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 7:40 AM, CuddleBeam  wrote:
> With an emulation of 2 Agoran Support, I'm going to add to the "rules" of the 
> lottery the following:
> 
> - Purchasers of a HAFL Ticket must also choose a 5-number string for their 
> ticket, which is that "ticket's number" (which defaults to being 0).
> 

Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer lottery

[V.J Rada]

Hey wait a minute: "These "rules" for running the Lottery can be changed
with 2 Agoran Support (or an emulation of it)."

Emulation means imitation, attempting to match the function by pretending.
And Cuddlebeam seems to claim the right to unilaterally change the rules:
he said that "I add this rule by *an emulation* of Agoran Support

I add a rule to this pledge to "I, Cuddlebeam, will timely (within 7 days)
give all my shinies to V.J Rada.". He can still run a lottery whatever idc.

I will emulate 2 Agoran support (which I still think in this context means
the support of 2 players) by pretending all my friends called Jeff (there
are 11 of them) joined this game and supported me, which is similar to the
real process of obtaining support. Emulation.

Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer lottery

[Aris Merchant]

I also object.

-Aris

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 3:55 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> I object.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> > On Jun 15, 2017, at 6:53 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:
> >
> > I would like to change the rules to
> > I pledge to run a lottery and pay the lottery victor(s) according to the
> following:
> > I will divide all my shinies and other assets into three pieces, to be
> given to V.J. Rada and the first two players who support this rule change,
> on June 30.
> >
> > plz support.
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 7:40 AM, CuddleBeam 
> wrote:
> > With an emulation of 2 Agoran Support, I'm going to add to the "rules"
> of the lottery the following:
> >
> > - Purchasers of a HAFL Ticket must also choose a 5-number string for
> their ticket, which is that "ticket's number" (which defaults to being
> 0).
> >
>
>

Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer lottery

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I object.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On Jun 15, 2017, at 6:53 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:
> 
> I would like to change the rules to 
> I pledge to run a lottery and pay the lottery victor(s) according to the 
> following:
> I will divide all my shinies and other assets into three pieces, to be given 
> to V.J. Rada and the first two players who support this rule change, on June 
> 30.
> 
> plz support.
> 
> On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 7:40 AM, CuddleBeam  wrote:
> With an emulation of 2 Agoran Support, I'm going to add to the "rules" of the 
> lottery the following:
> 
> - Purchasers of a HAFL Ticket must also choose a 5-number string for their 
> ticket, which is that "ticket's number" (which defaults to being 0).
> 

Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer lottery

[V.J Rada]

I would like to change the rules to
I pledge to run a lottery and pay the lottery victor(s) according to the
following:
I will divide all my shinies and other assets into three pieces, to be
given to V.J. Rada and the first two players who support this rule change,
on June 30.

plz support.

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 7:40 AM, CuddleBeam 
wrote:

> With an emulation of 2 Agoran Support, I'm going to add to the "rules" of
> the lottery the following:
>
> - Purchasers of a HAFL Ticket must also choose a 5-number string for their
> ticket, which is that "ticket's number" (which defaults to being 0).
>

BUS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Alex Smith]

On Thu, 2017-06-15 at 07:49 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Secretary's Weekly Report

Just to make absolutely sure:

CoE: You are not the Secretary.

-- 
ais523

Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer lottery

[CuddleBeam]

With an emulation of 2 Agoran Support, I'm going to add to the "rules" of
the lottery the following:

- Purchasers of a HAFL Ticket must also choose a 5-number string for their
ticket, which is that "ticket's number" (which defaults to being 0).

BUS: humble agoran farmer lottery

[CuddleBeam]

I pledge to run a lottery and pay the lottery victor(s) according to the
following:

- The Lottery will End at the 30th of June 2017, and I will pay the lottery
victor(s) their winnings in a timely fashion after that date, or during it.

- The Winning Number is the same as the winning number of the daily coupon
ONCE lottery of Spain of the 30th of June 2017 ("sorteo cupón diario de la
ONCE", for example:
https://www.juegosonce.es/resultados-cupon-diario-15-junio-2017)

- People may purchase an "HAFL Ticket" (humble agoran farmer lottery
Ticket) by paying me 1 shiny before the 30th of June (in mainland Spanish
time). The Jackpot then increases by 1 shiny (and it is initially at 1
shinies).

- The person (or persons, in case of ties) with the HAFL Ticket with the
closest number to the Winning Number is (are) the lottery victor(s).

