Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 3922 Assigned to Murphy (attn Treasuror)
9 aug. 2021 02:01:06 Aspen via agora-business : On Sun, Aug 8, 2021 at 4:59 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: On 8/8/2021 3:33 PM, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote: The rules actually say "clearly specify" at one other point (Rule 107, Initiating Agoran Decisions). In this case, while "exactly which part of this message constitutes the text of the intended proposal" is somewhat unclear, it isn't substantially unclear; any reasonable interpretation still leads to a proposal that, I intend to motion to reconsider this judgement with 2 support. In this judgement, the judge is (1) claiming the text is clearly specified, but (2) then says it's somewhat unclear, but then (3) says any reasonable interpretation works, but (4) then doesn't actually give an interpretation, that's not clarifying at all (in direct contradiction to the stated judgement). Regardless of the fact that multiple interpretations might lead to a proposal that gives the same result, that does not make a single text clear, and a single text is required. If "any reasonable" interpretation is possible, then there's no clear single interpretation, which the rule requires. -G. I strongly support and do so. -The Promotor, who likes knowing what e supposed to put in eir reports I will wait for the final judgement of CFJ 3922 or August 16th, which ever comes first, before taking the next action. -- D. Wet www.nomica.nl
Re: BUS: Fwd: OFF: CFJ 3923 Assigned to G.
On 09/08/2021 19:00, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: FALSE. I transfer G. 3 boatloads of coins. Thanks for the timely judgement! -- Trigon ¸¸.•*¨*• Play AGORA QUEST I’m always happy to become a party to contracts. I LOVE SPAGHETTI transfer Jason one coin nch was here I hereby don't... trust... the dragon... don't... trust... the dragon... Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this
BUS: (@tailor) Re: Fwd: OFF: CFJ 3923 Assigned to G.
On 8/9/2021 12:00 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > I deliver this judgement in CFJ 3923: I award myself blue glitter for doing this.
BUS: Fwd: OFF: CFJ 3923 Assigned to G.
[ changes from proto: - Further distinguished atomicity for a single winner versus atomicity across winners, as they are different. - Added part about leaving out the source of the card (LF), thanks for comments, Trigon! - A few comments at the end. - Same conclusions as proto. ] > CFJ: The quoted message is a distribution message as outlined in > Regulation AM0. I deliver this judgement in CFJ 3923: The interpretations in this judgement are made in keeping with this part of Rule 2545/5: > To further aid trade and commerce, > auction methods should be interpreted in the name of fairness with > deference to the method's clear intent, if intent can be > reasonably inferred. Importantly, fairness etc. is a *requirement* for any auction to happen: > e CAN do so by any wholly public method that would be > generally recognizable, as specified by the auctioneer at the > start of the auction, and under common definitions and terms used > in auctions, as a fair, equitable, and timely means of determining > the auction winners from among the current players, and enabling > the appropriate exchange of goods. That is, if the method is found to be unfair, inequitable, or untimely, or doesn't enable the appropriate exchange of goods, the whole auction fails (because the auctioneer CANNOT conduct an auction in such a manner), even if that unfair method is written into a regulation. It is clear, from the presented evidence, that the *intent* of the regulations used for the initiation and bidding is that the bidding has determined that: - Falsifian won the first lot (a new victory card) for 1717cn. - Trigon won the second lot (a justice card owned by LF) for 50cn. - "Funded" regs ensure that the winners CAN pay for these lots. Any auction resolution that, after bidding has concluded, allows the fees to differ from these bids, prevents these exchanges from being made, or allows a payment or lot award to happen twice, would not be enabling the "appropriate" exchange of goods. So if the regulations end up supporting such incorrect actions (multiple exchanges for the same lot, no exchanges, exchanges for the incorrect amount), than the interpretation is that no auction happened at all, because the auctioneer COULD NOT have