Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3505 assigned to Quazie

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 29 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
> Cool cool. It was a double whammy of precedence I was trying to set.
> 
> 1 - you can CFJ on questions (non-controvertial)
> 2 - some future conditionals are legit outside of voting (but I tried 
> to ensure that it was limited in scope)

Yeah, the full impact of #2 hit me on the second reading.  I thought:
well, I wouldn't ask for reconsideration because of my mistake, but I
might point out how far reaching this could be!
(Then I thought "what the heck, might be a fun if risky direction").

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3505 assigned to Quazie

[Quazie]

Cool cool. It was a double whammy of precedence I was trying to set.

1 - you can CFJ on questions (non-controvertial)
2 - some future conditionals are legit outside of voting (but I tried to
ensure that it was limited in scope)

Also - that judgement also implies that the case is still open, as I was
barred from judging it.
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 13:22 Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, 29 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
> > I am always willing to listen to your criticism G. - please let me know
> what
> > you thought I said, and how I can word things better in the future to
> reduce
> > confusion.
>
> Actually, thinking about it, the honest truth is that in cutting/pasting
> everything, I lost CuddleBeam's barring message entirely, so skimming the
> case
> without that in there, all I could think was "what does barring have to
> do with it?  I thought this was about whether statements could be asked as
> questions."  So it wasn't your phrasing at all, it was the completely lost
> context.
>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3505 assigned to Quazie

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 29 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
> I am always willing to listen to your criticism G. - please let me know what
> you thought I said, and how I can word things better in the future to reduce
> confusion.

Actually, thinking about it, the honest truth is that in cutting/pasting
everything, I lost CuddleBeam's barring message entirely, so skimming the case 
without that in there, all I could think was "what does barring have to
do with it?  I thought this was about whether statements could be asked as
questions."  So it wasn't your phrasing at all, it was the completely lost
context.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3505 assigned to Quazie

[Quazie]

I am always willing to listen to your criticism G. - please let me know
what you thought I said, and how I can word things better in the future to
reduce confusion.
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 13:08 Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> I humbly and un-regulated-ly withdraw any objection I had to Quazie's
> judgement here.  In rapidly cutting and pasting lots of judgements
> into the database yesterday, I completely misread/misinterpreted the
> way e rephrased the CFJ statement.  Looking at it for more than 2 minutes
> now, it's a fine judgement.
>
> On Mon, 29 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
> > I am happy to reconsider of you lemme know where I over stepped.
> > On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 21:17 Josh T  wrote:
> >   I am willing to support reconsidering this CFJ on behalf of G. if
> there is interest among the players for reconsideration.
> > 天火狐
> >
> > On 28 May 2017 at 21:18, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> >
> >
> >   I'm just catching up to this CFJ now, and I have to say I'd
> consider
> >   this an example of judicial overreach and motion to reconsider
> were I a
> >   player.  Rather than extrapolating slightly to generalize the
> question,
> >   or slightly changing the wording of the CFJ to answer what the
> caller
> >   *meant* to ask, this uses a judgement to try and sent precedent on
> an
> >   entirely different matter.  If this were allowed we'd have to let
> judges
> >   opine on anything, unrelated to their CFJ topic, and consider it
> >   precedent.
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3505 assigned to Quazie

[Kerim Aydin]

I humbly and un-regulated-ly withdraw any objection I had to Quazie's
judgement here.  In rapidly cutting and pasting lots of judgements
into the database yesterday, I completely misread/misinterpreted the
way e rephrased the CFJ statement.  Looking at it for more than 2 minutes
now, it's a fine judgement.

On Mon, 29 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
> I am happy to reconsider of you lemme know where I over stepped.
> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 21:17 Josh T  wrote:
>   I am willing to support reconsidering this CFJ on behalf of G. if there 
> is interest among the players for reconsideration. 
> 天火狐
> 
> On 28 May 2017 at 21:18, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
>   I'm just catching up to this CFJ now, and I have to say I'd consider
>   this an example of judicial overreach and motion to reconsider were I a
>   player.  Rather than extrapolating slightly to generalize the question,
>   or slightly changing the wording of the CFJ to answer what the caller
>   *meant* to ask, this uses a judgement to try and sent precedent on an
>   entirely different matter.  If this were allowed we'd have to let judges
>   opine on anything, unrelated to their CFJ topic, and consider it
>   precedent.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3505 assigned to Quazie

[Quazie]

I am happy to reconsider of you lemme know where I over stepped.
On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 21:17 Josh T  wrote:

> I am willing to support reconsidering this CFJ on behalf of G. if there is
> interest among the players for reconsideration.
>
> 天火狐
>
> On 28 May 2017 at 21:18, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I'm just catching up to this CFJ now, and I have to say I'd consider
>> this an example of judicial overreach and motion to reconsider were I a
>> player.  Rather than extrapolating slightly to generalize the question,
>> or slightly changing the wording of the CFJ to answer what the caller
>> *meant* to ask, this uses a judgement to try and sent precedent on an
>> entirely different matter.  If this were allowed we'd have to let judges
>> opine on anything, unrelated to their CFJ topic, and consider it
>> precedent.
>>
>> On Wed, 24 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
>>
>> >   First: Past rules allow for YES/NO questions to be judged
>> TRUE/FALSE with TRUE meaning YES and FALSE meaning NO, and I will
>> re-establish that
>> >   tradition as a new judicial precedent within this judgment.  If
>> there is issue with this interpretation, I will be happy to reconsider as
>> DISMISS,
>> >   but I will follow with the rest of my judgment.
>> >
>> > Next: The CFJ in question asks "Can this statement have a Judge?".  I
>> find this CFJ to be trivially TRUE and judge it as such.  Even giving the
>> > interesting barring attempt (Which I'll discuss shortly) only two
>> realities exist:
>> > Reality One: I am the judge of this CFJ, and if this is true then the
>> barring attempt failed.
>> > Reality Two: I am not the judge of this CFJ, but once thats established
>> ais523 will simply assign a new judge, and E will likely agree with my
>> statement
>> > that e is the judge of the CFJ.
>> >
>> > In either reality there eventually is a judge for this CFJ, and thus
>> the CFJ is TRUE (Meaning YES to the yes/no question presented).
>> >
>> > To be honest, I could end the judgment here.  CuddleBeam should've
>> CFJed on "A player, other than CuddleBeam, is barred on this CFJ".  That
>> would've
>> > required someone to judge if the barring worked.  I note to CuddleBeam:
>> Be more careful of your wording next time. I'm unsure if your $2.99 Super
>> CFJs
>> > are all their cracked up to be if I feel comfortable not judging the
>> question you seemed to intend to raise.  But, I've got an opinion on the
>> matter, and
>> > I believe it's controversial, and I've got some words to say.
>> >
>> > So... let's get into the question at hand:
>> >
>> > Was anyone barred from judging this CFJ?
>> >
>> > It seems like ais523 didn't attempt to assign anyone else first (E gave
>> no indication that E did so, and in fact noted that e didn't believe e had
>> to).
>> > {{{
>> >   (My own current understanding
>> >   is that the attempt to bar the judge fails because it's a conditional
>> >   action based on information that will only be available in the future;
>> >   presumably, the CFJ verdict might end up confirming or denying this
>> >   understanding.)
>> > }}}
>> >
>> > The thing is, I don't see it that way.
>> >
>> > Conditional activities are defined, in a general way, by R1023
>> > {{{
>> >   (c) If a regulated value, or the value of a conditional, or a
>> > value otherwise required to determine the outcome of a
>> > regulated action, CANNOT be reasonably determined (without
>> > circularity or paradox) from information reasonably
>> > available, or if it alternates instantaneously and
>> > indefinitely between values, then the value is considered to
>> > be Indeterminate, otherwise it is Determinate.
>> > }}}
>> >
>> > The burden here is reasonability - is it reasonable to allow an
>> conditional activity to happen?
>> >
>> > I agree, there's a long standing tradition (Potentially
>> established/enforced through CFJ 3381 or CFJ 2926, this information
>> gathering is left up to the
>> > reader) that future conditional actions aren't valid, and I will uphold
>> that logic for most cases.
>> >
>> > I agree that it's wrong for the game to allow an action to resolve at
>> an arbitrary date in the future.
>> > (e.g. "I give  1 shiny if they send a photo of a sloth via a
>> public forum." should not actually send the Sloth-Sender a shiny.  That
>> requires an
>> > officer (or in simpler cases just the playerbase) to keep track of an
>> action for an indeterminate amount of time which is unreasonable.)
>> >
>> > I agree that it's wrong and bad for the game to make future conditional
>> action's be allowable with a pre-set arbitrary resolution event and time.
>> > (e.g. "I give  1 shiny if, within the next week, they send out
>> a message with unicode characters in it".  Non-rule defined deadlines are
>> > similarly unreasonable, as they non-consensually place an obligation on
>> someone else to track the conditional to ensure success of a future
>> activity.)

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3505 assigned to Quazie

[Josh T]

I am willing to support reconsidering this CFJ on behalf of G. if there is
interest among the players for reconsideration.

天火狐

On 28 May 2017 at 21:18, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> I'm just catching up to this CFJ now, and I have to say I'd consider
> this an example of judicial overreach and motion to reconsider were I a
> player.  Rather than extrapolating slightly to generalize the question,
> or slightly changing the wording of the CFJ to answer what the caller
> *meant* to ask, this uses a judgement to try and sent precedent on an
> entirely different matter.  If this were allowed we'd have to let judges
> opine on anything, unrelated to their CFJ topic, and consider it
> precedent.
>
> On Wed, 24 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
>
> >   First: Past rules allow for YES/NO questions to be judged
> TRUE/FALSE with TRUE meaning YES and FALSE meaning NO, and I will
> re-establish that
> >   tradition as a new judicial precedent within this judgment.  If
> there is issue with this interpretation, I will be happy to reconsider as
> DISMISS,
> >   but I will follow with the rest of my judgment.
> >
> > Next: The CFJ in question asks "Can this statement have a Judge?".  I
> find this CFJ to be trivially TRUE and judge it as such.  Even giving the
> > interesting barring attempt (Which I'll discuss shortly) only two
> realities exist:
> > Reality One: I am the judge of this CFJ, and if this is true then the
> barring attempt failed.
> > Reality Two: I am not the judge of this CFJ, but once thats established
> ais523 will simply assign a new judge, and E will likely agree with my
> statement
> > that e is the judge of the CFJ.
> >
> > In either reality there eventually is a judge for this CFJ, and thus the
> CFJ is TRUE (Meaning YES to the yes/no question presented).
> >
> > To be honest, I could end the judgment here.  CuddleBeam should've CFJed
> on "A player, other than CuddleBeam, is barred on this CFJ".  That would've
> > required someone to judge if the barring worked.  I note to CuddleBeam:
> Be more careful of your wording next time. I'm unsure if your $2.99 Super
> CFJs
> > are all their cracked up to be if I feel comfortable not judging the
> question you seemed to intend to raise.  But, I've got an opinion on the
> matter, and
> > I believe it's controversial, and I've got some words to say.
> >
> > So... let's get into the question at hand:
> >
> > Was anyone barred from judging this CFJ?
> >
> > It seems like ais523 didn't attempt to assign anyone else first (E gave
> no indication that E did so, and in fact noted that e didn't believe e had
> to).
> > {{{
> >   (My own current understanding
> >   is that the attempt to bar the judge fails because it's a conditional
> >   action based on information that will only be available in the future;
> >   presumably, the CFJ verdict might end up confirming or denying this
> >   understanding.)
> > }}}
> >
> > The thing is, I don't see it that way.
> >
> > Conditional activities are defined, in a general way, by R1023
> > {{{
> >   (c) If a regulated value, or the value of a conditional, or a
> > value otherwise required to determine the outcome of a
> > regulated action, CANNOT be reasonably determined (without
> > circularity or paradox) from information reasonably
> > available, or if it alternates instantaneously and
> > indefinitely between values, then the value is considered to
> > be Indeterminate, otherwise it is Determinate.
> > }}}
> >
> > The burden here is reasonability - is it reasonable to allow an
> conditional activity to happen?
> >
> > I agree, there's a long standing tradition (Potentially
> established/enforced through CFJ 3381 or CFJ 2926, this information
> gathering is left up to the
> > reader) that future conditional actions aren't valid, and I will uphold
> that logic for most cases.
> >
> > I agree that it's wrong for the game to allow an action to resolve at an
> arbitrary date in the future.
> > (e.g. "I give  1 shiny if they send a photo of a sloth via a
> public forum." should not actually send the Sloth-Sender a shiny.  That
> requires an
> > officer (or in simpler cases just the playerbase) to keep track of an
> action for an indeterminate amount of time which is unreasonable.)
> >
> > I agree that it's wrong and bad for the game to make future conditional
> action's be allowable with a pre-set arbitrary resolution event and time.
> > (e.g. "I give  1 shiny if, within the next week, they send out a
> message with unicode characters in it".  Non-rule defined deadlines are
> > similarly unreasonable, as they non-consensually place an obligation on
> someone else to track the conditional to ensure success of a future
> activity.)
> > (e.g. "When the promotor distributes proposal titled `Beef, it's what's
> for dinner!` I vote FOR" is invalid for similar reasons.  It isn't
> reasonable for
> > the Assesor to start tracking votes until the voting period begins.
> Once again, a 