- The victor's winnings shall be the jackpot amount, in shines (or the
jackpot amount equally split among all of them, if there are multiple
victors, with any remainder going to Agora).

- Any commitment I may have with the Lottery ends after I have performed
the payment to the victors (if there are any). If there are no victors
after the 30th of June (or I can't perform any more valid payments to
victors), any commitment I have with Lottery also ends.

- These "rules" for running the Lottery can be changed with 2 Agoran
Support (or an emulation of it).



Running a lottery because why not. Using Pledges to create stuff.

BUS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Josh T]

Since this might actually be needed:

I CoE on the balance of 天火狐, which should be 15 Shinies.

天火狐

On 15 June 2017 at 12:09, Josh T  wrote:

> I understand that this isn't an actual report, but in the event are going
> to think it is, my balance should be 15 Shinies after updating the values
> with respect to my CoE in the prior report.
>
> 天火狐
>
> On 15 June 2017 at 10:49, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>> Secretary's Weekly Report
>>
>> Date of this report: Thu, 15 Jun 2017
>> Date of last report: Sun, 11 Jun 2017
>>
>>
>> Recent events (all times UTC):
>>
>> - previous report -
>> Mon, 15 May 2017 09:27:29  Gaelan paid 1 Shinies (Quazie)
>> Mon, 15 May 2017 16:28:54  Agora paid 10 Shinies (ais523)
>> Thu, 18 May 2017 21:27:54  grok paid 1 Shinies (Aris)
>> Sat, 20 May 2017 19:59:03  Agora paid 4 Shinies (Quazie)
>> Sun, 21 May 2017 02:03:05  Agora paid 3 Shinies (ais523)
>> Sun, 21 May 2017 02:05:52  Agora paid 1 Shinies (grok)
>> Sun, 21 May 2017 23:11:33  Agora paid 4 Shinies (Aris)
>> Mon, 22 May 2017 06:01:33  o paid 6 Shinies (Organization "AVM")
>> Mon, 22 May 2017 06:01:33  Organization "AVM" paid 5 Shinies (o)
>> Mon, 22 May 2017 06:20:40  o's budget switch with Organization "ACU"
>>  flipped to 0
>> Mon, 22 May 2017 19:10:48  天火狐 paid 0 Shinies (grok)
>> Wed, 24 May 2017 00:46:28  CuddleBeam paid 5 Shinies (nichdel)
>> Wed, 24 May 2017 03:23:54  Quazie paid 1 Shinies (Gaelan)
>> Wed, 24 May 2017 16:47:00  Gaelan paid 0 Shinies (grok)
>> Thu, 25 May 2017 00:06:37 !Gaelan paid 1 Shinies (Quazie)
>> Thu, 25 May 2017 17:04:03  Organization 蘭亭社 charter amended (天火狐)
>> Thu, 25 May 2017 22:21:46  Quazie paid 1 Shinies (CuddleBeam)
>> - time of last report -
>> Mon, 29 May 2017 16:58:50  grok deregistered
>> Mon, 29 May 2017 17:00:14  nichdel deregistered
>> Wed, 31 May 2017 13:41:35  aranea, Charles, Henri, Sci_Guy12, Tekneek,
>>  The Warrigal, Yally deregistered
>> Thu,  1 Jun 2017 00:00:00  Payday
>> Fri,  2 Jun 2017 05:36:42  Agora paid 5 Shinies (Gaelan)
>> Fri,  2 Jun 2017 05:38:18  Organization "AAaAA" destroyed (o)
>> Mon,  5 Jun 2017 17:29:03  301 Shinies created in Agora's balance by
>>  Proposal 7856
>> Tue, 06 Jun 2017 20:27:07  Agora paid 30 Shinies (Quazie)
>> Sat, 10 Jun 2017 08:27:45  天火狐 paid 5 Shinies (o)
>> Sat, 10 Jun 2017 22:40:37  Agora paid 50 Shinies (天火狐)
>> Sun, 11 Jun 2017 03:23:37  Agora paid 6 Shinies (Aris)
>>
>>
>> Events marked with a ! are provisional pending the outcome of one or
>> more CFJs.
>>
>>
>> Personal Lockouts:
>>
>> Player Until
>> 
>> Quazie July 18, 2017
>>
>> Global Lockout: No
>>
>>
>> Balances:
>>
>> The following information is provisional, pending one or more CFJs.
>>
>>   477 Shinies  Agora
>>66 Shinies  Organization
>> 5 ShiniesAVM
>>   518 Shinies  Player
>>14 ShiniesAris
>>61 ShiniesCuddleBeam
>>16 ShiniesGaelan
>>10 ShiniesIenpw III
>>60 ShiniesMurphy
>>53 ShiniesPublius Scribonius Scholasticus
>>19 ShiniesQuazie
>>40 ShiniesSprocklem
>>10 ShiniesVeggiekeks
>>74 ShiniesZachary Watterson
>> 5 Shiniesais523
>>10 Shinieso
>>60 Shiniesomd
>>15 Shiniestmanthe2nd
>>10 Shinies天火狐
>>
>>
>> Budgets:
>>
>> Player ABM  ACU  AVM  蘭亭社 Expenditure
>> ---
>> ais523  25   30   55
>> Murphy   50   50
>> o 50  50
>> omd  20   20
>> Sprocklem   25   20   45
>> 天火狐   5050
>>
>> Income  50  120   5050   270
>>
>> ABM = The Agoran Betting Market
>> ACU = The Agoran Credit Union
>> AVM = The Agoran Voting Market
>>
>>
>

