Re: DIS: BUS: Card trades
On Sep 8, 2009, at 7:28 AM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Because the banks are kind-of weird to understand right now, let's settle for some old-fashioned haggling. I'm willing to consider trading the following cards for something of roughly equal value: Distrib-u-matics Kill Bills (redundant for me atm) Roll Calls FWIW, you can deposit these and withdraw other assets from the IBA (has lots of cards at the moment). See iba.qoid.us for an up-to-date report. I'd appreciate suggestions on reducing the weird/confusing aspect..
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ
On Wed, 9 Sep 2009, Pavitra wrote: The question then is: does the mathematical meaning (R754(3)) of random imply that the random choice is made platonically and invisibly, or does it leave that to other Agoran legal documents (R754(4)), arguably including former Rules and probably including past judicial precedents, to determine? If the former, the rule is broken. If the latter, we may be okay. Is anyone here a mathematician of randomness? I'm a part-statistician anyway, but the question is philosophical. The rule in question doesn't talk about choice at all, but says that random cards are destroyed as an external event, rather than an event made after a random choice (e.g. the auditor selects N cards at random, which are destroyed). Given this, we have two choices: 1. Infer that despite the language, our legal precedents on randomness lead us to assume that someone does make the choice, in which case a court would have to figure out who it was (likely the auditor or the recordkeepor) or decide that since there's no one authorized to make the choice, doing the destruction is IMPOSSIBLE. This favors the spirit and some precedents but very much ignores the language. In this case, past precedents hold that the timing of a random choice is when the random choice is made public, even if it's after the choice event. (This assumes that there's very little time between the person making the choice and publishing it; if e acts on the choice before publishing it's not random to that person, something that was debated during CFJ 1435). 2. Decide that we're dealing with a measurement issue rather than a process issue (an event happened, but we haven't sampled/measured the system to see what event occurred). If we decide this, we can look at statistical theory: 1. Before an event, we can speak of its probability. 2. After the event, the platonic probability of what actually happened is 1 and the probability of all other events is 0. 3. But from a statistical/measurement standpoint, we have no new information about the process, so we can still speak of the probabilities as in (1). But can we make further inferences? - If you believe in a frequentist viewpoint, there's no new data to falsify a hypothesis of any particular outcome, so the result remains UNDETERMINED. - If you take a Bayesian standpoint (with the process probabilities as your priors) you come to the conclusion that 1/Nth of each possible types of N cards were destroyed. Since this is IMPOSSIBLE (a higher-powered rule prevents destroying fractions of cards) the destruction simply didn't function. - If you take a legal/decision standpoint (where legally a decision must be made based on uncertain data - see particularly natural resource management for situations like this - a court CAN determine a likely outcome and make it the legal reality; for example by the court making a fair choice itself or delegating to the recordkeepor. Choose your statistical worldview! -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ
On Wed, 2009-09-09 at 08:44 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: - If you take a legal/decision standpoint (where legally a decision must be made based on uncertain data - see particularly natural resource management for situations like this - a court CAN determine a likely outcome and make it the legal reality; for example by the court making a fair choice itself or delegating to the recordkeepor. Choose your statistical worldview! Of course, the actual answer is whatever ends up self-ratifying; in a way, self-ratification means that as long as you can convince enough people that the choice was random, it will eventually become the correct choice, even if it wasn't. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ
Sent from my iPhone On Sep 9, 2009, at 11:44 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: - If you take a Bayesian standpoint (with the process probabilities as your priors) you come to the conclusion that 1/Nth of each possible types of N cards were destroyed. Since this is IMPOSSIBLE (a higher-powered rule prevents destroying fractions of cards) the destruction simply didn't function. I don't follow. A Bayesian standpoint makes it clear that the outcome, though fixed, can be referred to in terms of probability because it is unknown, but it certainly doesn't require otherwise impossible events to occur.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2674 assigned to woggle
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Roger Hickspidge...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 16:43, Charles Reiss woggl...@gmail.com wrote: On 9/5/09 8:09 AM, Ed Murphy wrote: Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2674 == Criminal Case 2674 (Interest Index = 2) === BobTHJ violated Rule 2143, committing the Class-N Crime of Tardiness (with N=1) by failing to publish a Herald's report in the week prior to the one in which this message is published. I judge GUILTY / SILENCE. I appeal this case. By custom Agora has permitted new officers a full ASAP period to fulfill outstanding obligations. Game custom does not take precedence over the text of the rules. -- C-walker (Charles Walker)
