Re: DIS: Re: BUS: An apology

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Jun 16, 2017, at 1:32 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>> charged with keeping a perfect and omniscient watch over the activities
>> of Agora. Even had I been a present and obedient servant, I am only human,
>> and my watch must fail.
> 
> When I was referee, I would constantly issue myself green cards for
> failure to catch (unknown) infractions in previous weeks.  Seemed
> less bad then implying no violations happened.  I always meant to
> fix it (and complained about it a few times), so my own apologies
> for not doing so.

An interesting solution.

I’ve completely gone off of my Shame idea, having had to live with multiple 
cards for a bit.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Quazie]

You're gonna break that pledge, aren't you?

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 20:23 Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > Secretary's Weekly Report
>
> I pledge that I SHALL NOT deny any CoE concerning this alleged report.
>
> I note that I do NOT give any willful consent to be bound by the Rules.
>
>
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer lottery

[Owen Jacobson]

On Jun 15, 2017, at 5:40 PM, CuddleBeam  wrote:

> With an emulation of 2 Agoran Support, I'm going to add to the "rules" of the 
> lottery the following:
> 
> - Purchasers of a HAFL Ticket must also choose a 5-number string for their 
> ticket, which is that "ticket's number" (which defaults to being 0).

I considered CFJing this, but I think it’s better off being a writing prompt: 
do the rules presently allow someone to modify a pledge after the fact? If so, 
are there any constraints on that modification?

What CuddleBeam is attempting here is clearly being done in good faith, and 
addresses some defects in eir original plan for eir lotto program. However, 
pledging is, at least to some degree, regulated (r. 2450); it’s not clear to me 
that the rules allow someone to modify a pledge after it has been made.

The term “pledge” is, in fact, totally undefined in the rules, so common 
definitions apply. A pledge is generally a binding promise to do (or to avoid 
doing) a thing; modifying it after the fact could well be equivalent to 
breaking the pledge outright.

I have no intention of punishing CuddleBeam if I can avoid it, and if I’m 
forced, I’m going to pick the least punitive card I can get away with, but I 
think some care might be merited. To avoid the issue as far as is possible, I 
plan to treat CuddleBeam’s two consecutive messages as a single action 
containing a single pledge, unless the support requirement is not met, in which 
case I intend to treat the second message as a nullity. Obviously, this is a 
one-time thing; given the recent reliance on pledges, it might be worth 
codifying them a bit more thoroughly.

Note that a pledge is not a contract. A pledge is a unilateral promise, which 
is binding even in the absence of consideration in return.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Kerim Aydin]

On Fri, 16 Jun 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-06-15 at 20:04 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > This logic (the Secretary's Report can only be published by the 
> > Secretary) would still break the whole purpose of allowing anyone to
> > do it in times when the Secretary is uncertain, I think.
> 
> Well, you could do it via RWO if you know that the Secretary is
> uncertain.
> 
> The main purpose here is to cause ratification if everyone is
> collectively mistaken as to who the Secretary is. A non-Secretary (who
> thinks they're Secretary) posts the report, nobody challenges it (why
> would they?), it self-ratifies. However, pointing out that it wasn't by
> the Secretary stops the automatic ratification and forces it to be done
> manually.

I still disagree that it does, so I guess that's CFJ territory :)
(not my main point and not a pressing concern, so I'm not actually
calling one...)

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Kerim Aydin]

On Fri, 16 Jun 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-06-15 at 18:23 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > 
> > On Fri, 16 Jun 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> > > there's at least one error in it. Thus, in order to block ratification,
> > > I picked the mistake in the report that was a) most clearly a mistake, 
> > > and b) hardest for you to correct.
> > 
> > But I don't need to correct that for this particular self-ratification to
> > function!
> 
> OK, I guess the argument here is about the semantics of "identifying a
> document and explaining the scope and nature of a perceived error in
> it:" in rule 2201. Note that pointing out *any* error in a document
> prevents *the entire document* self-ratifying. I was under the
> impression that the "error" identified need not be an error, or indeed
> have any relationship to the document (i.e. it's just there for
> informing people about the reason behind the CoE), but I'm now not
> entirely sure that's correct.

Ah, it is confusing!  I would say that the R2201 "document defined by 
the rules as self-ratifying" is actually the *portion* of the report 
purporting to contain the switch values (Rule 2162), as that portion 
(a sub-document if you will) is the only thing defined by the rules as 
self-ratifying!

It doesn't matter in this case because I missed the "whole document"
part, and it means that 天火狐's CoE, which I thought covered one line of
the switch portion, thus CoE'd the whole set of switches whichever way
we think of it.

> CoE: the implicit claim made by the document in question (that was
> recently published by G., purporting to be the Secretary's Report) to
> contain a section of the Secretary's Report is invalid, because a
> Secretary's Report can only be published by the Secretary.

This logic (the Secretary's Report can only be published by the 
Secretary) would still break the whole purpose of allowing anyone to
do it in times when the Secretary is uncertain, I think.

-G.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[V.J Rada]

Unless "e SHALL either impose summary judgement on a player" means he must
only do it to one player to be absolved of this rule.

The card rules are badly written.

