Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A CFJ on Pledges

[Jack Henahan]

Certainly. I'm admittedly a bit new to judging, but I'll read some older
CFJs to get a feel for it.

After considering a bit further, I would amend

> precisely because it is impossible to reach a condition under which it
> might be considered complete.

to state instead

> precisely because it is impossible to reach a condition under which it
> might be considered complete except by breaking it.

but my reasoning remains otherwise unchanged at this time.

Kerim Aydin  writes:

> If you're interested in judging, I'm happy to assign this to you!
> While your conclusion is still speculative your reasoning so far is
> solid.
>
> On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Jack Henahan wrote:
>> My reading of the rules also suggests that a pledge without a defined
>> completion state may be considered broken by design, and therefore could
>> be argued to be invalid.
>>
>> To use the example which I presume prompted this CFJ, nichdel's pledge
>>
>> > I pledge not to acknowledge any messages Cuddle Beam sends to a-d, or
>> > to respond in a-d to anything CB does.
>>
>> I would argue that such a pledge is by broken [1]  by definition because it
>> cannot be completed in a timely fashion as defined by Rule 1023 [2]
>> after it becomes possible to do so, precisely because it is impossible
>> to reach a condition under which it might be considered complete.
>>
>> By this reading, there is a legal definition of a broken pledge, to wit,
>> "a pledge not completed in a timely manner after it is possible to do
>> so", and "a pledge which proscribes certain behavior whose terms have
>> been violated by the actions of the pledger".
>>
>> Perhaps this calls for a Pledge Switch, so that a Pledge may be either
>> Active, Fulfilled, or Broken. Then we might legislate the events which
>> alter the position of the switch.
>>
>> All that said, though, there are no explicit limits on what constitutes
>> a pledge, so my reading is purely speculative.
>>
>> [1]: http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/#Rule2450
>> [2]: http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/#Rule1023
>>
>> Nic Evans  writes:
>>
>> > I call the following CFJ, using AP: "A pledge can only be broken once."
>> >
>> > Arguments:
>> >
>> > Consider the text of R2450:
>> >
>> > "A player <http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/#Rule869> SHALL NOT
>> > <http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/#Rule2152> break eir own publicly-made
>> > pledges.
>> >
>> > A pledge may be considered broken if the pledger does not complete it in
>> > a timely <http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/#Rule1023> 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."
>> >
>> > There's no legal definition of 'broken' in the ruleset. In common usage,
>> > we have several type of breaking:
>> >
>> > * Breaking a contract. Doing so leaves you up for punishment, but it
>> > also nullifies the contract.
>> >
>> > * Breaking a promise.'By default' doing so nullifies the promise. In
>> > cases where it doesn't, it's because the involved parties discuss
>> > continuing it (arguably creating a new promise).
>> >
>> > * Breaking a system. Once a physical or conceptual system is broken it
>> > remains so until repaired. You can do further damage and even 'break it
>> > more' but it's already broken and you can't break it anew.
>> >
>> > Under all these, it appears you can't break what's broken until it's
>> > remade or repaired. There is no rule defined method to repair a pledge.
>> > Thus, when someone first breaks a pledge it remains broken, and cannot
>> > be broken again.
>>
>>
>> --
>> ProofTechnique
>>


--
ProofTechnique


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

DIS: Re: BUS: A CFJ on Pledges

[Jack Henahan]

My reading of the rules also suggests that a pledge without a defined
completion state may be considered broken by design, and therefore could
be argued to be invalid.

To use the example which I presume prompted this CFJ, nichdel's pledge

> I pledge not to acknowledge any messages Cuddle Beam sends to a-d, or
> to respond in a-d to anything CB does.

I would argue that such a pledge is by broken [1]  by definition because it
cannot be completed in a timely fashion as defined by Rule 1023 [2]
after it becomes possible to do so, precisely because it is impossible
to reach a condition under which it might be considered complete.

By this reading, there is a legal definition of a broken pledge, to wit,
"a pledge not completed in a timely manner after it is possible to do
so", and "a pledge which proscribes certain behavior whose terms have
been violated by the actions of the pledger".