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3505 assigned to Quazie

[Kerim Aydin]

I'm just catching up to this CFJ now, and I have to say I'd consider
this an example of judicial overreach and motion to reconsider were I a
player.  Rather than extrapolating slightly to generalize the question,
or slightly changing the wording of the CFJ to answer what the caller
*meant* to ask, this uses a judgement to try and sent precedent on an
entirely different matter.  If this were allowed we'd have to let judges
opine on anything, unrelated to their CFJ topic, and consider it
precedent.

On Wed, 24 May 2017, Quazie wrote:

>   First: Past rules allow for YES/NO questions to be judged TRUE/FALSE 
> with TRUE meaning YES and FALSE meaning NO, and I will re-establish that
>   tradition as a new judicial precedent within this judgment.  If there 
> is issue with this interpretation, I will be happy to reconsider as DISMISS,
>   but I will follow with the rest of my judgment.
> 
> Next: The CFJ in question asks "Can this statement have a Judge?".  I find 
> this CFJ to be trivially TRUE and judge it as such.  Even giving the
> interesting barring attempt (Which I'll discuss shortly) only two realities 
> exist:
> Reality One: I am the judge of this CFJ, and if this is true then the barring 
> attempt failed.
> Reality Two: I am not the judge of this CFJ, but once thats established 
> ais523 will simply assign a new judge, and E will likely agree with my 
> statement
> that e is the judge of the CFJ.
> 
> In either reality there eventually is a judge for this CFJ, and thus the CFJ 
> is TRUE (Meaning YES to the yes/no question presented).
> 
> To be honest, I could end the judgment here.  CuddleBeam should've CFJed on 
> "A player, other than CuddleBeam, is barred on this CFJ".  That would've
> required someone to judge if the barring worked.  I note to CuddleBeam: Be 
> more careful of your wording next time. I'm unsure if your $2.99 Super CFJs
> are all their cracked up to be if I feel comfortable not judging the question 
> you seemed to intend to raise.  But, I've got an opinion on the matter, and
> I believe it's controversial, and I've got some words to say.
> 
> So... let's get into the question at hand:
> 
> Was anyone barred from judging this CFJ?
> 
> It seems like ais523 didn't attempt to assign anyone else first (E gave no 
> indication that E did so, and in fact noted that e didn't believe e had to).
> {{{
>   (My own current understanding
>   is that the attempt to bar the judge fails because it's a conditional
>   action based on information that will only be available in the future;
>   presumably, the CFJ verdict might end up confirming or denying this
>   understanding.)
> }}}
> 
> The thing is, I don't see it that way.
> 
> Conditional activities are defined, in a general way, by R1023
> {{{
>   (c) If a regulated value, or the value of a conditional, or a
>     value otherwise required to determine the outcome of a
>     regulated action, CANNOT be reasonably determined (without
>     circularity or paradox) from information reasonably
>     available, or if it alternates instantaneously and
>     indefinitely between values, then the value is considered to
>     be Indeterminate, otherwise it is Determinate.
> }}}
> 
> The burden here is reasonability - is it reasonable to allow an conditional 
> activity to happen?
> 
> I agree, there's a long standing tradition (Potentially established/enforced 
> through CFJ 3381 or CFJ 2926, this information gathering is left up to the
> reader) that future conditional actions aren't valid, and I will uphold that 
> logic for most cases.
> 
> I agree that it's wrong for the game to allow an action to resolve at an 
> arbitrary date in the future. 
> (e.g. "I give  1 shiny if they send a photo of a sloth via a public 
> forum." should not actually send the Sloth-Sender a shiny.  That requires an
> officer (or in simpler cases just the playerbase) to keep track of an action 
> for an indeterminate amount of time which is unreasonable.)
> 
> I agree that it's wrong and bad for the game to make future conditional 
> action's be allowable with a pre-set arbitrary resolution event and time.
> (e.g. "I give  1 shiny if, within the next week, they send out a 
> message with unicode characters in it".  Non-rule defined deadlines are
> similarly unreasonable, as they non-consensually place an obligation on 
> someone else to track the conditional to ensure success of a future activity.)
> (e.g. "When the promotor distributes proposal titled `Beef, it's what's for 
> dinner!` I vote FOR" is invalid for similar reasons.  It isn't reasonable for
> the Assesor to start tracking votes until the voting period begins.  Once 
> again, a non-rule obligation.)
> 
> But in this case, the barring in question, I just don't see any of that 
> unreasonableness.
> 
> Let's look at the rule shall we?
> 
> {{{
>   Rule 991/17 (Power=2)
>   Calls for Judgement
> 
>         Any person (the initiator) can initiate a Call for Judgement
>         (CFJ, syn. 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3505 assigned to Quazie

[Owen Jacobson]

> On May 23, 2017, at 9:09 PM, Quazie  wrote:
> 
> If i am the judge, how am I not the judge summoned to the CFJ?  Eir 
> conditional didn't say that e paid a shiney to the barred judge, but to the 
> summoned judge.

