Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 3613 TRUE

[Corona]

Last two weeks' balloons only, the others have expired by now.
Probably still enough to win.

On 12/17/17, Aris Merchant  wrote:
> H. Clork, I believe I am owed several weeks back-balloons.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 3:44 PM Corona  wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 26 Nov 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> > I sh-CFJ "Aris has advised every politician in the row reduced
>> > echelon."
>>
>> I judge CFJ 3613 as TRUE. The caller's arguments are sound, and I have
>> gone through the relevant rules and found nothing contradicting that
>> interpretation. It goes without saying that rule 2536 should be fixed.
>>
>> ~Corona
>>
>> -
>> Caller's Arguments:
>>
>> > The rule "Taken Under Advisement" states that "A player CAN, by
>> > announcement, spend Favours in a Party to gain Influence over that
>> > Politican, depending on the Politician's Echelon". It does not state
>> > clearly that the party must be the same as that of the politician. It
>> > does say "that politician", but it is unclear what "that" means in
>> > this context, and there is certainly no textual basis for assuming
>> > that it means they must be of the same party. Further, the rule states
>> > that the process depends on "depend[s] on the Politician's Echelon",
>> > implying via expressio unius est exclusio alterius that it doesn't
>> > depend on anything else. In short, there is no textual basis for
>> > limiting the action to politicians of the same party as the favors. It
>> > would be reasonable to say that the action fails because its
>> > definition is ambiguous, but this is against the principle that the
>> > statements of the rules must be given effect, insofar as it is
>> > possible.
>>
>>
>> Caller's Evidence (Caller's actions preceding CFJ):
>>
>> On Sun, 26 Nov 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> > I spend 24 NPR favors to gain 16 influence over Mad Cap'n Tom. I advise
>> em.
>> >
>> > I spend 10 NPR favors to gain 10 influence over Politician
>> > McPoliticianface. I advise em.
>> >
>> > I spend 8 NPR favors to gain 12 influence over Mickey Joker. I advise
>> > em. I spend 8 NPR favors to gain 12 influence over Nick P. Ronald. I
>> > advise em.
>> >
>> >
>> > Now for the questionable stuff.
>> >
>> > For each upper echelon politician I have not yet advised, I spend 5
>> > NPR favors to gain 5 influence over em, then advise em.
>> >
>> > For each row echelon politician I have not yet advised, I spend 4 NPR
>> > favors to gain 6 influence over em, then advise em.
>> >
>> > For each row reduced politician, I spend 2 NPR favors to gain 4
>> > influence over em, then advise em.
>>
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 3613 TRUE

[Aris Merchant]

I advised politicians in every echelon. I just CoEd for the ones in the
Row-Reduced Echelon to stop the report from self ratifying. I wasn't sure
that someone hadn't paid more than me for some of the politicians in higher
echelons.

-Aris

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 2:12 AM Madeline  wrote:

> Politicians in the Row-Reduced Echelon are worth no balloons.
>
>
> On 2017-12-18 13:48, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > H. Clork, I believe I am owed several weeks back-balloons.
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 3:44 PM Corona 
> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 26 Nov 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> >>> I sh-CFJ "Aris has advised every politician in the row reduced
> echelon."
> >> I judge CFJ 3613 as TRUE. The caller's arguments are sound, and I have
> >> gone through the relevant rules and found nothing contradicting that
> >> interpretation. It goes without saying that rule 2536 should be fixed.
> >>
> >> ~Corona
> >>
> >> -
> >> Caller's Arguments:
> >>
> >>> The rule "Taken Under Advisement" states that "A player CAN, by
> >>> announcement, spend Favours in a Party to gain Influence over that
> >>> Politican, depending on the Politician's Echelon". It does not state
> >>> clearly that the party must be the same as that of the politician. It
> >>> does say "that politician", but it is unclear what "that" means in
> >>> this context, and there is certainly no textual basis for assuming
> >>> that it means they must be of the same party. Further, the rule states
> >>> that the process depends on "depend[s] on the Politician's Echelon",
> >>> implying via expressio unius est exclusio alterius that it doesn't
> >>> depend on anything else. In short, there is no textual basis for
> >>> limiting the action to politicians of the same party as the favors. It
> >>> would be reasonable to say that the action fails because its
> >>> definition is ambiguous, but this is against the principle that the
> >>> statements of the rules must be given effect, insofar as it is
> >>> possible.
> >>
> >> Caller's Evidence (Caller's actions preceding CFJ):
> >>
> >> On Sun, 26 Nov 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> >>> I spend 24 NPR favors to gain 16 influence over Mad Cap'n Tom. I advise
> >> em.
> >>> I spend 10 NPR favors to gain 10 influence over Politician
> >>> McPoliticianface. I advise em.
> >>>
> >>> I spend 8 NPR favors to gain 12 influence over Mickey Joker. I advise
> >>> em. I spend 8 NPR favors to gain 12 influence over Nick P. Ronald. I
> >>> advise em.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Now for the questionable stuff.
> >>>
> >>> For each upper echelon politician I have not yet advised, I spend 5
> >>> NPR favors to gain 5 influence over em, then advise em.
> >>>
> >>> For each row echelon politician I have not yet advised, I spend 4 NPR
> >>> favors to gain 6 influence over em, then advise em.
> >>>
> >>> For each row reduced politician, I spend 2 NPR favors to gain 4
> >>> influence over em, then advise em.
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Fifty bucks and time served

[David Nicol]

Would whoever is the currently acting treasurer (or equivalent) please
contact me off-list?

