Re: BUS: CFJ 3532 judged TRUE
On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 11:52 AM, V.J Rada wrote: > I support reconsideration With two support I file a Motion to Reconsider.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer attempts a stick-up.
I point my finger at CuddleBeam for violation of Rule 2471. I argue that air actions were so implausible that e could not reasonably have believed them, and that at the very least e is absurdly negligent. Given that this is having a huge impact on the players and the game (look at the deregistrations), I recommend a sentence of a Red Card. -Aris On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Nic Evans wrote: > I would support, with a fair implementation. > > I point my finger at CB for failure to treat Agora Right Good Forever. > > I previously deregistered because I thought my explosive response to CB > was my own issue, that e needed time to adjust, and I needed time to > cool off. But I'm now convinced that's not the case. Everything CB does > disrespects the time, effort, and feelings of every other player. > > I challenge people who are on the fence about this to point to a single > time that CB has considered other players, or done necessary work, or > done anything at all to make the game better or more enjoyable to anyone > but emself.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer attempts a stick-up.
I would support, with a fair implementation. I point my finger at CB for failure to treat Agora Right Good Forever. I previously deregistered because I thought my explosive response to CB was my own issue, that e needed time to adjust, and I needed time to cool off. But I'm now convinced that's not the case. Everything CB does disrespects the time, effort, and feelings of every other player. I challenge people who are on the fence about this to point to a single time that CB has considered other players, or done necessary work, or done anything at all to make the game better or more enjoyable to anyone but emself. On 07/09/17 20:15, Aris Merchant wrote: > On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 5:53 PM, CuddleBeam wrote: >> Via "An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. payed, given) by its owner >> to another entity by announcement", I announce that I transfer all assets to >> myself. >> >> How? >> >> Because "by announcement", which is the method; "An asset generally CAN be >> transferred (syn. payed, given) by its owner to another entity" >> >> So by announcement, I can make it so there is a transfer (performed by the >> owner, apparently, but demanded to be so by me) to another entity, which is >> me. > That doesn't even make a little bit of sense, and it would need to do > more than that to get people to believe it. Would people object if I > tried to bring back black cards, except this time they would be the > equivalent of an old fashioned sentence of EXILE? I've about had it > with all this. I'm trying to be friendly, and welcoming, and all that, > but you've gotten so many people to deregister, and created so many > convoluted and unnecessary messes... > > -Aris signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
BUS: grok, Attorney at Law
I'm not going to let all this nonsense get in the way of interesting gameplay. So here's my proto-Public Defender office, which I guess is technically a Private Defender's office in this form: I intend, with 24 hours' notice, to create the following agency: Title: grok, Personal Attorney (gPA) Agents: All players except grok Director: grok Powers: Any agent may pay grok 5 shinies to activate gAL. If a player does, e may make the following pldege on grok's behalf, replacing the string '' with a string of numbers that matches the numeric code of an open CFJ: "I pledge to either submit one or more gratuitous arguments for CFJ or pay 5 shinies to the player who posted this message on my behalf." -grok
Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer attempts a stick-up.
I object on the same grounds. Please, just try to ignore em. Also, you deregister by announcement, so your intent is ineffective. -Aris On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 6:06 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > I object to this de registration as one players' peculiar actions should not > be able to ruin the game for others. If you do plan to leav at least do it > with a Writ of FAGE. > > On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 21:04 Quazie wrote: >> >> I intend to deregister myself without 2 objections - not one of these >> scams has even come close to working, and I'm finding it unfun. >>
Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer attempts a stick-up.
