Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Limits and Credits Report
Ed Murphy wrote: Does this mean that you are the author of Proposal 5269? I believe no one is. That's what I have recorded for it, and for the precedent proposal 4963. -zefram
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on points win
On 11/4/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I hereby call for judgement, barring comex, on the statement Partnership 1's Contest allowed any first-class player to become a party. Arguments: Gratuitous arguments: It seems odd that a message sent *after* the contest was formed could retroactively invalidate its formation.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ for the win
On 11/4/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: root wrote: First, the veracity of the statement is not irrelevant to the game, as the outcome of this case determines whether or not the Initiator wins the game; a judgement of IRRELEVANT is thus inappropriate to this case. So? The outcome of any case determines whether or not the judge gets a Blue VC (provided e judges on time). A better argument against a judgement of IRRELEVANT is that the outcome of this case determines whether or not a rule is broken (specifically Rule 591, to the extent that it attempts to make UNDECIDABLE permissible in certain situations). Second, the statement of this case is deliberately vague; it does not specify the circumstances to which it applies, but an UNDECIDABLE judgement is permissible iff it is appropriate. Therefore, a judgement of UNDECIDABLE is appropriate for this case per R591, whereas judgements of TRUE and FALSE clearly are not. No, the statement is equivalent to Judging UNDECIDABLE is permissible in all situations in which judging is to occur, which is false. I will attempt to appeal a judgement of UNDECIDABLE on these grounds. The statement could equally be equivalent to Judging UNDECIDABLE is [generally] permissible (FALSE), Judging UNDECIDABLE is [sometimes] permissible (TRUE), or even Judging UNDECIDABLE is permissible [in this case] (FALSE). As it stands, it contains zero context, which in my eyes makes it too vague for a true or false judgement. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ for the win
On 11/4/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: root wrote: First, the veracity of the statement is not irrelevant to the game, as the outcome of this case determines whether or not the Initiator wins the game; a judgement of IRRELEVANT is thus inappropriate to this case. So? The outcome of any case determines whether or not the judge gets a Blue VC (provided e judges on time). Yes, but that doesn't depend on the veracity of the statement itself. A better argument against a judgement of IRRELEVANT is that the outcome of this case determines whether or not a rule is broken (specifically Rule 591, to the extent that it attempts to make UNDECIDABLE permissible in certain situations). It can't; it's too vague. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ for the win
On 11/4/07, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The statement could equally be equivalent to Judging UNDECIDABLE is [generally] permissible (FALSE), Judging UNDECIDABLE is [sometimes] permissible (TRUE), or even Judging UNDECIDABLE is permissible [in this case] (FALSE). As it stands, it contains zero context, which in my eyes makes it too vague for a true or false judgement. -root What I don't understand is why you didn't just CFJ on nonsense.
DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1779: assign comex
On 11/4/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I hereby assign comex as judge of CFJ 1779. Pseudo-judgement: UNDETERMINED, per the clear precedent set by CFJ 1744.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ for the win
root wrote: On 11/4/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: root wrote: Second, the statement of this case is deliberately vague; it does not specify the circumstances to which it applies, but an UNDECIDABLE judgement is permissible iff it is appropriate. Therefore, a judgement of UNDECIDABLE is appropriate for this case per R591, whereas judgements of TRUE and FALSE clearly are not. No, the statement is equivalent to Judging UNDECIDABLE is permissible in all situations in which judging is to occur, which is false. I will attempt to appeal a judgement of UNDECIDABLE on these grounds. The statement could equally be equivalent to Judging UNDECIDABLE is [generally] permissible (FALSE), Judging UNDECIDABLE is [sometimes] permissible (TRUE), or even Judging UNDECIDABLE is permissible [in this case] (FALSE). As it stands, it contains zero context, which in my eyes makes it too vague for a true or false judgement. What specific precedent do you see as backing up any of these methods of interpretation?
