Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Prime Minister] Awards Month

[Edward Murphy via agora-discussion]

Aris wrote:


(Incidentally, the fact that we're using the word "fine" to describe the
performance of the official responsible for levying fines is highly
amusing.)


https://videos.timanderic.com/91/chattingwithprofhinsley.jpg

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Prime Minister] Awards Month

[Aris Merchant via agora-discussion]

On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 12:16 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On Fri, 24 Apr 2020 at 12:03, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via
> agora-business  wrote:
>
> > Because this was ineffective, I impose the Cold Hand of Justice by
> levying
> > a forgivable fine of 1 blot on each of twg (then-Tailor) and Murphy
> (ADoP)
> > for failure to respond in a timely fashion to the petition. Based off of
> my
> > reading of the rules, Murphy may republish eir previous apology for these
> > purposes, and I invite em to do so. I apologize to twg, Murphy, and the
> > rest of the players for the excessive fines and the confusion that they
> > caused.
> > 
> > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> >
>
> Don't worry, it's fine.


Seconded! I know I was the one who called the CFJ, but that was largely to
test my theories about the the way the criminal sentencing system worked.
You're doing a fine job as Referee so far overall.

(Incidentally, the fact that we're using the word "fine" to describe the
performance of the official responsible for levying fines is highly
amusing.)

-Aris

>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Prime Minister] Awards Month

[Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion]

On Fri, 24 Apr 2020 at 12:03, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via
agora-business  wrote:

> Because this was ineffective, I impose the Cold Hand of Justice by levying
> a forgivable fine of 1 blot on each of twg (then-Tailor) and Murphy (ADoP)
> for failure to respond in a timely fashion to the petition. Based off of my
> reading of the rules, Murphy may republish eir previous apology for these
> purposes, and I invite em to do so. I apologize to twg, Murphy, and the
> rest of the players for the excessive fines and the confusion that they
> caused.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>

Don't worry, it's fine.

-Alexis

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Prime Minister] Awards Month

[Edward Murphy via agora-discussion]

G. wrote:


On 4/11/2020 3:04 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote:

I CFJ, barring P.S.S., 'The above attempts to impose fines by the Cold
Hand of Justice on twg and Murphy for failure to timely respond to a
petition failed by Rule 2531(3), because each was an attempt "to levy
a fine with a value that is blatantly and obviously unsuited to the
conduct which constitutes the reason for its levy", after considering
the sentencing guidelines in Rule 2557, or, in the alternative, failed
because each was not enabled by Rule 2557.'

(Sorry for the length of the CFJ statement; it's an experiment in
writing a relatively self-contained one. I welcome comments on whether
or not that's a good idea.)


I'm not keen on this approach (I thought about it a bit), in looking at
the "longer" statements in the CFJ index I think it decreases browsability
and I don't think it particularly aids findability, and if it became a
habit would take a re-think of how to design the index page.  I could be
wrong though, and serves as a reminder that I still haven't implemented
search!

[The amusing bit is that, for all its specificity, it jumbles the actual
evidence, because "The above" doesn't have a referent when put in the case
logs.  It's always a (very minor) bother when callers use
message-positional references in a statement because that usually changes
in the case log and requires some annotation].


I think that's typically been handled by including the target of the
reference in evidence. Or is that the type of annotation that you meant?

More generally, lots of other statements (e.g. "X is a player", "X has
at least Y coins") depend on looking at arguments/evidence to work out
the real point of the case ("I think TRUE/FALSE/whatever because Z").

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Prime Minister] Awards Month

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On 4/11/2020 3:04 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote:
> I CFJ, barring P.S.S., 'The above attempts to impose fines by the Cold
> Hand of Justice on twg and Murphy for failure to timely respond to a
> petition failed by Rule 2531(3), because each was an attempt "to levy
> a fine with a value that is blatantly and obviously unsuited to the
> conduct which constitutes the reason for its levy", after considering
> the sentencing guidelines in Rule 2557, or, in the alternative, failed
> because each was not enabled by Rule 2557.'
> 
> (Sorry for the length of the CFJ statement; it's an experiment in
> writing a relatively self-contained one. I welcome comments on whether
> or not that's a good idea.)

I'm not keen on this approach (I thought about it a bit), in looking at
the "longer" statements in the CFJ index I think it decreases browsability
and I don't think it particularly aids findability, and if it became a
habit would take a re-think of how to design the index page.  I could be
wrong though, and serves as a reminder that I still haven't implemented
search!

[The amusing bit is that, for all its specificity, it jumbles the actual
evidence, because "The above" doesn't have a referent when put in the case
logs.  It's always a (very minor) bother when callers use
message-positional references in a statement because that usually changes
in the case log and requires some annotation].