Hang on, I don’t think that matters. The pledges, reproduced here for 
convenience, were

CuddleBeam's:

> I pledge to grant one Shiny (if I have at least one and I am capable of such 
> a transfer) to the Judge of the CFJ summoned via the content above as long as 
> rules relevant to CFJs haven't changed since I have announced this pledge and 
> the barring attempt above had barred someone.

Yours:

> If CuddleBeam has no Shinies, and I am the judge summoned to judge CFJ 3505, 
> and the conditional in the pledge would mean CuddleBeam has to pay me a 
> shiney if e has one, then I transfer one Shiny to CuddleBeam so that they 
> will transfer it back to me (so they don't break eir pledge).

CuddleBeam’s syntax is ambiguous, which I’m sure is going to come back to haunt 
someone, but I read eir pledge as if it were

{{{

I pledge that, if

1. rules relevant to CFJs haven't changed since I have announced this pledge, 
and
2. the barring attempt above had barred someone, and
3. I have at least one and I am capable of such a transfer

then

* I will pay 1 shiny to whatever judge is summoned via this CFJ.
}}}

In turn, I read your action, in the same fomat, as if it were

{{{
If

1. CuddleBeam has no Shinies, and
2. I am the judge summoned to judge CFJ 3505, and
3. CuddleBeam’s pledge compels em to pay me 1 shiny,

then

* I pay CuddleBeam 1 shiny.
}}}

The barring attempt mentioned in CuddleBeam’s pledge is this:

> I also opt to bar one person from such procedure. That person is the person 
> who would successfully become the first Judge of the Call for Judgement 
> submitted by this message.

If this barring attempt is not successful - and I don’t think it is, then the 
condition in eir pledge does not apply and e is not compelled to pay you one 1 
Shiny. Therefore, the condition in your action does not hold (clause 3 is 
false, and the clauses are joined by ands), so your action can be resolved and 
does not take place.

It doesn’t matter whether you’re the judge summoned via the attempt at 
paradoxical barring or whether you’re the judge summoned by the Arbitor’s 
assignment. It does matters whether the paradoxical barring worked - and I 
don’t think it did.

I’m off the hook!

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3505 assigned to Quazie

[Quazie]

I told you o, at all times I will have some Shiny in dispute, you
encouraged me to do it.

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 6:10 PM Owen Jacobson  wrote:

>
> > On May 23, 2017, at 9:09 PM, Quazie  wrote:
> >
> > If i am the judge, how am I not the judge summoned to the CFJ?  Eir
> conditional didn't say that e paid a shiney to the barred judge, but to the
> summoned judge.
>
> Oh, hell.
>
> -o
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3505 assigned to Quazie

[Owen Jacobson]

> On May 23, 2017, at 9:09 PM, Quazie  wrote:
> 
> If i am the judge, how am I not the judge summoned to the CFJ?  Eir 
> conditional didn't say that e paid a shiney to the barred judge, but to the 
> summoned judge.

Oh, hell.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3505 assigned to Quazie

[Quazie]

If i am the judge, how am I not the judge summoned to the CFJ?  Eir
conditional didn't say that e paid a shiney to the barred judge, but to the
summoned judge.

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 6:07 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> I agree with o's interpretation.
>
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>
> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>
>> So, in order:
>>
>> 1. I’m pretty sure Cuddlebeam’s condition is invalid, and thus no judges
>> are barred.
>>
>> 2. Therefore, the final proviso “as long as … the barring attempt above
>> had barred someone” in eir pledge does not hold.
>>
>> 3. Therefore, the pledge does not hold.
>>
>> 4. Therefore, the condition “the conditional in the pledge would mean
>> Cuddlebeam has to pay me a shiney [sic] if e has one” does not hold.
>>
>> 5. Therefore, you did not pay Cuddlebeam a shiny.
>>
>> Which is good, because it means I don’t have to track this.
>>
>> -o
>>
>> On May 22, 2017, at 4:16 PM, Quazie  wrote:
>>
>> If CuddleBeam has no Shinies, and I am the judge summoned to judge CFJ
>> 3505, and the conditional in the pledge would mean CuddleBeam has to pay me
>> a shiney if e has one, then I transfer one Shiny to CuddleBeam so that they
>> will transfer it back to me (so they don't break eir pledge).
>>
>> Also - What's the time scale on fulfilling pledges?  I assume in a timely
>> manner for general pledges like this one, but I am unsure.
>>
>> On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 11:16 AM Alex Smith 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 2017-05-21 at 05:27 +0200, CuddleBeam wrote:
>>> > Employing the power of Rule 991/17, I submit a Call for Judgement for
>>> the following statement:
>>> >
>>> > "Can this statement have a Judge?"
>>> >
>>> > I also opt to bar one person from such procedure. That person is the
>>> person
>>> > who would successfully become the first Judge of the Call for Judgement
>>> > submitted by this message.
>>>
>>> This is CFJ 3505. I assign it to Quazie. (My own current understanding
>>> is that the attempt to bar the judge fails because it's a conditional
>>> action based on information that will only be available in the future;
>>> presumably, the CFJ verdict might end up confirming or denying this
>>> understanding.)
>>>
>>> See also this message:
>>> <
>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg35262.html
>>> >
>>>
>>> > 
>>> >
>>> > I pledge to grant one Shiny (if I have at least one and I am capable of
>>> > such a transfer) to the Judge of the CFJ summoned via the content
>>> above as
>>> > long as rules relevant to CFJs haven't changed since I have announced
>>> this
>>> > pledge and the barring attempt above had barred someone.
>>> >
>>> > (I dunno, could be fun lol, and I'm very curious about how this might
>>> turn
>>> > out.)
>>>
>>> --
>>> ais523
>>> Arbitor
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3505 assigned to Quazie

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I agree with o's interpretation.


Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

> So, in order:
>
> 1. I’m pretty sure Cuddlebeam’s condition is invalid, and thus no judges
> are barred.
>
> 2. Therefore, the final proviso “as long as … the barring attempt above
> had barred someone” in eir pledge does not hold.
>
> 3. Therefore, the pledge does not hold.
>
> 4. Therefore, the condition “the conditional in the pledge would mean
> Cuddlebeam has to pay me a shiney [sic] if e has one” does not hold.
>
> 5. Therefore, you did not pay Cuddlebeam a shiny.
>
> Which is good, because it means I don’t have to track this.
>
> -o
>
> On May 22, 2017, at 4:16 PM, Quazie  wrote:
>
> If CuddleBeam has no Shinies, and I am the judge summoned to judge CFJ
> 3505, and the conditional in the pledge would mean CuddleBeam has to pay me
> a shiney if e has one, then I transfer one Shiny to CuddleBeam so that they
> will transfer it back to me (so they don't break eir pledge).
>
> Also - What's the time scale on fulfilling pledges?  I assume in a timely
> manner for general pledges like this one, but I am unsure.
>
> On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 11:16 AM Alex Smith 
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 2017-05-21 at 05:27 +0200, CuddleBeam wrote:
>> > Employing the power of Rule 991/17, I submit a Call for Judgement for
>> the following statement:
>> >
>> > "Can this statement have a Judge?"
>> >
>> > I also opt to bar one person from such procedure. That person is the
>> person
>> > who would successfully become the first Judge of the Call for Judgement
>> > submitted by this message.
>>
>> This is CFJ 3505. I assign it to Quazie. (My own current understanding
>> is that the attempt to bar the judge fails because it's a conditional
>> action based on information that will only be available in the future;
>> presumably, the CFJ verdict might end up confirming or denying this
>> understanding.)
>>
>> See also this message:
>> > org/msg35262.html>
>>
>> > 
>> >
>> > I pledge to grant one Shiny (if I have at least one and I am capable of
>> > such a transfer) to the Judge of the CFJ summoned via the content above
>> as
>> > long as rules relevant to CFJs haven't changed since I have announced
>> this
>> > pledge and the barring attempt above had barred someone.
>> >
>> > (I dunno, could be fun lol, and I'm very curious about how this might
>> turn
>> > out.)
>>
>> --
>> ais523
>> Arbitor
>>
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3505 assigned to Quazie

[Owen Jacobson]

So, in order:

1. I’m pretty sure Cuddlebeam’s condition is invalid, and thus no judges are 
barred.

2. Therefore, the final proviso “as long as … the barring attempt above had 
barred someone” in eir pledge does not hold.

3. Therefore, the pledge does not hold.

4. Therefore, the condition “the conditional in the pledge would mean 
Cuddlebeam has to pay me a shiney [sic] if e has one” does not hold.

5. Therefore, you did not pay Cuddlebeam a shiny.

Which is good, because it means I don’t have to track this.

-o

> On May 22, 2017, at 4:16 PM, Quazie  wrote:
> 
> If CuddleBeam has no Shinies, and I am the judge summoned to judge CFJ 3505, 
> and the conditional in the pledge would mean CuddleBeam has to pay me a 
> shiney if e has one, then I transfer one Shiny to CuddleBeam so that they 
> will transfer it back to me (so they don't break eir pledge).
> 
> Also - What's the time scale on fulfilling pledges?  I assume in a timely 
> manner for general pledges like this one, but I am unsure.
> 
> On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 11:16 AM Alex Smith  > wrote:
> On Sun, 2017-05-21 at 05:27 +0200, CuddleBeam wrote:
> > Employing the power of Rule 991/17, I submit a Call for Judgement for the 
> > following statement:
> >
> > "Can this statement have a Judge?"
> >
> > I also opt to bar one person from such procedure. That person is the person
> > who would successfully become the first Judge of the Call for Judgement
> > submitted by this message.
> 
> This is CFJ 3505. I assign it to Quazie. (My own current understanding
> is that the attempt to bar the judge fails because it's a conditional
> action based on information that will only be available in the future;
> presumably, the CFJ verdict might end up confirming or denying this
> understanding.)
> 
> See also this message:
>  >
> 
> > 
> >
> > I pledge to grant one Shiny (if I have at least one and I am capable of
> > such a transfer) to the Judge of the CFJ summoned via the content above as
> > long as rules relevant to CFJs haven't changed since I have announced this
> > pledge and the barring attempt above had barred someone.
> >
> > (I dunno, could be fun lol, and I'm very curious about how this might turn
> > out.)
> 
> --
> ais523
> Arbitor



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3505 assigned to Quazie

[Aris Merchant]

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 5:36 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, 23 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
> > Proposal: "Betterer Pledges" AI=1.7 Coauthor='G., Gaelan, Aris'
> > {{{
> >   Replace the text of Rule 2450 with the following:
> >   {{{
> > A pledge is an agreement between a player and Agora.
>
> So this single statement is a definition, which means it takes the term
> 'pledge'
> out of common definition (where it's clearly made by the person who's
> bound by it)
> and gives it new meaning, which, oddly, makes the mechanism less clear.
> E.g. to
> me, this sentence seems to imply that 'Agora' must somehow be involved
> with or
> consent to the agreement...?

I agree with most of what you said, but I think Agora agrees to all pledges
anyway. This rule specifies what a pledge is, and the procedure for making
one. Agora is it's rules, or a nomic (a game with binding and amendable
rules), or perhaps even a democracy, where the people express their will
through the rules. Whichever it is, I'd think a rule saying something means
Agora agrees with it (as long as it is consistent with the other rules etc.)

-Aris

>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3505 assigned to Quazie

[Kerim Aydin]

On Tue, 23 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
> Proposal: "Betterer Pledges" AI=1.7 Coauthor='G., Gaelan, Aris'
> {{{
>   Replace the text of Rule 2450 with the following:
>   {{{
>     A pledge is an agreement between a player and Agora.