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 11:51 AM, V.J Rada  wrote:

> Fun fact about cards "
>
>   As part of the Referee's weekly duties, e SHALL either impose
>   Summary Judgment on a player or truthfully announce that e
>   believes that there are no rules violations in the preceding
>   Agoran week for which a Card has not already been issued."
>
> conflicts with the previous paragraph
>
>  "The Referee CANNOT Point eir Finger or impose Summary Judgment
>   more than five total times per week, or more than twice per week
>   at or on the same player."
>
>
> if there are more than 5 valid finger points by other players, the Referee 
> has to break the rule and leaves himself open to (green) Cardation.
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 11:34 AM, Alex Smith 
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2017-06-15 at 18:23 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, 16 Jun 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
>> > > there's at least one error in it. Thus, in order to block
>> ratification,
>> > > I picked the mistake in the report that was a) most clearly a
>> mistake,
>> > > and b) hardest for you to correct.
>> >
>> > But I don't need to correct that for this particular self-ratification
>> to
>> > function!
>>
>> OK, I guess the argument here is about the semantics of "identifying a
>> document and explaining the scope and nature of a perceived error in
>> it:" in rule 2201. Note that pointing out *any* error in a document
>> prevents *the entire document* self-ratifying. I was under the
>> impression that the "error" identified need not be an error, or indeed
>> have any relationship to the document (i.e. it's just there for
>> informing people about the reason behind the CoE), but I'm now not
>> entirely sure that's correct.
>>
>> Let me make my CoE a bit more specific to address this point:
>>
>> CoE: the implicit claim made by the document in question (that was
>> recently published by G., purporting to be the Secretary's Report) to
>> contain a section of the Secretary's Report is invalid, because a
>> Secretary's Report can only be published by the Secretary.
>>
>> (Note that the implicit claim is necessarily part of the document, or
>> otherwise the document would not be self-ratifying in the first place.)
>>
>> Normally we don't bother with this level of specificity in Agora, but I
>> agree that when someone's attempting a scam (and this is a scam-like
>> action, even if it isn't necessarily intended to gain an advantage), it
>> pays to be as precise as possible.
>>
>> --
>> ais523
>>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[V.J Rada]

Fun fact about cards "

  As part of the Referee's weekly duties, e SHALL either impose
  Summary Judgment on a player or truthfully announce that e
  believes that there are no rules violations in the preceding
  Agoran week for which a Card has not already been issued."

conflicts with the previous paragraph

 "The Referee CANNOT Point eir Finger or impose Summary Judgment
  more than five total times per week, or more than twice per week
  at or on the same player."


if there are more than 5 valid finger points by other players, the
Referee has to break the rule and leaves himself open to (green)
Cardation.


On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 11:34 AM, Alex Smith 
wrote:

> On Thu, 2017-06-15 at 18:23 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 16 Jun 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> > > there's at least one error in it. Thus, in order to block ratification,
> > > I picked the mistake in the report that was a) most clearly a mistake,
> > > and b) hardest for you to correct.
> >
> > But I don't need to correct that for this particular self-ratification to
> > function!
>
> OK, I guess the argument here is about the semantics of "identifying a
> document and explaining the scope and nature of a perceived error in
> it:" in rule 2201. Note that pointing out *any* error in a document
> prevents *the entire document* self-ratifying. I was under the
> impression that the "error" identified need not be an error, or indeed
> have any relationship to the document (i.e. it's just there for
> informing people about the reason behind the CoE), but I'm now not
> entirely sure that's correct.
>
> Let me make my CoE a bit more specific to address this point:
>
> CoE: the implicit claim made by the document in question (that was
> recently published by G., purporting to be the Secretary's Report) to
> contain a section of the Secretary's Report is invalid, because a
> Secretary's Report can only be published by the Secretary.
>
> (Note that the implicit claim is necessarily part of the document, or
> otherwise the document would not be self-ratifying in the first place.)
>
> Normally we don't bother with this level of specificity in Agora, but I
> agree that when someone's attempting a scam (and this is a scam-like
> action, even if it isn't necessarily intended to gain an advantage), it
> pays to be as precise as possible.
>
> --
> ais523
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Owen Jacobson]

On Jun 15, 2017, at 7:14 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
>> On Thu, 2017-06-15 at 07:49 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> Secretary's Weekly Report
>> 
>> Just to make absolutely sure:
>> 
>> CoE: You are not the Secretary.
> 
> C'mon now.  You just said yourself that the rule was designed so that
> anyone could do it.  CoEing the Officeholder switch in the ADoP Report
> has nothing to do with the values of switches in this report.  Whether
> or not I'm the secretary or not has no bearing on whether the report
> (the document) claims to be a particular report of particular switches.
> I don't really want to explore all these tertiary issues that come from
> ignoring plain readings of the rules.  Please CoE on the contents of
> the report (the switch values) if you find it necessary.
> 
> I also find it interesting that everyone's basing their interpretations
> of this report on the From: line.  I thought long-standing precedent
> was that we paid attention to the message contents, not the headers.

Were this a carding scenario, I’d base my reasoning on 天火狐’s CoE. In fact, the 
only reason I haven’t posted one is that e beat me to it - it takes _time_ to 
review the contents for factual accuracy.

It’s pretty clear that you intentionally published a misleading report, but 
without malice, so a Yellow Card is likely appropriate. The significant, but 
small, effect would be the creation of a potentially self-ratifying document 
containing intentional errors. I can flesh that out, but that’s the bones of it.

I’m still convinced I can’t give you a card, and I suspect you won’t 
re-register until it’s no longer possible for me to do so. The real question 
is, am I breaking any rules by _failing_ to card you? Feel free to assume that 
I’m not going to lie in the upcoming Referee’s report about whether I believe 
any infractions have occurred this week.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Kerim Aydin]

On Fri, 16 Jun 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> there's at least one error in it. Thus, in order to block ratification,
> I picked the mistake in the report that was a) most clearly a mistake, 
> and b) hardest for you to correct.

But I don't need to correct that for this particular self-ratification to
function!

I'm using this, specific to switches.  Rule 2162:
  That officer's (weekly, if not specified
  otherwise) report includes the value of each instance of that
  switch whose value is not its default value; a public
  document purporting to be this portion of that officer's
  report is self-ratifying, and implies that other instances
  are at their default value.

and this definition:

  Purport.  1.  appear or claim to be or do something, especially
falsely; profess.

So here's my logic stages, let me know if you think my logic breaks down,
and exactly why?

