Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements
On Fri, 26 Jul 2013, Ørjan Johansen wrote: I would correspondingly find it natural for the TDoC of the sender to be consulted for when a message is _sent_, if the rules were otherwise silent, which however they currently are not (date stamps), albeit in a not very clarifying way. Oh also I suspect one reason for my invention of TDoC was to clarify matters using concepts not intrinsically tied to using email - other means of sending private messages were allowed at the time (I once left my votes on Steve and Geoff's answering machine). Greetings, Ørjan.
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements
On Fri, 26 Jul 2013, Alex Smith wrote: Finally, CFJ 866 seems to be relevant background reading too (and also supports this verdict), and may be responsible for the TDoC confusion (in that it holds that the /recipient's/ TDoC is what matters, not the /sender's/ TDoC). FWIW IMO as the original Judge, CFJ 866 holds that it is the recipient's TDoC that matters for when a message is _received_. Whether Agora chooses to let a message take effect when sent or when received is a different matter, which may have changed during the years - I vaguely think that at the time votes may have been defined to take effect when _received_ by the Assessor. Also note that at the time voting was allowed to be in private, thus public fora were not involved. I would correspondingly find it natural for the TDoC of the sender to be consulted for when a message is _sent_, if the rules were otherwise silent, which however they currently are not (date stamps), albeit in a not very clarifying way. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements
On Fri, 26 Jul 2013, Alex Smith wrote: received is what the recent precedents indicate. (The rules require the message to be sent via a public forum, rule 478, and it hasn't gone via the forum until both the sender has sent it, and the recipient has received it. Also I can't construct a circumstance where those events happen out of order.) What about sending a message publically by sending it to all players individually, as is still allowed? Then the main recipient might receive it before it has finished sending to all players. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements
On Fri, 2013-07-26 at 23:34 +0200, Ørjan Johansen wrote: On Fri, 26 Jul 2013, Alex Smith wrote: Finally, CFJ 866 seems to be relevant background reading too (and also supports this verdict), and may be responsible for the TDoC confusion (in that it holds that the /recipient's/ TDoC is what matters, not the /sender's/ TDoC). FWIW IMO as the original Judge, CFJ 866 holds that it is the recipient's TDoC that matters for when a message is _received_. Whether Agora chooses to let a message take effect when sent or when received is a different matter, which may have changed during the years - I vaguely think that at the time votes may have been defined to take effect when _received_ by the Assessor. Also note that at the time voting was allowed to be in private, thus public fora were not involved. received is what the recent precedents indicate. (The rules require the message to be sent via a public forum, rule 478, and it hasn't gone via the forum until both the sender has sent it, and the recipient has received it. Also I can't construct a circumstance where those events happen out of order.) -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements, CFJs 3217/3218
3218 is an inquiry case; NOT GUILTY is not a valid judgement for it. On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: I judge CFJs 3217 and 3218 NOT GUILTY. I can't find anything in rule 2365, nor in rule 2362, nor in rule 2354 (which uses condition), that would imply that there's anything illegal involved in not paying a proposal promotion cost. The only sensible reading of rule 2365 is that attempts to add excess proposals to the Pool without paying the cost (explicitly paying the cost, per rule 2354) simply fail. If another rule contradicts this, then it doesn't cause rule 2365 to suddenly start imposing criminal obligations; it just causes its attempt to impose platonic requirements to fail. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 2:06 AM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: On Mon, 2012-05-14 at 02:03 -0400, omd wrote: On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: I judge CFJ 3190 NOT GUILTY (1504(a)). Arguably, also (d), but (a) is more clearcut. I intend, with two support, to make this case Notable. I support. (What sort of annotation are you planning?) That selecting a confusing nickname need not be for oneself, but a nickname is only selected if it sticks (is likely to stick?). (I personally disagree with both of these, but not enough to try to appeal.)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements
G. wrote: On Mon, 14 May 2012, omd wrote: On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 2:06 AM, ais523callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: On Mon, 2012-05-14 at 02:03 -0400, omd wrote: On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Alex Smithais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: I judge CFJ 3190 NOT GUILTY (1504(a)). Arguably, also (d), but (a) is more clearcut. I intend, with two support, to make this case Notable. I support. (What sort of annotation are you planning?) That selecting a confusing nickname need not be for oneself, but a nickname is only selected if it sticks (is likely to stick?). (I personally disagree with both of these, but not enough to try to appeal.) If you annotate this, Steve has written a better/clearer version - better worded and on more solid ground IIRC, with some specific limitations on choosing others' nicknames depending on context. I'd give chapter and verse but CotC site seems to be unresponsive this morning (search for Beverly in statement or argument text if you can reach the site). -G. There was a service outage, it's been cleared up since.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements
On Mon, 14 May 2012, Ed Murphy wrote: G. wrote: On Mon, 14 May 2012, omd wrote: On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 2:06 AM, ais523callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: On Mon, 2012-05-14 at 02:03 -0400, omd wrote: On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Alex Smithais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: I judge CFJ 3190 NOT GUILTY (1504(a)). Arguably, also (d), but (a) is more clearcut. I intend, with two support, to make this case Notable. I support. (What sort of annotation are you planning?) That selecting a confusing nickname need not be for oneself, but a nickname is only selected if it sticks (is likely to stick?). (I personally disagree with both of these, but not enough to try to appeal.) If you annotate this, Steve has written a better/clearer version - better worded and on more solid ground IIRC, with some specific limitations on choosing others' nicknames depending on context. I'd give chapter and verse but CotC site seems to be unresponsive this morning (search for Beverly in statement or argument text if you can reach the site). -G. There was a service outage, it's been cleared up since. Thanks. CFJ in question is 1361: It is my view that, for the purposes of R559, a nickname is a name that a Player chooses for emself, that can be reliably used to pick em out in the full range of Agoran contexts. On this view, arbitrary designations by other Players, while they make succeed in referring to another Player, do not consitute nicknames of those Players.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: Thanks. CFJ in question is 1361: It is my view that, for the purposes of R559, a nickname is a name that a Player chooses for emself, that can be reliably used to pick em out in the full range of Agoran contexts. On this view, arbitrary designations by other Players, while they make succeed in referring to another Player, do not consitute nicknames of those Players. Oddly enough, this seems to directly contradict the (Zefram-era) existing annotation: [CFJ 1361 (called 7 May 2002): Purporting to assign a new nickname, previously unused to refer to any entity, to another player is successful, but does not displace the target's existing name or nickname.] It also contradicts multiple later CFJs: 1882, 2840, and especially 2487. But my prior assumption in this case was a bit different (and perhaps unreasonable if you're conflating it with whether one *can* assign a nickname for someone else): that even though it's possible, it's not a rule violation because A player SHALL NOT select a confusing nickname. implies for oneself.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements
On Mon, 14 May 2012, omd wrote: On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: Thanks. CFJ in question is 1361: It is my view that, for the purposes of R559, a nickname is a name that a Player chooses for emself, that can be reliably used to pick em out in the full range of Agoran contexts. On this view, arbitrary designations by other Players, while they make succeed in referring to another Player, do not consitute nicknames of those Players. Oddly enough, this seems to directly contradict the (Zefram-era) existing annotation: [CFJ 1361 (called 7 May 2002): Purporting to assign a new nickname, previously unused to refer to any entity, to another player is successful, but does not displace the target's existing name or nickname.] It also contradicts multiple later CFJs: 1882, 2840, and especially 2487. Actually, I think these are all in agreement. They all basically say whatever term is most commonly used is the nickname; and we defer to the person to tell us what it is (and change it), but if there's some confusion, it's whatever is the most prevalent. But my prior assumption in this case was a bit different (and perhaps unreasonable if you're conflating it with whether one *can* assign a nickname for someone else): that even though it's possible, it's not a rule violation because A player SHALL NOT select a confusing nickname. implies for oneself. By the combined logic of the CFJs, no one can really assign emself a true nickname instantly. One can suggest (select) a nickname, and if it's unconfusing enough, it stays, otherwise there's a period of confusion which is eventually sorted out. When I picked Cardboard Duck whatever, it didn't stick (or was abbreviated) and I would argue it never was my Agora nickname. By this logic, also, it's possible to select a confusing nickname and break the law, and still not have the nickname stick or be recorded or have the change be successful. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: However, there is some unfortunate phrasing in rule 2143: While performing weekly or monthly duties or publishing weekly or monthly reports, officers SHALL NOT publish information that is inaccurate or misleading. Note that this does not require the inaccurate or misleading information to be part of the report; merely published at the same time. (This is probably unintended.) Actually, I wrote that clause, and since it was intended to generally hold officers to a high standard, I think this was intentional. Players rely on all the information in reports, not just data required to be published - that's why it's there. The player count isn't as important as, say, a history section, but I reasonably relied on it when trying to calculate the quorum, which is why I filed the case, although I think DISCHARGE was reasonable.
