DIS: Re: BUS: Re: 3527 judgement

[Owen Jacobson]

V.J Rada wrote:

> I also point the finger at gaelan for being late on two CFJs and the SLR 
> (twice, I think)

These would be CFJs 3520 and 3521, both assigned on June 6th, 2017: 14 days 
prior to the Finger-Pointing above. Rule 591 (“Delivering Judgements”) states, 
in part:

> When a CFJ is open and assigned to a judge, that judge CAN assign a valid 
> judgement to it by announcement, and SHALL do so in a timely fashion after 
> this becomes possible.

Rule 1023 (“Common Definitions”) defines “in a timely fashion” as follows:

> The phrase "in a timely fashion" means "within 7 days”. This time period is 
> set when the requirement is created (i.e. X daysbefore the limit ends).

Reviewing the open CFJs, it appears to be possible to assign a judgement to 
each of them as of the date they were assigned. As it has been more than seven 
days since those CFJs were assigned, Gaelan has violated the SHALL clause cited 
above from r. 591.

The subject matter of the two CFJs in question is of extremely limited impact 
on the overall scope of the game. Each addresses questions about the 
relationship between a proposal and some other entity. Neither the text nor the 
adoption index nor the title of the proposal are in question, and the facts 
that are in question are of little long-term significance.

I issue Gaelan a Green Card by summary judgement.

The Short Logical Ruleset (“SLR”) is part of the Rulekeepor’s report, defined 
in r. 1051 (“The Rulekeepor”):

> The Rulekeepor's Weekly report includes the Short Logical Ruleset.

Rule 2143 (“Official Reports and Duties”) governs the frequency with which 
weekly reports must be issued:

> If any task is defined by the rules as part of that person's weekly duties, 
> then e SHALL perform it at least once each week. If any information is 
> defined by the rules as part of that person's weekly report, then e SHALL 
> maintain all such information, and the publication of all such information is 
> part of eir weekly duties.

Gaelan is the incumbent Rulekeepor, and last published the Short Logical 
Ruleset on May 28th. E has not performed this portion of eir weekly duties in 
well over a week.

This infraction has the potential to be more serious, as the regular 
publication of the SLR is crucial to ensuring that players may maintain an 
accurate understanding of the current Rules without having to track each 
proposal by hand.

However, in mitigation, Gaelan has done excellent work publishing and 
maintaining an unofficial repository of the Rules at 
. E has also been steadfast in publishing the 
monthly Full Logical Ruleset, although the deadline for doing so this month is 
appraoching quickly. On the balance, I find that the effect of Gaelan’s 
omission is minor and of little consequence at this time, and does not merit 
significant censure.

I award Gaelan a Green Card by summary judgement.

-o


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

DIS: sorry & cloudflare

[omd]

Last night, when I changed the DNS for agoranomic.org to point to
GitHub Pages, I forgot to change the MX record so that my server would
continue to receive mail.  I knew I had to do that, but it slipped my
mind... Thus the lists were down for several hours, until this morning
when I saw an email from o and fixed it.  Sorry.

In other news, the DNS change didn't actually work, because I had
HTTPS Strict-Transport-Security enabled on the old site and it turns
out GitHub Pages doesn't support SSL for custom domains, at all.  I
kind of assumed that in mid-2017, a year and a half into Let's
Encrypt's lifetime, GitHub would have their act together w.r.t. SSL,
but I guess not.

In lieu of that, I just signed up for CloudFlare's free service, which
can wrap insecure sites in SSL - good enough for now.  It may take up
to 24 hours for the nameservers to propagate; P. Scholasticus, if you
want you can revert the custom domain setting on GitHub for that long,
to ensure people don't get redirected to a broken URL (although it
works for me already).  The lists (and list web interface) shouldn't
experience problems.

Don't worry, I set the firewall level to minimum and whitelisted Tor,
so there shouldn't be any CAPTCHA prompts.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3529 assigned to Sprocklem

[Kerim Aydin]

On Wed, 21 Jun 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-06-21 at 07:53 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > "Official" gratuitous arguments have less impact on the initial judgement
> > than they used to, now that the Arbitor doesn't assemble case logs before
> > assigning cases, so each individual Judge has to go looking for them even
> > if they're posted in BUS (slightly unfortunate, but better to have cases
> > assigned in a timely manner IMO).
> 
> I typically attempt to ensure that all the relevant conversation about
> the CFJ at the time of assignment is present in the assignment email
> (often it's all in one thread without replies being edited down, so
> quoting that email is all that's required). In cases where the
> conversation's split into multiple threads, I use archive links.
> 
> This doesn't, of course, take into account comments made after the
> assignment of the CFJ.