1.  The "public document" in question does not include the email headers,
 so the document itself doesn't make claims about any particular
 person being its publisher.

2.  The document claims to be "that officer's" report for Shiny switches,
 including the portion containing switch values.

3.  The word "purport" implies that even a false claim qualifies it to
 be self-ratifying.  In fact, a false claim would be *especially*
 qualifying if you follow the exact dictionary definition.  And as you
 said earlier, "purport" is used specifically to allow it to function
 when we might know or learn it's a false claim at some point.

4.  The Secretary Officeholder switch is NOT purported to be part of
 this report.  That's explicitly part of the ADoP's report.  So
 it's not subject to ratification here.

Therefore, even if you CoE that I am "not the Secretary", that still 
leaves a document purporting (albeit falsely) to contain self-ratifying 
portions of an officer's report, which is what R2162 requires.  Therefore
that portion is still subject to self-ratification, and the portions so-
subject have not been CoE'd by you.

DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer lottery

[V.J Rada]

I'm not interpreting any rules, simply the pledge which CB made,
inexplicably allowing others to change the rules of eir own pledge (does
this even work if e doesn't pledge it personally?). I'm also aware of CFJ
3468 in which the caller said that "Agoran support" could be interpreted in
two ways: "With the support of an agoran" or "with the support of agora".
The judge rejected the first interpretation in the context of Eras. In this
context, how can "2 agoran support" be applied to "with the support of
agora?". It doesn't make sense (unless he needs agoran consent...twice?).
However "2 agoran support" can be read to mean "with the support of 2
agorans" with little fuss.

Additionally I have no idea what emulate means in this context. My
interpretation is silly, I admit.

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> I object to all rule changes proposed by V.J. Rafa. Also, your
> interpretation of the rules, CFJs, and the ruleset is significantly
> non-standard.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> > On Jun 15, 2017, at 6:53 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:
> >
> > I would like to change the rules to
> > I pledge to run a lottery and pay the lottery victor(s) according to the
> following:
> > I will divide all my shinies and other assets into three pieces, to be
> given to V.J. Rada and the first two players who support this rule change,
> on June 30.
> >
> > plz support.
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 7:40 AM, CuddleBeam 
> wrote:
> > With an emulation of 2 Agoran Support, I'm going to add to the "rules"
> of the lottery the following:
> >
> > - Purchasers of a HAFL Ticket must also choose a 5-number string for
> their ticket, which is that "ticket's number" (which defaults to being
> 0).
> >
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Alex Smith]

On Thu, 2017-06-15 at 16:14 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> > On Thu, 2017-06-15 at 07:49 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > > Secretary's Weekly Report
> > 
> > Just to make absolutely sure:
> > 
> > CoE: You are not the Secretary.
> 
> C'mon now.  You just said yourself that the rule was designed so that
> anyone could do it.  CoEing the Officeholder switch in the ADoP Report
> has nothing to do with the values of switches in this report.  Whether
> or not I'm the secretary or not has no bearing on whether the report
> (the document) claims to be a particular report of particular switches.
> I don't really want to explore all these tertiary issues that come from 
> ignoring plain readings of the rules.  Please CoE on the contents of
> the report (the switch values) if you find it necessary.

Actually, my assumption was that as you claim not to be bound by the
rules, and thus rule 2143 in particular, I had no basis on which to
expect you to put in the normal effort that an officer does to verify
the correctness of the report. Normally, when I see an office report,
I'm assuming that the officer has made at least a good-faith effort to
ensure that it's correct. Given that part of the point of your original
test was to violate that rule, it seems inappropriate to allow the
report to self-ratify, on the basis that the context implies that
there's at least one error in it. Thus, in order to block ratification,
I picked the mistake in the report that was a) most clearly a mistake, 
and b) hardest for you to correct.

-- 
ais523

DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer lottery

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:


I also object.

-Aris


Your objection is also not clear whether you are objecting just to V.J 
Rada's change or also to Cuddlebeam's.


Greetings,
Ørjan.



On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 3:55 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:


I object.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com




On Jun 15, 2017, at 6:53 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:

I would like to change the rules to
I pledge to run a lottery and pay the lottery victor(s) according to the

following:

I will divide all my shinies and other assets into three pieces, to be

given to V.J. Rada and the first two players who support this rule change,
on June 30.


plz support.

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 7:40 AM, CuddleBeam 

wrote:

With an emulation of 2 Agoran Support, I'm going to add to the "rules"

of the lottery the following:


- Purchasers of a HAFL Ticket must also choose a 5-number string for

their ticket, which is that "ticket's number" (which defaults to being
0).

DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer lottery

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:


I object.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com


I note that the message you quoted contains within it _two_ attempted 
lottery rule changes, and you are not making it clear whether you are 
objecting to one or both.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Kerim Aydin]

On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-06-15 at 07:49 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > Secretary's Weekly Report
> 
> Just to make absolutely sure:
> 
> CoE: You are not the Secretary.

C'mon now.  You just said yourself that the rule was designed so that
anyone could do it.  CoEing the Officeholder switch in the ADoP Report
has nothing to do with the values of switches in this report.  Whether
or not I'm the secretary or not has no bearing on whether the report
(the document) claims to be a particular report of particular switches.
I don't really want to explore all these tertiary issues that come from 
ignoring plain readings of the rules.  Please CoE on the contents of
the report (the switch values) if you find it necessary.

I also find it interesting that everyone's basing their interpretations
of this report on the From: line.  I thought long-standing precedent
was that we paid attention to the message contents, not the headers.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer lottery

[V.J Rada]

But here it's "2 agoran support" so that should be interpreted as "the
support of 2 players" to make sense.

