BUS: Re: 3527 judgement

[Owen Jacobson]

V.J Rada wrote:

> I also point the finger at gaelan for being late on two CFJs and the SLR 
> (twice, I think)

These would be CFJs 3520 and 3521, both assigned on June 6th, 2017: 14 days 
prior to the Finger-Pointing above. Rule 591 (“Delivering Judgements”) states, 
in part:

> When a CFJ is open and assigned to a judge, that judge CAN assign a valid 
> judgement to it by announcement, and SHALL do so in a timely fashion after 
> this becomes possible.

Rule 1023 (“Common Definitions”) defines “in a timely fashion” as follows:

> The phrase "in a timely fashion" means "within 7 days”. This time period is 
> set when the requirement is created (i.e. X daysbefore the limit ends).

Reviewing the open CFJs, it appears to be possible to assign a judgement to 
each of them as of the date they were assigned. As it has been more than seven 
days since those CFJs were assigned, Gaelan has violated the SHALL clause cited 
above from r. 591.

The subject matter of the two CFJs in question is of extremely limited impact 
on the overall scope of the game. Each addresses questions about the 
relationship between a proposal and some other entity. Neither the text nor the 
adoption index nor the title of the proposal are in question, and the facts 
that are in question are of little long-term significance.

I issue Gaelan a Green Card by summary judgement.

The Short Logical Ruleset (“SLR”) is part of the Rulekeepor’s report, defined 
in r. 1051 (“The Rulekeepor”):

> The Rulekeepor's Weekly report includes the Short Logical Ruleset.

Rule 2143 (“Official Reports and Duties”) governs the frequency with which 
weekly reports must be issued:

> If any task is defined by the rules as part of that person's weekly duties, 
> then e SHALL perform it at least once each week. If any information is 
> defined by the rules as part of that person's weekly report, then e SHALL 
> maintain all such information, and the publication of all such information is 
> part of eir weekly duties.

Gaelan is the incumbent Rulekeepor, and last published the Short Logical 
Ruleset on May 28th. E has not performed this portion of eir weekly duties in 
well over a week.

This infraction has the potential to be more serious, as the regular 
publication of the SLR is crucial to ensuring that players may maintain an 
accurate understanding of the current Rules without having to track each 
proposal by hand.

However, in mitigation, Gaelan has done excellent work publishing and 
maintaining an unofficial repository of the Rules at 
. E has also been steadfast in publishing the 
monthly Full Logical Ruleset, although the deadline for doing so this month is 
appraoching quickly. On the balance, I find that the effect of Gaelan’s 
omission is minor and of little consequence at this time, and does not merit 
significant censure.

I award Gaelan a Green Card by summary judgement.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

BUS: Re: 3527 judgement

[V.J Rada]

I also point the finger at gaelan for being late on two CFJs and the SLR
(twice, I think)

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 1:48 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:

> Can a decimal amount of Shinies be transferred? I find that it cannot. The
> word "amount" is ambiguous enough for other considerations to come into
> play, and the intent of the rules, other clauses in the ruleset, and
> consequences all point towards an interpretation that only integers can be
> transferred. I find this CFJ false.
>
> This CFJ comes from omd, who attempted to give 0.5 Shinies to ais523
> and called for judgement on whether ais523 had 0 Shinies. His legal
> theory was that because decimals are an impossible value for Balance
> Switches, ais523's Switch would reset to its default: 0. However the
> threshold question is, can this decimal transfer have any effect?
>
> "Any player CAN pay Agora, any other player, or any organization any
> amount by announcement, unless it would make eir own balance
> negative.", states rule 2483. Is a decimal quantity an amount? Because
> amount is undefined, I look to the ordinary meaning. It is clear that "an
> amount of money" includes any number of parts or subparts of monetary
> units, but "an amount of coins" implies an integer of coins, not half a
> coin. Shinies are like coins. The ruleset cabins Balance Switches to
> only integers and no other value. Others have proposed a different
> physical analogy. Balance Switches are like the switch on a radio: it's
> a knob but it only changes at integers. Whatever the analogy
> preferred, the words "an amount of money" is more naturally interpreted
> as an integer amount.
>
> The consequences of allowing players to transfer to other players non-
> integer amounts of money would be disastrous. It is very probable
> (although I do not decide it) that a player would be able to immediately
> null another player's balance with such a transfer. A financial system
> open to such mischief would be a great shame. Additionally, allowing
> decimals could open the way to more complicated mathematical
> constructs, which would be a nightmare to track if it worked.
>
> This trick also has, as far as I know, no support in game practise, at
> least in the current economic system.
>
> For the foregoing reasons, the transfer between omd and ais523
> never occurred. ais523 has (I believe) 66 shinies, the judgement
> is FALSE
>