Re: BUS: CFJ 3532 judged TRUE
On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > Judge's arguments for CFJ 3532: I intend to call for reconsideration with two support. The judgement deserves credit for its ample demonstration of how the final result - shinies being assets - is supported by *all four* of game custom, common sense, past judgements, and the best interests of the game. Nevertheless, it’s too divorced from the text to satisfy me. It starts out by quoting the operative clause, but thereafter devotes itself entirely to analyzing the four factors; it makes no attempt to analyze the wording, and doesn't propose a specific definition of “solely because” that justifies the result. After all, the four factors only apply “where the text is silent, inconsistent, or unclear”. While there’s certainly *some* inclarity here, that’s not a license to apply the factors willy-nilly to the entire meaning of the rule; our custom is more conservative than that. The factors should only be used to resolve the inclarity - that is, to decide on a meaning among the plausible alternatives. I suspect it’s entirely possible to come up with a definition that comports with the judge’s result (and establish its plausibility), and indeed that the judge would be capable of doing so on reconsideration - but e has not done so here. (Or in other words, the judge needs to explain why eir interpretation “doesn't violate the plain meaning of any of the rules in question”, as e claims.)
BUS: CFJ 3532 judged TRUE
Judge's arguments for CFJ 3532: This call for judgment inquires whether the "existing solely" clause (hereinafter The Clause) of Rule 2166, which defines assets, prevents assets referenced by multiple rules from existing. I turn first to the relevant text of the rule, which is as follows: An asset is an entity defined as such by a rule (hereafter its backing document), and existing solely because its backing document defines its existence. Clearly The Clause prevents, say, the sun from being defined as an asset. This is good, because if the sun could be an asset the rules might make it destructible, and then we'd be forced to accept, for game purposes, that there was no sun. It would be even more problematic if we accepted persons, and therefore players, as assets. Obviously the rules are free to make such definitions anyway (although we might argue over whether they would have any effect, considering the interests of the game). However, in the past we've allowed contracts to define assets, explaining the necessity of such restrictions. The Clause prevents another class of situations as well. It prevents two different rules from defining the same asset. In older forms, it has done the same for a rule and a contract (CFJs 1922-1923). The question raised here is whether even referencing an asset would create such a situation. This raises interesting questions about the way we interpret the rules. It has long been understood that even if a term used in the rules is undefined, we are obliged to try our best to figure out what it means. Thus, even without the rule defining shinies, we would "interpret them into existence". Without shinies, pending would be impossible, and we would be unable to pay out salaries, among other problems. So, it is apparent that we might consider shinies existent even without the intervention of their defining rule, arguably triggering The Clause. The historical interpretation of The Clause, however, does not support this argument. There are no precedents that clearly apply to this situation, although in CFJ 3381 the Honorable Judge ais523 appears to assume in passing that such things are possible. But our current situation is not unprecedented, there are merely no applicable _judicial_ precedents. Rule 2166 is not a new rule. It was, in fact, a rather aged rule at time it was repealed, and it only seems new to us because of its recent reenactment. One example of a similar situation is the point, which was the general unit of currency under this [1] ruleset. I can find no record of anyone complaining that they didn't exist. If we were to ignore history, would we find? Well, the idea that we interpret terms in the rules in a way that gives them effect is largely a matter of tradition. No rule says that, in the absence of a definition from either conventional English or the rules, we have to try to interpret the rules the way they are intended to be read. Another consideration is the interests of the game; certainly it would seem to be in the game's best interest to have a definition for shinies, and all of the clarifications of their behavior that come with it. I know all the Platonists (if that is the right term, perhaps Logicians would be better) in the crowd out jeering at me for refusing to consider the matter logically, a priori, from the wording on up. I will therefore close with two arguments that I hope will placate them. First, the doctrine that the rules and the terms in them must be given meaning in accordance with common sense exists to make the game playable. If every typo