DIS: Re: OFF: null proposal distribution
Zefram wrote: There would normally be a proposal distribution at this time, but there are no proposals to distribute. Proposal ID numbers: highest orderly: 5286 disorderly: none Proposal pool: empty I had a proposal in the message http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2007-October/007825.html that I believe has been missed. Thanks, Levi
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ
Ed Murphy wrote: pikhq initiated a criminal case in Message-id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I thought it was rather unclear, and possibly thereby ineffective, but not for your reason. I thought that the identification of the defendant was clear, but the rule allegedly breached and particularly the action allegedly breaching it were not explicitly flagged. Still, I've recorded it as a CFJ with these parameters: Type: criminal case Defendant: Zefram Rule: 106 Action: distributing proposal 5269 without a submission to the proposal pool I was about to notify myself of the case, but perhaps I'll hold off if we can get a quick consensus on your interdiction. -zefram
DIS: Re: BUS: Transferral of blue VCs
If all ten thousand CFJs referred to as Sparta-Sparta in [EMAIL PROTECTED] exist, then I spend 2500 blue VCs to make Zefram gain 1250 blue VCs.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Transferral of blue VCs
Josiah Worcester wrote: If all ten thousand CFJs referred to as Sparta-Sparta in [EMAIL PROTECTED] exist, then I spend 2500 blue VCs to make Zefram gain 1250 blue VCs. nttpf. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Transferral of blue VCs
Josiah Worcester wrote: If all ten thousand CFJs referred to as Sparta-Sparta in [EMAIL PROTECTED] exist, then I spend 40 blue VCs to make Zefram gain 20 blue VCs. nttpf. -zefram
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ for the win
root wrote: The statement could equally be equivalent to Judging UNDECIDABLE is [generally] permissible (FALSE), Judging UNDECIDABLE is [sometimes] permissible (TRUE), or even Judging UNDECIDABLE is permissible [in this case] (FALSE). As it stands, it contains zero context, which in my eyes makes it too vague for a true or false judgement. A judge may make a reasonable assertion as to which of the above the unclear statement applies, and return a reasonable judgement or TRUE or FALSE accordingly, provided e clarifies to which it applies for the purpose of precedent. It should withstand appeal, and the caller's recourse is to re-call the case with more clarity in the statement. There are many cases where the intent of the caller did not match the precise semantics of the CFJ, leading to a trivial judgement which missed the caller's intent. Nothing wrong with that. -Goethe
DIS: Re: BUS: Transferral of blue VCs
On 11/4/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If all ten thousand CFJs referred to as Sparta-Sparta in [EMAIL PROTECTED] exist, then I spend 2 blue VCs to make pikhq gain 1 blue VC. -zefram I KNEW that allowing the CotC discretion over linked assignments was a bad idea! g
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Transferral of blue VCs
On Sunday 04 November 2007 16:50:34 comex wrote: I KNEW that allowing the CotC discretion over linked assignments was a bad idea! g I think not. It eliminated one of your attempts at spamming the courts. :)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Transferral of blue VCs
On Sunday 04 November 2007 17:02:35 comex wrote: Perhaps, but Zefram could have easily have kept the VCs. Honestly it seems contrary to the spirit of Agora that he didn't. Perhaps Zefram keeps his word even outside of the public forum? :p
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Transferral of blue VCs
comex wrote: Perhaps, but Zefram could have easily have kept the VCs. pikhq and I made an agreement to destroy all but one of the VCs. We both wanted the VCs to not exist, as is evidenced by our voting on relevant proposals. seems contrary to the spirit of Agora that he didn't. It is very much in the spirit of Agora to minimise the differences between two possible gamestates. I still fully expect CFJ 1774 to rule that the VCs never existed. Certainly it occurred to me that a CotC in my position could have chosen a judge who would agree to some sharing of the VCs at thousands each. Aside from the split-gamestate issue, it would have been well within the spirit of Agora to use eir office to corruptly achieve such control over the disposition of the VCs. I applied the same corrupt practice, just with a more benign objective. Btw, the line I was expecting you to use to object to this was This is madness!. I was all prepared with the This is Agora! rejoinder. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ for the win
On 11/4/07, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: root wrote: The statement could equally be equivalent to Judging UNDECIDABLE is [generally] permissible (FALSE), Judging UNDECIDABLE is [sometimes] permissible (TRUE), or even Judging UNDECIDABLE is permissible [in this case] (FALSE). As it stands, it contains zero context, which in my eyes makes it too vague for a true or false judgement. A judge may make a reasonable assertion as to which of the above the unclear statement applies, and return a reasonable judgement or TRUE or FALSE accordingly, provided e clarifies to which it applies for the purpose of precedent. It should withstand appeal, and the caller's recourse is to re-call the case with more clarity in the statement. Under what circumstances would UNDECIDABLE then be appropriate due to the statement being too vague? -root
DIS: Re: OFF: Re: BUS: Fookiemyartug
On 11/4/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I object. It's not part of the CotC's report, and its accuracy is in doubt. Proto: Public claims of personhood are self-ratifying, to avoid gamestate recalculation.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Re: BUS: Fookiemyartug
On 11/4/07, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 11/4/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I object. It's not part of the CotC's report, and its accuracy is in doubt. Proto: Public claims of personhood are self-ratifying, to avoid gamestate recalculation. I don't think that works. Ratification changes the game state to make the ratified document true. How can a non-person entity be changed to become a person? -root