started it. Further, in the name of "fairness", it's fairly clear to me that, following our general Agoran practices for fee-based actions, and also general practices of debt and consent, that a failed attempt at exchange (e.g. the auctioneer exchanging the wrong amount or lot) is generally intended to fail entirely and atomically, like a fee does - even if, in this case, the auctioneer could make one of the incorrect transfers on eir own behalf, as authorized by general asset transfer rules. And further, to aid trade and commerce, that such a failure would be correctable (i.e. it wouldn't result in the auction being unresolvable). One thing that's *unclear* is for multiple lot auctions: if one lot exchange message is in error, is it "fairer" to have all the lot awards fail (definitely cleaner overall), or fairer to not hold up the bidders who got the correct lot for the correct price? Not sure about regulation intent and/or fairness there, there's arguments to make on both sides for what's "fairest". So that requires a stricter reading of the regulation text and exact mechanism. Taking it in parts: On 8/8/2021 6:44 PM, Telna via agora-official wrote: >> Relevant part of AM0: >> >> DISTRIBUTION: The auctioneer for an auction CAN and SHALL, within >> seven days of the ending of that auction's retrieval period, >> create a public message (henceforth the "distribution message") >> that contains a full history of bids on the auction and >> withdrawals from the auction. It must also clearly indicate each >> awardee and the lot e recieves. This, on its own, gives the full description of what makes a "distribution message" (I'm interpreting the lowercase 'must' in the last sentence as a requirement needed to make it a distribution message, not a SHALL). The regulation makes the "CAN and SHALL" associated with the actual exchange a second part of the message - but importantly, it's a separate requirement from the requirement to publish a distribution message, and separate from the definition of "distribution message": >> In this message, the auctioneer >> CAN and SHALL destroy the amount to be paid from the inventory >> each awardee and transfer to that player (or create in eir >> possession if the item is new) the set of assets associated with >> the lot e won. Failing to publish a distribution message >> constitutes the Class 3 Crime of Auction Abandonment. So the first thing to notice is that "in this message, the auctioneer CAN and SHALL" doesn't have a "by announcement". Now, saying "in a [public] message, the auctioneer CAN...", when read in light
BUS: Re: OFF: [Survivor] R4 Voting Results
On 8/9/21 12:13 PM, nix via agora-official wrote: > The players that are immune in R4 are: G., Telna, Cuddlybanana, > Aspen,and Jason. Only Falsifian and ATMunn were valid options for voting. > > Votes were as follows: > > * 1 vote for ATMunn. > > ATMunn is eliminated. > > R5 will start later today. Please stand by. > > -- > nix > Webmastor, Ministor, Herald > > I deputize for Herald to do the following: I grant G., Telna, Cuddlybanana, Aspen, and Jason immunity in round 4. I expel ATMunn. -- nix
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 3924 Assigned to Cuddlebeam [@Cuddlebeam]
I claim a Blue Ribbon by the way. I also claim Blue Glitter. On Mon, Aug 9, 2021 at 4:44 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discuss...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 8/9/2021 7:36 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 8/9/21 9:17 AM, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote: > >> Alright, re-Judging: > >> > >> I Judge FALSE. > >> > >> Backed by the arguments provided, I have become convinced that it is > >> possible to try to simultaneously flip a Switch. However, doing so would > >> attempt to make it an indeterminate value, and by R2126, such attempts > >> would instead cause the switch to take on its last determinate and > possible > >> value if any, or its default otherwise. > >> > >> Since it would instead take on its last determinate value, there ain't > no > >> flippin' flipping, because attempting to flip an instance of a switch > to a > >> value it already has does not flip the switch (R2126). > > > > > > E didn't try to simultaneously flip switches, e tried to simultaneously > > plan to flip switches, so I don't think that clause applies. > > > > I think it applies in terms of what happens at the beginning of the month? > It's the beginning-of-the-month trigger that's doing the "trying to > simultaneously flip", not my planning action. > > This judgement means that two simultaneous plans were laid and that both > count as being the most recent, so you get an "momentarily indeterminate > -> back to previous value" thing happening at the beginning of the month. > Which is slightly different than the interpretation "there was no single > latest plan, so no temporary indeterminacy happens". > >