I object to this de registration as one players' peculiar actions should not be able to ruin the game for others. If you do plan to leav at least do it with a Writ of FAGE. On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 21:04 Quazie wrote: > I intend to deregister myself without 2 objections - not one of these > scams has even come close to working, and I'm finding it unfun. > > On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 17:53 CuddleBeam wrote: > >> Via "An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. payed, given) by its >> owner to another entity by announcement", I announce that I transfer all >> assets to myself. >> >> How? >> >> Because "by announcement", which is the method; "An asset generally CAN >> be transferred (syn. payed, given) by its owner to another entity" >> >> So by announcement, I can make it so there is a transfer (performed by >> the owner, apparently, but demanded to be so by me) to another entity, >> which is me. >> >> I create the following Proposal: >> >> // >> >> Title: humble agoran farmer pokes you with a water gun and makes evil >> demands >> Author: Cuddlebeam >> Cuddlebeam wins the game (via Proposal). >> >> Cuddlebeam gains a Black Ribbon. >> >> Cuddlebeam gains the Patent title of "evil water gun wielder person >> thing". >> >> Set Pending List Price to 5. >> >> Set Agora's Balance amount to be equal to the Supply Level amount. >> >> // >> >> >> I pend it with all of my shines. >> >> I announce that I transfer all assets to myself. >> >> I create the following Proposal: >> >> // >> >> Title: Proposal Proposal >> Author: Cuddlebeam >> >> This proposal is a proposal. >> >> // >> >> I pend it with all of my shines. >> >> I announce that I transfer all assets to myself. >> >> I announce that I destroy all of my assets. The method is the following: >> >> We have: >> >> "An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by announcement, >> subject to modification by its backing document." >> >> I'm employing that, however: >> >> "An indestructible asset is one defined as such by it backing document, >> and CANNOT be destroyed except by a rule specifically addressing the >> destruction of indestructible assets." >> >> That text itself addresses the destruction of indestructible assets >> (because it says that they "CANNOT be destroyed except by a rule >> specifically addressing the destruction of indestructible assets", which is >> in itself addressing the destruction of indestructible assets.) >> >> Ergo, Rule 2166 addresses the destruction of indestructible assets and >> therefore can be used to destroy indestructible assets, so I can use "An >> asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by announcement, subject to >> modification by its backing document." to destroy my indestructible assets. >> >> In case the above works, I'm guessing the easiest fix would be a Shiny >> Relevelling event, but if that happens, I'll (attempt to) keep on >> triggering "The above notwithstanding, if the action depends on objections, >> and an objection to it has been withdrawn within the past 24 hours, then >> Agora is not Satisfied with the intent." by just withdrawing the same >> Objection every 12 hours or so. >> >> There's likely some counter to this, IN the case that it actually works >> at all lol. I've got too many things I want to try out so I'm just winging >> this. >> >> In the case that it actually is stalwart, then, yeah. Vote for it or we >> won't have proposals for a while, because there is no cash to actually pend >> anything with (in fact, not voting for it could be criminal, for the same >> reason that the stick-up itself would be, which is enabling boring >> gameplay. Although I find stick-ups themselves to be pretty exciting lol). >> >
Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer attempts a stick-up.
I intend to deregister myself without 2 objections - not one of these scams has even come close to working, and I'm finding it unfun. On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 17:53 CuddleBeam wrote: > Via "An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. payed, given) by its > owner to another entity by announcement", I announce that I transfer all > assets to myself. > > How? > > Because "by announcement", which is the method; "An asset generally CAN be > transferred (syn. payed, given) by its owner to another entity" > > So by announcement, I can make it so there is a transfer (performed by the > owner, apparently, but demanded to be so by me) to another entity, which is > me. > > I create the following Proposal: > > // > > Title: humble agoran farmer pokes you with a water gun and makes evil > demands > Author: Cuddlebeam > Cuddlebeam wins the game (via Proposal). > > Cuddlebeam gains a Black Ribbon. > > Cuddlebeam gains the Patent title of "evil water gun wielder person thing". > > Set Pending List Price to 5. > > Set Agora's Balance amount to be equal to the Supply Level amount. > > // > > > I pend it with all of my shines. > > I announce that I transfer all assets to myself. > > I create the following Proposal: > > // > > Title: Proposal Proposal > Author: Cuddlebeam > > This proposal is a proposal. > > // > > I pend it with all of my shines. > > I announce that I transfer all assets to myself. > > I announce that I destroy all of my assets. The method is the following: > > We have: > > "An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by announcement, subject > to modification by its backing document." > > I'm employing that, however: > > "An indestructible asset is one defined as such by it backing document, > and CANNOT be destroyed except by a rule specifically addressing the > destruction of indestructible assets." > > That text itself addresses the destruction of indestructible assets > (because it says that they "CANNOT be destroyed except by a rule > specifically addressing the destruction of indestructible assets", which is > in itself addressing the destruction of indestructible assets.) > > Ergo, Rule 2166 addresses the destruction of indestructible assets and > therefore can be used to destroy indestructible assets, so I can use "An > asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by announcement, subject to > modification by its backing document." to destroy my indestructible assets. > > In case the above works, I'm guessing the easiest fix would be a Shiny > Relevelling event, but if that happens, I'll (attempt to) keep on > triggering "The above notwithstanding, if the action depends on objections, > and an objection to it has been withdrawn within the past 24 hours, then > Agora is not Satisfied with the intent." by just withdrawing the same > Objection every 12 hours or so. > > There's likely some counter to this, IN the case that it actually works at > all lol. I've got too many things I want to try out so I'm just winging > this. > > In the case that it actually is stalwart, then, yeah. Vote for it or we > won't have proposals for a while, because there is no cash to actually pend > anything with (in fact, not voting for it could be criminal, for the same > reason that the stick-up itself would be, which is enabling boring > gameplay. Although I find stick-ups themselves to be pretty exciting lol). >
BUS: humble agoran farmer attempts a stick-up.
