Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8196-8201
On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 at 04:15, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > Your proposal numbers have some off-by-100 errors. Whoops! Revised votes below. > >> IDAuthor(s) AITitle > >> --- > >> 8196 Jason Cobb, Falsifian 1.7 Perfecting pledges (v1.2) I vote AGAINST Proposal 8196. > >> 8197 G. none no power is all powerful If I can vote on Proposal 8197, I vote AGAINST it. I note that the my votes in the rest of the quoted message seem to have had the correct proposal numbers. > >> 8198 Jason Cobb 1.0 Be gone, foul demon! > > I vote FOR Proposal 8198. > > > >> 8199 Jason Cobb 3.0 Fixing instant runoff > > > > I vote AGAINST Proposal 8199. > > > >> 8200 Aris, G. 3.0 Sane AI Defaulting > > > > On Proposal 8200, I vote conditionally: AGAINST if a Notice of Veto has > > been published specifying any provision within Proposal 8200, otherwise > > FOR. > > > >> 8201 Aris 3.0 Just Make Them Write It Out > > > > On Proposal 8201, I vote conditionally: AGAINST if a Notice of Veto has > > been published specifying any provision within Proposal 8201, otherwise > > FOR. > >
DIS: Re: BUS: Mandatory intent to banish the Ritual
On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 at 04:12, Jason Cobb wrote: > Also, was the Ritual performed last week? No, I don't think so.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3753 Assigned to omd
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 9:42 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > So would I face prejudice if I were to open the exact same CFJs again > later once we actually get CHoJ fixed? Fine by me.
Re: DIS: "Judgement" or "Judgment"?
Interesting. It most likely delegates to some sort of OS setting. Anyway, I just manually added it to my system. Jason Cobb On 7/3/19 12:50 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: On 7/3/2019 9:38 AM, Jason Cobb wrote: I'm using the Thunderbird spellchecker, and it yells at me for "Judgement"... Jason Cobb Weird! Mine is a relatively fresh vanilla install (in the U.S. if it auto- detects such things in settings) and I'm pretty sure I didn't manually add it.
Re: DIS: "Judgement" or "Judgment"?
On 7/3/2019 9:38 AM, Jason Cobb wrote: I'm using the Thunderbird spellchecker, and it yells at me for "Judgement"... Jason Cobb Weird! Mine is a relatively fresh vanilla install (in the U.S. if it auto- detects such things in settings) and I'm pretty sure I didn't manually add it.
Re: DIS: "Judgement" or "Judgment"?
But that not withstanding, I support using the same format in CFJ
archives, and I think it's a good idea to have consistency between the
CFJ archives and the Rules, so I'll just use "Judgement" from now on.
Jason Cobb
On 7/3/19 12:38 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
I'm using the Thunderbird spellchecker, and it yells at me for
"Judgement"...
Jason Cobb
On 7/3/19 12:34 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On 7/3/2019 8:50 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
Again, as a matter of style, should we prefer "Judgement" or
"Judgment"? My > spellchecker complains about the first one, and it
appears that "Judgment"
is more accepted as correct. The Rules use both, although they only
use "Judgment" (no e) twice, that being in Rule 2479 ("Official
Justice"), but that rule then immediately proceeds to use
"Judgement" (with e) twice.
I don't really care which one is picked, I'd rather just have
consistency.
Looking back at the CotC archives, "judgement" is used in case files
back to
CFJ 1 in 1993 (i.e. in the "official" CotC case publications). I did
a few
spot checks in different years and couldn't find "judgment" used.
However, in the original ruleset itself, AFAICT, both were used. It was
"judgment" in this context (http://www.fysh.org/~zefram/agora
/rules_text.txt):
> RULE 113
> A Player always has the option to forfeit the Game rather than
> continue to play or incur a Game penalty. No penalty worse than
> losing, in the judgment of the Player to incur it, may be
> imposed.
But it was "judgement" in this context:
> RULE 216
> A legal Judgement is either TRUE, FALSE, or UNDECIDED. The
> Judgement may be accompanied by reasons and arguments, but such
> reasons and arguments form no part of the Judgement itself.
I don't know if there was any purposeful distinction intended between
the two spellings in the initial ruleset.
The history of the "judgement" rule (R216 then later R591) shows it was
always "Judgement" in the CFJ definition context except for when it was
"judicial case" instead. The main CFJ definition was consistent,
although
sometimes "judgment" appeared in supporting clauses, here it is in
the same
paragraph as "judgement" in R591/12:
> A Judge judges a CFJ by sending eir Judgment to the Clerk of the
> Courts. The Judgement of a CFJ must be either TRUE or FALSE.
but that was unique to a short time period, both R591/10 and R591/14
use "judgement" solely.
