Re: DIS: Re: BUS: We must have standards! (Order in the court)
On Sun, 23 Oct 2016, Aris Merchant wrote: > (See American Bar Association model code of judicial conduct...) Sorry, Your Honor, I was on the wrong continent. (where's that Map of Agora when you need it...)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: We must have standards! (Order in the court)
On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 9:26 PM, ais523 wrote: > > If you follow the guidelines used by the construction rules used for > the rest of Spivak, I guess the appropriate gender-neutral, sentience- > neutral title would be "Messr.". Duly noted. I didn't know that Spivak extended that far. I was assuming mine would just be fine, on the grounds that using "Mr." in this context is standard practice where I live. -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: We must have standards! (Order in the court)
On Sun, 2016-10-23 at 21:15 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote: > Very well, Mr. (Used by standard english sarcastic convention) Humble > Scribe of the Court. If you follow the guidelines used by the construction rules used for the rest of Spivak, I guess the appropriate gender-neutral, sentience- neutral title would be "Messr.". -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: We must have standards! (Order in the court)
On Sunday, October 23, 2016, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> Milud, if I may say so with respect as the Humble Scribe of the Court,
> Milud, it is not atypical (that is, it sometimes happens, Milud) that a
> person makes judicial arguments that include an assertion that "this
> argument shows that something is unclear or needs fixing" and follows
> said assertion by making said Proposal for said fixing at the conclusion
> or in the context of the Arguments before the Court, Milud.
>
> If I may say so, Milud, this Humble Scribe believes that this shows a
> proactive attitude towards the legislative process, especially if the
> closed loophole is being proposed by the personage who found and exploited
> the loophole, Milud, while of course deferring to your opinion and while it
> might have been better if e more clearly delimited the boundaries between
> argument and proposal in eir submission, in this matter rather than rebuke
> I might instead consider such a thing Rightly Done, Milud.
>
> This Humble Scribe did not take the Proposal to be part of the arguments
> in any case, Milud, and the Proposal shall be stricken from the case log.
>
Very well, Mr. (Used by standard english sarcastic convention) Humble
Scribe of the Court. In that case you may delete my previous statement, and
replace it with the following:
{A judge must remain neutral. (See American Bar Association model code of
judicial conduct, rule 2.2, cited here to aid in the definition of the
general duties and responsibilities of the office of judge.) In order to
maintain this neutrality, I almost feel that I must not comment on the
proceedings until I render my verdict. However, a judge must maintain order
and decorum. (Model code of judicial conduct rule 2.8 A, cited as per
above.) Therefore:
It is noted that a certain player involved with the current case has
committed a violation of the reasonable standards of order and
decorum. Specifically, e has criticized another nomic. Further, e has done
so in a most low and divisive fashion, not bothering to explain or justify
eir claims. This action shows insufficient respect for the complex
relations between agora and the several nomics. While at the moment the
nomics are few and divided, in the past there has been diplomacy and
inter-nomic solidarity. I believe we once went to war over a negative
comment one of their players made about us, showing that there exists
standards of civility that must be maintained, especially in a CFJ like
this, which is part of the official record. }
Oh, and also, stop calling me "Milud". I know it is a great sign of
respect (read joke), but it causes me to have some sort of uncontrollable
chest spasm, accompanied by grimaces. If you must use something, "Your
Honor" would probably be sufficient. Although I suppose if you *wanted* it
to have that effect, you've succeeded.
-Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Maybe the ADoP] Elections
Aris wrote: > I support the quoted intention. Alexis wrote: > I support and do so. I am honored by your Support and promise to be a Speaker for *all* Agorans.