BUS: CFJ 3526 judged TRUE

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Jun 13, 2017, at 7:47 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 2017-06-14 at 09:22 +1000, V.J Rada wrote:
>> --Bar
>> I bar Cuddlebeam
>> --Statement--
>> I call for judgement on this statement. "CFJ 3509 has no judgement"
> 
> I'm interpreting these three messages as a single action, split across
> three messages (rather than calling three effectively identical CFJs).
> I recommend resolving the potential ambiguity by retracting any CFJs
> you've created other than the one that I'm assigning here.
> 
> This is CFJ 3526. I assign it to o.

At the heart of this confusing tale is a single proposition: that on two 
occasions, CuddleBeam assigned a judgement to CFJ 3509.

This proposition is false. No message originating from CuddleBeam assigns a 
judgement to CFJ 3509. Several messages are labelled as if they do so, but 
inspection of their contents shows that they do not. To make sense of this we 
must look at the statement in question in CFJ 3509. From Aris’ message 
assigning the CFJ number:

> On May 23, 2017, at 9:14 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 2017-05-22 at 19:20 -0700, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>> I CFJ on these statements:
>> 
>> “Any player may take the office of Rulekeepor with 2 support.” [i.e.
>> I got a pink slip]
>> “o committed a cardable offense in issuing a Pink Slip to Gaelan.”
>> 
>> I bar o from both CFJs.
> 
> These are CFJ 3508 and CFJ 3509 respectively. I assign them to
> CuddleBeam.

The statement in CFJ 3509 is

> o committed a cardable offense in issuing a Pink Slip to Gaelan.

Let’s look at CuddleBeam’s messages. First, on May 25th, e published a message 
with the subject "CFJ 3509 Judgement (Dismissed, insufficient information)”, 
which assigned a judgement to the statement

> Any player may take the office of Rulekeepor with 2 support.


This is not the statement in CFJ 3509, in spite of the subject of the message, 
and therefore does not assign a judgement to CFJ 3509. Judges are not empowered 
to replace the statement, thankfully.

Second, on June 1st, e published a message with the subject "CFJ 3509 Judgement 
(Dismissed, insufficient information)”. This message assigns a judgement to the 
statement

> Any player may take the office of Rulekeepor with 2 support.


Again, this is not the statement in CFJ 3509, and does not assign a judgement 
to that CFJ. CuddleBeam even noted the error in the subject line of this 
message in a subsequent reply the same day.

As far as I can find, there are no other messages from CuddleBeam which either 
purport to assign a judgement to CFJ 3509, and no other messages from 
CuddleBeam assigning judgement to the statement in that CFJ. As no other Judge 
has been appointed, it is impossible for anyone else to have assigned a 
judgement.

Therefore CFJ 3509 has never been assigned a judgement, and the statement

> CFJ 3509 has no judgement

is TRUE.

