Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE
On Sun, 24 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote: assigned to _a_ judge, singular, implies or dictates only one judge at once. I don't think it does, especially in the context of the last part of the sentence. It's perfectly readable as just an existential. When a CFJ is open and assigned to a judge, that judge CAN assign a valid judgement to it by announcement, Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE
assigned to _a_ judge, singular, implies or dictates only one judge at once. On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> And if there happen to ever to be two judges assigned to a case, the >> following: >>At any time, each CFJ is either open (default), suspended, or >>assigned exactly one judgement. >> says nothing about, if two judgements are delivered, if the first one >> prevents the second one from being delivered, or the second one replaces >> the first one... > > Oh never mind on this part, it's here (R591). First to judgement stops the > second one from judging - so it turns into a judges' race... (of course > easily winnable by the Prime Minister by judging when e assigns emself the > case): >When a CFJ is open and assigned to a judge, that judge CAN >assign a valid judgement to it by announcement, > > > -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE
On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: > And if there happen to ever to be two judges assigned to a case, the > following: >At any time, each CFJ is either open (default), suspended, or >assigned exactly one judgement. > says nothing about, if two judgements are delivered, if the first one > prevents the second one from being delivered, or the second one replaces > the first one... Oh never mind on this part, it's here (R591). First to judgement stops the second one from judging - so it turns into a judges' race... (of course easily winnable by the Prime Minister by judging when e assigns emself the case): When a CFJ is open and assigned to a judge, that judge CAN assign a valid judgement to it by announcement,
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE
Interestingly, it doesn't say that assigning yourself the judge using certiorari removes the previous judge from the case, or relieve the first judge from the duty of delivering judgement. There's no explicit indication I can find that cases can't have more than one judge. The Arbitor doesn't have any mechanism for assigning a second judge to a case, but maybe certiorari does...? And if there happen to ever to be two judges assigned to a case, the following: At any time, each CFJ is either open (default), suspended, or assigned exactly one judgement. says nothing about, if two judgements are delivered, if the first one prevents the second one from being delivered, or the second one replaces the first one... On Sun, 24 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > Yeah, it's for "open cases" not unassigned ones. > > On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > > On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > >> Oh sorry, I confused certiorari with the "without 3 objections" method in > >> R991. > >> > >> Folks, if someone end up wanting to call a CFJ on this, make an Agency for > >> me > >> with this exact purpose and I can have it called and assigned in the same > >> message. > > > > > > You'll need to judge it in the same message as well. > > > > Greetings, > > Ørjan. > > > > -- > From V.J. Rada >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE
Yeah, it's for "open cases" not unassigned ones. On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> Oh sorry, I confused certiorari with the "without 3 objections" method in >> R991. >> >> Folks, if someone end up wanting to call a CFJ on this, make an Agency for >> me >> with this exact purpose and I can have it called and assigned in the same >> message. > > > You'll need to judge it in the same message as well. > > Greetings, > Ørjan. -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE
On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: Oh sorry, I confused certiorari with the "without 3 objections" method in R991. Folks, if someone end up wanting to call a CFJ on this, make an Agency for me with this exact purpose and I can have it called and assigned in the same message. You'll need to judge it in the same message as well. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE
Oh sorry, I confused certiorari with the "without 3 objections" method in R991. Folks, if someone end up wanting to call a CFJ on this, make an Agency for me with this exact purpose and I can have it called and assigned in the same message. On Sun, 24 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > No no, I was just saying what I want to do or will do. That was not a > formal statement of intent and it doesn't need to be. > > On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > >> I intend to use certiorari to > >> >> assign CFJs coming out of this to myself. > > > > A side note on this scam: this part is likely ineffective as "CFJs > > coming out of this" does not (by R1729) "unambiguously and clearly > > specify the action", because you're not referring to a specific CFJ. > > > > I'll have to dig it up if you try to follow through on this, but the > > old CFJ precedent is basically that it's not possible to "clearly" or > > "unambiguously" specify hypothetical future items that do not yet exist. > > > > -G. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > From V.J. Rada >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE
No no, I was just saying what I want to do or will do. That was not a formal statement of intent and it doesn't need to be. On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote: >> I intend to use certiorari to >> >> assign CFJs coming out of this to myself. > > A side note on this scam: this part is likely ineffective as "CFJs > coming out of this" does not (by R1729) "unambiguously and clearly > specify the action", because you're not referring to a specific CFJ. > > I'll have to dig it up if you try to follow through on this, but the > old CFJ precedent is basically that it's not possible to "clearly" or > "unambiguously" specify hypothetical future items that do not yet exist. > > -G. > > > > -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE
On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Quazie wrote: To be honest - I only did it cuz I'm unsure if subject line only actions, even if noted by the rules, even work. I really cannot see why giving effect to subject lines shouldn't work when a rule (2463) _explicitly_ mentions it. I still don't think rule 2463 works in the way tried here, though. The way we usually interpret dependent actions, the subject line would be on the _resolving_ message - the _intent_ still needs to be an ordinary announcement. Greetings, Ørjan.
DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE
On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > I intend to use certiorari to > >> assign CFJs coming out of this to myself. A side note on this scam: this part is likely ineffective as "CFJs coming out of this" does not (by R1729) "unambiguously and clearly specify the action", because you're not referring to a specific CFJ. I'll have to dig it up if you try to follow through on this, but the old CFJ precedent is basically that it's not possible to "clearly" or "unambiguously" specify hypothetical future items that do not yet exist. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE
I agree it's just as reasonable either way - point is that you want stick with a consistent interpretation, and the last time it came up, that was the decision. Perfectly valid to propose an explicit clarifying line to R478 and put it to a vote. I would personally always forget to look for the action in the subject line, so I would vote for a clarification of "message text only". But that's preference not logic. On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote: > Imo its pretty subjective because it's not standardized as other stuff. > I find it just as reasonable for them to count as not. > > Maybe we could make a rule/sentence on what constitutes a valid message to > a-b. > > On Sat, 23 Sep 2017 at 22:00, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > > I don't think the rules apply only to content within the body of an > > email: we already know the subject line counts in some cases. I don't > > see which rule contradicts the rules applying to the subject line. I > > do note that the rule does ask for Agoran Consent (2 of it, even), so > > you might need to note clearly your intent within the text itself for > > that to work in this particular case. > > There is no rule. It comes down to what the definition of "message" is > in R478. Is it the message text, or does it include subject line? > That's > some place where the rules are silent, so it's left up to "game custom, > common sense, past judgements, and consideration of the best interests > of > the game." > > The general game custom/past judgements are that, for various > reasons[1], > it is for the good of the game to not count subject lines, unless the > message text explicitly refers to the subject line (e.g. says "I take > the action in the subject line"). > > That consensus could always be revisited via CFJ, but in the absence of > doing so, we'd assume it holds. > > [1] Some previously-given reasons, not arguing for or against just > listing > some considerations: > > 1. Actions in a message happen in order. Subject line is "out of the > order" and not clear where it comes (unless part of the message text > explicitly refers to it). > > 2. If we allow actions in headers, why not hidden headers? And that > then becomes too easy to hide things in. > > 3. Subject lines rapidly drift away from their original purpose in > threads. It is often not clear (much less so then for quoted parts > of the message) when one is an original action versus a reply. > > 4. It's very useful to have non-action Titles that contain descriptions > of actions. For example "[Arbitor] CFJ XXX assigned to YYY". > This is a convenient label, and players shouldn't have to constantly > be worried "did I accidentally put an action in my label?" > > > > > > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE
Imo its pretty subjective because it's not standardized as other stuff. I find it just as reasonable for them to count as not. Maybe we could make a rule/sentence on what constitutes a valid message to a-b. On Sat, 23 Sep 2017 at 22:00, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > > I don't think the rules apply only to content within the body of an > > email: we already know the subject line counts in some cases. I don't > > see which rule contradicts the rules applying to the subject line. I > > do note that the rule does ask for Agoran Consent (2 of it, even), so > > you might need to note clearly your intent within the text itself for > > that to work in this particular case. > > There is no rule. It comes down to what the definition of "message" is > in R478. Is it the message text, or does it include subject line? That's > some place where the rules are silent, so it's left up to "game custom, > common sense, past judgements, and consideration of the best interests of > the game." > > The general game custom/past judgements are that, for various reasons[1], > it is for the good of the game to not count subject lines, unless the > message text explicitly refers to the subject line (e.g. says "I take > the action in the subject line"). > > That consensus could always be revisited via CFJ, but in the absence of > doing so, we'd assume it holds. > > [1] Some previously-given reasons, not arguing for or against just listing > some considerations: > > 1. Actions in a message happen in order. Subject line is "out of the > order" and not clear where it comes (unless part of the message text > explicitly refers to it). > > 2. If we allow actions in headers, why not hidden headers? And that > then becomes too easy to hide things in. > > 3. Subject lines rapidly drift away from their original purpose in > threads. It is often not clear (much less so then for quoted parts > of the message) when one is an original action versus a reply. > > 4. It's very useful to have non-action Titles that contain descriptions > of actions. For example "[Arbitor] CFJ XXX assigned to YYY". > This is a convenient label, and players shouldn't have to constantly > be worried "did I accidentally put an action in my label?" > > > > > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE
On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > I don't think the rules apply only to content within the body of an > email: we already know the subject line counts in some cases. I don't > see which rule contradicts the rules applying to the subject line. I > do note that the rule does ask for Agoran Consent (2 of it, even), so > you might need to note clearly your intent within the text itself for > that to work in this particular case. There is no rule. It comes down to what the definition of "message" is in R478. Is it the message text, or does it include subject line? That's some place where the rules are silent, so it's left up to "game custom, common sense, past judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the game." The general game custom/past judgements are that, for various reasons[1], it is for the good of the game to not count subject lines, unless the message text explicitly refers to the subject line (e.g. says "I take the action in the subject line"). That consensus could always be revisited via CFJ, but in the absence of doing so, we'd assume it holds. [1] Some previously-given reasons, not arguing for or against just listing some considerations: 1. Actions in a message happen in order. Subject line is "out of the order" and not clear where it comes (unless part of the message text explicitly refers to it). 2. If we allow actions in headers, why not hidden headers? And that then becomes too easy to hide things in. 3. Subject lines rapidly drift away from their original purpose in threads. It is often not clear (much less so then for quoted parts of the message) when one is an original action versus a reply. 4. It's very useful to have non-action Titles that contain descriptions of actions. For example "[Arbitor] CFJ XXX assigned to YYY". This is a convenient label, and players shouldn't have to constantly be worried "did I accidentally put an action in my label?"
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE
I registered with a subject line, but that’s registration. > On Sep 23, 2017, at 12:50 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > > I don't think the rules apply only to content within the body of an > email: we already know the subject line counts in some cases. I don't > see which rule contradicts the rules applying to the subject line. I > do note that the rule does ask for Agoran Consent (2 of it, even), so > you might need to note clearly your intent within the text itself for > that to work in this particular case. > > On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Quazie wrote: >> To be honest - I only did it cuz I'm unsure if subject line only actions, >> even if noted by the rules, even work. >> >> On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 00:40 VJ Rada wrote: >>> >>> "MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE" >>> >>> Honestly, you are the funniest Agoran player by far, just in pure >>> gameplay terms. I object to the motion of no confidence. >>> >>> On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 5:36 PM, Quazie wrote: As the speaker I object to all intents to win by apathy introduced in the quoted message. I'll write a python script to object to each individually later. On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 00:26 VJ Rada wrote: > > o win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout > objection, I intend to win by apathy Without objection, I intend to > win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout > objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win > by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout > objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win > by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout > objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win > by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout > objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win > by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout > objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win > by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout > objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win > by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout > objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win > by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout > objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win > by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout > objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win > by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout > objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win > by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout > objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win > by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout > objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win > by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout > objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win > by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout > objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win > by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout > objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win > by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout > objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win > by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout > objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win > by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout > objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win > by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout > objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win > by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout > objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win > by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout > objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win > by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout > objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win > by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout > objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win > by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout > objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win > by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout > objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win > by apathyWithout objection, I i
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE
I don't think the rules apply only to content within the body of an email: we already know the subject line counts in some cases. I don't see which rule contradicts the rules applying to the subject line. I do note that the rule does ask for Agoran Consent (2 of it, even), so you might need to note clearly your intent within the text itself for that to work in this particular case. On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Quazie wrote: > To be honest - I only did it cuz I'm unsure if subject line only actions, > even if noted by the rules, even work. > > On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 00:40 VJ Rada wrote: >> >> "MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE" >> >> Honestly, you are the funniest Agoran player by far, just in pure >> gameplay terms. I object to the motion of no confidence. >> >> On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 5:36 PM, Quazie wrote: >> > As the speaker I object to all intents to win by apathy introduced in >> > the >> > quoted message. I'll write a python script to object to each >> > individually >> > later. >> > >> > >> > On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 00:26 VJ Rada wrote: >> >> >> >> o win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout >> >> objection, I intend to win by apathy Without objection, I intend to >> >> win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout >> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win >> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout >> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win >> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout >> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win >> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout >> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win >> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout >> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win >> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout >> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win >> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout >> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win >> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout >> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win >> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout >> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win >> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout >> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win >> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout >> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win >> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout >> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win >> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout >> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win >> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout >> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win >> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout >> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win >> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout >> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win >> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout >> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win >> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout >> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win >> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout >> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win >> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout >> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win >> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout >> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win >> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout >> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win >> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout >> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win >> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout >> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win >> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout >> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win >> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout >> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win >> >> by apathyWithout objection, I i