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements
Huh? They seem perfectly sensical to me (in English, yes). On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: I judge CFJs 3180 and 3181 technically MALFORMED, as the sequence of characters given as the CFJ statement can't be parsed as a statement, being nonsensical when interpreted as English and not meaningful in other natural languages I know. In spirit, they're FALSE; the lexing of the ambiguous statement where Mr. Incredible was doing that doesn't make sense. In general, if there's two different reasonable ways to tokenise a statement, the presumption is that it's intended to tokenise via the method that parses correctly. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements and capacitors, CFJs 2962-64
On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 2:41 AM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: Ratification is not obviously broken if the gamestate includes its history. ais523 assumed it doesn't in eir judgement of CFJ 2909: it instead tries to work out a minimal change to the /present/ gamestate to change the past. I interpreted that judgement as 1) the gamestate may or may not include history, but in either case 2) the previous version of Rule 1551 was broken because it applied a legal fiction to a past event, but did not apply a legal fiction to subsequent events dependent on that past event. I don't remember the judgement as well as I should have, I guess... in that case, doesn't the argument hinge on something as inconsequential as the format in which states are saved in the gamestate? ais523 seems to be making the argument that each state is stored separately (but at the current time, the gamestate gets continually cloned onto the next one), so you can modify some past archive to say that the document was accurate without any effect on the infinite other archives or the present, and clearly this is the minimal modification; but it makes more sense to me to represent it as a list of changes, like RCS, where the minimal modification is exactly one change, not a pair that cancel each other out. I'm pretty tired right now, but is there already a CFJ directly about this gamestate issue? If not, anyone mind if I call one and get this properly decided?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements and capacitors, CFJs 2962-64
omd wrote: I don't remember the judgement as well as I should have, I guess... in that case, doesn't the argument hinge on something as inconsequential Not inconsequential if it, well, has substantive consequences: as the format in which states are saved in the gamestate? ais523 seems to be making the argument that each state is stored separately (but at the current time, the gamestate gets continually cloned onto the next one), so you can modify some past archive to say that the document was accurate without any effect on the infinite other archives or the present, and clearly this is the minimal modification; Yes, and thus e parsed R1551/(13? 14?) as claiming the present archive is modified such that the past's archive is modified which is clearly impossible, rather than the past archive is retroactively modified or the present archive is modified to include the legal fiction that the past's archive was modified or (R1551/15) the present archive is modified to what it would be if the past's archive had been modified in the past (presumably including the legal fiction that the past's archive had been so modified) This used to be further complicated by this does not retroactively change the possibility or legality of past actions, but that was amended away at some point. (As usual, issues of legality can be addressed by adjusting sentence as the judge sees fit.) but it makes more sense to me to represent it as a list of changes, like RCS, where the minimal modification is exactly one change, not a pair that cancel each other out. Maybe; the usual conceptual tradeoffs apply (we use periodic snapshots in practice to minimize computation). ais523's argument can still be expressed within this metaphor, though: a change is made now such that a change was made in the past rather than (etc.) I'm pretty tired right now, but is there already a CFJ directly about this gamestate issue? If not, anyone mind if I call one and get this properly decided? Not that I know of. No.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements and capacitors, CFJs 2962-64
On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: omd wrote: I don't remember the judgement as well as I should have, I guess... in that case, doesn't the argument hinge on something as inconsequential Not inconsequential if it, well, has substantive consequences: as the format in which states are saved in the gamestate? ais523 seems to be making the argument that each state is stored separately (but at the current time, the gamestate gets continually cloned onto the next one), so you can modify some past archive to say that the document was accurate without any effect on the infinite other archives or the present, and clearly this is the minimal modification; Yes, and thus e parsed R1551/(13? 14?) as claiming the present archive is modified such that the past's archive is modified which is clearly impossible, rather than The rule purports to modify the gamestate so that something was true; if we have some kind of archive, that translates to modifying the archive, which is not clearly impossible. However, I think ais523 was arguing that doing so doesn't affect the present. the present archive is modified to include the legal fiction that the past's archive was modified Why would the past's archive possibly be involved? but it makes more sense to me to represent it as a list of changes, like RCS, where the minimal modification is exactly one change, not a pair that cancel each other out. Maybe; the usual conceptual tradeoffs apply (we use periodic snapshots in practice to minimize computation). ais523's argument can still be expressed within this metaphor, though: a change is made now such that a change was made in the past I don't see how you're deriving this from the text. For me it's a choice between the archives are modified such that X was true in the past and the archives are modified to add a change to make X true in the past.
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements and capacitors, CFJs 2962-64
omd wrote: On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: I interpret gamestate as including history (at least relevant parts e.g. whether someone deregistered recently, and once that's included, I see no good reason not to include all of it), and ratification as implicitly deeming a legal fiction about history from the time of the ratified document forward. I intend, with two support, to file a Motion to Reconsider on the judgements of each of CFJs 2962-64. This point has generated quite a bit of discussion lately, not to mention that current precedent is that it's false; I think just stating it as true without any justification is unreasonable. Which precedent? Anyway, I believe my other interpretations are sufficient to lead to the assigned judgements regardless of how ratification works.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements and capacitors, CFJs 2962-64
On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 10:28 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: This point has generated quite a bit of discussion lately, not to mention that current precedent is that it's false; I think just stating it as true without any justification is unreasonable. Which precedent? Anyway, I believe my other interpretations are sufficient to lead to the assigned judgements regardless of how ratification works. Ratification is not obviously broken if the gamestate includes its history. ais523 assumed it doesn't in eir judgement of CFJ 2909: it instead tries to work out a minimal change to the /present/ gamestate to change the past.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements and capacitors, CFJs 2962-64
omd wrote: On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 10:28 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: This point has generated quite a bit of discussion lately, not to mention that current precedent is that it's false; I think just stating it as true without any justification is unreasonable. Which precedent? Â Anyway, I believe my other interpretations are sufficient to lead to the assigned judgements regardless of how ratification works. Ratification is not obviously broken if the gamestate includes its history. ais523 assumed it doesn't in eir judgement of CFJ 2909: it instead tries to work out a minimal change to the /present/ gamestate to change the past. I interpreted that judgement as 1) the gamestate may or may not include history, but in either case 2) the previous version of Rule 1551 was broken because it applied a legal fiction to a past event, but did not apply a legal fiction to subsequent events dependent on that past event.
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements
ais523 wrote: I increase the II of CFJ 2951 to 1 and judge it TRUE. The caller's The II was already 3, so this increase was ineffective, and your later capacitor award may also have been ineffective.
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements, CFJ 2954-2955
Flipping the switch when it's already off, sure, but I figured you
can't be deregistered if you're not a player. R869 states that the
verb to be deregistered means to cease to be a player (i.e., to have
one's citizenship changed from Registered to Unregistered). The Writ
of FAGE didn't cause him to cease being a player since his citizenship
is already set to Unregistered, so it can't be switched from
Registered to Unregistered, so he can't be deregistered until he
rejoins.
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 8:46 AM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 11:56 PM, Jonathan Rouillard
jonathan.rouill...@gmail.com wrote:
(The following are my arguments and my judgement on CFJ 2955)
{{
R1789 keeps referencing the Player who published a Cantus Cygneus as
if he was still registered, and so a Player.
The Player is deregistered as of the posting of the Writ, and
the notation in the Registrar's Report will ensure that,
henceforth, all may know said Player deregistered in a Writ of
FAGE.
This can't work right since, as Yally said, omd wasn't even a Player
at that point. Heck, listing deregistered Players doesn't make any
sense to me, since they're not Player's unless they rejoin later on.
In any case, omd did publish a Cantus Cygneys, but his deregistration
wasn't a Writ of FAGE but rather his own doing. I thus judge CFJ 2955
FALSE.
}}
I intend with 2 support to appeal CFJ 2955.
A person can have their Citizenship flipped to Deregistered even if it
already has that value, and the rule requires that the Registrar
record this deregistration, even if it had no effect.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements, CFJ 2954-2955
I don't see how that statement is clearly TRUE. From R1789: The Player is deregistered as of the posting of the Writ, and the notation in the Registrar's Report will ensure that, henceforth, all may know said Player deregistered in a Writ of FAGE. Referencing you has a player here doesn't work, since you weren't a player at that point. The only other part of R1789 pertaining to the Registrar's report would be this: The Registrar shall note the method of deregistration for that Player in subsequent Registrar Reports. Which also doesn't work, for the same reason. On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 12:04 AM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 11:56 PM, Jonathan Rouillard jonathan.rouill...@gmail.com wrote: In any case, omd did publish a Cantus Cygneys, but his deregistration wasn't a Writ of FAGE but rather his own doing. I thus judge CFJ 2955 FALSE. But the rules clearly say that the statement is TRUE, whether or not I actually deregistered in a Writ of FAGE.