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 8:55 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Agoran Support has been interpreted, if I recall correctly, as being
> equivalent to Agoran Consent and therefore both supporters and objectors
> are tracked.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> > On Jun 15, 2017, at 6:53 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:
> >
> > I would like to change the rules to
> > I pledge to run a lottery and pay the lottery victor(s) according to the
> following:
> > I will divide all my shinies and other assets into three pieces, to be
> given to V.J. Rada and the first two players who support this rule change,
> on June 30.
> >
> > plz support.
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 7:40 AM, CuddleBeam 
> wrote:
> > With an emulation of 2 Agoran Support, I'm going to add to the "rules"
> of the lottery the following:
> >
> > - Purchasers of a HAFL Ticket must also choose a 5-number string for
> their ticket, which is that "ticket's number" (which defaults to being
> 0).
> >
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer lottery

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Agoran Support has been interpreted, if I recall correctly, as being equivalent 
to Agoran Consent and therefore both supporters and objectors are tracked.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On Jun 15, 2017, at 6:53 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:
> 
> I would like to change the rules to 
> I pledge to run a lottery and pay the lottery victor(s) according to the 
> following:
> I will divide all my shinies and other assets into three pieces, to be given 
> to V.J. Rada and the first two players who support this rule change, on June 
> 30.
> 
> plz support.
> 
> On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 7:40 AM, CuddleBeam  wrote:
> With an emulation of 2 Agoran Support, I'm going to add to the "rules" of the 
> lottery the following:
> 
> - Purchasers of a HAFL Ticket must also choose a 5-number string for their 
> ticket, which is that "ticket's number" (which defaults to being 0).
> 

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Quazie]

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 10:53 AM Alex Smith 
wrote:

> On Thu, 2017-06-15 at 16:00 +, Quazie wrote:
> > Wow, that's broken - any public document proporting to be a report
> > self-ratifies?
>
> It's not broken, it's intentional:
>
> a) Public documents puporting to be reports are fairly obvious, so if
> someone makes one incorrectly or maliciously, we can just CoE it;
> b) It means that reports continue to self-ratify even if, for some
> reason, Agora as a whole is mistaken as to who holds the office. This
> means that uncertainty about the identity of officers doesn't have any
> serious long-term effects. (Without this, if we got confused as to who
> held an office, it might mean that nothing self-ratified from that
> point onwards due to a snowball effect of mistakes about the gamestate,
> which could be very hard to recover from.)
>
> --
> ais523
>


So, G. just published something that will self-ratify if we don't CoE it?

It seems like I could embed public documents purporting to be a report in
any long message in hopes of scamming to success.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Yes, they are.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On Jun 15, 2017, at 12:00 PM, CuddleBeam  wrote:
> 
> Isn't PSS and Publius Scrib(...) the same person? (8 and 45 Shinies)

DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Josh T]

I understand that this isn't an actual report, but in the event are going
to think it is, my balance should be 15 Shinies after updating the values
with respect to my CoE in the prior report.

天火狐

On 15 June 2017 at 10:49, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

> Secretary's Weekly Report
>
> Date of this report: Thu, 15 Jun 2017
> Date of last report: Sun, 11 Jun 2017
>
>
> Recent events (all times UTC):
>
> - previous report -
> Mon, 15 May 2017 09:27:29  Gaelan paid 1 Shinies (Quazie)
> Mon, 15 May 2017 16:28:54  Agora paid 10 Shinies (ais523)
> Thu, 18 May 2017 21:27:54  grok paid 1 Shinies (Aris)
> Sat, 20 May 2017 19:59:03  Agora paid 4 Shinies (Quazie)
> Sun, 21 May 2017 02:03:05  Agora paid 3 Shinies (ais523)
> Sun, 21 May 2017 02:05:52  Agora paid 1 Shinies (grok)
> Sun, 21 May 2017 23:11:33  Agora paid 4 Shinies (Aris)
> Mon, 22 May 2017 06:01:33  o paid 6 Shinies (Organization "AVM")
> Mon, 22 May 2017 06:01:33  Organization "AVM" paid 5 Shinies (o)
> Mon, 22 May 2017 06:20:40  o's budget switch with Organization "ACU"
>  flipped to 0
> Mon, 22 May 2017 19:10:48  天火狐 paid 0 Shinies (grok)
> Wed, 24 May 2017 00:46:28  CuddleBeam paid 5 Shinies (nichdel)
> Wed, 24 May 2017 03:23:54  Quazie paid 1 Shinies (Gaelan)
> Wed, 24 May 2017 16:47:00  Gaelan paid 0 Shinies (grok)
> Thu, 25 May 2017 00:06:37 !Gaelan paid 1 Shinies (Quazie)
> Thu, 25 May 2017 17:04:03  Organization 蘭亭社 charter amended (天火狐)
> Thu, 25 May 2017 22:21:46  Quazie paid 1 Shinies (CuddleBeam)
> - time of last report -
> Mon, 29 May 2017 16:58:50  grok deregistered
> Mon, 29 May 2017 17:00:14  nichdel deregistered
> Wed, 31 May 2017 13:41:35  aranea, Charles, Henri, Sci_Guy12, Tekneek,
>  The Warrigal, Yally deregistered
> Thu,  1 Jun 2017 00:00:00  Payday
> Fri,  2 Jun 2017 05:36:42  Agora paid 5 Shinies (Gaelan)
> Fri,  2 Jun 2017 05:38:18  Organization "AAaAA" destroyed (o)
> Mon,  5 Jun 2017 17:29:03  301 Shinies created in Agora's balance by
>  Proposal 7856
> Tue, 06 Jun 2017 20:27:07  Agora paid 30 Shinies (Quazie)
> Sat, 10 Jun 2017 08:27:45  天火狐 paid 5 Shinies (o)
> Sat, 10 Jun 2017 22:40:37  Agora paid 50 Shinies (天火狐)
> Sun, 11 Jun 2017 03:23:37  Agora paid 6 Shinies (Aris)
>
>
> Events marked with a ! are provisional pending the outcome of one or
> more CFJs.
>
>
> Personal Lockouts:
>
> Player Until
> 
> Quazie July 18, 2017
>
> Global Lockout: No
>
>
> Balances:
>
> The following information is provisional, pending one or more CFJs.
>
>   477 Shinies  Agora
>66 Shinies  Organization
> 5 ShiniesAVM
>   518 Shinies  Player
>14 ShiniesAris
>61 ShiniesCuddleBeam
>16 ShiniesGaelan
>10 ShiniesIenpw III
>60 ShiniesMurphy
>53 ShiniesPublius Scribonius Scholasticus
>19 ShiniesQuazie
>40 ShiniesSprocklem
>10 ShiniesVeggiekeks
>74 ShiniesZachary Watterson
> 5 Shiniesais523
>10 Shinieso
>60 Shiniesomd
>15 Shiniestmanthe2nd
>10 Shinies天火狐
>
>
> Budgets:
>
> Player ABM  ACU  AVM  蘭亭社 Expenditure
> ---
> ais523  25   30   55
> Murphy   50   50
> o 50  50
> omd  20   20
> Sprocklem   25   20   45
> 天火狐   5050
>
> Income  50  120   5050   270
>
> ABM = The Agoran Betting Market
> ACU = The Agoran Credit Union
> AVM = The Agoran Voting Market
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Quazie]