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2674 assigned to woggle
Roger Hicks wrote: On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 16:43, Charles Reiss woggl...@gmail.com wrote: On 9/5/09 8:09 AM, Ed Murphy wrote: Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2674 == �Criminal Case 2674 (Interest Index = 2) �=== � � BobTHJ violated Rule 2143, committing the Class-N Crime of � � Tardiness (with N=1) by failing to publish a Herald's report in � � the week prior to the one in which this message is published. I judge GUILTY / SILENCE. I appeal this case. By custom Agora has permitted new officers a full ASAP period to fulfill outstanding obligations. BobTHJ I think you can only appeal questions, not cases. Presumably you want the question on sentencing, arguing for DISMISS. Gratuitous: perhaps the ASAP period should be held to include the time in which e was a candidate in the election, and the time limit after actual assignment be only Without-Objection long (four days). New officers can begin preparing their reports before they're actually elected; in recent history, sample copies of those reports have been major elements of the campaign platform. The grace period after election then applies only to awareness that one has been elected. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ
Kerim Aydin wrote: This favors the spirit and some precedents but very much ignores the language. Which of course would flagrantly violate R217s1, though as ais523 points out IMPOSSIBLE and/or ILLEGAL things do occasionally ratify for the sake of convenience. It would be nice not to rely on that for the regular functioning of the rule though. - If you take a legal/decision standpoint (where legally a decision must be made based on uncertain data - see particularly natural resource management for situations like this - a court CAN determine a likely outcome and make it the legal reality; for example by the court making a fair choice itself or delegating to the recordkeepor. This sounds very promising. I had assumed (after failing to find the term random in a few online law dictionaries) that there was no legal definition of the term. But if a non-catastrophic legal definition of random exists, then R217s2 allows us to choose it over the catastrophic mathematical definition, since R754(3) gives equal weight to each. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2674 assigned to woggle
Roger Hicks wrote: I appeal the sentence of this case. DISCHARGE would be more appropriate based upon my previous comments. BobTHJ You now have two appeals going. Yay. -coppro
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ
On Wed, 9 Sep 2009, Pavitra wrote: Kerim Aydin wrote: - If you take a legal/decision standpoint (where legally a decision must be made based on uncertain data - see particularly natural resource management for situations like this - a court CAN determine a likely outcome and make it the legal reality; for example by the court making a fair choice itself or delegating to the recordkeepor. This sounds very promising. I had assumed (after failing to find the term random in a few online law dictionaries) that there was no legal definition of the term. But if a non-catastrophic legal definition of random exists, then R217s2 allows us to choose it over the catastrophic mathematical definition, since R754(3) gives equal weight to each. In legal language (and the current situation) we're talking about making a decision under uncertainty in what is. There are a lot of laws dealing with decisionmaking when the true state of affairs is unknown but statistically measured. I think randomness in a legal sense is associated with arbitrary and capricious decisions which are in fact bad. For example, imaging a judge saying both parents had an equally good case for child custody, so I'm flipping a coin. Though I suppose it may have come up if a judge were working with a contract that involved gambling or something. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2674 assigned to woggle
Sean Hunt wrote: Roger Hicks wrote: I appeal the sentence of this case. DISCHARGE would be more appropriate based upon my previous comments. BobTHJ You now have two appeals going. Yay. -coppro No, the first one fizzled. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ
On Wed, 9 Sep 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Wed, 9 Sep 2009, Pavitra wrote: Kerim Aydin wrote: - If you take a legal/decision standpoint (where legally a decision must be made based on uncertain data - see particularly natural resource management for situations like this - a court CAN determine a likely outcome and make it the legal reality; for example by the court making a fair choice itself or delegating to the recordkeepor. This sounds very promising. I had assumed (after failing to find the term random in a few online law dictionaries) that there was no legal definition of the term. But if a non-catastrophic legal definition of random exists, then R217s2 allows us to choose it over the catastrophic mathematical definition, since R754(3) gives equal weight to each. Here's an idea. You could always simulate a sampling process. Imagine the potential cards are placed in a bag. We draw them out (random selection among potentials) one at a time until we reach the number that should be left. The ones that aren't drawn were obviously destroyed :). [Yes there are all sorts of reasons this is just an arbitrary and silly patch, but then so is bootstrapping (statistical sense of the term)]. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: Cards