DIS: Re: BUS: We must have standards! (Order in the court)
On Sun, 23 Oct 2016, Aris Merchant wrote: > 2. E has attempted to create a proposal, not only during an open case, > but IN EIR ARGUMENTS. By doing so, e has shown insufficient respect for > these proceedings. E is expected to limit eir arguments to matters > related to the case, and to refrain from taking further game actions in eir > arguments, unless e can show substantial precedent that this is normal > practice. Milud, if I may say so with respect as the Humble Scribe of the Court, Milud, it is not atypical (that is, it sometimes happens, Milud) that a person makes judicial arguments that include an assertion that "this argument shows that something is unclear or needs fixing" and follows said assertion by making said Proposal for said fixing at the conclusion or in the context of the Arguments before the Court, Milud. If I may say so, Milud, this Humble Scribe believes that this shows a proactive attitude towards the legislative process, especially if the closed loophole is being proposed by the personage who found and exploited the loophole, Milud, while of course deferring to your opinion and while it might have been better if e more clearly delimited the boundaries between argument and proposal in eir submission, in this matter rather than rebuke I might instead consider such a thing Rightly Done, Milud. This Humble Scribe did not take the Proposal to be part of the arguments in any case, Milud, and the Proposal shall be stricken from the case log.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Maybe the ADoP] Elections
On Mon, 24 Oct 2016, ais523 wrote: > Incidentally, anyone feel worthy of the Speaker role? AFAIR, nobody's > won recently and as such it's mostly up for grabs. I'd be willing to > appoint someone else into the position, if they make a viable pitch. I would like the promotion to figurehead. My pitch: I would use my two votes to vote for you for Prime Minister (sure, you've got that already, but...or is that broken?) And I've also got a couple Clever Ideas that shall remain nameless for a time (but not really bad things).
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Maybe the ADoP] Elections
On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 11:13 PM ais523 wrote: > On Sun, 2016-10-23 at 22:53 +0200, Luis Ressel wrote: > > I initiate an election for the ADoP. > > > > I initiate an Agoran decision to determine the new ADoP. For this > > decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and the valid options are the > > players (PRESENT is also valid vote). > > I vote for the current ADoP. > I vote conditionally: if my proposal "This One's A Scam" has been distributed, for aranea, otherwise for myself. > > > I initiate an Agoran decision to determine the new Prime Minister. For > > this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and the valid options are > > the players (PRESENT is also valid vote). > > Given that Agora's starting to heat up a bit, I feel like it could > benefit from a bit more direction, and I'm starting to get bored of > being a figurehead. I vote for myself first, followed by each other > player whose vote (at the time the voting period ends) listed me as > their first choice, in the order in which those votes were made. > I vote [ais523, Alexis, Aris, nichdel]. -Alexis
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Maybe the ADoP] Elections
On Sun, 23 Oct 2016, Luis Ressel wrote: > I vote [aranea, G.]. If anyone makes a compelling case why e should be > Prime Minister, I will add them in front of my current vote list. I think I should be term-limited out of this one. (and saving my vote for now :) ). -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: now to clear this up
On Mon, 24 Oct 2016, Alexis Hunt wrote: > Arguments intermixed with quoted text. Oh, that's right, the other thing I had meant to do on case assignment is go back and include your previous arguments; apologies for not doing so, your response here will be added as gratuitous arguments in the case log. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3462 assigned to Aris
On Sun, 2016-10-23 at 18:39 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > By the way, if you find areana failed in eir duty, it's ok to extend > your > arguments to the further question of Alexis's scam versus my counter- > scam. While you can't opine officially, if your arguments are persuasive, > we've been known to accept "arguments beyond the specific brief" and not > call the follow-up question separately. (of course someone may still call > a follow-on case if they want to, but just saying it's not frowned-upon to > exceed your brief on occasion in arguments and opine on such follow-up > questions, especially if speed is an issue). IMO the only reason to call (inquiry) CFJs is for the judge's arguments (and any other arguments that might be raised). The actual verdict doesn't actually do anything, and thus is fairly arbitrary, whereas the arguments influence the way players play in future. As such, answering a different question in the arguments is both fairly common, and fairly useful. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3462 assigned to Aris