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements, CFJ 2954-2955
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 11:56 PM, Jonathan Rouillard jonathan.rouill...@gmail.com wrote: In any case, omd did publish a Cantus Cygneys, but his deregistration wasn't a Writ of FAGE but rather his own doing. I thus judge CFJ 2955 FALSE. But the rules clearly say that the statement is TRUE, whether or not I actually deregistered in a Writ of FAGE.
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements
On Fri, 10 Sep 2010, Ed Murphy wrote: 2855: TRUE 2856: TRUE A substantive aspect of a rule pertains to /how/ a rule governs, not /what/ a rule governs. With that argument eliminated, a low-powered proposal is just as capable as a low-powered rule (they're both instruments and they're both effective) of changing holdings whose existence is defined by a high-powered rule (if the high-powered rule doesn't attempt to prevent it, then there's no conflict). Question: where does it actually say in the rules that an Instrument can change a regulated quantity? The rules say: An instrument has positive power. (R1688) An instrument CANNOT affect something secured at a power greater than its own. (R1688) An instrument CANNOT affect the operation of a higher-powered instrument. (R2140). An instrument CAN make rule changes (R105). Nothing in here actually says that an Instrument can adjust regulated things generally. Now, the counterargument is exceptio probat regulam, that the fact that the Rules state that an instrument CANNOT make secured changes implies that it CAN make unsecured changes. However, this regulam is not in fact written, and it IS implied through R2125 and R101(i) that regulated actions CANNOT be done except as actually described by the rules. So where is it described? -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Fri, 10 Sep 2010, Ed Murphy wrote: 2855: TRUE 2856: TRUE A substantive aspect of a rule pertains to /how/ a rule governs, not /what/ a rule governs. With that argument eliminated, a low-powered proposal is just as capable as a low-powered rule (they're both instruments and they're both effective) of changing holdings whose existence is defined by a high-powered rule (if the high-powered rule doesn't attempt to prevent it, then there's no conflict). Question: where does it actually say in the rules that an Instrument can change a regulated quantity? The rules say: An instrument has positive power. (R1688) An instrument CANNOT affect something secured at a power greater than its own. (R1688) An instrument CANNOT affect the operation of a higher-powered instrument. (R2140). An instrument CAN make rule changes (R105). Nothing in here actually says that an Instrument can adjust regulated things generally. Now, the counterargument is exceptio probat regulam, that the fact that the Rules state that an instrument CANNOT make secured changes implies that it CAN make unsecured changes. However, this regulam is not in fact written, and it IS implied through R2125 and R101(i) that regulated actions CANNOT be done except as actually described by the rules. So where is it described? Instruments generally, nowhere. Proposals in particular, the first paragraph of R106: When a proposal that includes such explicit changes takes effect, it applies those changes to the gamestate.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements
On Fri, 10 Sep 2010, Geoffrey Spear wrote: Instruments generally, nowhere. Proposals in particular, the first paragraph of R106: When a proposal that includes such explicit changes takes effect, it applies those changes to the gamestate. Ah, there we go: I (and Murphy responding) over-generalized the arguments to instruments, when it's Proposals alone that can do it. Thanks. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements
Sent from my iPhone On Sep 10, 2010, at 1:22 PM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote: Instruments generally, nowhere. Proposals in particular, the first paragraph of R106: When a proposal that includes such explicit changes takes effect, it applies those changes to the gamestate. Huh. I'm not convinced that proposal power isn't still broken-- this sentence takes precedence over Power Controls Mutability.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements
On Fri, 10 Sep 2010, com...@gmail.com wrote: Sent from my iPhone On Sep 10, 2010, at 1:22 PM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote: Instruments generally, nowhere. Proposals in particular, the first paragraph of R106: When a proposal that includes such explicit changes takes effect, it applies those changes to the gamestate. Huh. I'm not convinced that proposal power isn't still broken-- this sentence takes precedence over Power Controls Mutability. Huh indeed. In particular, it's not the definition of security that matters, but the fact that this overrules most Rule statements that say Specific Quantity X is Secured. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements
G. wrote: On Fri, 10 Sep 2010, com...@gmail.com wrote: Sent from my iPhone On Sep 10, 2010, at 1:22 PM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote: Instruments generally, nowhere. Proposals in particular, the first paragraph of R106: When a proposal that includes such explicit changes takes effect, it applies those changes to the gamestate. Huh. I'm not convinced that proposal power isn't still broken-- this sentence takes precedence over Power Controls Mutability. Huh indeed. In particular, it's not the definition of security that matters, but the fact that this overrules most Rule statements that say Specific Quantity X is Secured. There may be enough wiggle room in Rule 106 to avoid this breakage: If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED, then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and its adoption index, and then it takes effect. ... Preventing a proposal from taking effect is a secured change; this does not apply to generally preventing changes to specified areas of the gamestate, ... The first excerpt must be interpreted as unless other rules would prevent it from taking it effect even after its power was set (otherwise Power Controls Mutability would prevent all rule-change proposals due to evaluating proposals in their zero-Power state). Now we've noticed the ambiguity, though, it should definitely be clarified, along with a severability clause. Proto: If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED, then the proposal is adopted, and: a) If other rules prevent it from taking effect for reasons unrelated to its power, then it does not take effect. b) Otherwise, its power is set to its adoption index (or four, whichever is less), and it takes effect (to the extent that other rules do not prevent it from doing so). A proposal intended to be partly or even fully non-severable can achieve it by saying so. Rule 106 has already been amended to explicitly gloss over the paradox implied by this proposal has no effect (contrast the rest of this proposal has no effect which explicitly avoids said paradox): ... a proposal preventing itself from taking effect (its no-effect clause is generally interpreted as applying only to the rest of the proposal).
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements
On Fri, 3 Sep 2010, ais523 wrote: First, we have to deal with a potential bug in the proposal itself; it attempts to create a rule, but does not specify its power. However, it seems reasonable to assume that the rule is created at power 1; although nowhere in the rules is a default power implied for rules, It's in R105(a) first sentence. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements
On Fri, 2010-09-03 at 06:51 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Fri, 3 Sep 2010, ais523 wrote: First, we have to deal with a potential bug in the proposal itself; it attempts to create a rule, but does not specify its power. However, it seems reasonable to assume that the rule is created at power 1; although nowhere in the rules is a default power implied for rules, It's in R105(a) first sentence. -G. Good catch, I had a sneaking suspicion that rule was there somewhere and I'd just missed it. It doesn't affect the judgement, though. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 6:35 AM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: First, we have to deal with a potential bug in the proposal itself; it attempts to create a rule, but does not specify its power. However, it seems reasonable to assume that the rule is created at power 1; although nowhere in the rules is a default power implied for rules, we know the rule has a power of at least 1 (rule 2141) and at most 1 (rule 2140). The only alternative is that the rule was not created at all, which seems implausible. R105(a) explictly addresses this.
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements, capacitors
coppro wrote: On 08/28/2010 05:34 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: 2851: coppro has admitted to eir guilt. The default penalty is mitigated by the interesting gameplay that has resulted (contrast the hypothetical example of coppro changing eir nickname to omb, which would just be annoying). GUILTY, SILENCE, 1 Rest. I award myself 2 capacitors for judging 2841 and 1 for judging 2851. I appeal the question on sentencing; enforcing it would violate my R101 rights not be be punished twice - I have already received 3 Rests. Gratuitous: Those 3 Rests were destroyed upon the GUILTY judgement (R1504), so R101 says this right is not violated by replacing part or all of a penalty with a different but comparable penalty.
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements
ais523 wrote: I opine REMAND on CFJ 2809a; everyone, including the original judge, seems to want more detail in the judgement. You need to specify with/without prejudice.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements
BobTHJ wrote: Not that I think you've been unfair, but did you consider my argument for NOT GUILTY via implicit announcement? The NOVs were announced in the Insulator report, and by assigning them ID numbers I implicitly declared their validity. I think this does satisfy the requirement in the rules. Yes, but I think announce is a higher standard than indicate or similar ordinary-language-defined words.
