Re: DIS: [Proto] Vexity (was Re: humble agoran farmer attempts a stick-up.)

[Kerim Aydin]

On Tue, 18 Jul 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> A person whose Vexity is zero may initiate a Call for Judgement by
> announcement. A person whose Vexity is not zero may initiate a Call
> for Judgement with N Agoran Support, where N is the value of that
> person's Vexity switch.

The fact that there are circumstances in which a person CANNOT initiate  
a CFJ on eir own is pretty clearly a violation of R217, IMO.  It's a
direct Rules to the Contrary Notwithstanding requirement that a person
be able to do this.

Initiate to later have dismissed?  Fine.  Not able to initiate without
another player's intervention?  Not fine I would guess.

Re: DIS: [Proto] Vexity (was Re: humble agoran farmer attempts a stick-up.)

[Nic Evans]

I should also add: If a player wants to use all eir hard-earned shinies
on useless CFJs (which the judges will get paid for resolving), then e
should feel free.

On 07/18/17 20:26, Nic Evans wrote:
>
> On 07/18/17 20:13, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>> This loosely replicates the idea of a vexatious litigant, and could easily 
>> be folded into nichdel’s penalty reforms. The short timeout on Vexity, and 
>> the increasing consent requirement for increasing Vexity, is meant to 
>> prevent a rogue Referee from locking someone out of CFJs entirely.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> -o
>>
> Note that the current econ proposal requires either shinies or AP to
> make CFJs without support. Also note that the Criminal Cases proto
> defines reducing someone's weekly AP as an appropriate punishment for
> High Faux Pas.
>
> All that's needed to integrate your concept into that system is defining
> excessive CFJs to be a Faux Pas.
>




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: [Proto] Vexity (was Re: humble agoran farmer attempts a stick-up.)

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Tue, 18 Jul 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:


   If a person's Vexity is zero, the Referee may increase that
   person's Vexity with 1 Agoran Support. Otherwise, the Referee may
   increase that person's Vexity with N Agoran Support, where N is the
   present value of the Vexity switch for the person whose Vexity
   would be increased.


There's No Such Offical Term as Agoran Support, HTH.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: [Proto] Vexity (was Re: humble agoran farmer attempts a stick-up.)

[Nic Evans]

On 07/18/17 20:13, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>
> This loosely replicates the idea of a vexatious litigant, and could easily be 
> folded into nichdel’s penalty reforms. The short timeout on Vexity, and the 
> increasing consent requirement for increasing Vexity, is meant to prevent a 
> rogue Referee from locking someone out of CFJs entirely.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -o
>

Note that the current econ proposal requires either shinies or AP to
make CFJs without support. Also note that the Criminal Cases proto
defines reducing someone's weekly AP as an appropriate punishment for
High Faux Pas.

All that's needed to integrate your concept into that system is defining
excessive CFJs to be a Faux Pas.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: [Proto] Vexity (was Re: humble agoran farmer attempts a stick-up.)

[Owen Jacobson]

> Add a new rule, titled "Vexity", with Power 2 and the text
> 
>Vexity is a natural person switch, tracked by the Referee. The
>default value of a Vexity switch is zero. Changes to a player's
>Vexity are secured.

Changes to a person’s Vexity are secured.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

DIS: [Proto] Vexity (was Re: humble agoran farmer attempts a stick-up.)

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Jul 18, 2017, at 5:33 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> 
> Extensive use - some might even say abuse - of the Call for Judgement system 
> to test abstruse philosophical matters, rather than to resolve bona fide 
> gameplay disagreements, will inevitably have a chilling effect on playing 
> Agora. So will attempting to perform actions clearly contrary to the spirit 
> of the rules, using frankly perverse interpretations of those rules. If 
> players cannot be sure that the rules mean what they appear to mean, and if 
> gameplay is delayed to account for the positioning of angels on pinheads 
> rather than to determine how to apply the rules to situations actually before 
> us, eventually, play will be too onerous for all but the most determined 
> player.
> 
> However, the chilling effect of these actions is neither immediate nor 
> direct, and it does not inevitably lead to the demise of Agora or to its 
> conversion to a non-nomic. I believe a resolution to these issues lies within 
> reach of the current rule-making system, and need not be achieved through 
> Cards.

To that end, what about the following?

Add a new rule, titled "Vexity", with Power 2 and the text

Vexity is a natural person switch, tracked by the Referee. The
default value of a Vexity switch is zero. Changes to a player's
Vexity are secured.

If a person's Vexity is zero, the Referee may increase that
person's Vexity with 1 Agoran Support. Otherwise, the Referee may
increase that person's Vexity with N Agoran Support, where N is the
present value of the Vexity switch for the person whose Vexity
would be increased.

If a person's Vexity has not changed in the last 7 days, and that
person's Vexity is greater than zero, any player may reduce that
person's Vexity by one by announcement. If no other player does so,
the Referee SHALL do so in a timely fashion after it becomes
possible to do so.

Amend rule 991 ("Calls for Judgement") by replacing the first paragraph
to with

To initiate a Call for Judgement (CFJ, syn. Judicial Case), a
person (the initiator) MUST specify a statement to be inquired
into. E may optionally bar one person from the case.

A person whose Vexity is zero may initiate a Call for Judgement by
announcement. A person whose Vexity is not zero may initiate a Call
for Judgement with N Agoran Support, where N is the value of that
person's Vexity switch.

This loosely replicates the idea of a vexatious litigant, and could easily be 
folded into nichdel’s penalty reforms. The short timeout on Vexity, and the 
increasing consent requirement for increasing Vexity, is meant to prevent a 
rogue Referee from locking someone out of CFJs entirely.

Thoughts?

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3541 assigned to grok

[V.J Rada]

The difference is Shinies are unstable (remember, we'll lose them all when
we pass nichdel's amendment), and don't have the security and "mining" that
were attractive features that made bitcoin go. Also agora has shown no sign
of growing to millions of people thusfar and only players can use them.

On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

> I keep finding myself thinking about the 1 BTC Pizza incident - at the
> time, bitcoins were basically a curio, with no effective market whatsoever;
> now, paying a whole bitcoin for something as trivial as a pizza would be
> foolhardy.
>
> -o
>
> On Jul 18, 2017, at 7:51 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:
>
> I still think Shinies and dollars are not equivalent. There is no official
> exchange rate for apples and US dollars, but you can pay dollars for
> apples. The same is clearly true with CB's payment of 20 dollars. It's like
> paying 20$ for monopoly money. If I did that, monopoly money would not
> start having intrinsic value for all of you.
>
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Quazie  wrote:
>
>> I just thought that Nichdel and Nickle were fun words to use together.  I
>> do hope I succeeded in paying em something, if I failed, i'll likely do
>> something else to pay em for eir time.
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 2:42 PM Alex Smith 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 2017-07-18 at 17:34 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>>> > > On Jul 18, 2017, at 5:26 PM, Alex Smith 
>>> > > wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > On Mon, 2017-07-17 at 22:03 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>>> > > > On Jul 16, 2017, at 6:58 PM, Quazie 
>>> > > > wrote:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > > I pay nichdel a nickel's worth of shinies for taking over as
>>> > > > > Assessor.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > I CFJ on the statement “A nickle’s worth of shinies is exactly 5
>>> > > > shinies.”
>>> > >
>>> > > This is CFJ 3541. I assign it to grok.
>>> >
>>> > Some late-breaking caller’s arguments: At least one transaction
>>> > exists in which one shiny was exchanged for 20 US Dollars.
>>>
>>> Gratuitous: That doesn't necessarily indicate that 1 shiny is valued at
>>> 20 USD, though. (It's unlikely I could exchange /all/ my shinies for
>>> USD, for example; I doubt I'd find buyers.)
>>>
>>> --
>>> ais523
>>>
>>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3541 assigned to grok

