Re: DIS: Re: BUS: It's been a while.

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Jun 20, 2017, at 11:52 AM, grok (caleb vines)  wrote:
> 
> oof, also my apologies for the walls of text. i'm playing with gmail's
> plain text editor and the input box doesn't automatically line break
> for me. those paragraphs are...denser than expected.

I see nothing objectionable here.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: It's been a while.

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017, grok (caleb vines) wrote:


oof, also my apologies for the walls of text. i'm playing with gmail's
plain text editor and the input box doesn't automatically line break
for me. those paragraphs are...denser than expected.


For what it's worth, I did not consider there to be anything wrong with 
the formatting of that message whatsoever. It was a far improvement 
compared to some of the other brokenness I've seen on the list lately. :P


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: It's been a while.

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
 wrote:
> For the purposes of clarity, CFJ “omd "most recently became a player” on the 
> 3rd of February, 2011.”

I submit the following as a gratuitous argument:

I'm fairly certain that both this statement and the statement "omd
flipped eir player switch to 'Player' on 19 June 2017" could be true
without harming the game state. If both conditions were true then
omd's registration date would not change AND switches would
(debatably) maintain their pragmatic use by officers as suggested by
g. This seems like a Good Solution, although I don't think it's the
Best Solution (which is ruling this CFJ FALSE or less optimally
DISMISS as indeterminable and then passing legislation that eliminates
the ambiguity).

First, I recommend a Judgment of FALSE as suggested by the pragmatic
value of switches that act this way and the net benefit of an
opportunity to change the rules and eliminate the ambiguity.

However, if this CFJ is ruled TRUE, I recommend a person submit the
CFJ "omd flipped eir player switch to 'Player' on 19 June 2017" and
recommend a Judgment of TRUE on that CFJ.


I also submit the following comments as gratuitous evidence:

I don't see any text in the ruleset that would make me believe a
switch cannot be flipped to the value it is currently set to.
Especially since "Flip" is a term of art defined textually, not
contextually. In casual and contextual cases, "flip" usually indicates
multiple exclusive states that can only be modified by changing from
one state to another [1]. However, the ruleset definition of "flip"
indicates to me that switches can be "flipped" to any legal value,
including their current value. The exact language,

>>"To flip an instance of a switch" is to make it come to have a given value.

makes me believe that a switch can be flipped to any of the switch's
legal values. As long as it comes to have the given value, it's a
legal change. In this case, the player flipping the switch is just
making it come to have the given value of "player," and it is
coincidental that its current value is also "player." If the textual
definition of "flip a switch" made the switch come to have a DIFFERENT
value, I would agree. But right now, all I see is that "flipping a
switch" just means "setting the value," rather than "changing the
value." Adding "different" may be a good decision in the future.

There are immediate possible impacts on registration date in this
specific scenario. Not a big thing in the current ruleset but it could
affect one's ability to give and receive white ribbons. Could also
make a player subject to any "new player restrictions" like the ones
that used to exist and have been discussed now.

Curiously, the ruleset used to have language specifically stating that
only non-players could register (R869/9 and R869/17), but that
language has been lost over time.[2]


[1]: I concede that, in some contexts, "flip" means "to rotate an
object along its horizontal axis."
[2]: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1648

---

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2017, grok (caleb vines) wrote:
>> >>"To flip an instance of a switch" is to make it come to have a given value.
>>
>> makes me believe that a switch can be flipped to any of the switch's
>> legal values. As long as it comes to have the given value, it's a
>> legal change.
>
> There's a causality debate to be had here.  If you set a switch from
> X to X, you weren't the one who "made it come" to have that value, it's
> whomever did it before you.  I think, just from basic definitions, it
> can be argued either way.  But your interpretation makes more sense in
> the context of Officers' duties.  If an Officer is required to set a
> switch to X, and it's already X, we want em to be able to say "I flip
> the switch to X" and have it count as a duty fulfilled.

I agree that your counter-interpretation might be slightly
semantically superior, but my interpretation might be slightly more
pragmatic [1]. If it is necessary (or if there is a decision to award
omd a card), a CFJ could certainly help iron this question out. Or it
could just be preempted by letting this time go and changing the rules
to add the word "different" and eliminating ambiguity.


[1] Of course, I think my interpretation is right, but that's because
I'm an egotist and I want my cool and good interpretation to be the
best one.


-grok

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: It's been a while.