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Prime Minister] Awards Month

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion]

That makes sense. I'll be interested to see how a judge rules.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Prime Minister] Awards Month

[Aris Merchant via agora-discussion]

On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 4:50 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via
agora-discussion  wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 6:04 PM Aris Merchant via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > Arguments:
> > A fine should be reduced to the degree the infraction was "minor,
> > accidental, and/or inconsequential". This violations, while not minor
> > or inconsequential, may well have been accidental given the newness of
> > the petition mechanism and the relative inactivity of the perps.
> > Furthermore, a fine should be increased to the degree the violation
> > was "willful, profitable, egregious, or an abuse of an official
> > position". This was none of those. Given the totality of the
> > circumstances, a fine of the maximum penalty is blatantly and
> > obviously unsuitable for the violation, so the fine fails by R2531(3).
> > Note that while the Sentencing Guidelines are not explicitly
> > referenced by R2531(3), they do represent the ruleset's official
> > guidance on what sort of sentences are correct. I'd contend that the
> > appropriate fine is 2 blots, though one could argue for 1.
> >
> I wasn't sure about this and I agree that it was on the harsh end, but I
> believe that the forgivability of the fines makes them balanced.

R2531(3) only talks about the value of the fine, not whether or not it
is forgivable. So as far as it's concerned, a forgivable 4 blot fine
is the same as an unforgivable one. (At least, I contend that it is;
the judge may read it differently.)

> > Furthermore, the fine is outside the sentencing guidelines in Rule
> > 2557, and the Referee CAN only exercise the Cold Hand of Justice to
> > levy a fine within those guidelines (note that while the relevant
> > guideline is a SHOULD, it's within the scope of the restrictions on
> > the CAN; I request that the judge rule on whether that makes it a
> > limitation on the CAN as I contend it does).
> >
> I don't believe that the fine is outside the sentencing guidelines because
> my interpretation is that they allow for a fine between 1 and 4 (twice the
> default base value of 2) blots for this crime. Could you explain why this
> is outside the allowable range because I don't read the rule that way?

You're only looking at the first two sentencing guidelines. My
(admittedly dubious) reading is that the latter two guidelines also
limit the CAN, even though they're phrased as SHOULDs.


-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Prime Minister] Awards Month

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion]

On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 6:04 PM Aris Merchant via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

>
> Arguments:
> A fine should be reduced to the degree the infraction was "minor,
> accidental, and/or inconsequential". This violations, while not minor
> or inconsequential, may well have been accidental given the newness of
> the petition mechanism and the relative inactivity of the perps.
> Furthermore, a fine should be increased to the degree the violation
> was "willful, profitable, egregious, or an abuse of an official
> position". This was none of those. Given the totality of the
> circumstances, a fine of the maximum penalty is blatantly and
> obviously unsuitable for the violation, so the fine fails by R2531(3).
> Note that while the Sentencing Guidelines are not explicitly
> referenced by R2531(3), they do represent the ruleset's official
> guidance on what sort of sentences are correct. I'd contend that the
> appropriate fine is 2 blots, though one could argue for 1.
>
I wasn't sure about this and I agree that it was on the harsh end, but I
believe that the forgivability of the fines makes them balanced.

> Furthermore, the fine is outside the sentencing guidelines in Rule
> 2557, and the Referee CAN only exercise the Cold Hand of Justice to
> levy a fine within those guidelines (note that while the relevant
> guideline is a SHOULD, it's within the scope of the restrictions on
> the CAN; I request that the judge rule on whether that makes it a
> limitation on the CAN as I contend it does).
>
I don't believe that the fine is outside the sentencing guidelines because
my interpretation is that they allow for a fine between 1 and 4 (twice the
default base value of 2) blots for this crime. Could you explain why this
is outside the allowable range because I don't read the rule that way?

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Prime Minister] Awards Month

[Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion]

On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 at 16:30, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via
agora-business  wrote:

> The required time period not having passed, I rule these finger pointings
> to be shenanigans without prejudice to a later finger pointing.
>

d'oh

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Prime Minister] Awards Month

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

It's worth noting that petitions don't necessarily have to call themselves 
petitions. I did rule in https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3806 
 that petitions have 
to, at minimum, clearly be a "formal request," and it's probably pretty clear 
that this was a petition, but anything in between is subject to judicial 
discretion at the moment.

Gaelan 

> On Apr 10, 2020, at 1:56 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> On 4/10/2020 1:20 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote:
>> That's entirely fair. TBH, I've been meaning to send out a reminder to all
>> the officers involved, and just haven't ever gotten to it. I was going to
>> do that today, after sending out my call for nominations, and then give
>> everyone another few days at least before pointing any fingers. Maybe this
>> represents an inherent weakness of the petition model though.
> 
> It also may just take a little practice to remember that "petition" is a
> term of art now - I didn't particularly notice the word itself in your
> proclamation, I read the "I hereby charge and petition..." as part of the
> overall flavor and didn't remember it had a new meaning.
> 
> -G.
> 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Prime Minister] Awards Month

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On 4/10/2020 1:20 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote:
> That's entirely fair. TBH, I've been meaning to send out a reminder to all
> the officers involved, and just haven't ever gotten to it. I was going to
> do that today, after sending out my call for nominations, and then give
> everyone another few days at least before pointing any fingers. Maybe this
> represents an inherent weakness of the petition model though.