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 3924 Assigned to Cuddlebeam [@Cuddlebeam]
Alright, re-Judging: I Judge FALSE. Backed by the arguments provided, I have become convinced that it is possible to try to simultaneously flip a Switch. However, doing so would attempt to make it an indeterminate value, and by R2126, such attempts would instead cause the switch to take on its last determinate and possible value if any, or its default otherwise. Since it would instead take on its last determinate value, there ain't no flippin' flipping, because attempting to flip an instance of a switch to a value it already has does not flip the switch (R2126). On Mon, Aug 9, 2021 at 2:52 PM ais523 via agora-business < agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Mon, 2021-08-09 at 22:48 +1000, Ned Strange via agora-business > wrote: > > I too support > > With support from R. Lee and G. (and unofficially cuddlybanana), I > group-file a Motion to Reconsider CFJ 3924. > > -- > ais523 > >
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 3924 Assigned to Cuddlebeam [@Cuddlebeam]
On Mon, 2021-08-09 at 22:48 +1000, Ned Strange via agora-business wrote: > I too support With support from R. Lee and G. (and unofficially cuddlybanana), I group-file a Motion to Reconsider CFJ 3924. -- ais523
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 3924 Assigned to Cuddlebeam
I too support
On Mon, Aug 9, 2021, 10:33 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business <
agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> On 8/9/2021 4:45 AM, ais523 via agora-business wrote:
> > On Mon, 2021-08-09 at 13:31 +0200, Cuddle Beam via agora-business
> > wrote:
> >> Your attempt to simultaneously Flip, failed; because: CFJ 2086 (called
> 15
> >> Jul 2008): Message-based actions are always taken in some order, never
> >> precisely simultaneously, possibly unless otherwise stated.
> >>
> >> I Judge FALSE.
> >
> > I intend, with 2 support, to group-file a Motion to Reconsider this;
> > the statements that this makes about the judgement of CFJ 2086 are not
> > correct.
> >
> > CFJ 2086 found that game custom was that, if there are no other cues
> > about timing within the message, multiple actions taken in the same
> > message happen in the order in which they are written; and that the
> > rules are silent on the issue, so game custom is used as a rule 217
> > tiebreak. (It didn't mention the other rule 217 tests, but I think
> > those also point towards an "actions happen in sequence unless
> > otherwise stated" viewpoint; in addition to being game custom, this is
> > clearly in the best interests of the game, and is also supported by
> > common sense.)
> >
> > In this case, though, there are other cues about timing in the message
> > (it explicitly states it's trying to do two things simultaneously), so
> > the precedent of CFJ 2086 doesn't apply (both because it explicitly
> > stated it doesn't apply in this case, and because the reasoning that it
> > used doesn't hold up in the situation where the message outright says
> > otherwise).
> >
>
> I support.
>
> In addition to ais523's arguments, Rule 478/23 (in effect at the time of
> CFJ 2086), didn't contain the "unless otherwise stated" sentence. That
> legislatively-inserted text (by P6785, adopted August 2011) is a key point
> in the caller's arguments for the current cfj. That text makes CFJ 2086
> out-of-date since the rule is no longer silent and the text of the rule
> now applies. Evidence:
>
> From Assessor's voting report (Aug 22 14:57:56 UTC 2010):
>
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2010-August/008019.html
> }{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
>
> Proposal 6785 (Purple, AI=3.0, Interest=0) by coppro
>
> Attorney Adjustment
>
> Amend Rule 478 (Fora) by replacing
>A public message is a message sent via a public forum, or sent
>to all players and containing a clear designation of intent to
>be public. A person "publishes" or "announces" something by
>sending a public message.