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2017, grok (caleb vines) wrote:
>> >>"To flip an instance of a switch" is to make it come to have a given value.
>>
>> makes me believe that a switch can be flipped to any of the switch's
>> legal values. As long as it comes to have the given value, it's a
>> legal change.
>
> There's a causality debate to be had here.  If you set a switch from
> X to X, you weren't the one who "made it come" to have that value, it's
> whomever did it before you.  I think, just from basic definitions, it
> can be argued either way.  But your interpretation makes more sense in
> the context of Officers' duties.  If an Officer is required to set a
> switch to X, and it's already X, we want em to be able to say "I flip
> the switch to X" and have it count as a duty fulfilled.

I agree that your counter-interpretation might be slightly
semantically superior, but my interpretation might be slightly more
pragmatic [1]. If it is necessary (or if there is a decision to award
omd a card), a CFJ could certainly help iron this question out. Or it
could just be preempted by letting this time go and changing the rules
to add the word "different" and eliminating ambiguity.


[1] Of course, I think my interpretation is right, but that's because
I'm an egotist and I want my cool and good interpretation to be the
best one.


-grok

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: It's been a while.

[Kerim Aydin]

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017, grok (caleb vines) wrote:
> >>"To flip an instance of a switch" is to make it come to have a given value.
> 
> makes me believe that a switch can be flipped to any of the switch's
> legal values. As long as it comes to have the given value, it's a
> legal change.

There's a causality debate to be had here.  If you set a switch from 
X to X, you weren't the one who "made it come" to have that value, it's 
whomever did it before you.  I think, just from basic definitions, it
can be argued either way.  But your interpretation makes more sense in
the context of Officers' duties.  If an Officer is required to set a
switch to X, and it's already X, we want em to be able to say "I flip
the switch to X" and have it count as a duty fulfilled.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: It's been a while.

[grok (caleb vines)]

oof, also my apologies for the walls of text. i'm playing with gmail's
plain text editor and the input box doesn't automatically line break
for me. those paragraphs are...denser than expected.


-grok


On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 10:51 AM, grok (caleb vines)
 wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>  wrote:
>> You can not flip a switch to a value that the switch already held or at 
>> least that would make sense.
>> 
>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
> I don't see any text in the ruleset that would make me believe a
> switch cannot be flipped to the value it is currently set to.
> Especially since "Flip" is a term of art defined textually, not
> contextually. In casual and contextual cases, "flip" usually indicates
> multiple exclusive states that can only be modified by changing from
> one state to another [1]. However, the ruleset definition of "flip"
> indicates to me that switches can be "flipped" to any legal value,
> including their current value. The exact language,
>
>>>"To flip an instance of a switch" is to make it come to have a given value.
>
> makes me believe that a switch can be flipped to any of the switch's
> legal values. As long as it comes to have the given value, it's a
> legal change. In this case, the player flipping the switch is just
> making it come to have the given value of "player," and it is
> coincidental that its current value is also "player." If the textual
> definition of "flip a switch" made the switch come to have a DIFFERENT
> value, I would agree. But right now, all I see is that "flipping a
> switch" just means "setting the value," rather than "changing the
> value." Adding "different" may be a good decision in the future.
>
> There are immediate possible impacts on registration date in this
> specific scenario. Not a big thing in the current ruleset but it could
> affect one's ability to give and receive white ribbons. Could also
> make a player subject to any "new player restrictions" like the ones
> that used to exist and have been discussed now.
>
> Curiously, the ruleset used to have language specifically stating that
> only non-players could register (R869/9 and R869/17), but that
> language has been lost over time.[2]
>
>
> [1]: I concede that, in some contexts, "flip" means "to rotate an
> object along its horizontal axis."
> [2]: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1648
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>  wrote:
>> I recommend that the Referee accept this apology and issue a green card if 
>> any card.
>> 
>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
> If I were a player, I would recommend avoiding punishment absent a CFJ
> indicating that omd actually committed an infraction. But I'm not, so
> idk. Maybe someone else would make that recommendation on my behalf.
>
>
> -grok

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: It's been a while.

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
 wrote:
> You can not flip a switch to a value that the switch already held or at least 
> that would make sense.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com


I don't see any text in the ruleset that would make me believe a
switch cannot be flipped to the value it is currently set to.
Especially since "Flip" is a term of art defined textually, not
contextually. In casual and contextual cases, "flip" usually indicates
multiple exclusive states that can only be modified by changing from
one state to another [1]. However, the ruleset definition of "flip"
indicates to me that switches can be "flipped" to any legal value,
including their current value. The exact language,

>>"To flip an instance of a switch" is to make it come to have a given value.

makes me believe that a switch can be flipped to any of the switch's
legal values. As long as it comes to have the given value, it's a
legal change. In this case, the player flipping the switch is just
making it come to have the given value of "player," and it is
coincidental that its current value is also "player." If the textual
definition of "flip a switch" made the switch come to have a DIFFERENT
value, I would agree. But right now, all I see is that "flipping a
switch" just means "setting the value," rather than "changing the
value." Adding "different" may be a good decision in the future.