On Sun, 23 Oct 2016, Aris Merchant wrote: > (Blushes) Oops again. I checked the ADoP's report this time, honest, but I > think I miss-read it. Sorry. I'd thought it was... > Someone who hadn't been that active lately. Sorry, if I'd known it was you I > just would have left it. Just curious, why didn't > you assign it sooner? > -Aris I hadn't had a little time to go back and look at the list of judges, because some of them from the last round of assignments judged slowly (or didn't judge at all, I need to re-assign at least one). When you directly expressed interest (and you don't have any conflict of interest that I can see), I knew I had a judge handy with an appreciation of the necessary speed :). By the way, if you find areana failed in eir duty, it's ok to extend your arguments to the further question of Alexis's scam versus my counter- scam. While you can't opine officially, if your arguments are persuasive, we've been known to accept "arguments beyond the specific brief" and not call the follow-up question separately. (of course someone may still call a follow-on case if they want to, but just saying it's not frowned-upon to exceed your brief on occasion in arguments and opine on such follow-up questions, especially if speed is an issue). -G.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3462 assigned to Aris
(Blushes) Oops again. I checked the ADoP's report this time, honest, but I think I miss-read it. Sorry. I'd thought it was... Someone who hadn't been that active lately. Sorry, if I'd known it was you I just would have left it. Just curious, why didn't you assign it sooner? -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's clean up the ADoP mess
On Sunday, October 23, 2016, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > If my proposal gets distributed, I won't have a reason to continue trying > to hold ADoP. Though I should add that my general inclination is not to fix > things with ratification. > > -Alexis > You'll be seeing my solution to this whole buisness momentarily. -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's clean up the ADoP mess
On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 8:17 PM Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sunday, October 23, 2016, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > > I object, because ratifying that would ruin my scam (if it indeed > succeeded). > > -Alexis > > How are we going to deal with this then? Have everyone approve everything? > We need to get this CFJ over with. > > -Aris > If my proposal gets distributed, I won't have a reason to continue trying to hold ADoP. Though I should add that my general inclination is not to fix things with ratification. -Alexis
DIS: Re: BUS: Let's clean up the ADoP mess
On Sunday, October 23, 2016, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > > I object, because ratifying that would ruin my scam (if it indeed > succeeded). > > -Alexis > How are we going to deal with this then? Have everyone approve everything? We need to get this CFJ over with. -Aris
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Maybe the ADoP] Elections
On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 23:13:43 +0200 Luis Ressel wrote: > I vote [aranea, G.]. If anyone makes a compelling case why e should be > Prime Minister, I will add them in front of my current vote list. Nothing good comes of it when I try to use the Spivak pronouns. Please excuse the inconsistency :) -- aranea
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Promotor election
On Sat, 22 Oct 2016 23:50:33 +0100 ais523 wrote: > On Sat, 2016-10-22 at 12:10 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Other note: A fair thing to do would be to hold an election. But > > election for ADoP is resolved by ADoP - a problem! We actually > > used to have "separation of powers" for this, something that read: > > > > "In the case that the election is for the office of ADoP, the > > vote collector is instead [other officer]". > > > > Probably should bring that back! > > We also used to have pairs of offices that couldn't be held > simultaneously by the same person. Currently we have one such pair, > Prime Minister and Speaker (these are described as "incompatible" in > rule 103 which is not defined in the ruleset, but the very next > sentence gives a mechanism via which the exclusion can occur). I don't see why the office responsible for resolving ADoP elections needs to be incompatible with ADoP. -- aranea
BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Promotor election
On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 3:50 PM, ais523 > wrote: > > This kind-of implies it should be the Promotor who resolves an ADoP > election, except that that doesn't really make logical sense. Perhaps > it should be resolved by the Assessor (who's already used to resolving > elections), or by the Prime Minister (at least in the UK, it's the > Prime Minister who's responsible for assigning people to official > positions in the government). It shouldn't be the Speaker, because that > seems to reduce our options for ADoP for no good reason. I don't particularly see why the Promotor shouldn't be vote collector. It doesn't really fall within the logical scope of the office, but shouldn't we try to avoid extra pairs. [I'm probably biased, being promotor, but it does make some sense] -Aris
Re: DIS: Ideas from a bastion of democracy
On Thursday, October 20, 2016, Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thursday, October 20, 2016, Kerim Aydin > wrote: > >> >> >> I'll see how it looks for the next report, though if anyone wants to do >> it for themselves (to choose the order and grammar) I'll take their >> version, as in the version for H. Dr. ais523, 6LSA, SQ, Sc >> > > That was quick. I'll see if I can figure it out, I have some free time > and I'm kind of bored. > > -Aris > > I'm backing out of this one. I was overconfident. The problem is that I'm pretty new, so I can't figure out what should go in front of what. I don't know which is more important, even on the current stuff. I can figure out obvious things, but not really anything past that. Going to leave this for people who've been here longer. -Aris