So this single statement is a definition, which means it takes the term 'pledge'
out of common definition (where it's clearly made by the person who's bound by 
it)
and gives it new meaning, which, oddly, makes the mechanism less clear. E.g. to
me, this sentence seems to imply that 'Agora' must somehow be involved with or
consent to the agreement...?

Maybe I'm over-thinking it, but I think (unfortunately!) if you go this route
you might be forced to go the whole hog, specifying:  that you can make a pledge
by announcement, that it binds only yourself, the time limit of course, that you
can rescind it under certain conditions, yadda yadda yadda.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3505 assigned to Quazie

[Aris Merchant]

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 5:23 PM, Quazie  wrote:
> Proposal: "Betterer Pledges" AI=1.7 Coauthor='G., Gaelan, Aris'
> {{{
>   Replace the text of Rule 2450 with the following:
>   {{{
> A pledge is an agreement between a player and Agora.
>
> Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offense.
>
> If a publicly-made pledge says that the creator of a pledge will do
> something,
> without providing a time limit, then e SHALL in a timely manner in order
> to not
> break said pledge.
>
> A player SHALL NOT make any pledge that would create new obligations for
> any other person.
>   }}}
> }}}
>

I'm not sure of what other people will think about the "between a
player and Agora" bit, and its possible effects. I'd change that last
"SHALL NOT" to a "CANNOT", which is more secure. The only reason I
didn't do that in my pledge is because pledges can't limit possible
actions in that way. Other than that, looks great. Thanks for the
proposal, and for being so responsive!

-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3505 assigned to Quazie

[Quazie]

Proposal: "Betterer Pledges" AI=1.7 Coauthor='G., Gaelan, Aris'
{{{
  Replace the text of Rule 2450 with the following:
  {{{
A pledge is an agreement between a player and Agora.

Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offense.

If a publicly-made pledge says that the creator of a pledge will do
something,
without providing a time limit, then e SHALL in a timely manner in
order to not
break said pledge.

A player SHALL NOT make any pledge that would create new obligations
for any other person.
  }}}
}}}

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 5:22 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 22 May 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> >>
> >> I smell cheese. Lots of cheese. We already have cuttlefish, do we
> >> really need to Trap any Mice?
> >>
> >> Obscure history references aside, this allows someone to make a pledge
> >> binding on someone else (e.g. Pledge: Quazie will give me all of eir
> >> shinies).
> >
> > Not that we shouldn't fix the wording, but that's stopped by R869:
> >The Rules CANNOT otherwise bind a
> >person to abide by any agreement without that person's willful
> >consent.
> > (assuming we use the same common-language interpretation we have in
> > the past, that a pledge is a type of unilateral agreement).
> >
> That's a relief. Still, it should be in the rule itself.
>
> -Aris
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3505 assigned to Quazie

[Aris Merchant]

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 22 May 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
>>
>> I smell cheese. Lots of cheese. We already have cuttlefish, do we
>> really need to Trap any Mice?
>>
>> Obscure history references aside, this allows someone to make a pledge
>> binding on someone else (e.g. Pledge: Quazie will give me all of eir
>> shinies).
>
> Not that we shouldn't fix the wording, but that's stopped by R869:
>The Rules CANNOT otherwise bind a
>person to abide by any agreement without that person's willful
>consent.
> (assuming we use the same common-language interpretation we have in
> the past, that a pledge is a type of unilateral agreement).
>
That's a relief. Still, it should be in the rule itself.

-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3505 assigned to Quazie

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 22 May 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Quazie  wrote:
> > Proposal: "Pledge Timelines" AI=1.7 Coauthor='G.'
> > {{{
> >   Replace the text of Rule 2450 with the following:
> >   {{{
> > Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offense.  If a
> > publicly-made pledge
> > says that a person will do something, without providing a time limit,
> > then e SHALL in
> > a timely manner in order to not break said pledge.
> >   }}}
> > }}}
> >
> > That clears things up a bit, yeah?
> 
> I smell cheese. Lots of cheese. We already have cuttlefish, do we
> really need to Trap any Mice?
> 
> Obscure history references aside, this allows someone to make a pledge
> binding on someone else (e.g. Pledge: Quazie will give me all of eir
> shinies).

Not that we shouldn't fix the wording, but that's stopped by R869:
   The Rules CANNOT otherwise bind a
   person to abide by any agreement without that person's willful
   consent.
(assuming we use the same common-language interpretation we have in
the past, that a pledge is a type of unilateral agreement).

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3505 assigned to Quazie

[Quazie]

Proposal: "Better Pledges" AI=1.7 Coauthor='G., Gaelan, Aris'
{{{
  Replace the text of Rule 2450 with the following:
  {{{
Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offense.  If a
publicly-made pledge
says that the creator of a pledge will do something, without providing
a time limit,
then e SHALL in a timely manner in order to not break said pledge.  A
player SHALL NOT
make any pledge that would create new obligations for any other person.
  }}}
}}}

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 5:04 PM Quazie  wrote:

> Proposal: "Timely Pledges v.Lots" AI=1.7 Coauthor='G., Gaelan, Aris'
> {{{
>   Replace the text of Rule 2450 with the following:
>   {{{
> Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offense.  If a
> publicly-made pledge
> says that a the creator of a pledge will do something, without
> providing a time limit,
> then e SHALL in a timely manner in order to not break said pledge.
>   }}}
> }}}
>
>
> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 5:02 PM Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Quazie  wrote:
>> > Proposal: "Pledge Timelines" AI=1.7 Coauthor='G.'
>> > {{{
>> >   Replace the text of Rule 2450 with the following:
>> >   {{{
>> > Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offense.  If a
>> > publicly-made pledge
>> > says that a person will do something, without providing a time
>> limit,
>> > then e SHALL in
>> > a timely manner in order to not break said pledge.
>> >   }}}
>> > }}}
>> >
>> > That clears things up a bit, yeah?
>>
>> I smell cheese. Lots of cheese. We already have cuttlefish, do we
>> really need to Trap any Mice?
>>
>> Obscure history references aside, this allows someone to make a pledge
>> binding on someone else (e.g. Pledge: Quazie will give me all of eir
>> shinies).
>>
>> -Aris
>>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3505 assigned to Quazie