Thanks

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 8:17 AM, ATMunn  wrote:

> We currently have no Arbitor, but there is an election going on. I'm sure
> the new Arbitor will honor this and assign CFJs to you (well, unless
> Cuddlebeam gets elected), but they may not keep the same Day/Night/Weekend
> court system.
>
> You could also run for Arbitor yourself.
>
>
> On 12/18/2017 3:14 AM, Edward Murphy wrote:
>
>> I express my interest in judging CFJs (though given past history, don't
>> put me on the Night Court just yet).
>>
>>


-- 
“no man should be compelled to do what the laws do not require; nor to
refrain from acts which the laws permit.” Calder v. Bull (U.S. 1798)

Re: DIS: Fifty bucks and time served

[ATMunn]

We currently have no Arbitor, but there is an election going on. I'm sure the 
new Arbitor will honor this and assign CFJs to you (well, unless Cuddlebeam 
gets elected), but they may not keep the same Day/Night/Weekend court system.

You could also run for Arbitor yourself.

On 12/18/2017 3:14 AM, Edward Murphy wrote:

I express my interest in judging CFJs (though given past history, don't
put me on the Night Court just yet).

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] (Dis)Honorable Agorans

[Madeline]

Yeah, that's totally fine.


On 2017-12-18 11:01, Corona wrote:

I buy 5 Economy (that's a legally acceptable shorthand for "The Party
holding...", right?) favors.
I claim 5sh. reward for my latest Herald report.

On 12/17/17, Corona  wrote:

As Herald I publish the following weekly report:

Court:

KarmaEntity
-
SAMURAI
-
+3   ATMun
+3   o
+3   Alexis
+3   Telnaior
+3   G.
+2   Trigon
+2   Aris
+1   天火狐
+1   Corona
-1   Quazie
-1   omd
-1   Bayushi
-2   ProofTechnique
-2   Murphy
-2   Ienpw III
-2   Gaelan
-4   CuddleBeam
-6   V.J. Rada <-- HONOURLESS WORM
-
GAMMAS
-
KarmaEntity


All other entities have 0 Karma.

---
Notices of Honour:

ATMunn (10 Dec 2017)
-1 ATMunn (doesn't feel that it's fair for em to be shogun)
+1 Corona (for a good first report)

[New Week]

[ Last report 10 Dec 2017]

Corona (28 Nov 2017)
-1 Corona (not giving karma to Alexis instead, intent to bribe)
+1 VJ Rada (has given Corona shinies, balancing eir karma)

o (27 Nov 2017)
-1 o (spending too long at the top of the list)
+1 CuddleBeam (having been duly chastened)

Alexis (27 Nov 2017)
-1 V.J. Rada (generally poor sportsmanship)
+1 Telnaior (stepping up as Clork)

PSS (27 Nov 2017)
-1 V.J. Rada (disrespecting others, the game and sportsmanship)
+1 Aris (encouraging civility)

G. (27 Nov 2017)
-1 V.J. Rada (bad officing)
+1 ATMunn (being a good sport about ribbons)

ATMunn (28 Nov 2017)
-1 V.J. Rada (bad ADoP, bad officer, bad Agoran)
+1 G. (good long-term player who know's what e's doing)

Telnaior (28 Nov 2017)
-1 V.J. Rada (intentionally causing trouble several times)
+1 Corona (cool newbie)

[New Week]

PSS (20 Nov 2017)
-1 nichdel (for inactivity)
+1 ATMunn (for improving upon ADoP report)

[New Week]

ATMunn (16 Nov 2017)
-1 ATMunn (pushing boundaries of karma)
+1 G. (pushing boundaries of karma)

V.J. Rada 15 Nov 2017)
-1 Quazie (for inactivity)
+1 Alexis (innovative timely rulekeepor)

Telnaior (15 Nov 2017)
-1 V.J. Rada (being a contrarian)
+1 Alexis (Telnaior's favourite large proposal)

[New Week]

G. (12 Nov 2017)
-1 天火狐 (for a low-effort newspaper report).
+1 omd (for quick response to Distributor directives).

ATMunn (6 Nov 2017)
-1 ATMunn (for forgetting to state quorum on Decision initiations).
+1 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus (for putting up with such mistakes).