>> ---Evidence
>> This statement is not authoritative, it's a true account of what happened
>> though. If you want the original messages, surely it wouldn't be too much
>> of a hardship. Or you can ask me for them and I'll dig
>> 
>> On May 24, Cuddlebeam was assigned 3509 and 3508. On May 25, they refused
>> to judge 3509. On May 25, they judged it DISMISS. On May 25, PSS moved for
>> reconsideration. On May 25, Cuddlebeam accepted reconsideration. On June 1,
>> CB submitted a message titled "Judgement of CFJ 3509" with identical text
>> to their previous Judgement in CFJ 3508. They now refuse to judge it again,
>> despite accepting reconsideration.
>> ---Argument
>> There are three possibilities. 1: The statement is TRUE. The DISMISS
>> judgement is invalid as overridden by him agreeing to reconsider. The later
>> judgement is invalid as a judgement for a different statement. NOTE: If the
>> statement is TRUE, the CFJ has been open for over 7 days and can be
>> reassigned wink wink nudge nudge put me in coach. 2: The statement is FALSE
>> because the latter judgement is valid, even if it refers to a different
>> CFJ. 3: The statement is FALSE because the earlier judgement is valid.
>> Cuddlebeam agreed to reconsider it, but on June 10 again refused to judge
>> it. This should be taken as a refusal to reconsider. Thus, the DISMISS
>> judgement is valid.
>> 
>> GLHF!
> 
> --
> ais523
> Arbitor



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Interaction between CFJ 1709 and R869

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Jun 13, 2017, at 5:17 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:
> 
> "I Point My Finger at um... what's your nickname? Kerim, anyway. For clear 
> reasons, let's see what happens though”

I believe this is ineffective, as G. (Kerim) is not a player at this time. 
Under Rule 2478 (“Vigilante Justice”) you may only Point the Finger at a 
player. Under Rule 2479, the Referee may only issue Cards to players.

However, just in case, I find the above finger-pointing to be Shenanigans.

First, G. was not performing any official duty. G. likely understands why not, 
but in case it’s not obvious: saying that you’re publishing a report doesn’t 
mean that you’re actually doing so, and there’s no way G. could publish the 
Registrar’s Weekly Report at the time they sent the message in question.

Second, It’s not at all clear to me that _saying_ that you purport a thing 
implies that you materially purport a thing, if that thing would be obviously 
and blatantly impossible for you to do or purport to do.

I’d love to see an appeal on this, though. CFJ away.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: BUS: I Point the Finger

[Owen Jacobson]

On Jun 13, 2017, at 4:38 AM, V.J Rada > wrote:

> I Point the Finger at Cuddlebeam. On 25 May he said "I pledge to not
> submit Judgement on CFJ 3509."
> (https://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2017-May/034882.html
>  
> ).
> On that very same date, he did.
> (https://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2017-May/034886.html
>  
> ).

I regret my decision to object to Gaelan’s attempt at fixing this mess. Gaelan, 
I’m sorry, that was shortsighted and you were right.

[Dons Referee hat]

I can see no message in which CuddleBeam passed judgement on CFJ 3509. The 
statement to be judged in that CFJ is

> o committed a cardable offense in issuing a Pink Slip to Gaelan.


In the message cited in V.J Rada’s Pointing of the Finger, CuddleBeam passes 
judgement on the statement

> Any player may take the office of Rulekeepor with 2 support.

which is CFJ 3508, not CFJ 3509.

CuddleBeam did, however, purport to pass judgement on CFJ 3509 (see the Subject 
header of the message linked in evidence). This was unwise, but I can find no 
rule that this violates, nor any evidence in the rules that claiming to judge 
CFJ 3509 while actually passing judgement on a different statement has the 
effect of passing judgement on CFJ 3509.

Nonetheless, I believe that a rules violation has occurred - just not the one 
that prompted V.J Rada to Point the Finger at CuddleBeam. CFJ 3509 has been 
assigned to CuddleBeam for considerably more than 7 days: it was assigned on 
May 23, which is, as of this writing, 23 days ago, and Rule 591 (“Delivering 
Judgements”) commands that the judge SHALL assign a judgement in a timely 
fashion. CuddleBeam has violated this requirement.

A Yellow card would be appropriate, as the infraction clearly has a 
“significant, but small, effect on gameplay” per Rule 2427 ("Yellow Cards"), 
i.e., the CFJ has remained unjudged due to this lapse. Accordingly, I issue 
CuddleBeam a Yellow Card. Eir apology, if any, must include each of the words

* I
* Judge
* CFJ
* 3509
* To
* Be
* TRUE

although not necessarily in that order or in close proximity. E need not breach 
eir pledge in the process of apologizing for withholding judgement.

Arbitor, I recommend that CFJ 3509 be reassigned.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP