Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3004b assigned to G., omd, ais523
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 23:39, Ed Murphy wrote: > Yally wrote: > >> Note that because appeal a was judged AFFIRM, the sentence of TIME OUT >> has already been reassigned. Thus, judging this case AFFIRM would be >> violating my R101 right to not be punished more than once for a single >> action as I would receive two TIME OUT sentences from the same case. > > Arguably you would receive the same TIME OUT sentence, depending on > whether "the judgement assigned to " is interpreted as an > entity or merely the value of an attribute. > >> Note this would be two punishments, because you could think of the >> TIME OUTs as FINEs, wherein I would be fined twice. Here, I would be >> TIMEd OUT for more than two weeks. Thus, the only allowable actions >> for the appeals panel are REMAND, REASSIGN, or OVERRULE. If REMANDed >> or REASSIGNed, the next judge would have to assign some non-GUILTY >> punishment. > > R101(vi) goes on to say > > However, this right is not violated by replacing part or > all of a penalty with a different but comparable penalty, > e.g. when the rules governing penalties are amended. > > and I claim that this also generally applies to affirming criminal cases > on appeal, especially since your interpretation would arguably violate > the caller's R101(ii) right instead. > > In particular, your first appeal was only about 8 minutes after the > original judgement, so AFFIRM would replace (2 weeks minus 8 minutes) > with (2 weeks); sounds "comparable" to me. If e.g. you had instead > waited 6 days to appeal, then R101(vi) would be more clearly upheld via > REMAND followed by TIME OUT 8. (Then again, since your only argument > in this appeal was to attempt to introduce a technicality and leverage > the hell out of it, the court might have decided that "comparable" could > be legitimately loosened on those grounds.) However, the punishment isn't being "replaced." I would be simultaneously punished with two TIME OUTs.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3004b assigned to G., omd, ais523
Yally wrote: > Note that because appeal a was judged AFFIRM, the sentence of TIME OUT > has already been reassigned. Thus, judging this case AFFIRM would be > violating my R101 right to not be punished more than once for a single > action as I would receive two TIME OUT sentences from the same case. Arguably you would receive the same TIME OUT sentence, depending on whether "the judgement assigned to " is interpreted as an entity or merely the value of an attribute. > Note this would be two punishments, because you could think of the > TIME OUTs as FINEs, wherein I would be fined twice. Here, I would be > TIMEd OUT for more than two weeks. Thus, the only allowable actions > for the appeals panel are REMAND, REASSIGN, or OVERRULE. If REMANDed > or REASSIGNed, the next judge would have to assign some non-GUILTY > punishment. R101(vi) goes on to say However, this right is not violated by replacing part or all of a penalty with a different but comparable penalty, e.g. when the rules governing penalties are amended. and I claim that this also generally applies to affirming criminal cases on appeal, especially since your interpretation would arguably violate the caller's R101(ii) right instead. In particular, your first appeal was only about 8 minutes after the original judgement, so AFFIRM would replace (2 weeks minus 8 minutes) with (2 weeks); sounds "comparable" to me. If e.g. you had instead waited 6 days to appeal, then R101(vi) would be more clearly upheld via REMAND followed by TIME OUT 8. (Then again, since your only argument in this appeal was to attempt to introduce a technicality and leverage the hell out of it, the court might have decided that "comparable" could be legitimately loosened on those grounds.)
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3004b assigned to G., omd, ais523
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 22:23, Ed Murphy wrote: > > [Trivia: This is the 21st case in the database with two > appeals. Only one, CFJ 1966, has had three.] > > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=3004b > > Appeal 3004b > > Panelist: G. > Decision: > > Panelist: omd > Decision: > > Panelist: ais523 > Decision: > > > > History: > > Appeal initiated: 25 Apr 2011 21:46:08 GMT > Assigned to G. (panelist): (as of this message) > Assigned to omd (panelist): (as of this message) > Assigned to ais523 (panelist): (as of this message) > > > > Appellant Yally's Arguments: > > I appeal this case's question on culpability. > > > > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=3004 > > = Criminal Case 3004 = > > Yally violated Rule 1504, a Power-2 Rule, by becoming active > during eir TIME OUT period. > > > > Caller: Walker > Barred: Yally > > Judge: Murphy > Judgement: GUILTY/TIME OUT > > Appeal: 3004a > Decision: AFFIRM > > Appeal: 3004b > Decision: (pending) > > > > History: > > Called by Walker: 20 Apr 2011 14:08:15 GMT > Defendant Yally informed: 20 Apr 2011 14:08:15 GMT > Assigned to Murphy: 20 Apr 2011 22:10:48 GMT > Judged GUILTY/TIME OUT by Murphy: 21 Apr 2011 05:42:08 GMT > Appealed by Yally: 21 Apr 2011 05:50:07 GMT > Appeal 3004a: 21 Apr 2011 05:50:07 GMT > Appealed by Yally: 25 Apr 2011 21:46:08 GMT > Appeal 3004b: 25 Apr 2011 21:46:08 GMT > AFFIRMED on Appeal: 28 Apr 2011 20:28:24 GMT > > > > Gratuitous Arguments by Yally: > > The statement being called is ambiguous. > > > > Judge Murphy's Arguments: > > On the question on culpability: > > (a) Yally became active on or about 6 Apr 2011 19:00:28 UTC while > subject to a TIME OUT sentence from CFJ 2985. > (b) This breach occurred about 14 days prior to this case being > initiated, well within the 90-day statute of limitations. > (c) This breach has not been previously judged nor punished. > (d) Yally admitted understanding the nature of this breach. > (e) Yally could have reasonably avoided committing the breach by > remaining inactive until the time limit expired. Rule 1504's > "for the number of days specified" is messy and should be > legislatively improved, but is nevertheless clearly intended to > be interpreted as "within the specified number of days after the > sentence most recently went into effect". > > GUILTY. > > On the question of sentencing: > > By eir own admission, Yally deliberately broke the rules multiple times > to find out how long e could avoid effective punishment, creating more > work for others in the process. On the other hand, e demonstrated a > loophole by example, and tradition is to reward scammers to some extent > for their ingenuity. TIME OUT, 14 days. > > vi. Every person has the right to not be penalized more than once for any single action or inaction. Note that because appeal a was judged AFFIRM, the sentence of TIME OUT has already been reassigned. Thus, judging this case AFFIRM would be violating my R101 right to not be punished more than once for a single action as I would receive two TIME OUT sentences from the same case. Note this would be two punishments, because you could think of the TIME OUTs as FINEs, wherein I would be fined twice. Here, I would be TIMEd OUT for more than two weeks. Thus, the only allowable actions for the appeals panel are REMAND, REASSIGN, or OVERRULE. If REMANDed or REASSIGNed, the next judge would have to assign some non-GUILTY punishment.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3001 assigned to omd
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Alex Smith wrote: > On Thu, 2011-04-28 at 16:13 -0400, omd wrote: > > (a) a list of such intents could easily be found by performing a > > search for "intend" (all but two players use either Gmail or Yahoo, > > which are searchable, and I trust that G. and Murphy have some method > > to search their email); > False assumption here, in that I don't store my Agora email on Yahoo! > unless I'm away from my laptop for an extended period of time, although > it is sent there for temporary storage. (I do, however, have a method of > searching my email, so the false assumption nevertheless lead to a > correct conclusion). With trivial ease I have often searched the monthly single-text files that the agoranomic archives make; misses base-64 and other weird encodings but otherwise works fine. (That's also why I get more annoyed at times with those odd encodings - having a single prima-facie accurate and searchable- by-everyone record for as a standard for evidence is a Good Thing). -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3001 assigned to omd