[Quazie]

Proposal: "Timely Pledges v.Lots" AI=1.7 Coauthor='G., Gaelan, Aris'
{{{
  Replace the text of Rule 2450 with the following:
  {{{
Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offense.  If a
publicly-made pledge
says that a the creator of a pledge will do something, without
providing a time limit,
then e SHALL in a timely manner in order to not break said pledge.
  }}}
}}}


On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 5:02 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Quazie  wrote:
> > Proposal: "Pledge Timelines" AI=1.7 Coauthor='G.'
> > {{{
> >   Replace the text of Rule 2450 with the following:
> >   {{{
> > Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offense.  If a
> > publicly-made pledge
> > says that a person will do something, without providing a time limit,
> > then e SHALL in
> > a timely manner in order to not break said pledge.
> >   }}}
> > }}}
> >
> > That clears things up a bit, yeah?
>
> I smell cheese. Lots of cheese. We already have cuttlefish, do we
> really need to Trap any Mice?
>
> Obscure history references aside, this allows someone to make a pledge
> binding on someone else (e.g. Pledge: Quazie will give me all of eir
> shinies).
>
> -Aris
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3505 assigned to Quazie

[Aris Merchant]

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Quazie  wrote:
> Proposal: "Pledge Timelines" AI=1.7 Coauthor='G.'
> {{{
>   Replace the text of Rule 2450 with the following:
>   {{{
> Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offense.  If a
> publicly-made pledge
> says that a person will do something, without providing a time limit,
> then e SHALL in
> a timely manner in order to not break said pledge.
>   }}}
> }}}
>
> That clears things up a bit, yeah?

I smell cheese. Lots of cheese. We already have cuttlefish, do we
really need to Trap any Mice?

Obscure history references aside, this allows someone to make a pledge
binding on someone else (e.g. Pledge: Quazie will give me all of eir
shinies).

-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3505 assigned to Quazie

[Quazie]

Proposal: "Pledge Timelines" AI=1.7 Coauthor='G.'
{{{
  Replace the text of Rule 2450 with the following:
  {{{
Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offense.  If a
publicly-made pledge
says that a person will do something, without providing a time limit,
then e SHALL in
a timely manner in order to not break said pledge.
  }}}
}}}

That clears things up a bit, yeah?

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 4:34 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> Good point.  In common language terms and current legal effect, "I pledge
> to do X" is synonymous with "Pledge:  I SHALL do X", so why bother with
> the latter, as it's more confusingly written?
>
> On the flip side, maybe "I pledge to do X" would be judged (in current
> ruleset) to contain an implicit SHALL.
>
> Putting this amendment in would make the two explicitly different though,
> so that "I pledge to do X" would not invoke the time limit, but "I SHALL
> do X" would (maybe).  Not sure if that's bug or feature...
>
> On Mon, 22 May 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> > I don't know if I've ever seen someone use all-caps SHALL in a pledge.
> >
> > On May 22, 2017, at 3:07 PM, Quazie  wrote:
> >
> >   Proposal: "Pledge Timelines" AI=1.7 Coauthor='G.'
> > {{{
> >   Replace the text of Rule 2450 with the following:
> >   {{{
> > Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offense.  If a
> publicly-made pledge
> > says a person SHALL do something, without providing a time limit,
> then e SHALL in
> > a timely manner in order to not break said pledge.
> >   }}}
> > }}}
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3505 assigned to Quazie

[Kerim Aydin]

Good point.  In common language terms and current legal effect, "I pledge
to do X" is synonymous with "Pledge:  I SHALL do X", so why bother with
the latter, as it's more confusingly written?

On the flip side, maybe "I pledge to do X" would be judged (in current
ruleset) to contain an implicit SHALL.

Putting this amendment in would make the two explicitly different though,
so that "I pledge to do X" would not invoke the time limit, but "I SHALL
do X" would (maybe).  Not sure if that's bug or feature...

On Mon, 22 May 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> I don't know if I've ever seen someone use all-caps SHALL in a pledge. 
> 
> On May 22, 2017, at 3:07 PM, Quazie  wrote:
> 
>   Proposal: "Pledge Timelines" AI=1.7 Coauthor='G.'
> {{{
>   Replace the text of Rule 2450 with the following:
>   {{{
>     Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offense.  If a 
> publicly-made pledge 
>     says a person SHALL do something, without providing a time limit, then e 
> SHALL in 
>     a timely manner in order to not break said pledge.
>   }}}
> }}}

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3505 assigned to Quazie

[Gaelan Steele]

I don't know if I've ever seen someone use all-caps SHALL in a pledge. 

> On May 22, 2017, at 3:07 PM, Quazie  wrote:
> 
> Proposal: "Pledge Timelines" AI=1.7 Coauthor='G.'
> {{{
>   Replace the text of Rule 2450 with the following:
>   {{{
> Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offense.  If a 
> publicly-made pledge 
> says a person SHALL do something, without providing a time limit, then e 
> SHALL in 
> a timely manner in order to not break said pledge.
>   }}}
> }}}
> 
> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 2:08 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Phrase it as the default if no time limit is supplied, not a hard-coded
>> only option.  Like: "if a pledge says a person SHALL do something, without
>> providing a time limit, then e SHALL in a timely manner in order to keep
>> the pledge").
>> 
>> The problem with your phrasing:  Think about SHALL NOTs instead of SHALLs.
>> If someone pledges to NOT do something, do you really want to hard-code that
>> they only have to refrain for a week, then they've fulfilled their pledge?
>> 
>> On Mon, 22 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
>> > I can't figure out the right way to note that a pledge SHALL be fulfilled 
>> > in a timely manner, but I only want to imply that the pledge
>> > maker SHALL fulfil their end of the pledge, once the conditional is met, 
>> > but i want to do that without being overly perscriptive on
>> > pledges.{{{
>> >
>> > Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offense.  A pledge SHALL be 
>> > fulfilled in a timely manner
>> >
>> > }}}
>> >
>> > The above seems to not quite imply what I want.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 1:24 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >   On Mon, 22 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
>> >   > Also - What's the time scale on fulfilling pledges?  I assume in a 
>> > timely manner for
>> >   > general pledges like this one, but I am unsure.
>> >
>> >   There's no Rules-specified time limit and the question's never been 
>> > asked
>> >   for pledges.  For Rules-based SHALLs, if there's no explicit time 
>> > limit, I
>> >   don't think there is one.  A fun example is this one:
>> >  Upon such an occurrence, the vote collector for the decision
>> >  SHALL issue a humiliating public reminder to the slackers who
>> >  have not yet cast any votes on it despite being eligible...
>> >   I think I've seen someone issue a reminder long after it was too 
>> > late!
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3505 assigned to Quazie