Wow, that's broken - any public document proporting to be a report
self-ratifies?
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 08:28 Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, Quazie wrote:
> > Given there's no way for this report to be published by any one
> > other than the current office holder as it isn't late, I choose
> > to ignore it.
>
> Please read R2162(c) (noting shiny holdings are switches) and let me
> know if ignoring it is still a preferred option for you.
>
>
>
>

DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[CuddleBeam]

Isn't PSS and Publius Scrib(...) the same person? (8 and 45 Shinies)

Re: Re: DIS: 1 person playing as many players?

[CuddleBeam]

About the perma-banning, I'd prefer it to be encased in "subjectivity"
(versus "formality") because the more formal it is, the easier it is to
scam, and I really, really don't want to get a legitimate scam involving
perma-banning others.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Kerim Aydin]

On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, Quazie wrote:
> Given there's no way for this report to be published by any one 
> other than the current office holder as it isn't late, I choose 
> to ignore it.

Please read R2162(c) (noting shiny holdings are switches) and let me
know if ignoring it is still a preferred option for you.

DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Owen Jacobson]

I don’t think I can do anything about this, formally, since you’re still not a 
player, but if you insist I can put together a theory under which this should 
be carded. nichdel’s already done most of the legwork.

This does appear to be a purported report - at least, sending a complete report 
with the conventional form to the agora-official list is much, much more likely 
to be confusing or ambiguous than the last attempt, at least.

-o

> On Jun 15, 2017, at 10:49 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> Secretary's Weekly Report
> 
> Date of this report: Thu, 15 Jun 2017
> Date of last report: Sun, 11 Jun 2017
> 
> 
> Recent events (all times UTC):
> 
> - previous report -
> Mon, 15 May 2017 09:27:29  Gaelan paid 1 Shinies (Quazie)
> Mon, 15 May 2017 16:28:54  Agora paid 10 Shinies (ais523)
> Thu, 18 May 2017 21:27:54  grok paid 1 Shinies (Aris)
> Sat, 20 May 2017 19:59:03  Agora paid 4 Shinies (Quazie)
> Sun, 21 May 2017 02:03:05  Agora paid 3 Shinies (ais523)
> Sun, 21 May 2017 02:05:52  Agora paid 1 Shinies (grok)
> Sun, 21 May 2017 23:11:33  Agora paid 4 Shinies (Aris)
> Mon, 22 May 2017 06:01:33  o paid 6 Shinies (Organization "AVM")
> Mon, 22 May 2017 06:01:33  Organization "AVM" paid 5 Shinies (o)
> Mon, 22 May 2017 06:20:40  o's budget switch with Organization "ACU"
> flipped to 0
> Mon, 22 May 2017 19:10:48  天火狐 paid 0 Shinies (grok)
> Wed, 24 May 2017 00:46:28  CuddleBeam paid 5 Shinies (nichdel)
> Wed, 24 May 2017 03:23:54  Quazie paid 1 Shinies (Gaelan)
> Wed, 24 May 2017 16:47:00  Gaelan paid 0 Shinies (grok)
> Thu, 25 May 2017 00:06:37 !Gaelan paid 1 Shinies (Quazie)
> Thu, 25 May 2017 17:04:03  Organization 蘭亭社 charter amended (天火狐)
> Thu, 25 May 2017 22:21:46  Quazie paid 1 Shinies (CuddleBeam)
> - time of last report -
> Mon, 29 May 2017 16:58:50  grok deregistered
> Mon, 29 May 2017 17:00:14  nichdel deregistered
> Wed, 31 May 2017 13:41:35  aranea, Charles, Henri, Sci_Guy12, Tekneek,
> The Warrigal, Yally deregistered
> Thu,  1 Jun 2017 00:00:00  Payday
> Fri,  2 Jun 2017 05:36:42  Agora paid 5 Shinies (Gaelan)
> Fri,  2 Jun 2017 05:38:18  Organization "AAaAA" destroyed (o)
> Mon,  5 Jun 2017 17:29:03  301 Shinies created in Agora's balance by
> Proposal 7856
> Tue, 06 Jun 2017 20:27:07  Agora paid 30 Shinies (Quazie)
> Sat, 10 Jun 2017 08:27:45  天火狐 paid 5 Shinies (o)
> Sat, 10 Jun 2017 22:40:37  Agora paid 50 Shinies (天火狐)
> Sun, 11 Jun 2017 03:23:37  Agora paid 6 Shinies (Aris)
> 
> 
> Events marked with a ! are provisional pending the outcome of one or
> more CFJs.
> 
> 
> Personal Lockouts:
> 
> Player Until
> 
> Quazie July 18, 2017
> 
> Global Lockout: No
> 
> 
> Balances:
> 
> The following information is provisional, pending one or more CFJs.
> 
>  477 Shinies  Agora
>   66 Shinies  Organization
>5 ShiniesAVM
>  518 Shinies  Player
>   14 ShiniesAris
>   61 ShiniesCuddleBeam
>   16 ShiniesGaelan
>   10 ShiniesIenpw III
>   60 ShiniesMurphy
>   53 ShiniesPublius Scribonius Scholasticus
>   19 ShiniesQuazie
>   40 ShiniesSprocklem
>   10 ShiniesVeggiekeks
>   74 ShiniesZachary Watterson
>5 Shiniesais523
>   10 Shinieso
>   60 Shiniesomd
>   15 Shiniestmanthe2nd
>   10 Shinies天火狐
> 
> 
> Budgets:
> 
> Player ABM  ACU  AVM  蘭亭社 Expenditure
> ---
> ais523  25   30   55
> Murphy   50   50
> o 50  50
> omd  20   20
> Sprocklem   25   20   45
> 天火狐   5050
> 
> Income  50  120   5050   270
> 
> ABM = The Agoran Betting Market
> ACU = The Agoran Credit Union
> AVM = The Agoran Voting Market
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Quazie]