[Owen Jacobson]

I keep finding myself thinking about the 1 BTC Pizza incident - at the time, 
bitcoins were basically a curio, with no effective market whatsoever; now, 
paying a whole bitcoin for something as trivial as a pizza would be foolhardy.

-o

> On Jul 18, 2017, at 7:51 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:
> 
> I still think Shinies and dollars are not equivalent. There is no official 
> exchange rate for apples and US dollars, but you can pay dollars for apples. 
> The same is clearly true with CB's payment of 20 dollars. It's like paying 
> 20$ for monopoly money. If I did that, monopoly money would not start having 
> intrinsic value for all of you.
> 
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Quazie  > wrote:
> I just thought that Nichdel and Nickle were fun words to use together.  I do 
> hope I succeeded in paying em something, if I failed, i'll likely do 
> something else to pay em for eir time.
> 
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 2:42 PM Alex Smith  > wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-07-18 at 17:34 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> > > On Jul 18, 2017, at 5:26 PM, Alex Smith  > > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 2017-07-17 at 22:03 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> > > > On Jul 16, 2017, at 6:58 PM, Quazie  > > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I pay nichdel a nickel's worth of shinies for taking over as
> > > > > Assessor.
> > > >
> > > > I CFJ on the statement “A nickle’s worth of shinies is exactly 5
> > > > shinies.”
> > >
> > > This is CFJ 3541. I assign it to grok.
> >
> > Some late-breaking caller’s arguments: At least one transaction
> > exists in which one shiny was exchanged for 20 US Dollars.
> 
> Gratuitous: That doesn't necessarily indicate that 1 shiny is valued at
> 20 USD, though. (It's unlikely I could exchange /all/ my shinies for
> USD, for example; I doubt I'd find buyers.)
> 
> --
> ais523
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3541 assigned to grok

[V.J Rada]

I still think Shinies and dollars are not equivalent. There is no official
exchange rate for apples and US dollars, but you can pay dollars for
apples. The same is clearly true with CB's payment of 20 dollars. It's like
paying 20$ for monopoly money. If I did that, monopoly money would not
start having intrinsic value for all of you.

On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Quazie  wrote:

> I just thought that Nichdel and Nickle were fun words to use together.  I
> do hope I succeeded in paying em something, if I failed, i'll likely do
> something else to pay em for eir time.
>
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 2:42 PM Alex Smith 
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 2017-07-18 at 17:34 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>> > > On Jul 18, 2017, at 5:26 PM, Alex Smith 
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, 2017-07-17 at 22:03 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>> > > > On Jul 16, 2017, at 6:58 PM, Quazie 
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > I pay nichdel a nickel's worth of shinies for taking over as
>> > > > > Assessor.
>> > > >
>> > > > I CFJ on the statement “A nickle’s worth of shinies is exactly 5
>> > > > shinies.”
>> > >
>> > > This is CFJ 3541. I assign it to grok.
>> >
>> > Some late-breaking caller’s arguments: At least one transaction
>> > exists in which one shiny was exchanged for 20 US Dollars.
>>
>> Gratuitous: That doesn't necessarily indicate that 1 shiny is valued at
>> 20 USD, though. (It's unlikely I could exchange /all/ my shinies for
>> USD, for example; I doubt I'd find buyers.)
>>
>> --
>> ais523
>>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3541 assigned to grok

[Quazie]

I just thought that Nichdel and Nickle were fun words to use together.  I
do hope I succeeded in paying em something, if I failed, i'll likely do
something else to pay em for eir time.

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 2:42 PM Alex Smith  wrote:

> On Tue, 2017-07-18 at 17:34 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> > > On Jul 18, 2017, at 5:26 PM, Alex Smith 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 2017-07-17 at 22:03 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> > > > On Jul 16, 2017, at 6:58 PM, Quazie 
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I pay nichdel a nickel's worth of shinies for taking over as
> > > > > Assessor.
> > > >
> > > > I CFJ on the statement “A nickle’s worth of shinies is exactly 5
> > > > shinies.”
> > >
> > > This is CFJ 3541. I assign it to grok.
> >
> > Some late-breaking caller’s arguments: At least one transaction
> > exists in which one shiny was exchanged for 20 US Dollars.
>
> Gratuitous: That doesn't necessarily indicate that 1 shiny is valued at
> 20 USD, though. (It's unlikely I could exchange /all/ my shinies for
> USD, for example; I doubt I'd find buyers.)
>
> --
> ais523
>

Re: DIS: humble agoran farmer doesn't break a pledge

[Kerim Aydin]

Yes.  E MAY consider it due to R2450, and e CAN consider it via official 
recognition
of the offense via R2426.  The consideration is implicit in the act of carding.
And if e does so when the pledge isn't broken - you're right, that may be a 
cardable rules breakage that didn't previously exist.