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Charles Walkercharles.w.wal...@googlemail.com wrote: I spend Distrib-u-matic to make the proposal No Vacancy v.2 Distributable. Fails; was already made Distributable on 1 Sept.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2674 assigned to woggle
Sent from my iPhone On Sep 9, 2009, at 12:55 PM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote: I appeal this case. By custom Agora has permitted new officers a full ASAP period to fulfill outstanding obligations. You keep making that claim. I personally think that this custom doesn't apply when the officer has most of a week (+ the election period) to prepare a report, but neither of us has evidence. If you give some, I think it would help your case.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2674 assigned to woggle
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 12:49, comex com...@gmail.com wrote: You keep making that claim. I personally think that this custom doesn't apply when the officer has most of a week (+ the election period) to prepare a report, but neither of us has evidence. If you give some, I think it would help your case. As evidence, I submit that I can not recall in my 2+ years of history playing Agora where a newly appointed officer is dinged for lateness within 7 days of taking office. Though perhaps the burden of proof lies with the appeals panel in finding a history of such penalties/cases? BobTHJ
Re: DIS: BUS: Card trades
2009/9/9 comex com...@gmail.com: FWIW, you can deposit these and withdraw other assets from the IBA (has lots of cards at the moment). See iba.qoid.us for an up-to-date report. I'd appreciate suggestions on reducing the weird/confusing aspect.. 2009/9/8 ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk: Because the banks are kind-of weird to understand right now, let's settle for some old-fashioned haggling.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2674 assigned to woggle
On Wed, 9 Sep 2009, Roger Hicks wrote: On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 12:49, comex com...@gmail.com wrote: You keep making that claim. I personally think that this custom doesn't apply when the officer has most of a week (+ the election period) to prepare a report, but neither of us has evidence. If you give some, I think it would help your case. As evidence, I submit that I can not recall in my 2+ years of history playing Agora where a newly appointed officer is dinged for lateness within 7 days of taking office. Though perhaps the burden of proof lies with the appeals panel in finding a history of such penalties/cases? In sentencing (rather than guilt) I think the burden is for the appellant to prove that the judge's sentence wasn't just (the rules are silent on this in particular, but it fits real world law as well as our standards for deferring to judges on inquiry cases). Here, there's a consensus is no dinging at less than 4 days, dinging after 7 days, but there's probably very few/no cases raised one way or the other in the 5-7 day range. The question is, is this because we don't punish, or because officers understand the expectation and have generally performed well in that range? If the latter then the punishment is justified; if there's no evidence whatsoever then (in punishment standards rather than guilt) it's the current judge should be given the deference determining the first precedent as long as it's not arbitrary and capricious (the decision, on reading, seems well-reasoned). -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2674 assigned to woggle
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote: Here, there's a consensus is no dinging at less than 4 days, dinging after 7 days, but there's probably very few/no cases raised one way or the other in the 5-7 day range. The question is, is this because we don't punish, or because officers understand the expectation and have generally performed well in that range? If the latter then the punishment is justified; if there's no evidence whatsoever then (in punishment standards rather than guilt) it's the current judge should be given the deference determining the first precedent as long as it's not arbitrary and capricious (the decision, on reading, seems well-reasoned). I could find no criminal CFJs against officers for late reports during their first week in the archive. However, there were 2 cases (CFJ 2348, CFJ 2379) where the holder of a low-priority office was accused of failing to report during eir first month in the office; both resulted in SILENCE. The first involved the holder being in office for 15 days in the month (although it was December, so many of these days were during the Holiday) and the second 11 days. Of course, you can look at these number 2 ways; either that these are 7 days or that they're less than half the reporting period and would translate to a 2-3 day period for a high-priority office.
Re: DIS: BUS: Card trades
Sent from my iPhone On Sep 9, 2009, at 3:31 PM, Elliott Hird penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote: 2009/9/9 comex com...@gmail.com: I'd appreciate suggestions on reducing the weird/confusing aspect..