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements
On Sun, 2009-10-25 at 10:15 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: 2698: TRUE I accept the caller's arguments, but also c.'s gratuitous arguments; in particular, ais523's I intend to amend via various objection-based methods did not necessarily offer a reasonable opportunity to review the notice-based change that e actually had in mind. These arguments contradict judge c.'s arguments in CFJ 2697, where e explicitly ruled that the amendment in question did give a reasonable opportunity to review the amendment: c. wrote: Although there was a plethora of objections in this case, ais523 made it clear that e intended at least some of eir (identical) amendment attempts to go through despite them, and nobody could have reasonably discounted this as at least a possibility. In this case, therefore, every player who was a member of at least one public contract had the reasonable opportunity to review the amendment. Is there a defined process for appealing arguments but not judgements? To me, the combined judgements suggest that the mousetrap scam worked, but the contradictory arguments make me hesitate to resolve the issue by using the scam, in case one or other of the judgements is incorrect. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements
ais523 wrote: On Sun, 2009-10-25 at 10:15 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: 2698: TRUE I accept the caller's arguments, but also c.'s gratuitous arguments; in particular, ais523's I intend to amend via various objection-based methods did not necessarily offer a reasonable opportunity to review the notice-based change that e actually had in mind. These arguments contradict judge c.'s arguments in CFJ 2697, where e explicitly ruled that the amendment in question did give a reasonable opportunity to review the amendment: c. wrote: Although there was a plethora of objections in this case, ais523 made it clear that e intended at least some of eir (identical) amendment attempts to go through despite them, and nobody could have reasonably discounted this as at least a possibility. In this case, therefore, every player who was a member of at least one public contract had the reasonable opportunity to review the amendment. I believe that argument is only valid within a certain scope. In particular, consider it in conjunction with G.'s gratuitous arguments in the same case; there was certainly reasonable opportunity to review the possibility of a loophole in the various without-objection methods, but I don't think there was reasonable opportunity to review the possibility of declaring with-notice after the fact. Anyway, I think R1728(a) (unambiguously and clearly specifying ... the method(s)), plus the interpretation that with ... notice in a contract activates R1728(4), defeats the scam even without R101. Is there a defined process for appealing arguments but not judgements? To me, the combined judgements suggest that the mousetrap scam worked, but the contradictory arguments make me hesitate to resolve the issue by using the scam, in case one or other of the judgements is incorrect. You can appeal and request AFFIRM with a concurring opinion.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements
On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 10:49 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: I believe that argument is only valid within a certain scope. In particular, consider it in conjunction with G.'s gratuitous arguments in the same case; there was certainly reasonable opportunity to review the possibility of a loophole in the various without-objection methods, but I don't think there was reasonable opportunity to review the possibility of declaring with-notice after the fact. There was a 4-day window, after I had specifically said that there was a scam. How is that not an opportunity? -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements
ais523 wrote: On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 10:49 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: I believe that argument is only valid within a certain scope. In particular, consider it in conjunction with G.'s gratuitous arguments in the same case; there was certainly reasonable opportunity to review the possibility of a loophole in the various without-objection methods, but I don't think there was reasonable opportunity to review the possibility of declaring with-notice after the fact. There was a 4-day window, after I had specifically said that there was a scam. How is that not an opportunity? The domain of the argument is whether or not this opportunity was reasonable, by whatever standards we might determine it. Just as it would be possible but probably unreasonable for someone to catch a with-notice intent buried in the middle of (say) the Herald's report, it was possible but arguably unreasonable for someone to have seen your objection-based intents and gone looking for a scam within a non-objection-based clause.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements
On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 11:40 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: The domain of the argument is whether or not this opportunity was reasonable, by whatever standards we might determine it. Just as it would be possible but probably unreasonable for someone to catch a with-notice intent buried in the middle of (say) the Herald's report, it was possible but arguably unreasonable for someone to have seen your objection-based intents and gone looking for a scam within a non-objection-based clause. It's a lot more reasonable to look for a scam when a message explicitly states that it contains multiple scams. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 3:15 PM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 11:40 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: The domain of the argument is whether or not this opportunity was reasonable, by whatever standards we might determine it. Just as it would be possible but probably unreasonable for someone to catch a with-notice intent buried in the middle of (say) the Herald's report, it was possible but arguably unreasonable for someone to have seen your objection-based intents and gone looking for a scam within a non-objection-based clause. It's a lot more reasonable to look for a scam when a message explicitly states that it contains multiple scams. As I said in gratuitous arguments: if everyone had notice of your specific intent to amend Points Party, why didn't they leave? -- -c.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements
On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 15:41 -0400, comex wrote: On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 3:15 PM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 11:40 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: The domain of the argument is whether or not this opportunity was reasonable, by whatever standards we might determine it. Just as it would be possible but probably unreasonable for someone to catch a with-notice intent buried in the middle of (say) the Herald's report, it was possible but arguably unreasonable for someone to have seen your objection-based intents and gone looking for a scam within a non-objection-based clause. It's a lot more reasonable to look for a scam when a message explicitly states that it contains multiple scams. As I said in gratuitous arguments: if everyone had notice of your specific intent to amend Points Party, why didn't they leave? Some people did. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 12:28, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: 2721: GUILTY / APOLOGY 2722: GUILTY / DISCHARGE 2723: GUILTY / DISCHARGE Technically GUILTY, but for the various reasons cited, an APOLOGY should be sufficient - provided that it isn't phoned in this time. For today's prescribed-words list, we go to Urban Dictionary for some noun phrases: different hats roll call bedding the rules objectively attractive Not that I think you've been unfair, but did you consider my argument for NOT GUILTY via implicit announcement? The NOVs were announced in the Insulator report, and by assigning them ID numbers I implicitly declared their validity. I think this does satisfy the requirement in the rules. BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements, CFJs 2507-2510
N.B. the ruleset has been ratified, but I'm not sure we haven't missed
knock-on effects to the gamestate. I think we still need a R1482
never contained that text ratification.
Sent from my iPhone
On May 22, 2009, at 5:21 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
These are only of academic interest now we've changed the rules, but:
First, I note that Goethe's technicality is correct, in that the
proposal in question has various ways to work around the precedence
freeze and satisfy the statement of the CFJ. Therefore, I judge CFJs
2507-2510 all TRUE on a technicality. Now, for the essence behind the
questions.
The essence of these cases is what takes precedence means. In
particular, is the rule attempting to invoke the definition in the old
R1030, to influence the equal-priority without having any legal force,
or not? Unfortunately, although it fits a best-interest-of-the-game
argument, I don't see how a portion of a rule claiming to take
precedence over another can have no legal effect in itself (specifying
something non-legally-binding in order to trigger things in other
rules); a mechanism for doing something like that certainly could have
been added to the ruleset, but it wasn't. A legally binding claim to
take precedence over other rules, therefore, is likely to cause
problems
with the old R1482.
There are two possible ways that such proposals could succeed; if
there
was actually no conflict (so R1482 did not block the change), or if
the
proposal somehow managed to gain precedence over R1482 (a strange
loop,
given that R1482 itself defined precedence).
The rule that allows proposals to do anything is rule 106. It doesn't
claim to take precedence over anything but another rule which would
permit a proposal to take effect, and no rules did so at the time;
therefore, rule 106 definitely isn't trying to take precedence over
1482. It also specifies that preventing a proposal taking effect is
secured; rule 1482 had sufficient power to overcome such security, and
therefore, rule 1482 is capable of preventing a proposal passing
without
even conflicting with rule 106. However, one interesting point here is
whether it's rule 106 or the proposal enacting the rules; it seems
very
clear that it's the proposal itself (especially because it's the
proposal's power that matters to enact the rules), and interestingly,
there are no rules for governing precedence between rules and
proposals.
It's not completely clear what takes effect means; however, an
explicit clarification in R1482 that a proposal taking effect can't
cause the ruleset to leave any rule but R1482 determining precedence
between rules with unequal power means that this is not a get-out
clause.
What about a lack of a conflict? It seems to me that any rule which
claimed to take precedence over another rule of a different power
would
be specifying a method of resolving precedence claims that contradicts
R1482. (Another irrelevant technicality giving an irrelevant verdict
of
TRUE: the new rule itself could define terms or add disclaimers such
that the text fragments shown in the CFJs don't mean what they
appear to
say.) Rules that claim to take precedence over all other rules are
definitely claiming to take precedence over rules with a different
power, so if not for the technicalities, CFJs 2507 and 2509 would be
FALSE.
As for CFJs 2508 and 2510: the question here is if the rule
conflicts
with another rule of a different power. (If these rules were enacted
indirectly, incidentally, they would be very dangerous, as they'd
prevent the enactment of another rule of a different power that
conflicted with the original rule!) It would certainly be possible to
have a minimal rule with nothing but the text in the CFJ; that has the
fewest conflicts, and so is the case I will consider.