On Thu, 2011-04-28 at 16:13 -0400, omd wrote: > (a) a list of such intents could easily be found by performing a > search for "intend" (all but two players use either Gmail or Yahoo, > which are searchable, and I trust that G. and Murphy have some method > to search their email); False assumption here, in that I don't store my Agora email on Yahoo! unless I'm away from my laptop for an extended period of time, although it is sent there for temporary storage. (I do, however, have a method of searching my email, so the false assumption nevertheless lead to a correct conclusion). -- ais523
Re: DIS: On office elections
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Tanner Swett wrote: > On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Tanner Swett wrote: > >> I disagree with that last point. I was a candidate in the recent > >> Scorekeepor election, and at the moment, I don't know if I won or not. > >> It would have been better for the game (and my reputation) if I had > >> lost, since I'm busy and have no intention to carry out the office's > >> duties. The fact that I didn't vote in that election could have been > >> taken as an indication that I wasn't paying attention. > >> > >> —Tanner L. Swett, runaway Scorekeepor candidate > > > > If you accepted your nomination you deserve what you get. > > Punish me all you like, but is it good for Agora to have a dormant > Scorekeepor that must be removed from office using time-consuming > mechanisms? Let's assume that most people who actually purposefully accept nomination for office aren't clueless Agoran sociopaths, and only accept nominations for offices they intend to perform; writing a rule that is broken except it protects us from such things isn't good policymaking. Note: If you didn't have to actively nominate yourself or accept nomination, so you could find yourself elected without paying attention to the whole process, I'd agree with you. But the fact that you have to pay attention to become a candidate in the first place means that we should assume that anyone who ends up on the ballot with consent is at least willing to do the work. -G.
Re: DIS: On office elections
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Tanner Swett wrote: >> I disagree with that last point. I was a candidate in the recent >> Scorekeepor election, and at the moment, I don't know if I won or not. >> It would have been better for the game (and my reputation) if I had >> lost, since I'm busy and have no intention to carry out the office's >> duties. The fact that I didn't vote in that election could have been >> taken as an indication that I wasn't paying attention. >> >> —Tanner L. Swett, runaway Scorekeepor candidate > > If you accepted your nomination you deserve what you get. Punish me all you like, but is it good for Agora to have a dormant Scorekeepor that must be removed from office using time-consuming mechanisms? —Tanner L. Swett
Re: DIS: On office elections
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Tanner Swett wrote: > On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 10:10 PM, Elliott Hird > wrote: > > On 18 April 2011 03:06, Quazie wrote: > >> replace candidate with first-class candidate and i think its right. > >> > >> The president is much harder to get to vote. > > > > Good. It'd be a terrible recordkeeper. > > > > (But good point, it should default to voting for that candidate if > > they don't vote themselves.) > > I disagree with that last point. I was a candidate in the recent > Scorekeepor election, and at the moment, I don't know if I won or not. > It would have been better for the game (and my reputation) if I had > lost, since I'm busy and have no intention to carry out the office's > duties. The fact that I didn't vote in that election could have been > taken as an indication that I wasn't paying attention. > > —Tanner L. Swett, runaway Scorekeepor candidate If you accepted your nomination you deserve what you get.
Re: DIS: On office elections
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 10:10 PM, Elliott Hird wrote: > On 18 April 2011 03:06, Quazie wrote: >> replace candidate with first-class candidate and i think its right. >> >> The president is much harder to get to vote. > > Good. It'd be a terrible recordkeeper. > > (But good point, it should default to voting for that candidate if > they don't vote themselves.) I disagree with that last point. I was a candidate in the recent Scorekeepor election, and at the moment, I don't know if I won or not. It would have been better for the game (and my reputation) if I had lost, since I'm busy and have no intention to carry out the office's duties. The fact that I didn't vote in that election could have been taken as an indication that I wasn't paying attention. —Tanner L. Swett, runaway Scorekeepor candidate