Given there's no way for this report to be published by any one other than
the current office holder as it isn't late, I choose to ignore it.

But the SLR is late, so if you do the work for that I might not ;)


On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 07:49 Kerim Aydin  wrote:

> Secretary's Weekly Report
>
> Date of this report: Thu, 15 Jun 2017
> Date of last report: Sun, 11 Jun 2017
>
>
> Recent events (all times UTC):
>
> - previous report -
> Mon, 15 May 2017 09:27:29  Gaelan paid 1 Shinies (Quazie)
> Mon, 15 May 2017 16:28:54  Agora paid 10 Shinies (ais523)
> Thu, 18 May 2017 21:27:54  grok paid 1 Shinies (Aris)
> Sat, 20 May 2017 19:59:03  Agora paid 4 Shinies (Quazie)
> Sun, 21 May 2017 02:03:05  Agora paid 3 Shinies (ais523)
> Sun, 21 May 2017 02:05:52  Agora paid 1 Shinies (grok)
> Sun, 21 May 2017 23:11:33  Agora paid 4 Shinies (Aris)
> Mon, 22 May 2017 06:01:33  o paid 6 Shinies (Organization "AVM")
> Mon, 22 May 2017 06:01:33  Organization "AVM" paid 5 Shinies (o)
> Mon, 22 May 2017 06:20:40  o's budget switch with Organization "ACU"
>  flipped to 0
> Mon, 22 May 2017 19:10:48  天火狐 paid 0 Shinies (grok)
> Wed, 24 May 2017 00:46:28  CuddleBeam paid 5 Shinies (nichdel)
> Wed, 24 May 2017 03:23:54  Quazie paid 1 Shinies (Gaelan)
> Wed, 24 May 2017 16:47:00  Gaelan paid 0 Shinies (grok)
> Thu, 25 May 2017 00:06:37 !Gaelan paid 1 Shinies (Quazie)
> Thu, 25 May 2017 17:04:03  Organization 蘭亭社 charter amended (天火狐)
> Thu, 25 May 2017 22:21:46  Quazie paid 1 Shinies (CuddleBeam)
> - time of last report -
> Mon, 29 May 2017 16:58:50  grok deregistered
> Mon, 29 May 2017 17:00:14  nichdel deregistered
> Wed, 31 May 2017 13:41:35  aranea, Charles, Henri, Sci_Guy12, Tekneek,
>  The Warrigal, Yally deregistered
> Thu,  1 Jun 2017 00:00:00  Payday
> Fri,  2 Jun 2017 05:36:42  Agora paid 5 Shinies (Gaelan)
> Fri,  2 Jun 2017 05:38:18  Organization "AAaAA" destroyed (o)
> Mon,  5 Jun 2017 17:29:03  301 Shinies created in Agora's balance by
>  Proposal 7856
> Tue, 06 Jun 2017 20:27:07  Agora paid 30 Shinies (Quazie)
> Sat, 10 Jun 2017 08:27:45  天火狐 paid 5 Shinies (o)
> Sat, 10 Jun 2017 22:40:37  Agora paid 50 Shinies (天火狐)
> Sun, 11 Jun 2017 03:23:37  Agora paid 6 Shinies (Aris)
>
>
> Events marked with a ! are provisional pending the outcome of one or
> more CFJs.
>
>
> Personal Lockouts:
>
> Player Until
> 
> Quazie July 18, 2017
>
> Global Lockout: No
>
>
> Balances:
>
> The following information is provisional, pending one or more CFJs.
>
>   477 Shinies  Agora
>66 Shinies  Organization
> 5 ShiniesAVM
>   518 Shinies  Player
>14 ShiniesAris
>61 ShiniesCuddleBeam
>16 ShiniesGaelan
>10 ShiniesIenpw III
>60 ShiniesMurphy
>53 ShiniesPublius Scribonius Scholasticus
>19 ShiniesQuazie
>40 ShiniesSprocklem
>10 ShiniesVeggiekeks
>74 ShiniesZachary Watterson
> 5 Shiniesais523
>10 Shinieso
>60 Shiniesomd
>15 Shiniestmanthe2nd
>10 Shinies天火狐
>
>
> Budgets:
>
> Player ABM  ACU  AVM  蘭亭社 Expenditure
> ---
> ais523  25   30   55
> Murphy   50   50
> o 50  50
> omd  20   20
> Sprocklem   25   20   45
> 天火狐   5050
>
> Income  50  120   5050   270
>
> ABM = The Agoran Betting Market
> ACU = The Agoran Credit Union
> AVM = The Agoran Voting Market
>
>

Re: DIS: 1 person playing as many players?