I remember being corrected "judgement" by someone when I was new here
in 2001 so that's kinda what I trained myself to use.
So overall, I think "judgement" is most consistent historically.
I don't have a preference in terms of general taste, except to say
that I'm
going to keep it "judgement" in the CFJ archives, for historical
consistency
(i.e. for smooth auto-parsing).
MW-online has this to say:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/judgment
> Judgment can also be spelled "judgement," and usage experts have long
> disagreed over which spelling is the preferred one. Henry Fowler
asserted,
> "The OED [Oxford English Dictionary] prefers the older and more
reasonable
> spelling. 'Judgement' is therefore here recommended." William
Safire held
> an opposite opinion, writing, "My judgment is that Fowler is not to be
> followed." "Judgement" is in fact the older spelling, but it
dropped from
> favor and for centuries "judgment" was the only spelling to appear in
> dictionaries. That changed when the OED (Fowler's source) was
published
> showing "judgement" as an equal variant. Today, "judgment" is more
popular
> in the U.S., whereas both spellings make a good showing in Britain.
So I think we can pick either as Agoran dialect and be "archaic but not
incorrect", spellcheckers notwithstanding. FWIW, the Thunderbird
spellchecker doesn't flag either one as incorrect.
-G.
Re: DIS: "Judgement" or "Judgment"?
I'm using the Thunderbird spellchecker, and it yells at me for
"Judgement"...
Jason Cobb
On 7/3/19 12:34 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On 7/3/2019 8:50 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
Again, as a matter of style, should we prefer "Judgement" or
"Judgment"? My > spellchecker complains about the first one, and it
appears that "Judgment"
is more accepted as correct. The Rules use both, although they only
use "Judgment" (no e) twice, that being in Rule 2479 ("Official
Justice"), but that rule then immediately proceeds to use "Judgement"
(with e) twice.
I don't really care which one is picked, I'd rather just have
consistency.
Looking back at the CotC archives, "judgement" is used in case files
back to
CFJ 1 in 1993 (i.e. in the "official" CotC case publications). I did
a few
spot checks in different years and couldn't find "judgment" used.
However, in the original ruleset itself, AFAICT, both were used. It was
"judgment" in this context (http://www.fysh.org/~zefram/agora
/rules_text.txt):
> RULE 113
> A Player always has the option to forfeit the Game rather than
> continue to play or incur a Game penalty. No penalty worse than
> losing, in the judgment of the Player to incur it, may be
> imposed.
But it was "judgement" in this context:
> RULE 216
> A legal Judgement is either TRUE, FALSE, or UNDECIDED. The
> Judgement may be accompanied by reasons and arguments, but such
> reasons and arguments form no part of the Judgement itself.
I don't know if there was any purposeful distinction intended between
the two spellings in the initial ruleset.
The history of the "judgement" rule (R216 then later R591) shows it was
always "Judgement" in the CFJ definition context except for when it was
"judicial case" instead. The main CFJ definition was consistent,
although
sometimes "judgment" appeared in supporting clauses, here it is in the
same
paragraph as "judgement" in R591/12:
> A Judge judges a CFJ by sending eir Judgment to the Clerk of the
> Courts. The Judgement of a CFJ must be either TRUE or FALSE.
but that was unique to a short time period, both R591/10 and R591/14
use "judgement" solely.
I remember being corrected "judgement" by someone when I was new here
in 2001 so that's kinda what I trained myself to use.
So overall, I think "judgement" is most consistent historically.
I don't have a preference in terms of general taste, except to say
that I'm
going to keep it "judgement" in the CFJ archives, for historical
consistency
(i.e. for smooth auto-parsing).
MW-online has this to say:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/judgment
> Judgment can also be spelled "judgement," and usage experts have long
> disagreed over which spelling is the preferred one. Henry Fowler
asserted,
> "The OED [Oxford English Dictionary] prefers the older and more
reasonable
> spelling. 'Judgement' is therefore here recommended." William Safire
held
> an opposite opinion, writing, "My judgment is that Fowler is not to be
> followed." "Judgement" is in fact the older spelling, but it dropped
from
> favor and for centuries "judgment" was the only spelling to appear in
> dictionaries. That changed when the OED (Fowler's source) was published
> showing "judgement" as an equal variant. Today, "judgment" is more
popular
> in the U.S., whereas both spellings make a good showing in Britain.
So I think we can pick either as Agoran dialect and be "archaic but not
incorrect", spellcheckers notwithstanding. FWIW, the Thunderbird
spellchecker doesn't flag either one as incorrect.
-G.
Re: DIS: "Judgement" or "Judgment"?