So think about two rules with the following text, one power-3, one
power-4:
{{{This rule takes precedence over all other rules with which it
conflicts.}}}
What rules can it possibly conflict with (under the ruleset at the
time
this CFJ was called)? Only 1030 and 1482, which were the only
precedence-setting rules at the time the CFJ was called. (Because,
presumably, none of the this rule takes precedence over all other
rules rules ever existed, until they were ratified into existence
after
R1482 was fixed, but that's after the CFJ was called and so irrelevant
here.) The problem here is that the rules claim precedence over R1482
iff they conflict with it; in the case of the power-4 rule, it
conflicts
with R1482 iff it claims precedence over it! The argument here goes:
is
it R1482 or the new rule that determines precedence, even though they
agree? If it's R1482, then by R1482 it's the new rule, which is a
contradiction. If it's the new rule, then it doesn't exist in the
first
place, which is also a contradiction. So for the new rule to claim
precedence over R1482 is a contradiction, and when there are two
equally
consistent
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements, CFJs 2507-2510
On Fri, 22 May 2009, Alex Smith wrote: However, one interesting point here is whether it's rule 106 or the proposal enacting the rules; it seems very clear that it's the proposal itself (especially because it's the proposal's power that matters to enact the rules), and interestingly, there are no rules for governing precedence between rules and proposals. I'm remembering either a precedent or a discussion saying that if a proposal does something that's impossible by the rules, the proposal does it instantaneously but then the rule reasserts itself when the proposal's taking effect wears off. For example, if a proposal says the power of Rule 1482 is hereby set to Green Cheese (where green cheese isn't a possible state for a power index) then it is instantaneously green cheese but wears off afterwards. But this is all sounding a little nutty as I type it. Does anyone recall actual precedents like this? By the way, it's still possible to be found guilty of the class-4 crime of invisibilitating. Let's be careful out there. -Goethe
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements, CFJs 2471-4
On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 09:33 -0400, Quazie wrote: On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 7:22 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: I judge CFJ 2471 FALSE. An announcement about the past that does not fall into any of the categories in rule 869 is just a true statement, not a registration action. I intend to appeal this judgement with 2 Support. CFJ 2471 is trivially true, as I am currently a player and it is after I sent that message. I believe I didn't CFJ on what I wanted to. I interpreted after as due to, but I should be more alert really, I missed that interpretation. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements, CFJs 2471-4
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 09:33 -0400, Quazie wrote: On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 7:22 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: I judge CFJ 2471 FALSE. An announcement about the past that does not fall into any of the categories in rule 869 is just a true statement, not a registration action. I intend to appeal this judgement with 2 Support. CFJ 2471 is trivially true, as I am currently a player and it is after I sent that message. I believe I didn't CFJ on what I wanted to. I interpreted after as due to, but I should be more alert really, I missed that interpretation. -- ais523 If the sentence has two interpretations, one true and one false, is that of any interest? By judging it FALSE, the CFJ isn't correct as I'm currently a player, but by judging it TRUE the CFJ is incorrect as it didn't make me a player.
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements, CFJs 2471-4
Quazie wrote: I intend to appeal this judgement with 2 Support. CFJ 2471 is trivially true, as I am currently a player and it is after I sent that message. I believe I didn't CFJ on what I wanted to. Interpreting after as a gloss for as a result of may be acceptable shorthand for these CFJs. Or possibly not.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements, CFJs 2471-4
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: I intend to appeal this judgement with 2 Support. CFJ 2471 is trivially true, as I am currently a player and it is after I sent that message. I believe I didn't CFJ on what I wanted to. I interpreted after as due to, but I should be more alert really, I missed that interpretation. N.B. whether Quazie is a player now is irrelevant, but e unambiguously became a player before submitting eir CFJs.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements, CFJs 2471-4
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 11:23 AM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: I intend to appeal this judgement with 2 Support. CFJ 2471 is trivially true, as I am currently a player and it is after I sent that message. I believe I didn't CFJ on what I wanted to. I interpreted after as due to, but I should be more alert really, I missed that interpretation. N.B. whether Quazie is a player now is irrelevant, but e unambiguously became a player before submitting eir CFJs. When I became a player is relevant, and what constitutes a valid registration is relevant.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements, CFJs 2471-4
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 9:27 AM, Quazie quazieno...@gmail.com wrote: When I became a player is relevant, and what constitutes a valid registration is relevant. So the judgements should be left alone, since that's what they currently determine. -root
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 12:11 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: 2432: Trivially TRUE, as you can announce: I spend the cube that person A gave me. I spend the cube that person B gave me. 2433: Trivially TRUE, as you can announce: I spend one of my cubes. I spend the other one of my cubes. You could have just recused yourself...
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements
Goethe wrote: I had forgotten, previously, about R754(c), which suggests that we might give weight to legal definitions. Leaving aside document (there are amendable and non-amendable legal documents) and all the example's we've used (text documents, messages, contracts et al.) let's take a look at proposal in the most analogous setting possible, a legislative setting. In the United States Congress, a Bill (a proposal to change the Law) is presented as a body of text (a document). Before the Bill is voted on as a whole, Amendments to the Bill may be offered and voted up/down. Now, each Amendment is a Proposal (a proposal to change the Bill, and a document), as well. But each amendment, after being presented, cannot be changed; any change must be offered as a new amendment. [My understanding of these processes is as an informed layperson so may miss some details, hopefully without compromising the discussion.] So the Bill is a changeable Proposal to change the Law. And an Amendment is an unchangeable Proposal to change the Bill. This comes down on the anti- side. Neither a Bill nor an Amendment can be changed once the process of voting on it begins. This morning, I find myself more swayed by pro- than anti-. That changes each time I think about it. The only thing I'm *sure* of is that I think a judge needs to come right out and say they are weighing these closely-balanced sides on the interest of the game, and perhaps, as much as anything, commit emself to a subjective opinion rather than looking for a final piece of hard logic. It may be that we admit that this decision relies solely on the luck of assignment and mood of the judge. We'll also have to admit that in such a case, an Appeals Court that constantly REMANDS would only switch back and forth between subjective judgements; thus an AFFIRM at some point (perhaps not this one) would be necessary even if the appeals court doesn't wholly agree. There should also be at least one CFJ along the lines of even if the proposal's text did change, did the decision and associated votes put into effect the old text, the new text, or neither?.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: So the Bill is a changeable Proposal to change the Law. And an Amendment is an unchangeable Proposal to change the Bill. This comes down on the anti- side. Neither a Bill nor an Amendment can be changed once the process of voting on it begins. The issue is whether a proposal is fundamentally mutable (like a contract) or immutable (like a message). In the former, there's nothing in the Agoran ruleset to prevent it from being changed once voting begins, regardless of whatever happens in the U.S. Congress. The process of voting is well laid out and defined in the rules and we don't need to use external precedent for it; the definition of a proposal, however, isn't.
RE: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements
comex wrote: On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: So the Bill is a changeable Proposal to change the Law. And an Amendment is an unchangeable Proposal to change the Bill. This comes down on the anti- side. Neither a Bill nor an Amendment can be changed once the process of voting on it begins. The issue is whether a proposal is fundamentally mutable (like a contract) or immutable (like a message). In the former, there's nothing in the Agoran ruleset to prevent it from being changed once voting begins, regardless of whatever happens in the U.S. Congress. The process of voting is well laid out and defined in the rules and we don't need to use external precedent for it; the definition of a proposal, however, isn't. Another interesting point here is BlogNomic; it allows proposals to be edited even after voting is open, but not after any votes have been cast on them. Also, IIRC in the UK new laws have to be voted on multiple times before being enacted, and can be amended between some of the voting phases. -- ais523 winmail.dat
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009, Ed Murphy wrote: This comes down on the anti- side. Neither a Bill nor an Amendment can be changed once the process of voting on it begins. [...] There should also be at least one CFJ along the lines of even if the proposal's text did change, did the decision and associated votes put into effect the old text, the new text, or neither?. These are very, very good points. I think comex and I waltzed around them a bit when we were debating what a matter was in the Decision- voting rules. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements
ais523 wrote: Also, why should comex's scam legislation address the ramifications of its claim? That's for a judge to do, not for the scam rule itself. (If the scam rule did state a judgement to be used in any CFJs regarding it, I rather suspect that would either be considered judicial corruption, or ignored, rather than something that the rule is required to do!) If a rule says, or implies, that a proposal can be modified, it is not ineffective merely because it does not consider every possible resulting corner case. I did, and my arguments amounted to this is broken enough to justify ignoring it in favor of the long-standing custom tied to R106. (I'm tied up with something else this weekend and don't have time to offer more detailed commentary, sorry.) I also transfer a prop from Murphy (for not including my gratuitous arguments on CFJ 2376 in its permanent record, but including Goethe's, giving a rather biased view of the case) to Goethe (for taking the trouble to debate and come up with good arguments against, rather than just assuming that it didn't work for no apparent reason). Please point me to said arguments and I'll add them to the record.
DIS: RE: BUS: Judgements
On Sat, 14 Feb 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote: This morning, I find myself more swayed by pro- than anti-. That changes each time I think about it. The only thing I'm *sure* of is that I think a judge needs to come right out and say they are weighing these closely-balanced sides on the interest of the game, and perhaps, as much as anything, commit emself to a subjective opinion rather than looking for a final piece of hard logic. I should also say that now that the dictatorship has ended one way or the other, and voting on proposals to fix the bugs are in progress, making a good of the game argument solely based on it's not for the good of the game for comex to have a power-3 dictatorship seems like Bad Form. -Goethe
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements
On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: This morning, I find myself more swayed by pro- than anti-. That changes each time I think about it. The only thing I'm *sure* of is that I think a judge needs to come right out and say they are weighing these closely-balanced sides on the interest of the game, and perhaps, as much as anything, commit emself to a subjective opinion rather than looking for a final piece of hard logic. It may be that we admit that this decision relies solely on the luck of assignment and mood of the judge. We'll also have to admit that in such a case, an Appeals Court that constantly REMANDS would only switch back and forth between subjective judgements; thus an AFFIRM at some point (perhaps not this one) would be necessary even if the appeals court doesn't wholly agree. For the record, I agree that this is necessarily subjective. As long as the final opinion on this case is well-thought-out, I don't intend to appeal it even if I disagree with its logic. Though, as Murphy as an AFO member and the Assessor has necessarily taken part in the process (albeit as the scam's enemy, I guess, considering the AFO's deregistration), I wouldn't mind a REASSIGN just for impartiality.