[Nicholas Evans]

I'd support a rule to the effect of "a player can only be banned from Agora
by a power-3 (or higher) instrument". That both introduces the concept
legally and restricts without adding any other baggage.

On Jun 15, 2017 04:43, "Publius Scribonius Scholasticus" <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> I agree with o, any such punishment should be administered by proposal.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> > On Jun 15, 2017, at 4:11 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> >
> > On Jun 13, 2017, at 6:49 PM, Quazie  wrote:
> >>
> >> Proto Proposal:
> >> AI = 4
> >> Title: When two become one
> >> Rule: 'A short list of things that are too agregious to even attempt'
> >> Doing any of the following is `Treating Agora Right Bad Forever` and
> are bannable offenses:
> >> - A single person attempting to register as two players
> >>
> >> If a person is found to have `Treaded Agora Right Bad Forever` the
> Registrar CAN and SHALL  deregister em and permanently ban them from Agora,
> now and forever.  A banned person CANNOT register.
> >
> > Things that would get me on board with a “leave and never return, you
> can never play again” penalty: unrepentant bigotry, sincere threats of
> violence, inciting fights and refusing to take responsibility for them when
> confronted about it, and the promotion of same. Probably a few other
> things. The common theme is that these poison the social environment the
> game takes place in, not just the state of the game itself.
> >
> > Things that probably wouldn’t convince me to support a ban: severe
> examples of unsporting conduct, on its own. We can fix that damage through
> gameplay, or if necessary through ratification.
> >
> > I realize I’m just one Agoran, but please don’t put bans in the rules.
> I’ll vote against nearly any proposal that puts them into the cards/referee
> system as a standard punishment, too.
> >
> > -o
> >
>
>

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Interaction between CFJ 1709 and R869

[Nicholas Evans]

It's possibly a violation of No Faking if other people thought it was
effective.

On Jun 15, 2017 02:01, "Owen Jacobson"  wrote:

>
> > On Jun 13, 2017, at 5:17 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:
> >
> > "I Point My Finger at um... what's your nickname? Kerim, anyway. For
> clear reasons, let's see what happens though”
>
> I believe this is ineffective, as G. (Kerim) is not a player at this time.
> Under Rule 2478 (“Vigilante Justice”) you may only Point the Finger at a
> player. Under Rule 2479, the Referee may only issue Cards to players.
>
> However, just in case, I find the above finger-pointing to be Shenanigans.
>
> First, G. was not performing any official duty. G. likely understands why
> not, but in case it’s not obvious: saying that you’re publishing a report
> doesn’t mean that you’re actually doing so, and there’s no way G. could
> publish the Registrar’s Weekly Report at the time they sent the message in
> question.
>
> Second, It’s not at all clear to me that _saying_ that you purport a thing
> implies that you materially purport a thing, if that thing would be
> obviously and blatantly impossible for you to do or purport to do.
>
> I’d love to see an appeal on this, though. CFJ away.
>
> -o
>
>

Re: DIS: 1 person playing as many players?

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I agree with o, any such punishment should be administered by proposal.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On Jun 15, 2017, at 4:11 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> 
> On Jun 13, 2017, at 6:49 PM, Quazie  wrote:
>> 
>> Proto Proposal:
>> AI = 4
>> Title: When two become one
>> Rule: 'A short list of things that are too agregious to even attempt'
>> Doing any of the following is `Treating Agora Right Bad Forever` and are 
>> bannable offenses:
>> - A single person attempting to register as two players
>> 
>> If a person is found to have `Treaded Agora Right Bad Forever` the Registrar 
>> CAN and SHALL  deregister em and permanently ban them from Agora, now and 
>> forever.  A banned person CANNOT register.
> 
> Things that would get me on board with a “leave and never return, you can 
> never play again” penalty: unrepentant bigotry, sincere threats of violence, 
> inciting fights and refusing to take responsibility for them when confronted 
> about it, and the promotion of same. Probably a few other things. The common 
> theme is that these poison the social environment the game takes place in, 
> not just the state of the game itself.
> 
> Things that probably wouldn’t convince me to support a ban: severe examples 
> of unsporting conduct, on its own. We can fix that damage through gameplay, 
> or if necessary through ratification.
> 
> I realize I’m just one Agoran, but please don’t put bans in the rules. I’ll 
> vote against nearly any proposal that puts them into the cards/referee system 
> as a standard punishment, too.
> 
> -o
> 

Re: DIS: 1 person playing as many players?

[Owen Jacobson]

On Jun 13, 2017, at 6:49 PM, Quazie  wrote:
> 
> Proto Proposal:
> AI = 4
> Title: When two become one
> Rule: 'A short list of things that are too agregious to even attempt'
> Doing any of the following is `Treating Agora Right Bad Forever` and are 
> bannable offenses:
> - A single person attempting to register as two players
> 
> If a person is found to have `Treaded Agora Right Bad Forever` the Registrar 
> CAN and SHALL  deregister em and permanently ban them from Agora, now and 
> forever.  A banned person CANNOT register.

Things that would get me on board with a “leave and never return, you can never 
play again” penalty: unrepentant bigotry, sincere threats of violence, inciting 
fights and refusing to take responsibility for them when confronted about it, 
and the promotion of same. Probably a few other things. The common theme is 
that these poison the social environment the game takes place in, not just the 
state of the game itself.