Perhaps this calls for a Pledge Switch, so that a Pledge may be either
Active, Fulfilled, or Broken. Then we might legislate the events which
alter the position of the switch.

All that said, though, there are no explicit limits on what constitutes
a pledge, so my reading is purely speculative.

[1]: http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/#Rule2450
[2]: http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/#Rule1023

Nic Evans  writes:

> I call the following CFJ, using AP: "A pledge can only be broken once."
>
> Arguments:
>
> Consider the text of R2450:
>
> "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."
>
> There's no legal definition of 'broken' in the ruleset. In common usage,
> we have several type of breaking:
>
> * Breaking a contract. Doing so leaves you up for punishment, but it
> also nullifies the contract.
>
> * Breaking a promise.'By default' doing so nullifies the promise. In
> cases where it doesn't, it's because the involved parties discuss
> continuing it (arguably creating a new promise).
>
> * Breaking a system. Once a physical or conceptual system is broken it
> remains so until repaired. You can do further damage and even 'break it
> more' but it's already broken and you can't break it anew.
>
> Under all these, it appears you can't break what's broken until it's
> remade or repaired. There is no rule defined method to repair a pledge.
> Thus, when someone first breaks a pledge it remains broken, and cannot
> be broken again.


--
ProofTechnique


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Player Re-registration

[Jack Henahan]

ProofTechnique. I have added a signature to aid future searches.

---
ProofTechnique

> On Sep 23, 2017, at 15:05, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
>  wrote:
> 
> What is your nickname?
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> 
> 
> 
>> On Sep 23, 2017, at 2:42 PM, Jack Henahan  wrote:
>> 
>> According to the Registrar's report, I was deregistered at some point. I 
>> hereby reregister myself as a player, or register as a new player in the 
>> event that "reregistration" is ILLEGAL or IMPOSSIBLE.
> 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Clearer Registrar Responsibilities

[Jack Henahan]

Ørjan Johansen  writes:

> On Wed, 10 Aug 2016, Jack Henahan wrote:
>
>> I believe cygneus is an adjective meaning "swan-like". Cantus Cygnei,
>> then, would be "Song of the swan-like things",
>
> It would mean "swan-like songs", surely?  There is no genitive there,
> unlike with "cygni".  (That would be "Cantus Cygneorum", perhaps.)

Yes, quite. My mistake.

>> A more classically poetic translation might be "carmen cygni".
>
> I noticed that when googling, but "Cantus Cygneus" is already the official
> Agora term.  I'm just quibbling about the plural.

Ah, I didn't know that was established. My mistake again. In that event,
quite right.


--
Jack


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Clearer Registrar Responsibilities

[Jack Henahan]

I believe cygneus is an adjective meaning "swan-like". Cantus Cygnei,
then, would be "Song of the swan-like things", whereas Cantus Cygni
would be "swan's song".

A more classically poetic translation might be "carmen cygni".

Ørjan Johansen  writes:

> On Wed, 10 Aug 2016, nichdel wrote:
>
>>   * Publishing Cantus Cygni and Writs of FAGE as described in
>> Rule 1789.
>
> I believe that the correct plural of "Cantus Cygneus" is "Cantus Cygnei":
>
> http://www.online-latin-dictionary.com/latin-dictionary-flexion.php?lemma=CANTUS200
> http://www.online-latin-dictionary.com/latin-dictionary-flexion.php?lemma=CYGNEUS100
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.


--
Jack


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

DIS: Re: BUS: might as well try for a show of hands

[Jack Henahan]

I’ve only been following for a little while, and I'd like to stay, please. 

> On Jun 20, 2016, at 13:41, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> (on my "I'm going to do this ... any day now" list):
> 
> I announce my intent to act Without Objection, to deregister each and 
> every Player who is in a state of having not sent a message to a public
> forum in the month prior to me resolving this intent.
> 
> Please do not object, but merely ping/say hi/raise your hand in a 
> public message to not be included in said deregistration.
> 
> -G.
> 
> 
>