On 7/3/2019 8:50 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
Again, as a matter of style, should we prefer "Judgement" or "Judgment"? My >
spellchecker complains about the first one, and it appears that "Judgment"
is more accepted as correct. The Rules use both, although they only use
"Judgment" (no e) twice, that being in Rule 2479 ("Official Justice"), but
that rule then immediately proceeds to use "Judgement" (with e) twice.
I don't really care which one is picked, I'd rather just have consistency.
Looking back at the CotC archives, "judgement" is used in case files back to
CFJ 1 in 1993 (i.e. in the "official" CotC case publications). I did a few
spot checks in different years and couldn't find "judgment" used.
However, in the original ruleset itself, AFAICT, both were used. It was
"judgment" in this context (http://www.fysh.org/~zefram/agora
/rules_text.txt):
> RULE 113
> A Player always has the option to forfeit the Game rather than
> continue to play or incur a Game penalty. No penalty worse than
> losing, in the judgment of the Player to incur it, may be
> imposed.
But it was "judgement" in this context:
> RULE 216
> A legal Judgement is either TRUE, FALSE, or UNDECIDED. The
> Judgement may be accompanied by reasons and arguments, but such
> reasons and arguments form no part of the Judgement itself.
I don't know if there was any purposeful distinction intended between
the two spellings in the initial ruleset.
The history of the "judgement" rule (R216 then later R591) shows it was
always "Judgement" in the CFJ definition context except for when it was
"judicial case" instead. The main CFJ definition was consistent, although
sometimes "judgment" appeared in supporting clauses, here it is in the same
paragraph as "judgement" in R591/12:
>A Judge judges a CFJ by sending eir Judgment to the Clerk of the
> Courts. The Judgement of a CFJ must be either TRUE or FALSE.
but that was unique to a short time period, both R591/10 and R591/14 use
"judgement" solely.
I remember being corrected "judgement" by someone when I was new here in
2001 so that's kinda what I trained myself to use.
So overall, I think "judgement" is most consistent historically.
I don't have a preference in terms of general taste, except to say that I'm
going to keep it "judgement" in the CFJ archives, for historical consistency
(i.e. for smooth auto-parsing).
MW-online has this to say:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/judgment
> Judgment can also be spelled "judgement," and usage experts have long
> disagreed over which spelling is the preferred one. Henry Fowler asserted,
> "The OED [Oxford English Dictionary] prefers the older and more reasonable
> spelling. 'Judgement' is therefore here recommended." William Safire held
> an opposite opinion, writing, "My judgment is that Fowler is not to be
> followed." "Judgement" is in fact the older spelling, but it dropped from
> favor and for centuries "judgment" was the only spelling to appear in
> dictionaries. That changed when the OED (Fowler's source) was published
> showing "judgement" as an equal variant. Today, "judgment" is more popular
> in the U.S., whereas both spellings make a good showing in Britain.
So I think we can pick either as Agoran dialect and be "archaic but not
incorrect", spellcheckers notwithstanding. FWIW, the Thunderbird
spellchecker doesn't flag either one as incorrect.
-G.
DIS: Summary Judgment is broken
Rule 2531 ("Referee Accountability") has higher power than Rule 2479
("Official Justice"), so all of the former's requirements apply to
Summary Judgment. However, the entire point of Summary Judgment is that
it doesn't need to have a reason to be applied.
Thus I submit for comment this proto:
{
Amend Rule 2531 ("Referee Accountability") as follows:
After list item (1) insert the following phrase: "Any attempt to
levy a fine pursuant to the imposition of the Cold Hand of Justice
is INEFFECTIVE if:"
Renumber list items (2) - (8) to be items (1) - (7) in the new list.
}
The Rule 2541 ("Executive Orders") is at the same power as Rule 2531,
but Rule 2541 explicitly claims precedence, so Rule 2531 doesn't apply,
but this feels kind of fragile and tenuous. This proto would fix that.
--
Jason Cobb
DIS: "Judgement" or "Judgment"?
Again, as a matter of style, should we prefer "Judgement" or "Judgment"?
My spellchecker complains about the first one, and it appears that
"Judgment" is more accepted as correct. The Rules use both, although
they only use "Judgment" (no e) twice, that being in Rule 2479
("Official Justice"), but that rule then immediately proceeds to use
"Judgement" (with e) twice.
I don't really care which one is picked, I'd rather just have consistency.
--
Jason Cobb
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3750 Assigned to twg
On Wednesday, July 3, 2019 10:11 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > because G. is not a player Or rather, because G. IS a player. (Unless e surreptitiously deregistered recently, I suppose. Stranger things have happened.) -twg