>
>Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed "by
>announcement", a person performs that action by unambiguously
>and clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs
>it. Any action performed by sending a message is performed at
>the time date-stamped on that message.
> with
>A public message is a message sent via a public forum, or sent
>to all players and containing a clear designation of intent to
>be public. A rule can also designate that a part of one public
>message is considered a public message in its own right. A person
>"publishes" or "announces" something by sending a public message,.
>
>Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed "by
>announcement", a person performs that action by unambiguously
>and clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs
>it. Any action performed by sending a message is performed at
>the time date-stamped on that message. Actions in messages
>(including sub-messages) are performed in the order they appear in
>the message, unless otherwise specified.
>
>
> }{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
>
>
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 3924 Assigned to Cuddlebeam [@Cuddlebeam]
On Mon, 2021-08-09 at 12:45 +0100, ais523 via agora-business wrote: > On Mon, 2021-08-09 at 13:31 +0200, Cuddle Beam via agora-business > wrote: > > I Judge FALSE. > > I intend, with 2 support, to group-file a Motion to Reconsider this; > the statements that this makes about the judgement of CFJ 2086 are > not correct. With support from cuddlybanana and G., I group-file a Motion to Reconsider CFJ 3924. -- ais523
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 3924 Assigned to Cuddlebeam
On 8/9/2021 4:45 AM, ais523 via agora-business wrote:
> On Mon, 2021-08-09 at 13:31 +0200, Cuddle Beam via agora-business
> wrote:
>> Your attempt to simultaneously Flip, failed; because: CFJ 2086 (called 15
>> Jul 2008): Message-based actions are always taken in some order, never
>> precisely simultaneously, possibly unless otherwise stated.
>>
>> I Judge FALSE.
>
> I intend, with 2 support, to group-file a Motion to Reconsider this;
> the statements that this makes about the judgement of CFJ 2086 are not
> correct.
>
> CFJ 2086 found that game custom was that, if there are no other cues
> about timing within the message, multiple actions taken in the same
> message happen in the order in which they are written; and that the
> rules are silent on the issue, so game custom is used as a rule 217
> tiebreak. (It didn't mention the other rule 217 tests, but I think
> those also point towards an "actions happen in sequence unless
> otherwise stated" viewpoint; in addition to being game custom, this is
> clearly in the best interests of the game, and is also supported by
> common sense.)
>
> In this case, though, there are other cues about timing in the message
> (it explicitly states it's trying to do two things simultaneously), so
> the precedent of CFJ 2086 doesn't apply (both because it explicitly
> stated it doesn't apply in this case, and because the reasoning that it
> used doesn't hold up in the situation where the message outright says
> otherwise).
>
I support.
In addition to ais523's arguments, Rule 478/23 (in effect at the time of
CFJ 2086), didn't contain the "unless otherwise stated" sentence. That
legislatively-inserted text (by P6785, adopted August 2011) is a key point
in the caller's arguments for the current cfj. That text makes CFJ 2086
out-of-date since the rule is no longer silent and the text of the rule
now applies. Evidence:
>From Assessor's voting report (Aug 22 14:57:56 UTC 2010):
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2010-August/008019.html
}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
Proposal 6785 (Purple, AI=3.0, Interest=0) by coppro
Attorney Adjustment
Amend Rule 478 (Fora) by replacing
A public message is a message sent via a public forum, or sent
to all players and containing a clear designation of intent to
be public. A person "publishes" or "announces" something by
sending a public message.
Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed "by
announcement", a person performs that action by unambiguously
and clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs
it. Any action performed by sending a message is performed at
the time date-stamped on that message.
with
A public message is a message sent via a public forum, or sent
to all players and containing a clear designation of intent to
be public. A rule can also designate that a part of one public
message is considered a public message in its own right. A person
"publishes" or "announces" something by sending a public message,.
Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed "by
announcement", a person performs that action by unambiguously
and clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs
it. Any action performed by sending a message is performed at
the time date-stamped on that message. Actions in messages
(including sub-messages) are performed in the order they appear in
the message, unless otherwise specified.
}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 3924 Assigned to Cuddlebeam
On Mon, 2021-08-09 at 13:31 +0200, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote: > Your attempt to simultaneously Flip, failed; because: CFJ 2086 (called 15 > Jul 2008): Message-based actions are always taken in some order, never > precisely simultaneously, possibly unless otherwise stated. > > I Judge FALSE. I intend, with 2 support, to group-file a Motion to Reconsider this; the statements that this makes about the judgement of CFJ 2086 are not correct. CFJ 2086 found that game custom was that, if there are no other cues about timing within the message, multiple actions taken in the same message happen in the order in which they are written; and that the rules are silent on the issue, so game custom is used as a rule 217 tiebreak. (It didn't mention the other rule 217 tests, but I think those also point towards an "actions happen in sequence unless otherwise stated" viewpoint; in addition to being game custom, this is clearly in the best interests of the game, and is also supported by common sense.) In this case, though, there are other cues about timing in the message (it explicitly states it's trying to do two things simultaneously), so the precedent of CFJ 2086 doesn't apply (both because it explicitly stated it doesn't apply in this case, and because the reasoning that it used doesn't hold up in the situation where the message outright says otherwise). -- ais523
BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 3924 Assigned to Cuddlebeam
Your attempt to simultaneously Flip, failed; because: CFJ 2086 (called 15 Jul 2008): Message-based actions are always taken in some order, never precisely simultaneously, possibly unless otherwise stated. I Judge FALSE. On Mon, Aug 9, 2021 at 3:48 AM Telna via agora-official < agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > The below CFJ is 3924. I assign it to Cuddlebeam. > > = > > Assuming G. announces no further focus plans, eir focus will flip to > Legacy at the beginning of the next month. > > Called by G.: Sat 07 Aug 2021 01:06:03 > > = > > On 2021-08-07 11:04, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > > > > [lol sigh. one more err want to get this exact.] > > > > I withdraw the most recent CFJ I called. > > > > > > I simultaneously plan to flip my focus to Legacy and plan to flip my > focus > > to Compliance. > > > > > > I CFJ: Assuming G. announces no further focus plans, eir focus will flip > > to Legacy at the beginning of the next month. > > > > > > Evidence: > > > > Rule 2638/0[extract] > >An active player CAN Plan to Flip eir own Ministry Focus, > >specifying any valid value for eir Ministry Focus, by > >announcement. At the beginning of a month, every active player's > >Ministry Focus is set to the value e mostly recently specified by > >Planning to Flip. If a player did not Plan to Flip eir Ministry > >Focus switch in the last month, it is not flipped. > > > > Arguments: > > > > Rule 478/39 reads in part: > > Any action performed by sending a message is > > performed at the time date-stamped on that message. Actions in > > messages (including sub-messages) are performed in the order they > > appear in the message, unless otherwise specified. > > > > The "unless otherwise specified" seems like a bit of a security hole, > > given that several mechanisms in the rules would break if people could > > perform multiple actions simultaneously. But I can't find a prohibition > > against that - the "in the order they appear" is written not as a limit, > > but as a default that can be overridden - can it go so far to specify "at > > exactly the same moment (simultaneous)"? > > >
Re: BUS: Lol
On Mon, 2021-08-09 at 15:50 +1000, Sarah S. via agora-business wrote: > I intend to have each active player win by apathy without objection I object. -- ais523
Re: BUS: Lol
I don’t understand what you’re testing, but I do object. Gaelan > On Aug 8, 2021, at 10:50 PM, Sarah S. via agora-business > wrote: > > I intend to have each active player win by apathy without objection > > (sorry, I'm just testing if the settings I tweaked mean I can also reply as > this email) > > > -- > R. Lee
