DIS: Re: BUS: Let's get things moving
On 24 June 2012 23:26, FKA441344 441...@gmail.com wrote: I intend to, With Notice, initiate a criminal case: omd violated Rule 2143 by failing to distribute by the end of Sun. 24 June proposals in the proposal pool that were in there at the beginning of Mon. 18 June. Do we really need constant criminal cases about slightly late reports when the game is moving as slowly as it is?
DIS: Re: BUS: Let's get things moving
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 3:26 PM, FKA441344 441...@gmail.com wrote: I intend to, With Notice, initiate a criminal case: omd violated Rule 2143 by failing to distribute by the end of Sun. 24 June proposals in the proposal pool that were in there at the beginning of Mon. 18 June. Oh, come on! I know I've been delinquent (I've been pretty busy in real life) but I am going to distribute later today.
Re: Fwd: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's get things moving
FKA441344 wrote: TTttPF -- Forwarded message -- From: FKA44131...@gmail.com Date: Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 6:42 PM Subject: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's get things moving To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 3:01 AM, Sean Huntscsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote: On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 5:51 PM, FKA44131...@gmail.com wrote: *scshunt violated Rule 2158 by failing to assign judgement to case 3218 ASAP after it was assigned to em. Evidence: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=3218 Arguments: It wasn't me, boss! -scshunt Oops. If possible I retract this case. I initiate a criminal case: ais523 violated Rule 2158 by failing to assign judgement to case 3218 ASAP after it was assigned to em. The retraction was impossible, as the original case was already assigned to a judge.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's get things moving
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:10 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: Even if that wasn't so, my preface if I haven't already probably would have rendered the assignments to FKA441344 ineffective. Proto: Refactor non-self-judgement (AI = 2, co-author = ais523) Amend Rule 1868 (Judge Assignment Generally) by replacing this text: second-class players are always unqualified to judge. FYI, in today's corrected ruleset this reads entities other than first-class players are always unqualified to judge.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's get things moving
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 3:01 AM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote: On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 5:51 PM, FKA441344 441...@gmail.com wrote: *scshunt violated Rule 2158 by failing to assign judgement to case 3218 ASAP after it was assigned to em. Evidence: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=3218 Arguments: It wasn't me, boss! -scshunt Oops. If possible I retract this case. I initiate a criminal case: ais523 violated Rule 2158 by failing to assign judgement to case 3218 ASAP after it was assigned to em.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's get things moving
ais523 wrote: On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 18:42 +0100, FKA441344 wrote: On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 3:01 AM, Sean Huntscsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote: On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 5:51 PM, FKA44131...@gmail.com wrote: *scshunt violated Rule 2158 by failing to assign judgement to case 3218 ASAP after it was assigned to em. Evidence: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=3218 Arguments: It wasn't me, boss! -scshunt Oops. If possible I retract this case. I initiate a criminal case: ais523 violated Rule 2158 by failing to assign judgement to case 3218 ASAP after it was assigned to em. Arguments: It wasn't originally clear whether the case existed, or who it had been assigned to. (In fact, I suspect it may /still/ be assigned to FKA441344.) Granted on whether the case existed, but I don't follow how it would have existed and been assigned to someone else (especially FKA441344, who initiated it).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's get things moving
ais523 wrote: On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 12:20 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: Granted on whether the case existed, but I don't follow how it would have existed and been assigned to someone else (especially FKA441344, who initiated it). You purported to assign it to FKA441344, so it rather depends on whether the platonisation on judge assignment allows or forbids that, which I'm looking up as I write this. Ah, and found it in rule 1504. (Rule 1868 contradicts it, but deliberately defers to other power-2 rules in the matter, so rule 1504 binds). Seems that assigning to the initiator fails, but it's far from obvious that that's the case. Even if that wasn't so, my preface if I haven't already probably would have rendered the assignments to FKA441344 ineffective. Proto: Refactor non-self-judgement (AI = 2, co-author = ais523) Amend Rule 1868 (Judge Assignment Generally) by replacing this text: second-class players are always unqualified to judge. with this text: the initiator of a case is always unqualified to judge it, and second-class players are always unqualified to judge. Amend Rule 591 (Inquiry Cases) by replacing this text: 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. with this text: In the initiating announcement, the initiator CAN disqualify one person from assignment as judge of the case. Amend Rule 1504 (Criminal Cases) by replacing this text: The initiator and each member of the Accused's basis are unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case. with this text: Each member of the Accused's basis (as of the time of the action/inaction in question) is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case. Proto: Foundation (AI = 3) Amend Rule 2150 (Personhood) by appending this text: The basis of a second-class person is the empty set, unless other rules specify a different basis. [Currently, this covers Agora Nomic.] Amend Rule 2326 (The President) by appending this text: The basis of the President is the singleton set consisting of the Speaker. Amend Rule 2328 (Public Agreements) by appending this text: The basis of an agreement is the set of players agreeing to it. Amend Rule 2360 (Golems) by appending this text: The basis of a Golem is the singleton set consisting of its owner.
DIS: Re: BUS: Let's get things moving
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 5:51 PM, FKA441344 441...@gmail.com wrote: *scshunt violated Rule 2158 by failing to assign judgement to case 3218 ASAP after it was assigned to em. Evidence: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=3218 Arguments: It wasn't me, boss! -scshunt