or invented but undefined term stopped the game, then the game would long since have ended. We have to keep playing, and in order to keep playing, we often need to interpret the rules the way they are intended to be read. The core thesis of the doctrine is that the rules need to have their common sense meaning; using it to rob the rules of what they are plainly intended to mean violates that principle. It would essentially be using the doctrine to violate its own basis for existence. Second, and perhaps most convincingly, the argument that the rules conflict with each other is only valid under circumstances that are themselves internally inconsistent. If we view the rules Platonically/logically, then only one rule attempts to define assets. If we consider the rules Pragmatically/legally, then their common sense intent shines through. It is only when we look at one rule one way and another rule another way that a contradiction between rules arises. As it is a longstanding principle of rule interpretation that, if reasonably possible, we will attempt to construe the rules so that no contradiction occurs, it is sensible to here use the only consistent interpretation, which also happens to be the only one that doesn't violate the plain meaning of any of the rules in question. I conclude my judgment by noting that there may in fact be one judicial precedent that has some real bearing on this s
BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport
CoE: I published this report this month. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > On Jul 8, 2017, at 3:21 PM, Quazie wrote: > > Registrar Y Player history 2017-05-31 ! > signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
BUS: CFJ judgement
I call for reconsideration (again) and submit the following judgement of FALSE 1. Facts Despite (at the time, at least) not being the Surveyor, Cuddlebeam attempted to initiate 5 auctions for Estates. Four of these were of Estates owned by Agora, and one was owned by a private party. E then called this CFJ to determine whether any auction was indeed ongoing. While an auction is currently ongoing, it is an oft-repeated maxim that CFJs shall be judged on the facts at the calling of the CFJ. The question in this case is whether a player can initiate auctions for any Estate by announcement and if not, whether they may initate auctions for only private Estates or only Agoran estates. 2.The meaning of the word auction Without resorting to any dictionaries, an auction means to me a sale in which people bid for an item and the person who bid the most wins the item. A dictionary definition of auction is similar: an auction is "a public sale in which goods or property are sold to the highest bidder." The previously run auction for Estates worked in a similar way. There has been some controversy about whether or not an auction with no possibility of sale is indeed an auction. I ruled that it was not. PSS contended that because under the current rules' provision for auctions, the auction itself did not transfer Estates, my interpretation would render all auctions invalid. However, I here affirm my previous ruling. The player transferring the Estate to emself is similar to a person at a car auction grabbing the item they bought. Even if transfer is not guarenteed, it is likely. I hold that under the common sense, dictionary and game practise meaning of the word "auction", a purported auction that is unlikely or impossible to result in a transfer of the auctioned Estate is no auction at all. 3.Josh's Estate I hold that the Estate Josh T holds cannot be transferred and thus no auction is taking place for the Estate of Antegria (under the facts at the time of the calling). The Rules state that "A player who owns an Estate can and may transfer it to any player, to any Organization, or to Agora, by announcement.". This clearly regulates the transferring of Estates and places two conditions on it ("a player who owns an Estate" and "by announcement". It is clear neither CB nor anyone else may transfer Josh's estate to anyone else because they do not meet the restrictions. Fun fact: when an organization is transferred an Estate, it can never leave. rito plz. 4. Agoran Estates Agora is not a sentient being (yet) and cannot act on its own behalf to transfer Estates it owns. Therefore the rules create another way for Estates to be transferred. By an auction initiated by the Surveyor. However it also makes the judgement that this should only be done by the Surveyor, once a month. CB is not the Surveyor, and he is attempting to initiate four auctions at once. It is clear that the rules "limit" the action of initiating an auction to the Surveyor. Previous judgements and messages have invoked Generalia Specialibus Non Derogant, but that statutory cannon applies to two conflicting statutes. I would instead invoke the principle of both Agora and common law systems that a Rule or legislative decision overrides any murky general ability to do something. CB's attempted actions are outside the regulatory framework and therefore not effective. It was clearly the intent of the writers of the rule for one Auction to happen at once, and CB's action would disrupt the intent. FALSE
