Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3753 Assigned to omd
On Sun, 7 Jul 2019 at 21:12, Aris Merchant wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 3:36 PM omd wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 7:52 AM James Cook wrote: > > > Withdraw Rule 2597 (Line-item Veto). > > > > Why that rule? It's only a few months old; there are a lot of other > > rules that are much more stale. > > It’s never been used, and IMO it’s more annoying than anything else. Well, G. said e proposed the rule to illustrate a security hole in R106, which eir "power-limit precedence" proposal, soon to be adopted, is meant to fix. Should we could wait for someone to try to test that before repealing the rule? Personally I plan to keep voting "AGAINST if a Notice of Veto has been published..." on most proposals I'd otherwise vote FOR until the threat of unexpected last-minute vetos goes away. -- - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3753 Assigned to omd
On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 3:36 PM omd wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 7:52 AM James Cook wrote: > > Withdraw Rule 2597 (Line-item Veto). > > Why that rule? It's only a few months old; there are a lot of other > rules that are much more stale. It’s never been used, and IMO it’s more annoying than anything else. -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3753 Assigned to omd
Are you looking at Rule 2350 ("Proposals"), which is the only place I
see that wording ("remove (syn. retract, withdraw)")? I was looking at
Rule 105 ("Rule Changes"), which does not define "withdraw".
Jason Cobb
On 7/7/19 5:05 PM, James Cook wrote:
The rule says "remove (syn. retract, withdraw)".
On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 at 15:54, Jason Cobb wrote:
This may be a bit nit-picky, but I don't believe "withdraw" is defined
for rules, only "repeal".
Jason Cobb
On 7/6/19 10:52 AM, James Cook wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 at 14:38, James Cook wrote:
I submit a proposal as follows.
Title: Police Power
Actually, to get R. Lee potentially on board, I'll make the proposal
shorten the ruleset.
I withdraw the proposal I most recently submitted (title "Police Power").
I submit a proposal as follows.
Title: Administrative Reform and Police Power Omnibus
Co-authors: Jason Cobb
Adoption index: 1.7
Text:
Withdraw Rule 2597 (Line-item Veto).
In Rule 2557, replace the first paragraph with:
When the rules authorize an investigator to impose the Cold Hand
of Justice for a violation, e CAN do so by levying a fine of B on
the perp by announcement, within the following guidelines:
and add a new list item at the start of the list (that is, right after
the first paragraph), with the text:
- B is at least 1 and at most twice the base value of the
violation.
Retitle Rule 2557 to "Sentencing Guidelines".
[Comment: Rule 2557 is currently titled "Removing Blots". When I tried
to understand why, I noticed that the 2018-04-07 SLR lists two Rule
2557s, one of which actually is about removing blots, and the other of
which is titled "Sentencing Guidelines". The next SLR I could find is
published much later, 2018-10-14, and has R2557 in or close to its
current form. I don't know exactly what happened there.]
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3753 Assigned to omd
The rule says "remove (syn. retract, withdraw)". On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 at 15:54, Jason Cobb wrote: > > This may be a bit nit-picky, but I don't believe "withdraw" is defined > for rules, only "repeal". > > Jason Cobb > > On 7/6/19 10:52 AM, James Cook wrote: > > On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 at 14:38, James Cook wrote: > >> I submit a proposal as follows. > >> > >> Title: Police Power > > Actually, to get R. Lee potentially on board, I'll make the proposal > > shorten the ruleset. > > > > I withdraw the proposal I most recently submitted (title "Police Power"). > > > > I submit a proposal as follows. > > > > Title: Administrative Reform and Police Power Omnibus > > Co-authors: Jason Cobb > > Adoption index: 1.7 > > Text: > > > > Withdraw Rule 2597 (Line-item Veto). > > > > In Rule 2557, replace the first paragraph with: > > > > When the rules authorize an investigator to impose the Cold Hand > > of Justice for a violation, e CAN do so by levying a fine of B on > > the perp by announcement, within the following guidelines: > > > > and add a new list item at the start of the list (that is, right after > > the first paragraph), with the text: > > > > - B is at least 1 and at most twice the base value of the > >violation. > > > > Retitle Rule 2557 to "Sentencing Guidelines". > > > > [Comment: Rule 2557 is currently titled "Removing Blots". When I tried > > to understand why, I noticed that the 2018-04-07 SLR lists two Rule > > 2557s, one of which actually is about removing blots, and the other of > > which is titled "Sentencing Guidelines". The next SLR I could find is > > published much later, 2018-10-14, and has R2557 in or close to its > > current form. I don't know exactly what happened there.] -- - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3753 Assigned to omd
On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 7:52 AM James Cook wrote: > Withdraw Rule 2597 (Line-item Veto). Why that rule? It's only a few months old; there are a lot of other rules that are much more stale.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3753 Assigned to omd
This may be a bit nit-picky, but I don't believe "withdraw" is defined for rules, only "repeal". Jason Cobb On 7/6/19 10:52 AM, James Cook wrote: On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 at 14:38, James Cook wrote: I submit a proposal as follows. Title: Police Power Actually, to get R. Lee potentially on board, I'll make the proposal shorten the ruleset. I withdraw the proposal I most recently submitted (title "Police Power"). I submit a proposal as follows. Title: Administrative Reform and Police Power Omnibus Co-authors: Jason Cobb Adoption index: 1.7 Text: Withdraw Rule 2597 (Line-item Veto). In Rule 2557, replace the first paragraph with: When the rules authorize an investigator to impose the Cold Hand of Justice for a violation, e CAN do so by levying a fine of B on the perp by announcement, within the following guidelines: and add a new list item at the start of the list (that is, right after the first paragraph), with the text: - B is at least 1 and at most twice the base value of the violation. Retitle Rule 2557 to "Sentencing Guidelines". [Comment: Rule 2557 is currently titled "Removing Blots". When I tried to understand why, I noticed that the 2018-04-07 SLR lists two Rule 2557s, one of which actually is about removing blots, and the other of which is titled "Sentencing Guidelines". The next SLR I could find is published much later, 2018-10-14, and has R2557 in or close to its current form. I don't know exactly what happened there.]