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2674 assigned to woggle
On Wed, 9 Sep 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote: On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote: However, there were 2 cases (CFJ 2348, CFJ 2379) where the holder of a low-priority office was accused of failing to report during eir first month in the office; both resulted in SILENCE. The first involved the holder being in office for 15 days in the month (although it was December, so many of these days were during the Holiday) and the second 11 days. Of course, you can look at these number 2 ways; either that these are 7 days or that they're less than half the reporting period and would translate to a 2-3 day period for a high-priority office. I think these should be looked as as absolute days; the grace period is for a person to learn e has won the election and to get eir records in order; that doesn't vary with office importance. The holidays are relevant though. But the important point to raise is that with sentencing, it's very much circumstance dependent. Does the person have all the records or were they hard to reconstruct from a lapsed office? Is it a difficult task to get the hang of (lots to track versus little to track?). Are they very busy producing other relevant reports of service to Agora so a lower-priority one got side- tracked? Etc. (Even with all these excuses a 1 Rest ding is a slap on the wrist in current card economy so might be reasonable; if you were that busy why did you nominate yourself?). I think the real precedent outside of 4 days boils down to you should expect that the case might be raised, it is a rules breach after all, and you should have a good excuse; in this case the judge opined on the excuse. -G.
Re: DIS: BUS: Card trades
2009/9/9 comex comexcomexcomex Sent from my bananaphone On Sep 9, 2009, at 3:31 PM, Elliott Hird penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote: fatal corruption error segfault 2012/12/21 comex com...@gmail.com: I'd appreciate suggestions on reducing the suggestions aspect.. (We are doing avant garde art, right?)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2674 assigned to woggle
On Wed, 9 Sep 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote: I could find no criminal CFJs against officers for late reports during their first week in the archive. By the way, with this low sample size, if there are NoVs that were closed without going to criminal trial (either contested or mea culpas) those will give a stronger sense of what custom is (e.g. if other people in the same situation said yeah I was 6 days late my fault it's evidence of community expectations. I have a feeling that many lateness NoVs were closed this way. Harder to look up of course... -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 23:07, Pavitra celestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote: Kerim Aydin wrote: Rule 1079/4 (Power=1) Definition of Random I transfer a prop from myself to G. for digging up this very useful precedent. Fails. G. isn't registered. BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6476-6494
On Wed, 2009-09-09 at 20:50 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote: Proposal 6481 (Democratic, AI=2.0, Interest=1) by Wooble FOR if the PNP includes the text comex, AGAINST otherwise. I'm not at all convinced that vote will resolve to anything but PRESENT. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6476-6494
On Wed, 2009-09-09 at 22:00 -0500, Pavitra wrote:
I submit the following proposal and make it Distributable:
AI=2 II=0 MWoP Assumption Fix
{{
Ratify the following document: {Proposal 6478 passed.}
At power 2?
--
ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6476-6494
Pavitra wrote:
Sean Hunt wrote:
Proposal 6478 (Democratic, AI=2.0, Interest=1) by Pavitra
AGAINST. This completely devalues MWoP and makes no effort to
destroy/replace it, and also doesn't deal with elections that cause a
candidate to be elected, but don't have an outcome because no Decision
is started.
That's not completely true: taking an office via MWoP doesn't flip its
Assumption to Assumed.
However, using MWoP should flip an Assumed office to Postulated.
I submit the following proposal and make it Distributable:
AI=2 II=0 MWoP Assumption Fix
{{
Ratify the following document: {Proposal 6478 passed.}
Amend Rule 2255 by appending to the Position of Minister without
Portfolio the sentence The office's Assumption is flipped to Postulated.
}}
Pavitra
The other concern is still too much for me to vote FOR.
-coppro
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2674 assigned to woggle
Pavitra wrote: Sean Hunt wrote: Roger Hicks wrote: I appeal the sentence of this case. DISCHARGE would be more appropriate based upon my previous comments. BobTHJ You now have two appeals going. Yay. -coppro No, the first one fizzled. R1504, last paragraph, second sentence Unless otherwise specified, an appeal of a judgment in a criminal case is assumed to be appealing the question of culpability -coppro