[Quazie]

Proposal: "Pledge Timelines" AI=1.7 Coauthor='G.'
{{{
  Replace the text of Rule 2450 with the following:
  {{{
Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offense.  If a
publicly-made pledge
says a person SHALL do something, without providing a time limit, then
e SHALL in
a timely manner in order to not break said pledge.
  }}}
}}}

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 2:08 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> Phrase it as the default if no time limit is supplied, not a hard-coded
> only option.  Like: "if a pledge says a person SHALL do something, without
> providing a time limit, then e SHALL in a timely manner in order to keep
> the pledge").
>
> The problem with your phrasing:  Think about SHALL NOTs instead of SHALLs.
> If someone pledges to NOT do something, do you really want to hard-code
> that
> they only have to refrain for a week, then they've fulfilled their pledge?
>
> On Mon, 22 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
> > I can't figure out the right way to note that a pledge SHALL be
> fulfilled in a timely manner, but I only want to imply that the pledge
> > maker SHALL fulfil their end of the pledge, once the conditional is met,
> but i want to do that without being overly perscriptive on
> > pledges.{{{
> >
> > Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offense.  A pledge SHALL
> be fulfilled in a timely manner
> >
> > }}}
> >
> > The above seems to not quite imply what I want.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 1:24 PM Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >   On Mon, 22 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
> >   > Also - What's the time scale on fulfilling pledges?  I assume in
> a timely manner for
> >   > general pledges like this one, but I am unsure.
> >
> >   There's no Rules-specified time limit and the question's never
> been asked
> >   for pledges.  For Rules-based SHALLs, if there's no explicit time
> limit, I
> >   don't think there is one.  A fun example is this one:
> >  Upon such an occurrence, the vote collector for the decision
> >  SHALL issue a humiliating public reminder to the slackers
> who
> >  have not yet cast any votes on it despite being eligible...
> >   I think I've seen someone issue a reminder long after it was too
> late!
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3505 assigned to Quazie

[Kerim Aydin]

Phrase it as the default if no time limit is supplied, not a hard-coded
only option.  Like: "if a pledge says a person SHALL do something, without
providing a time limit, then e SHALL in a timely manner in order to keep
the pledge").

The problem with your phrasing:  Think about SHALL NOTs instead of SHALLs.
If someone pledges to NOT do something, do you really want to hard-code that
they only have to refrain for a week, then they've fulfilled their pledge?

On Mon, 22 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
> I can't figure out the right way to note that a pledge SHALL be fulfilled in 
> a timely manner, but I only want to imply that the pledge
> maker SHALL fulfil their end of the pledge, once the conditional is met, but 
> i want to do that without being overly perscriptive on
> pledges.{{{
> 
> Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offense.  A pledge SHALL be 
> fulfilled in a timely manner
> 
> }}}
> 
> The above seems to not quite imply what I want.
> 
> 
> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 1:24 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
>   On Mon, 22 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
>   > Also - What's the time scale on fulfilling pledges?  I assume in a 
> timely manner for
>   > general pledges like this one, but I am unsure.
> 
>   There's no Rules-specified time limit and the question's never been 
> asked
>   for pledges.  For Rules-based SHALLs, if there's no explicit time 
> limit, I
>   don't think there is one.  A fun example is this one:
>          Upon such an occurrence, the vote collector for the decision
>          SHALL issue a humiliating public reminder to the slackers who
>          have not yet cast any votes on it despite being eligible...
>   I think I've seen someone issue a reminder long after it was too late!
> 
> 
> 
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3505 assigned to Quazie

[Quazie]

I can't figure out the right way to note that a pledge SHALL be fulfilled
in a timely manner, but I only want to imply that the pledge maker SHALL
fulfil their end of the pledge, once the conditional is met, but i want to
do that without being overly perscriptive on pledges.
{{{

Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offense.  A pledge SHALL
be fulfilled in a timely manner

}}}


The above seems to not quite imply what I want.



On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 1:24 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, 22 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
> > Also - What's the time scale on fulfilling pledges?  I assume in a
> timely manner for
> > general pledges like this one, but I am unsure.
>
> There's no Rules-specified time limit and the question's never been asked
> for pledges.  For Rules-based SHALLs, if there's no explicit time limit, I
> don't think there is one.  A fun example is this one:
>Upon such an occurrence, the vote collector for the decision
>SHALL issue a humiliating public reminder to the slackers who
>have not yet cast any votes on it despite being eligible...
> I think I've seen someone issue a reminder long after it was too late!
>
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3505 assigned to Quazie

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 22 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
> Also - What's the time scale on fulfilling pledges?  I assume in a timely 
> manner for 
> general pledges like this one, but I am unsure.

There's no Rules-specified time limit and the question's never been asked
for pledges.  For Rules-based SHALLs, if there's no explicit time limit, I
don't think there is one.  A fun example is this one:
   Upon such an occurrence, the vote collector for the decision
   SHALL issue a humiliating public reminder to the slackers who
   have not yet cast any votes on it despite being eligible...
I think I've seen someone issue a reminder long after it was too late!