Via "An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. payed, given) by its owner to another entity by announcement", I announce that I transfer all assets to myself. How? Because "by announcement", which is the method; "An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. payed, given) by its owner to another entity" So by announcement, I can make it so there is a transfer (performed by the owner, apparently, but demanded to be so by me) to another entity, which is me. I create the following Proposal: // Title: humble agoran farmer pokes you with a water gun and makes evil demands Author: Cuddlebeam Cuddlebeam wins the game (via Proposal). Cuddlebeam gains a Black Ribbon. Cuddlebeam gains the Patent title of "evil water gun wielder person thing". Set Pending List Price to 5. Set Agora's Balance amount to be equal to the Supply Level amount. // I pend it with all of my shines. I announce that I transfer all assets to myself. I create the following Proposal: // Title: Proposal Proposal Author: Cuddlebeam This proposal is a proposal. // I pend it with all of my shines. I announce that I transfer all assets to myself. I announce that I destroy all of my assets. The method is the following: We have: "An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by announcement, subject to modification by its backing document." I'm employing that, however: "An indestructible asset is one defined as such by it backing document, and CANNOT be destroyed except by a rule specifically addressing the destruction of indestructible assets." That text itself addresses the destruction of indestructible assets (because it says that they "CANNOT be destroyed except by a rule specifically addressing the destruction of indestructible assets", which is in itself addressing the destruction of indestructible assets.) Ergo, Rule 2166 addresses the destruction of indestructible assets and therefore can be used to destroy indestructible assets, so I can use "An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by announcement, subject to modification by its backing document." to destroy my indestructible assets. In case the above works, I'm guessing the easiest fix would be a Shiny Relevelling event, but if that happens, I'll (attempt to) keep on triggering "The above notwithstanding, if the action depends on objections, and an objection to it has been withdrawn within the past 24 hours, then Agora is not Satisfied with the intent." by just withdrawing the same Objection every 12 hours or so. There's likely some counter to this, IN the case that it actually works at all lol. I've got too many things I want to try out so I'm just winging this. In the case that it actually is stalwart, then, yeah. Vote for it or we won't have proposals for a while, because there is no cash to actually pend anything with (in fact, not voting for it could be criminal, for the same reason that the stick-up itself would be, which is enabling boring gameplay. Although I find stick-ups themselves to be pretty exciting lol).
Re: BUS: CFJ 3532 judged TRUE
I support reconsideration and advocate for a "but for" standard. To find out if something is "solely because" of a rule, pretend that the rule doesn't exist and see if the purported asset still does exist. This is the only way to comport with the text. On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote: > I support reconsideration by omd. > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > > > > > On Jul 9, 2017, at 4:37 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > > > > I move reconsideration too, however, I suggest to include how > contradiction rules would come into play. > > > > I agree that an Asset defined by various backing documents cannot exist, > but wouldn't the lower-priority backing documents be superseded by the > higher priority one, in the case that multiple would-be backing documents > exist? (Given that, in the context of there only being one backing > document, the inclusion of another would-be and lower priority/Power > backing document would create a contradiction, therefore it defers to what > the first one states. Or perhaps its better interpreted that the inclusion > of that second backing document simply poofs away the asset, as all of the > Rules are considered simultaneously and then contradictions/processing > solved after that.) > > > > On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 5:02 AM, omd wrote: > > 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.) > > > >
Re: BUS: CFJ 3532 judged TRUE
I support reconsideration by omd. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > On Jul 9, 2017, at 4:37 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > > I move reconsideration too, however, I suggest to include how contradiction > rules would come into play. > > I agree that an Asset defined by various backing documents cannot exist, but > wouldn't the lower-priority backing documents be superseded by the higher > priority one, in the case that multiple would-be backing documents exist? > (Given that, in the context of there only being one backing document, the > inclusion of another would-be and lower priority/Power backing document would > create a contradiction, therefore it defers to what the first one states. Or > perhaps its better interpreted that the inclusion of that second backing > document simply poofs away the asset, as all of the Rules are considered > simultaneously and then contradictions/processing solved after that.) > > On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 5:02 AM, omd wrote: > 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.) > signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
BUS: humble agoran farmer finds The One
I could proto-CFJ this but I feel like its good enough to merit a normal
CFJ.
I CFJ: "No rule other than rule 2166 can be a backing document."
Arguments:
- CFJ 3532 ("Assets with multiple backing documents can't exist")
- R2166 states "An asset is an entity defined as such by a rule", however,
this is in itself a definition of what an asset is - it is an entity
defined as such by a rule. So R2166 is a backing document.
- Given that "Assets with multiple backing docs can't exist", and R2166
itself is a backing document (applicable to *all* assets), no other backing
document can exist in the ruleset.
Re: BUS: CFJ 3532 judged TRUE
I move reconsideration too, however, I suggest to include how contradiction rules would come into play. I agree that an Asset defined by various backing documents cannot exist, but wouldn't the lower-priority backing documents be superseded by the higher priority one, in the case that multiple would-be backing documents exist? (Given that, in the context of there only being one backing document, the inclusion of another would-be and lower priority/Power backing document would create a contradiction, therefore it defers to what the first one states. Or perhaps its better interpreted that the inclusion of that second backing document simply poofs away the asset, as all of the Rules are considered simultaneously and then contradictions/processing solved after that.) On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 5:02 AM, omd wrote: > 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.) >