On Tue, 18 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Wouldn't the Referee need to Consider that the pledge has been Broken too in 
> order 
> to issue the card? (or can he just issue the card because he wants to, even 
> without
> considering an infraction? In which case, wouldn't that action be cardable
> too? Giving cards without a reason to? Treading off platonic-like 
> rule-lawyering road 
> into Card territory here though. I feel It gets hazy. The flaw might not be a 
> flaw 
> *in practice* because we can use pragmatist spirit quite freely with Cards to 
> enforce
> what feels right, hrm.)
> 
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 11:26 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
>   So it's regulated.  And, as you say in your original post, many of us 
> can't
>   consider the pledge broken *and have that consideration have legal 
> effect*.
>   But the Referee CAN, because there's a mechanism for em to do so 
> (Carding
>   as a form of recognition).  Maybe I'm missing the issue?
> 
>   On Tue, 18 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>   > Yes I agree with that, but due to that, it still describes a success 
> case. With this example I hope its more clear:
>   >
>   > Imagine we didn't have R7866 as it is now., and I post:
>   >
>   > "I pledge will give Bob 1 shiny after he gives me an Estate."
>   >
>   > Then he gives me an Estate.
>   > And 3 weeks pass, and I still haven't paid Bob. Could've it have been 
> (legally) considered that I have broken my pledge? No, because the timeframe 
> where I could do it is still active. It' still
>   > "after he gives me an Estate".
>   >
>   > But! With the new rule - you now can! After those three weeks, by 
> virtue of R7866, " A pledge may be considered broken if the pledger does not 
> complete it in a timely manner after it becomes
>   > possible to do so", I've broken my pledge. That new sentence allows 
> the success of an otherwise unsuccessful action, by describing a condition 
> where such an action (such a consideration) would
>   > succeed.
>   >
>   > Therefore, I believe that it is regulated.
>   >
>   > On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Kerim Aydin  
> wrote:
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >       On Tue, 18 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>   >       > Ah, oh well. No thoughtcrime then lol (would'be been bizarre 
> but super cool though).
>   >       > Just the original loophole then, I assume, because "legal 
> consideration" is all it
>   >       > takes to dodge legal consequences. (No flaws in the "at the 
> moment" argument? All
>   >       > cool?)
>   >
>   > Using some legal common sense, the phrase "may be considered broken", 
> if we use
>   > it as MAY, means the rules gives legal permission for people to 
> consider the
>   > pledge broken.
>   >
>   > How do we do so?  Well, we MAY "recognize" that a pledge, and 
> therefore a rule, has
>   > been broken.  ("recognize:  acknowledge the existence, validity, or 
> legality of.")
>   >
>   > Which means that one then MAY apply a card, which is, in fact, "a 
> recognition
>   > of a specific violation of the rules".  (So this makes it LEGAL to 
> apply a Card
>   > for a broken pledge; other rules limit mechanisms that make it 
> POSSIBLE to the
>   > Referee).
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
> 
> 
> 
>

Re: DIS: humble agoran farmer doesn't break a pledge

[Cuddle Beam]

Wouldn't the Referee need to Consider that the pledge has been Broken too
in order to issue the card? (or can he just issue the card because he wants
to, even without considering an infraction? In which case, wouldn't that
action be cardable too? Giving cards without a reason to? Treading off
platonic-like rule-lawyering road into Card territory here though. I feel
It gets hazy. The flaw might not be a flaw *in practice* because we can use
pragmatist spirit quite freely with Cards to enforce what feels right, hrm.)

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 11:26 PM, Kerim Aydin 
wrote:

>
>
> So it's regulated.  And, as you say in your original post, many of us can't
> consider the pledge broken *and have that consideration have legal effect*.
> But the Referee CAN, because there's a mechanism for em to do so (Carding
> as a form of recognition).  Maybe I'm missing the issue?
>
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > Yes I agree with that, but due to that, it still describes a success
> case. With this example I hope its more clear:
> >
> > Imagine we didn't have R7866 as it is now., and I post:
> >
> > "I pledge will give Bob 1 shiny after he gives me an Estate."
> >
> > Then he gives me an Estate.
> > And 3 weeks pass, and I still haven't paid Bob. Could've it have been
> (legally) considered that I have broken my pledge? No, because the
> timeframe where I could do it is still active. It' still
> > "after he gives me an Estate".
> >
> > But! With the new rule - you now can! After those three weeks, by virtue
> of R7866, " A pledge may be considered broken if the pledger does not
> complete it in a timely manner after it becomes
> > possible to do so", I've broken my pledge. That new sentence allows the
> success of an otherwise unsuccessful action, by describing a condition
> where such an action (such a consideration) would
> > succeed.
> >
> > Therefore, I believe that it is regulated.
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >   On Tue, 18 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> >   > Ah, oh well. No thoughtcrime then lol (would'be been bizarre but
> super cool though).
> >   > Just the original loophole then, I assume, because "legal
> consideration" is all it
> >   > takes to dodge legal consequences. (No flaws in the "at the
> moment" argument? All
> >   > cool?)
> >
> > Using some legal common sense, the phrase "may be considered broken", if
> we use
> > it as MAY, means the rules gives legal permission for people to consider
> the
> > pledge broken.
> >
> > How do we do so?  Well, we MAY "recognize" that a pledge, and therefore
> a rule, has
> > been broken.  ("recognize:  acknowledge the existence, validity, or
> legality of.")
> >
> > Which means that one then MAY apply a card, which is, in fact, "a
> recognition
> > of a specific violation of the rules".  (So this makes it LEGAL to apply
> a Card
> > for a broken pledge; other rules limit mechanisms that make it POSSIBLE
> to the
> > Referee).
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

In my view, it is always accepted if it is a greater player (remember, not
decoration) and/or is not actively spam.
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 16:20 Cuddle Beam  wrote:

>  Anyone else could create that value, even if we don't know they're
> someone skilled in doing it.  -> *Anyone else skillful enough could
> create that value, even if we don't know they're someone with that skill.
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 10:17 PM, Cuddle Beam 
> wrote:
>
>> Yes, that's also what I dislike lol."Content of the game action" thing.
>> If someone entirely anonymous posted Kerim's action and I consider it
>> interesting (even better if others consider it interesting), I'd contribute
>> with my fraction to "game custom" with that I consider that it should be
>> "acceptable". Whether Kerim posted it or not makes me more prone to
>> actually reading it or not, but not more or less "acceptable" in my view.
>>
>> If someone who has engaged a lot posts something obnoxious, should it be
>> "game customary" to accept it because they're someone who has engaged?
>> If someone out of the total blue posts something that is actually
>> interesting, should it be "game customary" to not accept it because they're
>> someone who hasn't engaged?
>>
>> Basically, Kerim's contributions have value because Kerim is someone
>> skillful in creating value and happened to decide to create that value, not
>> because Kerim is that person we know to be Kerim. That's useful for
>> presumptions, but not for actual conclusions about the value of the content
>> itself imo. Anyone else could create that value, even if we don't know
>> they're someone skilled in doing it.
>>
>> But the consequences of me believing that and you that other might
>> actually never result in anything too different between us in practice and
>> I believe we'll act similarly anyway despite different basis so meh I
>> shouldn't argue more lol.
>>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer attempts a stick-up.

[Kerim Aydin]

On Tue, 18 Jul 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> I’ll note that it’s not obvious that Rule 101 (“The Game of Agora”) can be 
> broken. 
> The relevant clause is:
> 
> > **Please** treat Agora Right Good Forever.
> 
> (Emphasis mine.)
> 
> However, game tradition takes this “Please” as a constraint, and not a polite 
> request, and I abide by that tradition.

The "Please" is covered nicely by ais523 in CFJ 1945:
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1945

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer attempts a stick-up.

[Owen Jacobson]

On Jul 9, 2017, at 9:50 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:

> I point my finger at CB for failure to treat Agora Right Good Forever.
> 
> I previously deregistered because I thought my explosive response to CB
> was my own issue, that e needed time to adjust, and I needed time to
> cool off. But I'm now convinced that's not the case. Everything CB does
> disrespects the time, effort, and feelings of every other player.
> 
> I challenge people who are on the fence about this to point to a single
> time that CB has considered other players, or done necessary work, or
> done anything at all to make the game better or more enjoyable to anyone
> but emself.

I’ll note that it’s not obvious that Rule 101 (“The Game of Agora”) can be 
broken. The relevant clause is:

> **Please** treat Agora Right Good Forever.