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 4:03 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2282: FALSE Even if the scam clause converting annotations into amendments was added to the rules, any reasonable definition of annotation requires that the annotation was true, which this purported annotation was not. What, you think there has never been an annotation made in error?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements
comex wrote: On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 4:03 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2282: FALSE Even if the scam clause converting annotations into amendments was added to the rules, any reasonable definition of annotation requires that the annotation was true, which this purported annotation was not. What, you think there has never been an annotation made in error? Okay, it at least requires that the annotator reasonably believes the annotation to be true. I don't think you reasonably believed that the has been able for several months was true pre-scam. Also, if the scam clause was added, then if anything it sets the standards for annotation higher than before.
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements
On 22 Nov 2008, at 13:11, Alex Smith wrote: So I judge CFJ 2264 trivially TRUE to the literal question asked, and TRUE to the spirit of the question, but with many caveats; the contract can be amended, but might not be enforceable. I hate contract law.
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements
On Sat, 22 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote: However, there are other reasons why the resulting contract might not take effect; effects of a contract which rely on agreement to it (such as acting on behalf) won't work unless the players in question have actually agreed to it, and violations of amendments against the nature of the contract can't be punished by the criminal courts (due to TITE) or the equity courts (due to the punishment not going against the nature of the contract's original intention). Gratuitous Concurring Opinion (important concept here): Peter Suber's quote (thanks, Murphy!): My rationale for requiring unanimous votes for amendment, initially, is to create a kind of social contract in which no player can be overruled until she consents to take the risk by switching to majority rule or some other system. The splitting of R101(iii) and (iv) is meant to follow this rationale, and the fact that there are explicitly two separate standards in (iii) and (iv) should be taken to Mean Something. You have to give explicit consent to join something in the first place. But once you agree to join something with non-unanimous change mechanisms, or if you are in something with unanimous change mechanisms and you agree to make the mechanism non-unanimous, you accept the risk and must live with the consequences--no blanket protection once you consent to be in (the only caveat being no secret surprises due to (iv)'s review clause). For TITE purposes, any contract that specifies a non-unanimous change mechanism has such change as part of its original intention. Being inducted into a whole rules system whose jurisdiction you haven't agreed to be in is Mousetrapping. But once you've agreed to step into a jurisdiction, if you're put in trouble but a non-unanimous change method you agreed to be a part of, that's not a Mousetrap, that's Nomic. -Goethe
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements on CFJs 2086 and 2087, and thoughts from Agora's history
On Fri, 3 Oct 2008, ais523 wrote: http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2006-August/002683.html. The proposal made radical changes to the ruleset, along with two others submitted at a similar time, and seemed to have been part of a large ruleset simplification. (Goethe was responsible; I invite em to shed more light on the circumstances.) Rule 478 was amended at the same time, but mostly to replace Registrar with Herald, and the relevant parts of the rule did not substantively change. There was a general consensus at the time that there were too many rules (over 300!) and many were a patchwork of old games and little-used mechanisms, and too many officers and mechanism formality for the (then) lower-traffic and lower numbers of players. In addition to true deadwood removal, I removed many places where procedure was spelled out in exquisite detail, replacing it with general terms like reasonable etc. It was a *specific* experiment to see if the courts could set precedents on exactly the kind of things where detail was reduced but not replaced, timing of multiple events in one message is a perfect example. The pruning was purposefully aggressive with the idea that things that were cut too far back would regrow (e.g. switches) or make interesting scams/games/changes/etc. On the other hand, it was meant that, if something was cut out and not replaced, that meant the rules would be silent on the issue, and the courts could *if they wanted* use the past methods as game custom. Unless, of course, something still in the rules directly and obviously conflicted with it. Note that this was my own experiment, and while I discussed the general principle a bit in the protos, I don't mean to imply that everyone bought in or thought deeply about this specific aspect of it, everyone was just happy with the pruning in general and not overly worried about the details beyond looking for immediate breakages. Before proposal 4866, it was possible for actions to happen at the same time but in a sequence (rules 478 and 1527 co-existed happily for ages), and it seems that game custom that this is possible is relatively strong. (This is similar to root's and woggle's arguments on the case.) Things could have gone quite differently if back in 2006 someone had tried to scam the absence of rule 1527; but by now, it's reasonably established what game custom says the new ruleset means. I think that under the current ruleset, when multiple actions are given in a message, it is up to the author to specify which order they happen in to avoid ambiguity; but that there is a very strong presumption that they are intended to happen in the order given in the message, in the absence of evidence to the contrary. (This is the best interpretation I can make of a missing rule 1527; in the absence of a rule specifying ordering, people sending the message can choose.) When ehird filed the CFJs in question, there was no indication that any intention was meant other than the CFJs being filed one after the other. The creation of a precedent like this, including details on how long the assumptions have been made while the rules were silent, was precisely what the Repeals were meant to enable the Courts to do. In my personal opinion, well-researched, well-reasoned, and extremely well-done. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements, CFJs 2086 and 2087
On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 15:30 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 3:16 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The great simplification purposefully dropped this but didn't replace it with anything, on the grounds that doing such would make it part of game custom and precedence as long as the rules remained silent. Suber's justification for including a you must follow the rules rule seems to argue directly against this line of reasoning. He said (http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/nomic.htm) that the rule was included rather than leaving it as an unwritten metarule of all games so that it could be explicitly repealed, as unwise as that would be. It's my thinking along these same lines that if something is purposely dropped from the ruleset, it should be seen not as a game custom that should continue to be followed, but an outdated rule that was explicitly rejected as unsuitable, and if anything the exact opposite of the removed wording should be followed. We did repeal that rule, though. Possibly that was a good thing; nothing compels anyone to follow the rules of Agora, but they often do because it tends to cause other Agorans to treat them more favourably, and because it's hard to have much influence on the game if you blatantly ignore the rules. As Agora has no power to enforce its rules, other than the modification of things that only exist in the minds of the players anyway, this is possibly all for the best. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements, CFJs 2086 and 2087
On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 12:01 -0700, Charles Reiss wrote: I also support the appeal of CFJ 2086-7. As root has stated, long-standing game custom allows the actions of a message to have some ordering in legal time even though they take effect at the same instant of physical time. (I do not believe that tusho's arguments have merit: although a light that is turning on may be neither off or on, it is one of on or not on.) Rule 478 is very clear that multiple actions by announcement in the same message happen simultaneously. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements, CFJs 2086 and 2087
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 12:04, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 12:01 -0700, Charles Reiss wrote: I also support the appeal of CFJ 2086-7. As root has stated, long-standing game custom allows the actions of a message to have some ordering in legal time even though they take effect at the same instant of physical time. (I do not believe that tusho's arguments have merit: although a light that is turning on may be neither off or on, it is one of on or not on.) Rule 478 is very clear that multiple actions by announcement in the same message happen simultaneously. They say that they happen at the time date-stamped on the message. This is not the same thing as simultaneously, since in the magical universe of the rules we can order actions that occur at the same instant. -woggle
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements, CFJs 2086 and 2087
On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 12:10 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: I support this appeal and thus appeal it. This should be considered as a fencepost problem; things that are considered at the time of are being considered in terms of continuous time (be it legal or real time). Instants in time that border two periods of continuous time are in neither, except by arbitrary definition. The arbitrary definition chosen should reflect game custom if it is not explicitly defined. I was trying to go via customary English usage. Reflecting game custom would probably have been more practical, though... (Incidentally, I think we now have people arguing for FALSE/FALSE, TRUE/TRUE, UNDECIDABLE/UNDECIDABLE, and FALSE/TRUE...) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements, CFJs 2086 and 2087
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008, ais523 wrote: On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 12:01 -0700, Charles Reiss wrote: I also support the appeal of CFJ 2086-7. As root has stated, long-standing game custom allows the actions of a message to have some ordering in legal time even though they take effect at the same instant of physical time. (I do not believe that tusho's arguments have merit: although a light that is turning on may be neither off or on, it is one of on or not on.) Rule 478 is very clear that multiple actions by announcement in the same message happen simultaneously. Simultaneous doesn't appear there, or elsewhere in such a context. Rule 1527 used to read: Whenever a message contains more than one action -- such as a notification, report, or other communication -- on which the Rules place some legal significance, the actions in that message shall be taken to have been sent sequentially in the order which they appear in the message. If a message attempts to perform multiple actions simultaneously without explicitly stating a specific order for the actions, then the attempt shall be considered ambiguous and without effect if the gamestate would be substantively different for any two orderings of the actions. For the purposes of this test, the actual order the actions are performed in is not considered substantive, but other differences may, at the discretion of a judge, be considered substantive. The great simplification purposefully dropped this but didn't replace it with anything, on the grounds that doing such would make it part of game custom and precedence as long as the rules remained silent. A support for this custom is that it's still true for Rule changes (R105): Rule changes always occur sequentially, never simultaneously. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements, CFJs 2086 and 2087
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 3:14 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (Incidentally, I think we now have people arguing for FALSE/FALSE, TRUE/TRUE, UNDECIDABLE/UNDECIDABLE, and FALSE/TRUE...) In that case I feel obligated to try to come up with a convincing argument for TRUE/FALSE.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements, CFJs 2086 and 2087
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 3:16 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The great simplification purposefully dropped this but didn't replace it with anything, on the grounds that doing such would make it part of game custom and precedence as long as the rules remained silent. Suber's justification for including a you must follow the rules rule seems to argue directly against this line of reasoning. He said (http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/nomic.htm) that the rule was included rather than leaving it as an unwritten metarule of all games so that it could be explicitly repealed, as unwise as that would be. It's my thinking along these same lines that if something is purposely dropped from the ruleset, it should be seen not as a game custom that should continue to be followed, but an outdated rule that was explicitly rejected as unsuitable, and if anything the exact opposite of the removed wording should be followed.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements, CFJs 2086 and 2087
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008, ais523 wrote: On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 12:16 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Tue, 16 Sep 2008, ais523 wrote: On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 12:01 -0700, Charles Reiss wrote: I also support the appeal of CFJ 2086-7. As root has stated, long-standing game custom allows the actions of a message to have some ordering in legal time even though they take effect at the same instant of physical time. (I do not believe that tusho's arguments have merit: although a light that is turning on may be neither off or on, it is one of on or not on.) Rule 478 is very clear that multiple actions by announcement in the same message happen simultaneously. Simultaneous doesn't appear there, or elsewhere in such a context. If two things happen at the same time, they're simultaneous by definition. Rule 478 specifies that the actions happen at the time datestamped on the message, which is the same for all actions taken in the same message. My point is that the definition of simultaneous is not worth mooting as it does not appear in the rule in question. The question is whether events occurring with the same date-stamp can have an ordering within that message. Clearly they can in R105. By game custom, they do. Back-construing the fact that the same physical time removes all ordering is not appropriate. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements, CFJs 2086 and 2087
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote: On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 3:16 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The great simplification purposefully dropped this but didn't replace it with anything, on the grounds that doing such would make it part of game custom and precedence as long as the rules remained silent. Suber's justification for including a you must follow the rules rule seems to argue directly against this line of reasoning. He said (http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/nomic.htm) that the rule was included rather than leaving it as an unwritten metarule of all games so that it could be explicitly repealed, as unwise as that would be. It's my thinking along these same lines that if something is purposely dropped from the ruleset, it should be seen not as a game custom that should continue to be followed, but an outdated rule that was explicitly rejected as unsuitable, and if anything the exact opposite of the removed wording should be followed. I would agree if it were replaced with something, or if dropping it made common definitions supersede it (as happened with the definition of Politician). In the current case, dropping it made it so that: (1) The rules are silent; and (2) Common definitions do not reject it out of hand (I double-checked that). In such a case there is no reason reject the older definition as game custom where the rules are silent, in fact we are expected to do so. Ordering events within a message, or defining boundaries between two time periods as belonging to one or the other time period, is entirely arbitrary. Since it is arbitrary and the rules don't define it, we're left with custom. -Goethe
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements, CFJs 2086 and 2087
2008/9/16 comex [EMAIL PROTECTED]: So the question is whether actions happen truly simultaneously (the actions are being done at the same time), in which case the statements would both be TRUE, or whether they can be separated in legal time, in which case both would be FALSE. I support the latter. The rules state that they happen truly simultaneously. So actually now I argue: They are both TRUE.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements, CFJs 2086 and 2087
On Tuesday 16 September 2008 02:08:10 pm Charles Reiss wrote: They say that they happen at the time date-stamped on the message. This is not the same thing as simultaneously, since in the magical universe of the rules we can order actions that occur at the same instant. Incidentally, this is exactly what I was trying to get at with my judgments on CFJs 1975-6, which somehow got interpreted as a quantum uncertainty theory of timing. Pavitra
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements, CFJs 2086 and 2087
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008, Elliott Hird wrote: 2008/9/16 comex [EMAIL PROTECTED]: So the question is whether actions happen truly simultaneously (the actions are being done at the same time), in which case the statements would both be TRUE, or whether they can be separated in legal time, in which case both would be FALSE. I support the latter. The rules state that they happen truly simultaneously. So actually now I argue: They are both TRUE. All the words in this sentence are sent with the same time stamp. Does this mean they don't have an order? order they don't have an If, reading how are you this? -Goethe
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements, panel intents
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 4:11 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2086a, 2087a: I intend to cause the panel to send this message:
{
The panel accepts appellant Zefram's arguments and judges 2086a and
2087a OVERRULE with a replacement judgement of TRUE.
}
BobTHJ, ais523: Any chance of acting on this any time soon? A
definite ruling that the previous judgment was inappropriate would
make it a whole lot easier to judge the criminal case against the
judge for making an inappropriate judgment.
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements on CFJs 2094 and 2095
On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 12:43 -0600, Charles Reiss wrote: On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 08:52, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In CFJs 2094 and 2095, I rule UNDETERMINED, as I have severe trouble [snip] In my judgement of CFJ 2094, I also find that objecting to a dependent action whilst not being commonly known by the name ais523 is a regulated action. (This is completely irrelevant to the judgement; however, it should be enough to trigger rule 2125(f).) Since proposal 5610 apparently passed... I intend to appeal the judgment of CFJ 2094 with 2 support. I intend to appeal the judgment of CFJ 2095 with 2 support. I recommend REASSIGN due to the corruptive self-interest shown in ais523's arguments regarding respect to the regulation of objection. I submit the above excerpt from eir arguments as evidence for the appeal. Unfortunately for you, a judicial finding has still found that it's regulated, regardless of whether or not the finding is successfully appealed. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements on CFJs 2094 and 2095
On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 8:06 AM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unfortunately for you, a judicial finding has still found that it's regulated, regardless of whether or not the finding is successfully appealed. I'm not sure why you think it matters if objecting is regulated or not. An Objector is a first-class player who has publicly posted an objection. Whether that person has an R101(ii) right to post that objection is irrelevant; as long as the objection is sent via a public forum that player is an Objector. If the rules were to forbid actions that are regulated and not explicitly allowed you could possibly try to punish players who post objections, but you couldn't prevent them from posting their objections and then becoming Objectors.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements on CFJs 2094 and 2095
On Fri, 2008-08-01 at 10:23 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 8:06 AM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unfortunately for you, a judicial finding has still found that it's regulated, regardless of whether or not the finding is successfully appealed. I'm not sure why you think it matters if objecting is regulated or not. An Objector is a first-class player who has publicly posted an objection. Whether that person has an R101(ii) right to post that objection is irrelevant; as long as the objection is sent via a public forum that player is an Objector. If the rules were to forbid actions that are regulated and not explicitly allowed you could possibly try to punish players who post objections, but you couldn't prevent them from posting their objections and then becoming Objectors. Actually, I think that this is a genuine flaw in the scam, and have all along. I thought it would be interesting to see how it played out, though. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements on CFJs 2094 and 2095
On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 12:43 -0600, Charles Reiss wrote: I intend to appeal the judgment of CFJ 2094 with 2 support. I intend to appeal the judgment of CFJ 2095 with 2 support. I recommend REASSIGN due to the corruptive self-interest shown in ais523's arguments regarding respect to the regulation of objection. I submit the above excerpt from eir arguments as evidence for the appeal. -woggle 2095? The scam argument was only given in the judgement of 2094 (read what I wrote carefully). -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements on CFJs 2094 and 2095
On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 09:27, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 12:43 -0600, Charles Reiss wrote: I intend to appeal the judgment of CFJ 2094 with 2 support. I intend to appeal the judgment of CFJ 2095 with 2 support. I recommend REASSIGN due to the corruptive self-interest shown in ais523's arguments regarding respect to the regulation of objection. I submit the above excerpt from eir arguments as evidence for the appeal. -woggle 2095? The scam argument was only given in the judgement of 2094 (read what I wrote carefully). The scam argument is not in the judgment of anything, as arguments are not a part of the judgment, bizarre and contrary to the way CFJ precedents tend to be used as that is. It's not clear to me that the arguments for the two cases are seperated by your in the judgment of ..., therefore. -woggle