There are immediate possible impacts on registration date in this
specific scenario. Not a big thing in the current ruleset but it could
affect one's ability to give and receive white ribbons. Could also
make a player subject to any "new player restrictions" like the ones
that used to exist and have been discussed now.

Curiously, the ruleset used to have language specifically stating that
only non-players could register (R869/9 and R869/17), but that
language has been lost over time.[2]


[1]: I concede that, in some contexts, "flip" means "to rotate an
object along its horizontal axis."
[2]: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1648


On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
 wrote:
> I recommend that the Referee accept this apology and issue a green card if 
> any card.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com


If I were a player, I would recommend avoiding punishment absent a CFJ
indicating that omd actually committed an infraction. But I'm not, so
idk. Maybe someone else would make that recommendation on my behalf.


-grok

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: It's been a while.

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I recommend that the Referee accept this apology and issue a green card if any 
card.

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



> On Jun 20, 2017, at 7:35 AM, omd  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 8:51 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>  wrote:
>> I point my finger at omd for violation of No Faking.
> 
> I do apologize for the confusion; however, I claim I didn't violate No
> Faking, as it was a good faith mistake (I figured I'd have been long
> deregistered) rather than intentional deception.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: It's been a while.

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

You can not flip a switch to a value that the switch already held or at least 
that would make sense.

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



> On Jun 20, 2017, at 7:14 AM, grok (caleb vines)  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 7:51 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>  wrote:
>> 
>> I point my finger at omd for violation of No Faking.
>> 
>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>> 
> 
> Question for you. Maybe a proto-CFJ.
> 
> What part of the ruleset makes it IMPOSSIBLE for omd to register
> or makes his registration a violation of a SHALL NOT?
> 
> Just curious. Maybe I'm missing something.
> 
> -grok

DIS: Re: BUS: It's been a while.

[omd]

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 8:51 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
 wrote:
> I point my finger at omd for violation of No Faking.

I do apologize for the confusion; however, I claim I didn't violate No
Faking, as it was a good faith mistake (I figured I'd have been long
deregistered) rather than intentional deception.

DIS: Re: BUS: It's been a while.

[grok (caleb vines)]

shit. eir registration. still getting used to spivak.

apologies

-grok

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 9:14 AM, grok (caleb vines)  wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 7:51 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>  wrote:
>>
>> I point my finger at omd for violation of No Faking.
>> 
>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>>
>
> Question for you. Maybe a proto-CFJ.
>
> What part of the ruleset makes it IMPOSSIBLE for omd to register
> or makes his registration a violation of a SHALL NOT?
>
> Just curious. Maybe I'm missing something.
>
> -grok

DIS: Re: BUS: It's been a while.

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 7:51 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
 wrote:
>
> I point my finger at omd for violation of No Faking.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>

Question for you. Maybe a proto-CFJ.

What part of the ruleset makes it IMPOSSIBLE for omd to register
or makes his registration a violation of a SHALL NOT?

Just curious. Maybe I'm missing something.

-grok

DIS: Re: BUS: It's been a while.

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

According to my records, you were never deregistered.

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



> On Jun 19, 2017, at 12:09 PM, omd  wrote:
> 
> I register.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: It's been a while.

[Owen Jacobson]

Now that e’s back: I’ve been objecting partly out of recognition and gratitude 
for the fact that omd is spending eir personal resources making sure we have 
lists on which to play this game. Since the enactment of the Shiny economy, 
this has also meant that omd has drawn a small stipend for doing so.

-o

> On Jun 19, 2017, at 5:31 PM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> 
> Welcome back to the game omd! Yes, people seem to have a habit of objecting 
> to your deregristration every time it comes up. It should be interesting to 
> have you back. I admire your judicial work, as the opinions are always very 
> well thought out.
> 
> -Aris
> 
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 1:21 PM Quazie  > wrote:
> LIES! [you're already here, and registered]
> 
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 12:09 PM omd  > wrote:
> I register.



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: It's been a while.

[Aris Merchant]

Welcome back to the game omd! Yes, people seem to have a habit of objecting
to your deregristration every time it comes up. It should be interesting to
have you back. I admire your judicial work, as the opinions are always very
well thought out.

-Aris

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 1:21 PM Quazie  wrote:

> LIES! [you're already here, and registered]
>
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 12:09 PM omd  wrote:
>
>> I register.
>>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: It's been a while.

[Quazie]

LIES! [you're already here, and registered]

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 12:09 PM omd  wrote:

> I register.
>