(Emphasis mine.)

However, game tradition takes this “Please” as a constraint, and not a polite 
request, and I abide by that tradition.

CFJ 3383 provides strong guidance on interpreting r. 101. Fool allegedly 
violated r. 101 by purporting to deregister all other players, and by 
subsequently locking them out of the game. GUILTY on judgement, unresolved on 
appeal, and apparently still assigned to Walker, woggle, and Wooble. (Right 
Honourable Arbitor, you may wish to resolve this.)

The Honourable Judge Ienpw III found against Fool on this basis, cited from CFJ 
3107:

> I would say that the test on whether an act violates the "right good forever" 
> clause is whether the act is BOTH (a) truly ethically, and morally repugnant, 
> or against the spirit of nomic as a whole and (b) something that the actor 
> has maliciously foreseen could lead directly and immediately to Agora's 
> effective and irrecoverable demise as a nomic.

This is an extremely high bar. While Cuddlebeam has been the object of broad 
reproach, I remain unconvinced either that eir poor conduct is ethically and 
morally repugnant, or that it is so extreme as to foreseeably lead directly and 
immediately to Agora’s demise as a nomic.

Extensive use - some might even say abuse - of the Call for Judgement system to 
test abstruse philosophical matters, rather than to resolve bona fide gameplay 
disagreements, will inevitably have a chilling effect on playing Agora. So will 
attempting to perform actions clearly contrary to the spirit of the rules, 
using frankly perverse interpretations of those rules. If players cannot be 
sure that the rules mean what they appear to mean, and if gameplay is delayed 
to account for the positioning of angels on pinheads rather than to determine 
how to apply the rules to situations actually before us, eventually, play will 
be too onerous for all but the most determined player.

However, the chilling effect of these actions is neither immediate nor direct, 
and it does not inevitably lead to the demise of Agora or to its conversion to 
a non-nomic. I believe a resolution to these issues lies within reach of the 
current rule-making system, and need not be achieved through Cards.

Accordingly, I find this finger-pointing to be Shenanigans.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3540 assigned to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

[Kerim Aydin]

On Tue, 18 Jul 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> (Note: there's been a lot of followup discussion in a-d, but I assume
> that PSS is aware of it as e favoured the case and thus it doesn't need
> to be repeated here.)

None of that discussion so far is about the case itself, just meta-stuff
about me calling the case...

Re: DIS: humble agoran farmer doesn't break a pledge

[Kerim Aydin]

So it's regulated.  And, as you say in your original post, many of us can't 
consider the pledge broken *and have that consideration have legal effect*.
But the Referee CAN, because there's a mechanism for em to do so (Carding
as a form of recognition).  Maybe I'm missing the issue?

On Tue, 18 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Yes I agree with that, but due to that, it still describes a success case. 
> With this example I hope its more clear:
> 
> Imagine we didn't have R7866 as it is now., and I post:
> 
> "I pledge will give Bob 1 shiny after he gives me an Estate."
> 
> Then he gives me an Estate.
> And 3 weeks pass, and I still haven't paid Bob. Could've it have been 
> (legally) considered that I have broken my pledge? No, because the timeframe 
> where I could do it is still active. It' still
> "after he gives me an Estate".
> 
> But! With the new rule - you now can! After those three weeks, by virtue of 
> R7866, " A pledge may be considered broken if the pledger does not complete 
> it in a timely manner after it becomes
> possible to do so", I've broken my pledge. That new sentence allows the 
> success of an otherwise unsuccessful action, by describing a condition where 
> such an action (such a consideration) would
> succeed.
> 
> Therefore, I believe that it is regulated.
> 
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>   On Tue, 18 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>   > Ah, oh well. No thoughtcrime then lol (would'be been bizarre but 
> super cool though).
>   > Just the original loophole then, I assume, because "legal 
> consideration" is all it
>   > takes to dodge legal consequences. (No flaws in the "at the moment" 
> argument? All
>   > cool?)
> 
> Using some legal common sense, the phrase "may be considered broken", if we 
> use
> it as MAY, means the rules gives legal permission for people to consider the
> pledge broken.
> 
> How do we do so?  Well, we MAY "recognize" that a pledge, and therefore a 
> rule, has
> been broken.  ("recognize:  acknowledge the existence, validity, or legality 
> of.")
> 
> Which means that one then MAY apply a card, which is, in fact, "a recognition
> of a specific violation of the rules".  (So this makes it LEGAL to apply a 
> Card
> for a broken pledge; other rules limit mechanisms that make it POSSIBLE to the
> Referee).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Re: DIS: humble agoran farmer doesn't break a pledge

[Cuddle Beam]

Yes I agree with that, but due to that, it still describes a success case.
With this example I hope its more clear:

Imagine we didn't have R7866 as it is now., and I post:

"I pledge will give Bob 1 shiny after he gives me an Estate."

Then he gives me an Estate.
And 3 weeks pass, and I still haven't paid Bob. Could've it have been
(legally) considered that I have broken my pledge? No, because the
timeframe where I could do it is still active. It' still "after he gives me
an Estate".

But! With the new rule - you now can! After those three weeks, by
virtue of R7866,
" A pledge may be considered broken if the pledger does not complete it in
a timely manner after it becomes possible to do so", I've broken my pledge.
That new sentence allows the success of an otherwise unsuccessful action,
by describing a condition where such an action (such a consideration) would
succeed.

Therefore, I believe that it is regulated.

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
>
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > Ah, oh well. No thoughtcrime then lol (would'be been bizarre but super
> cool though).
> > Just the original loophole then, I assume, because "legal consideration"
> is all it
> > takes to dodge legal consequences. (No flaws in the "at the moment"
> argument? All
> > cool?)
>
> Using some legal common sense, the phrase "may be considered broken", if
> we use
> it as MAY, means the rules gives legal permission for people to consider
> the
> pledge broken.
>
> How do we do so?  Well, we MAY "recognize" that a pledge, and therefore a
> rule, has
> been broken.  ("recognize:  acknowledge the existence, validity, or
> legality of.")
>
> Which means that one then MAY apply a card, which is, in fact, "a
> recognition
> of a specific violation of the rules".  (So this makes it LEGAL to apply a
> Card
> for a broken pledge; other rules limit mechanisms that make it POSSIBLE to
> the
> Referee).
>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Cuddle Beam]

 Anyone else could create that value, even if we don't know they're someone
skilled in doing it.  -> *Anyone else skillful enough could create that
value, even if we don't know they're someone with that skill.