Oh yes, I should say I follow links in your assignments and include those
too :).  Maybe the better way to put it isn't so much that they have less
impact or are harder for the judge to find, but that it's more informal
overall (and on my side, harder to turn long threads into the final clean
"cut" for the logs, so I favor the well-labelled public stuff).

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3529 assigned to Sprocklem

[Alex Smith]

On Wed, 2017-06-21 at 07:53 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> "Official" gratuitous arguments have less impact on the initial judgement
> than they used to, now that the Arbitor doesn't assemble case logs before
> assigning cases, so each individual Judge has to go looking for them even
> if they're posted in BUS (slightly unfortunate, but better to have cases
> assigned in a timely manner IMO).

I typically attempt to ensure that all the relevant conversation about
the CFJ at the time of assignment is present in the assignment email
(often it's all in one thread without replies being edited down, so
quoting that email is all that's required). In cases where the
conversation's split into multiple threads, I use archive links.

This doesn't, of course, take into account comments made after the
assignment of the CFJ.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3529 assigned to Sprocklem

[Kerim Aydin]

On Wed, 21 Jun 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-06-21 at 08:43 -0500, grok (caleb vines) wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 10:32 PM, Alex Smith  > k> wrote:
> > > (Also relevant, the gratuitous arguments by grok to agora-
> > > discussion:
> > >  > > 47.html>)
> > 
> > ooh, do I need to TTttPF gratuitous arguments into BUS? Since they
> > aren't codified in the ruleset I didn't think about it.
> 
> They used to be. I'm not sure they are nowadays, though.
> 
> Nonetheless, if you send something to DIS, that implies that you don't
> necessarily want people to act on it. So it's easy for officers,
> judges, and the like, to miss.

"Official" gratuitous arguments have less impact on the initial judgement
than they used to, now that the Arbitor doesn't assemble case logs before
assigning cases, so each individual Judge has to go looking for them even
if they're posted in BUS (slightly unfortunate, but better to have cases
assigned in a timely manner IMO).

For the database, after the case, I filter on Public archives only, and
include well-labelled gratuitous arguments when I see them.  I tend to
search on the Statement text and CFJ#, so replies/threads not including
the statement or CFJ# are more easily missed.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: pointless (has this been tried before?)

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I agree with this interpretation, but I find nowhere that suggests that 
payments must only be legal values of the balance switch.

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



> On Jun 20, 2017, at 11:24 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Jun 20, 2017, at 11:45 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, 20 Jun 2017, grok (caleb vines) wrote:
>>> Why not just require that shinies may only be given in positive
>>> integers? Or that any entity that would give shinies may not give
>>> fractional parts of shinies, negative amounts of shinies, or zero
>>> shinies? (both also eliminate the "i give zero shinies" problem).
>> 
>> It's possible that all of us mathematician-types are wrong, and the
>> wording in R2483 currently:
>> 
>>The unit for Balance
>>  values is shiny (pl. shinies).
>> 
>>  If Agora, a player, or an organization (A) 'pays' X shinies to
>>  Agora, a player, or an organization (B), A's Balance is
>>  decreased by X and B's Balance is increased by X.
>> 
>> is enough to infer that "X" must be specified in units (integers).
>> Negative values are already forbidden, that only leaves the 0 case
>> to take care of.  (The paragraph break is unfortunate for the
>> clarity, but the fix would be tiny).
> 
> Note the phrasing earlier in r. 2483 (“Economics”):
> 
>> Each Balance switch's possible values are integers.
> 
> I’m content to dispose of the argument that “integers” could include arcana 
> such as algebraic integers and  integral octonions. Such constructs are 
> interesting, but they’re unusual enough that to interpret the term “integer” 
> to include requires wilful disregard for the far-more-common usage meaning 
> rational integers, i.e., elements of ℤ. I have no authority by which to bind 
> other Agorans to play similarly, but if we get into a CFJ about what, 
> precisely, “integer” means I shall be sorely disappointed.
> 
> We don’t need to interpret “units” when the rule makes it clear that Balances 
> are integers.
> 
> -o
> 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3524 assigned to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

It seems to me to be deceptive because it seemed that soon after others 
observed it, he had known that he had previously received the award.

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



> On Jun 20, 2017, at 10:59 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> 
> 
> On Jun 20, 2017, at 5:36 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
>  wrote:
> 
>> I find CFJ 3524 FALSE, as the ruleset clearly and undebatebly specifies in 
>> plain terms that any previous holding of a White Ribbon under any ruleset 
>> precludes the action that Murphy attempted to take to become the holder of a 
>> White Ribbon. Further, I point my finger at Murphy for violation of Rule 
>> 2471.
> 
> Evidence in support of the proposition that Murphy’s actions were intended to 
> deceive others would be appreciated.
> 
> On its face, I’m inclined to find this finger-pointing to be Shenanigans: the 
> action was impossible, and there’s every reason Murphy should have known it 
> was impossible, but I can see no way in which the action or any possible 
> outcome could be deceptive. I’m happy to entertain competing theories, but 
> it’s not as obvious to me as it likely is to you that Murphy’s broken that 
> rule.
> 
> -o
> 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: It's been a while.