It also may just take a little practice to remember that "petition" is a
term of art now - I didn't particularly notice the word itself in your
proclamation, I read the "I hereby charge and petition..." as part of the
overall flavor and didn't remember it had a new meaning.

-G.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Prime Minister] Awards Month

[Aris Merchant via agora-discussion]

On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 1:16 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

>
> On 4/10/2020 1:08 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 1:05 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business
> >  wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 4/10/2020 12:21 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-business wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 3 Apr 2020 at 21:34, Aris Merchant via agora-official <
> >>> agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >>>
>  LET IT FURTHERMORE BE KNOWN that I hereby charge and petition the
>  responsible officers of my cabinet, namely the Honorable Promotor,
>  Arbitor, Tailor, and Associate Director of Personnel, to initiate
>  forthwith proceedings to award the patent titles they are responsible
>  for.
> >>
> >> As Arbitor I hereby respond to the petition: "I'll plan to have a look
> >> sometime.  I'm really not keen on petitions."
> >
> > I like them, but I also seem to be the only one who uses them. I won't
> > be too disappointed if they get repealed.
>
> To be clear, AFAIK I've never not responded to polite (or even not-polite)
> requests and I'll really try to get around to this one before the month
> ends (the database is still missing a dozen cases from early 2019) :).
> Honestly I didn't notice the 'petition' keyword in your announcement until
> Alexis attempted to point fingers.


That's entirely fair. TBH, I've been meaning to send out a reminder to all
the officers involved, and just haven't ever gotten to it. I was going to
do that today, after sending out my call for nominations, and then give
everyone another few days at least before pointing any fingers. Maybe this
represents an inherent weakness of the petition model though.

-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Prime Minister] Awards Month

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On 4/10/2020 1:08 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 1:05 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business
>  wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 4/10/2020 12:21 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-business wrote:
>>> On Fri, 3 Apr 2020 at 21:34, Aris Merchant via agora-official <
>>> agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>>>
 LET IT FURTHERMORE BE KNOWN that I hereby charge and petition the
 responsible officers of my cabinet, namely the Honorable Promotor,
 Arbitor, Tailor, and Associate Director of Personnel, to initiate
 forthwith proceedings to award the patent titles they are responsible
 for.
>>
>> As Arbitor I hereby respond to the petition: "I'll plan to have a look
>> sometime.  I'm really not keen on petitions."
> 
> I like them, but I also seem to be the only one who uses them. I won't
> be too disappointed if they get repealed.

To be clear, AFAIK I've never not responded to polite (or even not-polite)
requests and I'll really try to get around to this one before the month
ends (the database is still missing a dozen cases from early 2019) :).
Honestly I didn't notice the 'petition' keyword in your announcement until
Alexis attempted to point fingers.

-G.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Prime Minister] Awards Month

[Aris Merchant via agora-discussion]

On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 1:05 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business
 wrote:
>
>
> On 4/10/2020 12:21 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-business wrote:
> > On Fri, 3 Apr 2020 at 21:34, Aris Merchant via agora-official <
> > agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> >> LET IT FURTHERMORE BE KNOWN that I hereby charge and petition the
> >> responsible officers of my cabinet, namely the Honorable Promotor,
> >> Arbitor, Tailor, and Associate Director of Personnel, to initiate
> >> forthwith proceedings to award the patent titles they are responsible
> >> for.
>
> As Arbitor I hereby respond to the petition: "I'll plan to have a look
> sometime.  I'm really not keen on petitions."

I like them, but I also seem to be the only one who uses them. I won't
be too disappointed if they get repealed.

-Aris

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Prime Minister] Awards Month

[Aris Merchant via agora-discussion]

On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 12:22 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-business
 wrote:
>
> On Fri, 3 Apr 2020 at 21:34, Aris Merchant via agora-official <
> agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > LET IT FURTHERMORE BE KNOWN that I hereby charge and petition the
> > responsible officers of my cabinet, namely the Honorable Promotor,
> > Arbitor, Tailor, and Associate Director of Personnel, to initiate
> > forthwith proceedings to award the patent titles they are responsible
> > for.
> >
>
> I point my finger at each of the named officers for failing to respond to
> this petition in a timely fashion.
>
> (Apologies if I missed any actually taking action.)

Unless I'm mathing wrong, there are another 5 hours or so until we hit
the deadline. At least I hope I'm doing the math right, because I was
already typing up my call for nominations when you sent this.

-Aris