On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 10:17 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:

> Yes, that's also what I dislike lol."Content of the game action" thing. If
> someone entirely anonymous posted Kerim's action and I consider it
> interesting (even better if others consider it interesting), I'd contribute
> with my fraction to "game custom" with that I consider that it should be
> "acceptable". Whether Kerim posted it or not makes me more prone to
> actually reading it or not, but not more or less "acceptable" in my view.
>
> If someone who has engaged a lot posts something obnoxious, should it be
> "game customary" to accept it because they're someone who has engaged?
> If someone out of the total blue posts something that is actually
> interesting, should it be "game customary" to not accept it because they're
> someone who hasn't engaged?
>
> Basically, Kerim's contributions have value because Kerim is someone
> skillful in creating value and happened to decide to create that value, not
> because Kerim is that person we know to be Kerim. That's useful for
> presumptions, but not for actual conclusions about the value of the content
> itself imo. Anyone else could create that value, even if we don't know
> they're someone skilled in doing it.
>
> But the consequences of me believing that and you that other might
> actually never result in anything too different between us in practice and
> I believe we'll act similarly anyway despite different basis so meh I
> shouldn't argue more lol.
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Cuddle Beam]

Yes, that's also what I dislike lol."Content of the game action" thing. If
someone entirely anonymous posted Kerim's action and I consider it
interesting (even better if others consider it interesting), I'd contribute
with my fraction to "game custom" with that I consider that it should be
"acceptable". Whether Kerim posted it or not makes me more prone to
actually reading it or not, but not more or less "acceptable" in my view.

If someone who has engaged a lot posts something obnoxious, should it be
"game customary" to accept it because they're someone who has engaged?
If someone out of the total blue posts something that is actually
interesting, should it be "game customary" to not accept it because they're
someone who hasn't engaged?

Basically, Kerim's contributions have value because Kerim is someone
skillful in creating value and happened to decide to create that value, not
because Kerim is that person we know to be Kerim. That's useful for
presumptions, but not for actual conclusions about the value of the content
itself imo. Anyone else could create that value, even if we don't know
they're someone skilled in doing it.

But the consequences of me believing that and you that other might actually
never result in anything too different between us in practice and I believe
we'll act similarly anyway despite different basis so meh I shouldn't argue
more lol.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Kerim Aydin]

On Tue, 18 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> For me, if Kerim (or anyone else) can contribute with CFJs which are 
> fruitful, 
> then game custom should accept it regardless of prior titles/merits (those 
> being 
> relevant, but just for an individual personal pre-scanning process). The 
> content 
> of the CFJ/game action should merit it being game custom acceptable or not, 
> not who 
> did it. In my opinion.
> 
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
>  wrote:
>   I would argue that non-players who are greater players are given that 
> right by game custom.


It's not just game custom, it's an explicit right for all persons due to R217:

  Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, any rule change that
  would (1) prevent a person from initiating a formal process to
  resolve matters of controversy, in the reasonable expectation
  that the controversy will thereby be resolved; or (2) prevent a
  person from causing formal reconsideration of any judicial
  determination that e should be punished, is wholly void and
  without effect.

The primary justification for allowing non-players to CFJ is, if they couldn't, 
it would be possible to silence people by deregistering them (there have been
deregistration scams in the past).  This could also apply to brand-new players
whose registration method is questionable.

We also keep it completely open is that non-player CFJs have never been much of
an added burden from anyone (regardless of "decoration"), and saying 
"non-players
can only CFJ on their playerhood" would add a layer of meta-CFJs I'm sure.  And
as long as it's not a burden, it feels good to have it written in as a right.

If it becomes a burden ever, the easiest solution would be to allow the Arbitor
the option to refuse or not refuse any non-player case the way e can refuse
excess cases.  This doesn't break the R217 right, necessarily, as it would be
part of the "formal process".  But it might break the right if it were abused
(as there would be no "reasonable expectation" of resolution), so the more you
allow such expedition, the more you need a Justiciar or other method as backup.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

That isn't what I meant by "greater players". I meant greater players in a
sense of including watchers and others who engage or have engaged.
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 15:45 Cuddle Beam  wrote:

> I agree with that it's great to have Kerim add CFJs but I massively
> dislike that "greater players" argument for it.
>
> If anyone else much decorated than Kerim posted Kerim's CFJs in the same
> way, would that be wrong?
>
> For me, if Kerim (or anyone else) can contribute with CFJs which are
> fruitful, then game custom should accept it regardless of prior
> titles/merits (those being relevant, but just for an individual personal
> pre-scanning process). The content of the CFJ/game action should merit it
> being game custom acceptable or not, not who did it. In my opinion.
>
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I would argue that non-players who are greater players are given that
>> right by game custom.
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 15:28 Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, 18 Jul 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
>>> > Interestingly, I observed that the arbitor may accept excess cases and
>>> then
>>> > a non-player with the help of the arbitor could have no limit on CFJs
>>> as
>>> > the SHALL NOT does not apply to them.
>>>
>>> I shall try to contain the heady rush of power that this gives me.
>>>
>>> On a serious note, a small point worth noting is that while some "rights"
>>> apply to all persons, non-players are explicitly excluded from the right
>>> of
>>> participation in the fora (R478).  This is a conscious nod to the need
>>> for
>>> spam filters, but it also means that the ultimate punishment of forum-
>>> banning is available at need.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>

Re: DIS: humble agoran farmer doesn't break a pledge

[Kerim Aydin]

On Tue, 18 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Ah, oh well. No thoughtcrime then lol (would'be been bizarre but super cool 
> though). 
> Just the original loophole then, I assume, because "legal consideration" is 
> all it 
> takes to dodge legal consequences. (No flaws in the "at the moment" argument? 
> All
> cool?)

Using some legal common sense, the phrase "may be considered broken", if we use
it as MAY, means the rules gives legal permission for people to consider the
pledge broken.

How do we do so?  Well, we MAY "recognize" that a pledge, and therefore a rule, 
has
been broken.  ("recognize:  acknowledge the existence, validity, or legality 
of.")

Which means that one then MAY apply a card, which is, in fact, "a recognition
of a specific violation of the rules".  (So this makes it LEGAL to apply a Card
for a broken pledge; other rules limit mechanisms that make it POSSIBLE to the
Referee).

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Cuddle Beam]

I agree with that it's great to have Kerim add CFJs but I massively dislike
that "greater players" argument for it.

If anyone else much decorated than Kerim posted Kerim's CFJs in the same
way, would that be wrong?

For me, if Kerim (or anyone else) can contribute with CFJs which are
fruitful, then game custom should accept it regardless of prior
titles/merits (those being relevant, but just for an individual personal
pre-scanning process). The content of the CFJ/game action should merit it
being game custom acceptable or not, not who did it. In my opinion.