BUS: Thesis "Spivak Culture" Submission (Attn. Herald)
This is my official submission of my Thesis "Spivak Culture". I intend to apply for a degree. humble agoran farmer gettng that edumacation lol. Let's go!: ---*--- Spivak is very common in Agora, evidenced by its widespread use throughout the current Ruleset and its history. However, how did these niche pronouns arise to become so prominent in the Agoran (and nomic) context? Additionally, Spivak is discouraged in BlogNomic, the other largest nomic currently on the web, via “[Players] may correct obvious spelling and typographical mistakes in the Ruleset and their own Pending Proposals at any time, including replacing Spivak and gender-specific pronouns with the singular “they”. How have they grown to take opposite approaches to the same problem? Let’s delve into the history of it, to uncover the roots of these cultures. ---*--- The game of Nomic was first introduced to the public in the column of Metamagical Themas (published in the Scientific American) of Douglas Hofstadter, in June 1982, when excerpts from a book (still unpublished at the time) by the game's creator Peter Suber were printed and discussed. [1] Additionally, Douglas Hofstadter has an impassioned chapter in Metamagical Themas about gender-neutral language. [1] In those days, that was what brought people to Nomic, so there has been likely a tight relationship between Hofstadter’s writings (the gender-neutral language chapter in particular) and the game he revealed there as well: Nomic. This is further evidenced by mentions that in Nomic World, use of Spivak was a conscious homage to them. [2] Agora arose from Nomic World, which started on the 9th of October, 1992. In its initial Ruleset, it used the conventional singular “they” to refer to other people throughout, with no use of Spivak whatsoever [3], for example: “When a Judge has been selected, they shall have 3 days in which to accept or refuse their appointment as Judge.” “Once a Judge is selected, (ie has accepted their selection) they then have exactly one week to post an official Judgement on the issue for which their Judgement has been invoked.” However, the Ruleset at the 04 Nov 1992 shows a first (and single) evidence of Spivak use [4], here: "Rule 1047. [mutable] by Blob, last changed Tue Nov 3 13:19:28 1992 New players New players begin with zero points. A new player is a player who registers for the first time. If the player has been registered within the past 6 weeks, then e is not counted as a new player." Additionally, another single sign of Spivak use emerged on the Ruleset at December 11th [5] (Again, by "Blob", suggesting that they might be the originator of Spivak use that eventually flowed into Agora). *Rule 1108. [mutable] by Blob, last changed Fri Dec 11 16:29:23 1992 Playing Tag --- I propose the following mutable rule be enacted: At the passing of this rule, a player is selected at random from all recently active players. The player becomes "it". At all times thereafter, there must be one and only one player who is currently "it". This player then has the option of "tagging" another registered player, who is online and in the same room as "it". The tagged player then becomes "it" (except as outlined below), and the player who tagged em is no longer "it". There is no way for any player, other than "it", to know who is "it" at any given time, until such time as they are tagged by "it". If "it" tags a player who has been "it" in the past hour, then the tagged player does not become "it", and the player who was "it" stays that way. If a player who is "it" is deregistered, another "it" is selected randomly from all recently active players. A player who is "it" is to be informed that they are "it" whenever they logon to the game. However, those are the only registered cases, with all other pronoun use being the conventional "they". Further information about how Agora inherited Spivak can be seen here, via the following mention by Chuck Carroll (Agora's Originator) [6]: "I don't believe I took the idea of using Spivak pronouns in the Initial Ruleset from any other source than Nomic World. Although the use of Spivak pronouns may have been sparse within the Nomic World ruleset, I believe there were a few players using Spivak as their preferred pronouns within Nomic World, and thus Nomic World players who were coming over to the game that would come to be called Agora were familiar enough with Spivak pronouns that they were understandable." I don't remember specifically, but I suspect I chose Spivak pronouns because at the time I didn't like the singular "they" as a gender-neutral pronoun and found Spivak pronouns preferable, at least in a group where there was already knowledge of them. (I have since come around and fully endorse singular "they" in use outside of Agora.) Chuck" Agora’s Initial Ruleset (30th of June, 1993, by Chuck Carroll) has exclusive use of Spi