BUS: Another CFJ
So... I've been listing C♥️U and C♥️N as not agencies thanks to the ruling in CFJ 3544 that they stopped being agencies upon Cuddlebeam's deregistration. I forgot though that Cuddlebeam reregistered. And 3544 does state in dicta that the judge believes that if CB reregistered, they would once again become agencies because they remain documents. I therefore CFJ with AP with the statement: C♥️U and C♥️N are agencies. -- >From V.J. Rada
BUS: Another CFJ
CFJ: There is a Journey in place. Arguments: Mea culpa. I should have made it clear in the original batch of proposals how a journey ends. While the rules imply in some places that the journey ends when the Shuttle is warped, nothing actually says that.
BUS: Another CFJ
CFJ: A Notice of Violation pertaining to failure to act on time is necessarily invalid if the duty was first imposed before the adoption of Rule 2239, even if the deadline was not missed until after its adoption.
BUS: Another CFJ
[This issue has occurred to me several times in the past when partial reports have been published. A precedent might be good. Not doing this as a criminal case because, well, it was a joke :) ] I CFJ on the following statement: The rulekeepor published the Short Logical Ruleset, on or about 19-Feb-09, in such a way as to satisfy that part of eir weekly duties. I bar comex. Arguments: The alleged SLR published on 19-Feb-09 was missing the text of R2125, and a non-rules text was in its place. The question is how much of a report's required contents have to be present in a message for it to be considered a publication of the report (albeit an inaccurate one) versus not actually being the report? Evidence: Alleged SLR: http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2009-February/005823.html Rule 1681/16 The Logical Rulesets [extract]: The listing of each rule in the SLR must include the rule's ID number, revision number, power, committee assignments (if any), title, and text. Rule 1051/18 The Rulekeepor [extract]: The Rulekeepor's Weekly report includes the Short Logical Ruleset. Rule 2143/4 Official Reports and Duties [extract]: Any information defined by the rules as part of an office's report, without specifying which one, is part of its weekly report -Goethe
Re: BUS: another CFJ on the vote market
I withdraw both of these CFJs. On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 2:14 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I CFJ on the following statements, barring ais523: > > "It is POSSIBLE for a contract to supersede the Power 3 Rule 2196 and > create a valid option on an Agoran Decision beyond the 3 listed in the > Rule." > > "A vote that relies on terminology defined in a public contract > satisfies R683(c)'s requirement to clearly identify the option > selected by the voter." >
BUS: another CFJ on the vote market
I CFJ on the following statements, barring ais523: "It is POSSIBLE for a contract to supersede the Power 3 Rule 2196 and create a valid option on an Agoran Decision beyond the 3 listed in the Rule." "A vote that relies on terminology defined in a public contract satisfies R683(c)'s requirement to clearly identify the option selected by the voter."
BUS: Another CFJ
I call for judgement on the following statement: "Hello!" Evidence: The precedent of CFJs 1883 and 1884 is that when a statement cannot have a truth-value assigned to it (in the case of those CFJs, it was because the statement was a question), it must be judged as UNDECIDABLE, and Rule 591/26 backs this up. Since the time of those CFJs, that rule has been amended only by proposals 5476, 5470 and 5425; 5476 merely fixed a typo in the word "Rulekeepor" and therefore has no material affect on the outcome of those CFJs; and proposals 5425 and 5470 only have an effect in the case where the statement that the inquiry CFJ is called on is actually a question, and the statement that this CFJ is filed on is not a question. The statement on which the CFJ is filed is in fact an interjection, and therefore "not capable of being accurately described as either false or true" (quote from rule 591/26) and "cannot be accurately described as either false or true" (in the wording of CFJ 1883's verdict). This precedent shows that the UNDECIDABLE verdict is correct; also, none of the other possible verdicts are appropriate: TRUE and FALSE are not appropriate because those verdicts make no logical sense when describing an interjection, IRRELEVANT is inappropriate, because the outcome of this CFJ determines whether the CFJ I am currently filing has a chance of becoming a tortoise (and thus is relevant to the game), and UNDETERMINED is inappropriate; the statement is not at all nonsensical, and is not too vague, as "Hello!" has a clear, established meaning (it is certainly less vague than nkeplwgplxgioyzjvtxjnncsqscvntlbdqromyeyvlhkjgteaqnneqgujjpwcbyfrpueoydjjk which is, according to CFJ 1846a, 'an established word with an established definition'), and it is not the case that "the information available to the judge is insufficient to determine which of the FALSE, TRUE, and UNDECIDABLE judgements is appropriate" because FALSE and TRUE are both clearly inappropriate as judgements, whereas precedent shows that UNDECIDABLE is appropriate as a judgement, and the information in this evidence section is available to the Judge, who therefore has sufficient information to be able to decide which of those three statements is inappropriate. -- ais523
Re: BUS: Another CFJ
I hereby call for judgement on the statement: CFJ 1712 is a criminal case.
Arguments:
Murphy called for judgement with the phrasing:
>I call for judgement to determine whether CotC Zefram violated
>Rule 1871 (The Standing Court) by changing all sitting players
>to standing on or about Mon, 30 Jul 2007 22:11:48 +0100.
The form of the purpose that e stated ("to determine whether ...") most
closely matches the purpose of an inquiry case. Rule 591/20 says:
An inquiry case's purpose is to determine the veracity of a
particular statement.
Murphy did not explicitly label any part of eir message as the statement
to be judged, but it is quite clear what the statement is if e initiated
an inquiry case: everything following "whether", up to the end of the
sentence.
However, the arguments that Murphy supplied with eir call for judgement
suggested a sentence of APOLOGY, which is not a possible outcome in an
inquiry case. Sentencing applies to criminal cases only. Murphy later
clarified that e had intended to initiate a criminal case.
Rule 1504/10 says of criminal cases:
A criminal case's purpose is to determine the culpability of a
particular person, known as the defendant, for an alleged breach
of the rules, and to punish the guilty.
This is quite different from the purpose of an inquiry case. It is also
a very poor match for the form of Murphy's CFJ.
This case essentially comes down to whether Murphy's intent, manifested
through the incidental comment about sentencing, is sufficient to override
eir explicit statement regarding the purpose of eir CFJ. I suggest that
game custom goes against such an interpretation.
-zefram
Re: BUS: Another CFJ
Ed Murphy wrote: >I call for judgement to determine whether CotC Zefram violated >Rule 1871 (The Standing Court) by changing all sitting players >to standing on or about Mon, 30 Jul 2007 22:11:48 +0100. I assign this CFJ number 1712. I'm not sure yet whether it's a criminal case or an inquiry case, so I'm going to handle both possibilities. -zefram
BUS: Another CFJ
I call for judgement to determine whether CotC Zefram violated Rule 1871 (The Standing Court) by changing all sitting players to standing on or about Mon, 30 Jul 2007 22:11:48 +0100. Caller's arguments: Rule 1871 states, in part: The CotC CAN change all sitting players to standing by announcement. The CotC SHALL NOT do this unless there is a judicial case to which e is obliged to assign a judge, all entities qualified to be so assigned are sitting players, and e immediately afterwards (in the same announcement) assigns a judge to that case. In the same announcement as the change in question, Zefram assigned a judge to CFJ 1688, and to no other case. However, immediately before the change, Human Point Two was qualified to be assigned as judge of CFJ 1688, and was standing. Thus, no case could fulfill all the requirements of the "unless" clause. Zefram could have reasonably argued (but didn't) that Human Point Two should not have been assigned, as one partner has a conflict of interest and the others haven't been very active. I suggest a sentence of APOLOGY, and a renewed discussion of partnerships as judges.