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I would argue that non-players who are greater players are given that
> right by game custom.
>
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 15:28 Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 18 Jul 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
>> > Interestingly, I observed that the arbitor may accept excess cases and
>> then
>> > a non-player with the help of the arbitor could have no limit on CFJs as
>> > the SHALL NOT does not apply to them.
>>
>> I shall try to contain the heady rush of power that this gives me.
>>
>> On a serious note, a small point worth noting is that while some "rights"
>> apply to all persons, non-players are explicitly excluded from the right
>> of
>> participation in the fora (R478).  This is a conscious nod to the need for
>> spam filters, but it also means that the ultimate punishment of forum-
>> banning is available at need.
>>
>>
>>
>>

DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Cuddle Beam]

I present the following as a gratuitous argument to that CFJ, which is 16
characters in length and with the following SHA-1 hash:

- 585b7880ef0394acb586274ba623ecd0232fbdc2

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> I hereby pledge to perform as specified in a document 82 characters in
> length with the following SHA-1 hash:
>   0ed8c48c11070dfa911ff4b6e465a999cc7cc4a1
>
>
>
> I call the following CFJ:
>   The message quoted in Evidence has created a publicly-made pledge.
>
>
> Arguments
>
> I'm wondering the extent to which the current pledge mechanism can be
> used to form private but enforceable contracts.  Do the full details of
> the pledge need to be known for it to be "public"?  Or is it enough to
> make a public announcement that a pledge has been made?
>
> Obviously, no punishment can be applied unless the text becomes known to
> the Referee or other carding authority.  It would be great if the judge
> could explore different possibilities; e.g. what happens if the plaintext
> becomes known to the Referee?  What if the plaintext is made public after
> the fact, by someone alleging the pledge has been broken?
>
> I'm not a player, but if there's a difference between the player and non-
> player case, hopefully the judge can also opine on the differences and say
> what would happen if the above pledge were made by a player.  (Obviously
> non-players can't be punished as the rule is written, but there's nothing
> to say they can't make pledges).
>
>
> Evidence
>
> > I hereby pledge to perform as specified in a document 82 characters in
> > length with the following SHA-1 hash:
> >   0ed8c48c11070dfa911ff4b6e465a999cc7cc4a1
>
>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I would argue that non-players who are greater players are given that right
by game custom.
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 15:28 Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> > Interestingly, I observed that the arbitor may accept excess cases and
> then
> > a non-player with the help of the arbitor could have no limit on CFJs as
> > the SHALL NOT does not apply to them.
>
> I shall try to contain the heady rush of power that this gives me.
>
> On a serious note, a small point worth noting is that while some "rights"
> apply to all persons, non-players are explicitly excluded from the right of
> participation in the fora (R478).  This is a conscious nod to the need for
> spam filters, but it also means that the ultimate punishment of forum-
> banning is available at need.
>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: humble agoran farmer doesn't break a pledge

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

You are interpreting it as at that moment it may be considered broken, but
I more logical and common interpretation would be that it may be considered
broken at that moment or more specifically it may be considered to have
been broken at that moment.
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 15:26 Cuddle Beam  wrote:

> How doesn't it hold up?
>
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 9:23 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> No, the at the moment argument doesn’t hold up, I just felt that G. had
>> made that point. It is poorly worded, but still effective.
>> 
>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jul 18, 2017, at 3:20 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
>> >
>> > Ah, oh well. No thoughtcrime then lol (would'be been bizarre but super
>> cool though). Just the original loophole then, I assume, because "legal
>> consideration" is all it takes to dodge legal consequences. (No flaws in
>> the "at the moment" argument? All cool?)
>>
>>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Kerim Aydin]

On Tue, 18 Jul 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> Interestingly, I observed that the arbitor may accept excess cases and then
> a non-player with the help of the arbitor could have no limit on CFJs as
> the SHALL NOT does not apply to them.

I shall try to contain the heady rush of power that this gives me.

On a serious note, a small point worth noting is that while some "rights"
apply to all persons, non-players are explicitly excluded from the right of
participation in the fora (R478).  This is a conscious nod to the need for
spam filters, but it also means that the ultimate punishment of forum-
banning is available at need.

Re: DIS: humble agoran farmer doesn't break a pledge

[Cuddle Beam]

How doesn't it hold up?

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 9:23 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> No, the at the moment argument doesn’t hold up, I just felt that G. had
> made that point. It is poorly worded, but still effective.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> > On Jul 18, 2017, at 3:20 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> >
> > Ah, oh well. No thoughtcrime then lol (would'be been bizarre but super
> cool though). Just the original loophole then, I assume, because "legal
> consideration" is all it takes to dodge legal consequences. (No flaws in
> the "at the moment" argument? All cool?)
>
>

Re: DIS: humble agoran farmer doesn't break a pledge

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

No, the at the moment argument doesn’t hold up, I just felt that G. had made 
that point. It is poorly worded, but still effective.

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



> On Jul 18, 2017, at 3:20 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> 
> Ah, oh well. No thoughtcrime then lol (would'be been bizarre but super cool 
> though). Just the original loophole then, I assume, because "legal 
> consideration" is all it takes to dodge legal consequences. (No flaws in the 
> "at the moment" argument? All cool?)



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: DIS: humble agoran farmer doesn't break a pledge

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 2:21 PM, grok (caleb vines)  wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
>> Ah, oh well. No thoughtcrime then lol (would'be been bizarre but super cool
>> though). Just the original loophole then, I assume, because "legal
>> consideration" is all it takes to dodge legal consequences. (No flaws in the
>> "at the moment" argument? All cool?)
>
>
> is this a withdrawl of your CFJ and/or admission you broke your pledge
> to not post the string "ice cream"?
>
>
> -grok


lol nvm this is in DIS.


-grok

Re: DIS: humble agoran farmer doesn't break a pledge

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> Ah, oh well. No thoughtcrime then lol (would'be been bizarre but super cool
> though). Just the original loophole then, I assume, because "legal
> consideration" is all it takes to dodge legal consequences. (No flaws in the
> "at the moment" argument? All cool?)


is this a withdrawl of your CFJ and/or admission you broke your pledge
to not post the string "ice cream"?


-grok

Re: DIS: humble agoran farmer doesn't break a pledge

[Cuddle Beam]

Ah, oh well. No thoughtcrime then lol (would'be been bizarre but super cool
though). Just the original loophole then, I assume, because "legal
consideration" is all it takes to dodge legal consequences. (No flaws in
the "at the moment" argument? All cool?)

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Interestingly, I observed that the arbitor may accept excess cases and then a 
non-player with the help of the arbitor could have no limit on CFJs as the 
SHALL NOT does not apply to them.

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



> On Jul 18, 2017, at 3:10 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
>  wrote:
> 
> I favor this CFJ.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> 
> 
> 
>> On Jul 18, 2017, at 3:05 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I hereby pledge to perform as specified in a document 82 characters in
>> length with the following SHA-1 hash:
>> 0ed8c48c11070dfa911ff4b6e465a999cc7cc4a1
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I call the following CFJ:
>> The message quoted in Evidence has created a publicly-made pledge.
>> 
>> 
>> Arguments
>> 
>> I'm wondering the extent to which the current pledge mechanism can be
>> used to form private but enforceable contracts.  Do the full details of
>> the pledge need to be known for it to be "public"?  Or is it enough to
>> make a public announcement that a pledge has been made?
>> 
>> Obviously, no punishment can be applied unless the text becomes known to
>> the Referee or other carding authority.  It would be great if the judge
>> could explore different possibilities; e.g. what happens if the plaintext
>> becomes known to the Referee?  What if the plaintext is made public after
>> the fact, by someone alleging the pledge has been broken?
>> 
>> I'm not a player, but if there's a difference between the player and non-
>> player case, hopefully the judge can also opine on the differences and say
>> what would happen if the above pledge were made by a player.  (Obviously
>> non-players can't be punished as the rule is written, but there's nothing
>> to say they can't make pledges).
>> 
>> 
>> Evidence
>> 
>>> I hereby pledge to perform as specified in a document 82 characters in
>>> length with the following SHA-1 hash:
>>> 0ed8c48c11070dfa911ff4b6e465a999cc7cc4a1
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I favor this CFJ.