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3753 Assigned to omd
Does anyone else agree that a "by announcement" is needed here? If so, someone might want to get a proposal submitted by the next distribution. Jason Cobb On 7/3/19 12:38 AM, omd wrote: Does Proposal 8181 actually fix it? Rule 2557 still needs a "by announcement". In any case, it seems to be true that Proposal 8181 hasn't even been adopted. I judge both CFJ 3743 and CFJ 3753 FALSE, with the above-quoted messages as evidence.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3753 Assigned to omd
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 9:42 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > So would I face prejudice if I were to open the exact same CFJs again > later once we actually get CHoJ fixed? Fine by me.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3753 Assigned to omd
No On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 2:42 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > So would I face prejudice if I were to open the exact same CFJs again > later once we actually get CHoJ fixed? > > Jason Cobb > > On 7/3/19 12:38 AM, omd wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 7:49 PM Jason Cobb > wrote: > >> Dang it; you are absolutely right, and I didn't consider that. > >> > >> Note to judge omd: this applies just as well to CFJ 3743. > >> Jason Cobb > >> > >> On 7/2/19 10:45 PM, James Cook wrote: > >>> Gratuitous argument: > >>> > >>> As far as I know, finger-pointing still isn't fixed. CFJ 3736 > >>> determined that the Referee CANNOT levy a fine. > >>> > >>> Proposal 8181 is supposed to fix it, but D. Margaux's attempt to > >>> resolve it on June 22 failed because it didn't list Telnaior's votes, > >>> as G. noted in a CoE a few hours later. > > Does Proposal 8181 actually fix it? Rule 2557 still needs a "by > announcement". > > > > In any case, it seems to be true that Proposal 8181 hasn't even been > adopted. > > > > I judge both CFJ 3743 and CFJ 3753 FALSE, with the above-quoted > > messages as evidence. > -- >From R. Lee
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3753 Assigned to omd
Dang it; you are absolutely right, and I didn't consider that.
Note to judge omd: this applies just as well to CFJ 3743.
Jason Cobb
On 7/2/19 10:45 PM, James Cook wrote:
Gratuitous argument:
As far as I know, finger-pointing still isn't fixed. CFJ 3736
determined that the Referee CANNOT levy a fine.
Proposal 8181 is supposed to fix it, but D. Margaux's attempt to
resolve it on June 22 failed because it didn't list Telnaior's votes,
as G. noted in a CoE a few hours later.
On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 at 01:00, Kerim Aydin wrote:
The below is CFJ 3753. I assign it to omd.
=== CFJ 3753 ===
The investigator of the Finger-pointing done in this message CAN
impose a fine on Jason Cobb for the Crime of Oathbreaking for the
pledge in evidence.
==
Caller:Jason Cobb
Judge: omd
==
History:
Called by Jason Cobb: 02 Jul 2019 22:32:03
Assigned to omd: [now]
==
Caller's Evidence:
My previous message:
I pledge, under penalty of a Class "I'm a string!" Crime, not to
make any pledges for the next 24 hours
Excerpt from this message [sent after previous message]:
I pledge, under penalty of a Class "I'm a string!" Crime, not to
make any pledges for the next 24 hours.
I fully admit that I am guilty of the above accusation.
Excerpt from Rule 2450 ("Pledges"):
If a Player makes a clear public pledge (syn. Oath) to perform
(or refrain from performing) certain actions, then breaking the
pledge within the pledge's time window is the Class N crime of
Oathbreaking, where N is 2 unless the pledge explicitly states
otherwise. The time window of a pledge is 60 days, unless the
pledge explicitly states otherwise.
Excerpt from Rule 2557 ("Vigilante Justice"):
When the rules authorize an investigator to impose the Cold Hand
of Justice for a violation, e CAN do so by levying a fine on the
perp with a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 2x the base value of
the violation, within the following guidelines: - If the
violation is described by the rules as a Class N crime, then N
is the base value; otherwise the base value is 2.
--
Caller's Arguments:
Assume that I am guilty of the crime (which is a different CFJ);
otherwise, this is clearly FALSE.
Because I am guilty of a class "I'm a string!" crime, the investigator
CAN impose a fine on me. As specified by Rule 2557, the base value of
the crime is "I'm a string!". Thus, the investigator of this crime CAN
impose a fine not less than 1 (Blot) and not more than 2 * ("I'm a
string!") (Blots), whatever that means. I argue that any attempt to
assign a numeric value to "I'm a string!" (besides perhaps the number 0)
would be arbitrary and without textual backing. If the number 0 were to
be assigned, then the investigator would have to impose a fine upon me
with a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 0 on me, which is the subject of
CFJ 3743.
My arguments here are effectively the same as CFJ 3743: only one of
TRUE, FALSE, and PARADOXICAL is appropriate. TRUE doesn't really work,
because there is no numeric value for which the investigator physically
can fine me. FALSE doesn't really work because the Rules explicitly
state that the Investigator CAN do so. PARADOXICAL is what's left, and
thus might be the only one appropriate.
==