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Jun 20, 2017, at 11:52 AM, grok (caleb vines)  wrote:
> 
> oof, also my apologies for the walls of text. i'm playing with gmail's
> plain text editor and the input box doesn't automatically line break
> for me. those paragraphs are...denser than expected.

I see nothing objectionable here.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: pointless (has this been tried before?)

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Jun 20, 2017, at 11:45 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2017, grok (caleb vines) wrote:
>> Why not just require that shinies may only be given in positive
>> integers? Or that any entity that would give shinies may not give
>> fractional parts of shinies, negative amounts of shinies, or zero
>> shinies? (both also eliminate the "i give zero shinies" problem).
> 
> It's possible that all of us mathematician-types are wrong, and the
> wording in R2483 currently:
> 
> The unit for Balance
>   values is shiny (pl. shinies).
> 
>   If Agora, a player, or an organization (A) 'pays' X shinies to
>   Agora, a player, or an organization (B), A's Balance is
>   decreased by X and B's Balance is increased by X.
> 
> is enough to infer that "X" must be specified in units (integers).
> Negative values are already forbidden, that only leaves the 0 case
> to take care of.  (The paragraph break is unfortunate for the
> clarity, but the fix would be tiny).

Note the phrasing earlier in r. 2483 (“Economics”):

> Each Balance switch's possible values are integers.

I’m content to dispose of the argument that “integers” could include arcana 
such as algebraic integers and  integral octonions. Such constructs are 
interesting, but they’re unusual enough that to interpret the term “integer” to 
include requires wilful disregard for the far-more-common usage meaning 
rational integers, i.e., elements of ℤ. I have no authority by which to bind 
other Agorans to play similarly, but if we get into a CFJ about what, 
precisely, “integer” means I shall be sorely disappointed.

We don’t need to interpret “units” when the rule makes it clear that Balances 
are integers.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3524 assigned to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

[Owen Jacobson]

On Jun 20, 2017, at 5:36 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
 wrote:

> I find CFJ 3524 FALSE, as the ruleset clearly and undebatebly specifies in 
> plain terms that any previous holding of a White Ribbon under any ruleset 
> precludes the action that Murphy attempted to take to become the holder of a 
> White Ribbon. Further, I point my finger at Murphy for violation of Rule 2471.

Evidence in support of the proposition that Murphy’s actions were intended to 
deceive others would be appreciated.

On its face, I’m inclined to find this finger-pointing to be Shenanigans: the 
action was impossible, and there’s every reason Murphy should have known it was 
impossible, but I can see no way in which the action or any possible outcome 
could be deceptive. I’m happy to entertain competing theories, but it’s not as 
obvious to me as it likely is to you that Murphy’s broken that rule.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3529 assigned to Sprocklem

[Alex Smith]

On Wed, 2017-06-21 at 08:43 -0500, grok (caleb vines) wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 10:32 PM, Alex Smith  k> wrote:
> > (Also relevant, the gratuitous arguments by grok to agora-
> > discussion:
> >  > 47.html>)
> 
> ooh, do I need to TTttPF gratuitous arguments into BUS? Since they
> aren't codified in the ruleset I didn't think about it.

They used to be. I'm not sure they are nowadays, though.

Nonetheless, if you send something to DIS, that implies that you don't
necessarily want people to act on it. So it's easy for officers,
judges, and the like, to miss.

-- 
ais523

DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3529 assigned to Sprocklem

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 10:32 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> (Also relevant, the gratuitous arguments by grok to agora-discussion:
> )

ooh, do I need to TTttPF gratuitous arguments into BUS? Since they
aren't codified in the ruleset I didn't think about it.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Herald] Pre-Resolution of Victory Election

[Alex Smith]

On Tue, 2017-06-20 at 05:38 -0700, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
wrote:
> Let me try again, I hereby ratify the following document without
> objection: {{Votes on any attempt to initiate a Victory Election are
> votes on the most recent successful attempt.}}

You forgot "intend", and you're still effectively making a statement
about the future. Say something like "All attempts to votes on a
Victory Elections so far were made on the most recent attempt to
initiate a Victory Election". That said, I'm not sure I agree with the
principle anyway; with something like this, which is likely to lead to
scamming, it seems unfair to disrupt attempts to invalidate other
people's votes via claiming they were ambiguous.

-- 
ais523