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



> On Jul 18, 2017, at 3:05 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> I hereby pledge to perform as specified in a document 82 characters in
> length with the following SHA-1 hash:
>  0ed8c48c11070dfa911ff4b6e465a999cc7cc4a1
> 
> 
> 
> I call the following CFJ:
>  The message quoted in Evidence has created a publicly-made pledge.
> 
> 
> Arguments
> 
> I'm wondering the extent to which the current pledge mechanism can be
> used to form private but enforceable contracts.  Do the full details of
> the pledge need to be known for it to be "public"?  Or is it enough to
> make a public announcement that a pledge has been made?
> 
> Obviously, no punishment can be applied unless the text becomes known to
> the Referee or other carding authority.  It would be great if the judge
> could explore different possibilities; e.g. what happens if the plaintext
> becomes known to the Referee?  What if the plaintext is made public after
> the fact, by someone alleging the pledge has been broken?
> 
> I'm not a player, but if there's a difference between the player and non-
> player case, hopefully the judge can also opine on the differences and say
> what would happen if the above pledge were made by a player.  (Obviously
> non-players can't be punished as the rule is written, but there's nothing
> to say they can't make pledges).
> 
> 
> Evidence
> 
>> I hereby pledge to perform as specified in a document 82 characters in
>> length with the following SHA-1 hash:
>>  0ed8c48c11070dfa911ff4b6e465a999cc7cc4a1
> 
> 
> 
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: DIS: humble agoran farmer doesn't break a pledge

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I believe this is two different uses of the term. The form used by G. is an 
active verb equivalent to “to believe”, while the form in the rules is stating 
when a status has changed and it may be considered for legal purposes broken.

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



> On Jul 18, 2017, at 2:45 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> 
> - "Considering a pledge to be broken" is a regulated action, because R7866 
> now describes how it succeeds:
> 
>  And R2125: "(2) describe the circumstances under which the action would 
> succeed or fail" (assuming that the use of "or" there means that its 
> "describe the circumstances under which the action would succeed" or 
> "describe the circumstances under which the action would fail", one or the 
> other or both).
> 
> R7866 got recently changed here: 
> http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg08145.html to 
> read in full:
> 
>   "A player SHALL NOT break eir own publicly-made pledges.
> 
>   A pledge may be considered broken if the pledger does not complete it
>   in a timely manner after it becomes possible to do so. A pledge may be
>   considered broken at the moment the pledger engages in conduct
>   proscribed by that pledge."
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 8:42 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
>  wrote:
> Where in the rules is this regulated?
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> 
> 
> 
> > On Jul 18, 2017, at 2:41 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> >
> > True, but are you *considering it to be broken*? If so, you actually can't 
> > do that. Considering it to be broken or not is regulated.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 8:35 PM, Alex Smith  
> > wrote:
> > On Tue, 2017-07-18 at 20:33 +0200, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > > Proto actions:
> > >
> > > - "I pledge to not post the string "ice cream"
> > >
> > > - "ice cream"
> > >
> > > - Shortly after that, post "I CFJ: "I've NOT broken my most recent
> > > pledge""
> > >
> > > Gratuitous Arguments:
> > >
> > > - R7866 "A pledge may be considered broken *at the moment* the pledger
> > > engages in conduct proscribed by that pledge."
> >
> > Pledges don't become un-broken after becoming broken (this is how
> > normal use of the English language works); if the pledge becomes
> > broken, it then remains broken.
> >
> > The wording of your CFJ implies this; expanding out the contraction we
> > get "I have not broken my most recent pledge", rather than "My most
> > recent pledge is not broken" (which would be a rather tortured use of
> > grammar).
> >
> > --
> > ais523
> >
> 
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: DIS: humble agoran farmer doesn't break a pledge

[Cuddle Beam]

- "Considering a pledge to be broken" is a regulated action, because R7866
now describes how it succeeds:

And R2125: "(2) describe the circumstances under which the action would
succeed or fail" (assuming that the use of "or" there means that its "describe
the circumstances under which the action would succeed" or "describe the
circumstances under which the action would fail", one or the other or both).

R7866 got recently changed here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg08145.html to
read in full:

  "A player SHALL NOT break eir own publicly-made pledges.

  A pledge may be considered broken if the pledger does not complete it
  in a timely manner after it becomes possible to do so. A pledge may be
  considered broken at the moment the pledger engages in conduct
  proscribed by that pledge."


On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 8:42 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Where in the rules is this regulated?
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> > On Jul 18, 2017, at 2:41 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> >
> > True, but are you *considering it to be broken*? If so, you actually
> can't do that. Considering it to be broken or not is regulated.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 8:35 PM, Alex Smith 
> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2017-07-18 at 20:33 +0200, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > > Proto actions:
> > >
> > > - "I pledge to not post the string "ice cream"
> > >
> > > - "ice cream"
> > >
> > > - Shortly after that, post "I CFJ: "I've NOT broken my most recent
> > > pledge""
> > >
> > > Gratuitous Arguments:
> > >
> > > - R7866 "A pledge may be considered broken *at the moment* the pledger
> > > engages in conduct proscribed by that pledge."
> >
> > Pledges don't become un-broken after becoming broken (this is how
> > normal use of the English language works); if the pledge becomes
> > broken, it then remains broken.
> >
> > The wording of your CFJ implies this; expanding out the contraction we
> > get "I have not broken my most recent pledge", rather than "My most
> > recent pledge is not broken" (which would be a rather tortured use of
> > grammar).
> >
> > --
> > ais523
> >
>
>

Re: DIS: humble agoran farmer doesn't break a pledge

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Where in the rules is this regulated?

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



> On Jul 18, 2017, at 2:41 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> 
> True, but are you *considering it to be broken*? If so, you actually can't do 
> that. Considering it to be broken or not is regulated.
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 8:35 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-07-18 at 20:33 +0200, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > Proto actions:
> >
> > - "I pledge to not post the string "ice cream"
> >
> > - "ice cream"
> >
> > - Shortly after that, post "I CFJ: "I've NOT broken my most recent
> > pledge""
> >
> > Gratuitous Arguments:
> >
> > - R7866 "A pledge may be considered broken *at the moment* the pledger
> > engages in conduct proscribed by that pledge."
> 
> Pledges don't become un-broken after becoming broken (this is how
> normal use of the English language works); if the pledge becomes
> broken, it then remains broken.
> 
> The wording of your CFJ implies this; expanding out the contraction we
> get "I have not broken my most recent pledge", rather than "My most
> recent pledge is not broken" (which would be a rather tortured use of
> grammar).
> 
> --
> ais523
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: DIS: humble agoran farmer doesn't break a pledge

[Cuddle Beam]

True, but are you *considering it to be broken*? If so, you actually can't
do that. Considering it to be broken or not is regulated.