Things that probably wouldn’t convince me to support a ban: severe examples of 
unsporting conduct, on its own. We can fix that damage through gameplay, or if 
necessary through ratification.

I realize I’m just one Agoran, but please don’t put bans in the rules. I’ll 
vote against nearly any proposal that puts them into the cards/referee system 
as a standard punishment, too.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Interaction between CFJ 1709 and R869

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Jun 13, 2017, at 5:17 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:
> 
> "I Point My Finger at um... what's your nickname? Kerim, anyway. For clear 
> reasons, let's see what happens though”

Incidentally, I’m pleased to see the finger-pointing system getting some use. 
Thanks for this test case!

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I Point the Finger

[Owen Jacobson]

Ah, 
> On Jun 15, 2017, at 2:01 AM, Quazie  wrote:
> 
> Nttpf
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 22:58 Owen Jacobson  > wrote:
> On Jun 13, 2017, at 4:38 AM, V.J Rada  > wrote:
> 
>> I Point the Finger at Cuddlebeam. On 25 May he said "I pledge to not
>> submit Judgement on CFJ 3509."
>> (https://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2017-May/034882.html
>>  
>> ).
>> On that very same date, he did.
>> (https://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2017-May/034886.html
>>  
>> ).
> 
> I regret my decision to object to Gaelan’s attempt at fixing this mess. 
> Gaelan, I’m sorry, that was shortsighted and you were right.
> 
> [Dons Referee hat]
> 
> I can see no message in which CuddleBeam passed judgement on CFJ 3509. The 
> statement to be judged in that CFJ is
> 
>> o committed a cardable offense in issuing a Pink Slip to Gaelan.
> 
> 
> In the message cited in V.J Rada’s Pointing of the Finger, CuddleBeam passes 
> judgement on the statement
> 
>> Any player may take the office of Rulekeepor with 2 support.
> 
> which is CFJ 3508, not CFJ 3509.
> 
> CuddleBeam did, however, purport to pass judgement on CFJ 3509 (see the 
> Subject header of the message linked in evidence). This was unwise, but I can 
> find no rule that this violates, nor any evidence in the rules that claiming 
> to judge CFJ 3509 while actually passing judgement on a different statement 
> has the effect of passing judgement on CFJ 3509.
> 
> Nonetheless, I believe that a rules violation has occurred - just not the one 
> that prompted V.J Rada to Point the Finger at CuddleBeam. CFJ 3509 has been 
> assigned to CuddleBeam for considerably more than 7 days: it was assigned on 
> May 23, which is, as of this writing, 23 days ago, and Rule 591 (“Delivering 
> Judgements”) commands that the judge SHALL assign a judgement in a timely 
> fashion. CuddleBeam has violated this requirement.
> 
> A Yellow card would be appropriate, as the infraction clearly has a 
> “significant, but small, effect on gameplay” per Rule 2427 ("Yellow Cards"), 
> i.e., the CFJ has remained unjudged due to this lapse. Accordingly, I issue 
> CuddleBeam a Yellow Card. Eir apology, if any, must include each of the words
> 
> * I
> * Judge
> * CFJ
> * 3509
> * To
> * Be
> * TRUE
> 
> although not necessarily in that order or in close proximity. E need not 
> breach eir pledge in the process of apologizing for withholding judgement.
> 
> Arbitor, I recommend that CFJ 3509 be reassigned.
> 
> -o
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I Point the Finger

[Quazie]

Nttpf
On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 22:58 Owen Jacobson  wrote:

> On Jun 13, 2017, at 4:38 AM, V.J Rada  wrote:
>
> I Point the Finger at Cuddlebeam. On 25 May he said "I pledge to not
> submit Judgement on CFJ 3509."
> (
> https://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2017-May/034882.html
> ).
> On that very same date, he did.
> (
> https://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2017-May/034886.html
> ).
>
>
> I regret my decision to object to Gaelan’s attempt at fixing this mess.
> Gaelan, I’m sorry, that was shortsighted and you were right.
>
> [Dons Referee hat]
>
> I can see no message in which CuddleBeam passed judgement on CFJ 3509. The
> statement to be judged in that CFJ is
>
> o committed a cardable offense in issuing a Pink Slip to Gaelan.
>
>
> In the message cited in V.J Rada’s Pointing of the Finger, CuddleBeam
> passes judgement on the statement
>
> Any player may take the office of Rulekeepor with 2 support.
>
>
> which is CFJ 3508, not CFJ 3509.
>
> CuddleBeam did, however, purport to pass judgement on CFJ 3509 (see the
> Subject header of the message linked in evidence). This was unwise, but I
> can find no rule that this violates, nor any evidence in the rules that
> claiming to judge CFJ 3509 while actually passing judgement on a different
> statement has the effect of passing judgement on CFJ 3509.
>
> Nonetheless, I believe that a rules violation has occurred - just not the
> one that prompted V.J Rada to Point the Finger at CuddleBeam. CFJ 3509 has
> been assigned to CuddleBeam for considerably more than 7 days: it was
> assigned on May 23, which is, as of this writing, 23 days ago, and Rule 591
> (“Delivering Judgements”) commands that the judge SHALL assign a judgement
> in a timely fashion. CuddleBeam has violated this requirement.
>
> A Yellow card would be appropriate, as the infraction clearly has a
> “significant, but small, effect on gameplay” per Rule 2427 ("Yellow
> Cards"), i.e., the CFJ has remained unjudged due to this lapse.
> Accordingly, I issue CuddleBeam a Yellow Card. Eir apology, if any, must
> include each of the words
>
> * I
> * Judge
> * CFJ
> * 3509
> * To
> * Be
> * TRUE
>
> although not necessarily in that order or in close proximity. E need not
> breach eir pledge in the process of apologizing for withholding judgement.
>
> Arbitor, I recommend that CFJ 3509 be reassigned.
>
> -o
>
>