[New Week]


G. (3 Nov 17)
-1 Murphy (for being a near-Zombie).
+1 Alexis (for putting the time into this thesis).

ATMunn (30 Oct 2017)
-1 omd (can't think of anyone else to lose karma and e is inactive).
+1 Trigon (for seeming to do really well so far at publishing rulesets).

Alexis (30 Oct 2017)
-1 Alexis (for introducing such a silly pedantic bug into the ruleset).
+1 ATMunn (for putting up with it).

Telnaior (30 Oct 2017)
-1 CuddleBeam (for attempting to game the karma system).
+1 Aris (for putting in a valiant effort as Promotor during busy period).

V.J. Rada (30 Oct 2017)
-1 Bayushi (for inactivity).
+1 Alexis (for having to judge my stupid cfjs).


[New Week]


Telnaior (29 Oct 2017)
-1 ProofTechnique (for not existing but having more karma than other
inactives).
+1 天火狐 (for creating a very cool contract).

o (27 Oct 17)
-1 CuddleBeam (for generally being contrarian)
+1 G. (for producing a magnificent judgement)

Alexis (25 Oct 17)
-1 CuddleBeam (for objecting to deregistration making karma-sinks)
+1 nichdel (for jumping right back in)

PSS (25 Oct 17)
-1 CuddleBeam (for confusing nichdel and being a contrarian)
+1 天火狐 (for being a fun player and pushing boundaries with language)

Nichdel (25 Oct 17)
-1 PSS (for being a contrarian)
+1 o (for being the best at what e does)

Trigon (25 Oct 17)
-1 Ienpw III (for being inactive)
+1 ATMunn (for being a fantastic active new player)

ATMunn (25 Oct 17)
-1 Ienpw III (for being inactive)
+1 o (for being honest, hardworking and generally awesome player)

Aris (25 Oct 17)
-1 ProofTechnique (for being inactive)
+1 Trigon (for being a new active player)

V.J. Rada (25 Oct 17)
-1 omd (for being inactive)
+1 Telnaior (cool that V.J. Rada brought em back and being clever)

G. (24 Oct 17)
-1 V.J. Rada (making a deputization mess)
+1 o (for being the one to clean up messes)


[New Week]


Telnaior (22 Oct 17)
-1 Gaelan (for slack Rulekeeping)
+1 Alexis (for being helpful)

Alexis (22 Oct 17)
-1 CuddleBeam (for blocking deregistrations of inactives)
+1 Telnaior (for coming back with vigour)

V.J. Rada (22 Oct 17)
-1 Murphy (being inactive)
+1 ATMunn (for being a good player, and proposals)

G. (22 Oct 2017)
-1 V.J. Rada (random choice), +1 ATMunn (good first proposal).


~Corona

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 3613 TRUE

[Madeline]

Politicians in the Row-Reduced Echelon are worth no balloons.


On 2017-12-18 13:48, Aris Merchant wrote:

H. Clork, I believe I am owed several weeks back-balloons.

-Aris

On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 3:44 PM Corona  wrote:


On Sun, 26 Nov 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:

I sh-CFJ "Aris has advised every politician in the row reduced echelon."

I judge CFJ 3613 as TRUE. The caller's arguments are sound, and I have
gone through the relevant rules and found nothing contradicting that
interpretation. It goes without saying that rule 2536 should be fixed.

~Corona

-
Caller's Arguments:


The rule "Taken Under Advisement" states that "A player CAN, by
announcement, spend Favours in a Party to gain Influence over that
Politican, depending on the Politician's Echelon". It does not state
clearly that the party must be the same as that of the politician. It
does say "that politician", but it is unclear what "that" means in
this context, and there is certainly no textual basis for assuming
that it means they must be of the same party. Further, the rule states
that the process depends on "depend[s] on the Politician's Echelon",
implying via expressio unius est exclusio alterius that it doesn't
depend on anything else. In short, there is no textual basis for
limiting the action to politicians of the same party as the favors. It
would be reasonable to say that the action fails because its
definition is ambiguous, but this is against the principle that the
statements of the rules must be given effect, insofar as it is
possible.


Caller's Evidence (Caller's actions preceding CFJ):

On Sun, 26 Nov 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:

I spend 24 NPR favors to gain 16 influence over Mad Cap'n Tom. I advise

em.

I spend 10 NPR favors to gain 10 influence over Politician
McPoliticianface. I advise em.

I spend 8 NPR favors to gain 12 influence over Mickey Joker. I advise
em. I spend 8 NPR favors to gain 12 influence over Nick P. Ronald. I
advise em.


Now for the questionable stuff.

For each upper echelon politician I have not yet advised, I spend 5
NPR favors to gain 5 influence over em, then advise em.

For each row echelon politician I have not yet advised, I spend 4 NPR
favors to gain 6 influence over em, then advise em.

For each row reduced politician, I spend 2 NPR favors to gain 4
influence over em, then advise em.

DIS: Fifty bucks and time served

[Edward Murphy]

I express my interest in judging CFJs (though given past history, don't
put me on the Night Court just yet).