On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 8:35 PM, Alex Smith 
wrote:

> On Tue, 2017-07-18 at 20:33 +0200, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > Proto actions:
> >
> > - "I pledge to not post the string "ice cream"
> >
> > - "ice cream"
> >
> > - Shortly after that, post "I CFJ: "I've NOT broken my most recent
> > pledge""
> >
> > Gratuitous Arguments:
> >
> > - R7866 "A pledge may be considered broken *at the moment* the pledger
> > engages in conduct proscribed by that pledge."
>
> Pledges don't become un-broken after becoming broken (this is how
> normal use of the English language works); if the pledge becomes
> broken, it then remains broken.
>
> The wording of your CFJ implies this; expanding out the contraction we
> get "I have not broken my most recent pledge", rather than "My most
> recent pledge is not broken" (which would be a rather tortured use of
> grammar).
>
> --
> ais523
>

Re: DIS: humble agoran farmer doesn't break a pledge

[Alex Smith]

On Tue, 2017-07-18 at 20:33 +0200, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Proto actions:
> 
> - "I pledge to not post the string "ice cream"
> 
> - "ice cream"
> 
> - Shortly after that, post "I CFJ: "I've NOT broken my most recent
> pledge""
> 
> Gratuitous Arguments:
> 
> - R7866 "A pledge may be considered broken *at the moment* the pledger
> engages in conduct proscribed by that pledge."

Pledges don't become un-broken after becoming broken (this is how
normal use of the English language works); if the pledge becomes
broken, it then remains broken.

The wording of your CFJ implies this; expanding out the contraction we
get "I have not broken my most recent pledge", rather than "My most
recent pledge is not broken" (which would be a rather tortured use of
grammar).

-- 
ais523

DIS: humble agoran farmer doesn't break a pledge

[Cuddle Beam]

Proto actions:

- "I pledge to not post the string "ice cream"

- "ice cream"

- Shortly after that, post "I CFJ: "I've NOT broken my most recent pledge""

Gratuitous Arguments:

- R7866 "A pledge may be considered broken *at the moment* the pledger
engages in conduct proscribed by that pledge."
- We are no longer at that moment.
- My pledge may not be considered broken by the quoted text.
- The other part. "A pledge may be considered broken if the pledger does
not complete it in a timely manner after it becomes possible to do so."
does not apply because there's nothing to actually do (rather, it's the
avoidance of a certain doing).
- Considering a pledge to be broken is a regulated action, because R7866
now describes how it succeeds (R2125: "(2) describe the circumstances under
which the action would succeed or fail", assuming that the use of "or"
there is used the same as the or in the (1), (2) or (3) listed there).
- "Regulated Actions CAN only be performed as described by the Rules"
- You can't consider my pledge to have been broken via the conditions
listed in R7866.
- Ergo, I have not broken my pledge

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Payment

[Josh T]

Well. I suppose a nickel's worth of Shiny rounds to zero at that exchange
rate.

天火狐

On 18 July 2017 at 06:15, Cuddle Beam  wrote:

> Bam. Paid.
>
> [image: Inline image 1]
>
> (I don't think I should reveal any more, given that there's quite a bit of
> private data here, but this should do. 20 bucks sent.)
>
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 8:22 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>
>> I pay Cuddlebeam 1 Shiny. (Cuddlebeam: contact me off-list if your pledge
>> follows the most obvious interpretation. This isn’t the email associated
>> with my Paypal account.)
>>
>> -o
>>
>> On Jul 18, 2017, at 2:15 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
>>
>> I present the following as gratuitous argument to that CFJ (which is also
>> a pledge):
>>
>> - I pledge to pay 20 USD (to be transferred by Paypal) for a shiny.
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 4:03 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 16, 2017, at 6:58 PM, Quazie  wrote:
>>>
>>> > I pay nichdel a nickel's worth of shinies for taking over as Assessor.
>>>
>>> I CFJ on the statement “A nickle’s worth of shinies is exactly 5
>>> shinies.”
>>>
>>> -o
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Payment

[Cuddle Beam]

Bam. Paid.

[image: Inline image 1]

(I don't think I should reveal any more, given that there's quite a bit of
private data here, but this should do. 20 bucks sent.)

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 8:22 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

> I pay Cuddlebeam 1 Shiny. (Cuddlebeam: contact me off-list if your pledge
> follows the most obvious interpretation. This isn’t the email associated
> with my Paypal account.)
>
> -o
>
> On Jul 18, 2017, at 2:15 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
>
> I present the following as gratuitous argument to that CFJ (which is also
> a pledge):
>
> - I pledge to pay 20 USD (to be transferred by Paypal) for a shiny.
>
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 4:03 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>
>> On Jul 16, 2017, at 6:58 PM, Quazie  wrote:
>>
>> > I pay nichdel a nickel's worth of shinies for taking over as Assessor.
>>
>> I CFJ on the statement “A nickle’s worth of shinies is exactly 5 shinies.”
>>
>> -o
>>
>>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Payment

[Owen Jacobson]

The most reasonable interpretation of that “for” is the colloquial sense, which 
is broadly the same as “in return for.” However, you’re not wrong…

-o

> On Jul 18, 2017, at 2:18 AM, Quazie  wrote:
> 
> You didn't say which shiny... you didn't pledge to pay $20 to the first 
> person that sent you a shiny - I'm unsure what the specifics of this pledge 
> actually are
> 
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 23:15 Cuddle Beam  > wrote:
> I present the following as gratuitous argument to that CFJ (which is also a 
> pledge):
> 
> - I pledge to pay 20 USD (to be transferred by Paypal) for a shiny.
> 
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 4:03 AM, Owen Jacobson  > wrote:
> On Jul 16, 2017, at 6:58 PM, Quazie  > wrote:
> 
> > I pay nichdel a nickel's worth of shinies for taking over as Assessor.
> 
> I CFJ on the statement “A nickle’s worth of shinies is exactly 5 shinies.”
> 
> -o
> 
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

DIS: Re: BUS: Payment

[Quazie]

You didn't say which shiny... you didn't pledge to pay $20 to the first
person that sent you a shiny - I'm unsure what the specifics of this pledge
actually are

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 23:15 Cuddle Beam  wrote:

> I present the following as gratuitous argument to that CFJ (which is also
> a pledge):
>
> - I pledge to pay 20 USD (to be transferred by Paypal) for a shiny.
>
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 4:03 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>
>> On Jul 16, 2017, at 6:58 PM, Quazie  wrote:
>>
>> > I pay nichdel a nickel's worth of shinies for taking over as Assessor.
>>
>> I CFJ on the statement “A nickle’s worth of shinies is exactly 5 shinies.”
>>
>> -o
>>
>>
>