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements on CFJs 2094 and 2095
On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 08:35, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 2008-08-01 at 10:23 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 8:06 AM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unfortunately for you, a judicial finding has still found that it's regulated, regardless of whether or not the finding is successfully appealed. I'm not sure why you think it matters if objecting is regulated or not. An Objector is a first-class player who has publicly posted an objection. Whether that person has an R101(ii) right to post that objection is irrelevant; as long as the objection is sent via a public forum that player is an Objector. If the rules were to forbid actions that are regulated and not explicitly allowed you could possibly try to punish players who post objections, but you couldn't prevent them from posting their objections and then becoming Objectors. Actually, I think that this is a genuine flaw in the scam, and have all along. I thought it would be interesting to see how it played out, though. I think it was a pretty obvious flaw in your scam, which made me puzzled as to why you were attempting it. (Posting an objection is certainly POSSIBLE regardless of what the rules say, unless some bizarre definition objection is in play. And even if you had successfully made posting an objection ILLEGAL, what the heck would be the rule you'd cite in a criminal case, and who'd be your co-conspirators for the 2-support?...) So if you had purported to resolve your without Objection attempt, the resulting CFJ would pretty surely overturn it. But it still seems like a great test case for the corruptive self-interest thing, so thanks for that. - woggle
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements on CFJs 2094 and 2095
On Tue, 2008-07-29 at 11:06 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 10:52 AM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In my judgement of CFJ 2094, I also find that objecting to a dependent action whilst not being commonly known by the name ais523 is a regulated action. (This is completely irrelevant to the judgement; however, it should be enough to trigger rule 2125(f).) Yeah, we'll all carefully weigh the implications of ignoring this paragraph before not letting it guide future play. It's rule 2125 I'm trying to invoke there, which is not a SHOULD at all. You're thinking of the wrong rule... -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements on CFJs 2094 and 2095
On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 10:52 AM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In my judgement of CFJ 2094, I also find that objecting to a dependent action whilst not being commonly known by the name ais523 is a regulated action. (This is completely irrelevant to the judgement; however, it should be enough to trigger rule 2125(f).) I initiate a criminal CFJ against ais523 for breaking Rule two one four ni-ni-ni-ni-ni-ni-nininini
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements on CFJs 2094 and 2095
On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 09:10, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2008-07-29 at 11:06 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 10:52 AM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In my judgement of CFJ 2094, I also find that objecting to a dependent action whilst not being commonly known by the name ais523 is a regulated action. (This is completely irrelevant to the judgement; however, it should be enough to trigger rule 2125(f).) Yeah, we'll all carefully weigh the implications of ignoring this paragraph before not letting it guide future play. It's rule 2125 I'm trying to invoke there, which is not a SHOULD at all. You're thinking of the wrong rule... I suspect judicial finding is reasonably interpreted to only include things relevant to and implied or derived from a judgment proper. Failing that, common sense (and likely a future judge should your crazy statement stand as a judicial finding) will reveal that if objecting to a dependent action in those other cases is regulated, then it is also in the case where one is commonly known by the name ais523. Fortunately this probably has little relevance to the legality or possibility of objecting. -woggle
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements, panel intents
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 1:11 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2048a: I support woggle's intent to send the message below. The
required support having been achieved, I send this message on behalf
of the panel:
{
As Taral has not cited the precedent on which apparently eir judgment is
based, eir judgment is in serious doubt. Therefore, this panel judges
REASSIGN.
}
If you wanted clarification, you could have just remanded it to me. I
think I'm actually kind of insulted by this.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements
2008/6/17 Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I CFJ on the following statement: If ehrid was able to act on my
behalf at the time CFJ 1999 and CFJ 2000 were called one or more of
the set of {CFJ 1999, CFJ 2000} would've been TRUE.
The more interesting question behind these CFJs is what ehrid's
statement really could have done.
Whenever someone is part of a partnership or something of that
nature, it's customary for the player acting on behalf of the entity
to say that the partnership performs the action, e.g. 'The perlnomic
partnership votes as follows', or 'Human point two registers'. In
this case, ehrid stated that e performed the action of 'I deregister'
on my behalf. My interpretation is that e attempted to act on my
behalf to deregister em, which would make this CFJ FALSE, though I'm
not sure of the interpretation of the statement.
ehrid
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements
Quazie wrote: If possible I bar ehrid from the above CFJ. Not possible. Rule 591, excerpt: The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case, and in the initiating announcement e CAN disqualify one person from assignment as judge of the case.
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements of CFJs 1678-83
root wrote: Now that the matter no longer has any bearing on Partnerships thanks to the new, improved Rule 2145, I would like to reiterate my appeal of CFJ 1682 in the hopes of garnering more support. I still find fault in the logic of the Judge's arguments, and it seemed at the time that the judgement may have been swung by the desire not to have single-member partnerships, which is no longer at issue. I neither support nor oppose this attempt. I could see the issue being reasonably argued in either direction, and will allow the Board of Appeals to sort it out from here. Would anyone like to attempt a MMI-type rule governing plurals? What's more, a reversal of CFJ 1682 would be both useful and supported by game custom, as evidenced by this announcement (as well as other similar historical agreements) made by Goethe on April 6, 2005: I agree, as per the rules of agora, to not check out more cards from the library before they've been in the library 4 hours or more, and if I break this agreement I'll transfer the card in question to the first person who complains. It could be argued that this agreement implicitly included the other players. Still, I do see your point.
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements of CFJs 1678-83
Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: at the times in question, neither Yin Corp nor Yang Corp were tied to any natural persons whatsoever. In the three minutes before Mon, 21 May 2007 20:19:27 -0500, Quazie was a partner in Yin Corp, so Yin Corp could be a person under existing legal theories. (Though we have not explicitly addressed the question of a partnership that ultimately devolves obligations onto a single natural person.) This is debatably covered by CFJ 1682, depending on how you want to split the difference between (a) a purported R1742 agreement involving only one natural person from the start (e.g. square root) and (b) a R1742 agreement involving two or more natural persons at first, but then coming to involve only one natural person (e.g. Yin Corp) The judgement of CFJs 1666-1668 implies that Yin Corp is at all times distinct from Quazie. I therefore call for appeal of CFJ 1681. I continue to interpret CFJ 1681 as false, but acknowledge that the arguments supporting that interpretation need improvement.
DIS: Re: BUS: judgements of CFJs 1618, 1619, 1620
It all makes sense... which is unfortunate. Stupid English meanings On 2/22/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In the matter of CFJs 1618, 1619, and 1620: As the ruleset does not supply a definition of active or inactive, and neither law nor mathematics provides an applicable definition, I find that the ordinary English meaning of the words applies. Most uses of active in the ruleset refer to active player, which under usual English grammar must be interpreted as meaning a player who is actively playing. Merely being a player does not constitute active play; one must engage in actions that are of significance to the rules, such as voting, publishing official reports, or participating in the judicial process. Passive behaviour that is significant to the rules, such as doing nothing to allow a time limit to expire, is not active play. I find that a player need not be presently peforming any of these actions in order to be an active player; any recent activity, or especially a pattern of activity, qualifies one as an active player. Rule 1826 and the statement of CFJ 1618 refer to a person being active without using the phrase active player. This could be interpreted as referring to a wider standard of activity. An active player (as defined above) is definitely active in the context of the game. A non-player who engages in game-relevant actions, such as calling CFJs, is also active. I leave open the question of whether game-unrelated activity can also qualify one as active, because it does not affect these CFJs. For CFJ 1618, Quazie's level of activity is to be judged at the time the CFJ was called (R217). At that instant Quazie was calling for judgement, which is definitely game-relevant activity. E was therefore definitely active in the context of the game, and so I judge CFJ 1618 FALSE. It is not necessary for this CFJ to consider how far in the past relevant activity can be in order for a person to qualify as active. For CFJ 1619, I note that very little in the ruleset is actually limited to active players. The main one is voting. I note that on 2007-01-30 Quazie purported to vote on proposals, including specifically AGAINST proposal 4896. The validity of this action depends on eir eligibility, which depends on being an active player. On 2007-01-24 e had dismissed CFJ 1595, which is a rule-relevant activity. I find that e was an active player both at the time that proposal 4896 was distributed and when e purported to vote on it. The vote was valid, and so I judge CFJ 1619 FALSE. When proposal 4866 was adopted, the ruleset ceased to define the term active. I find that, therefore, it is at this instant that the ordinary English meaning of the word commenced to prevail. There is no legal basis for GreyKnight's assertion that some mixture of the English meaning and the repealed definition applies. I therefore judge CFJ 1620 FALSE. -zefram -- Brandon Kwaselow (Quazie) University of Michigan LSA, Residential College Computer Science
