Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Pool Report
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 6:57 PM, comex wrote: > E could avoid breaching the rules by making a proposal to remove stale > proposals from the pool. And since I don't know what they all are, someone would claim that the proposal didn't specify which proposals clearly enough.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Pool Report
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 8:38 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 6:57 PM, comex wrote: >> E could avoid breaching the rules by making a proposal to remove stale >> proposals from the pool. > > And since I don't know what they all are, someone would claim that the > proposal didn't specify which proposals clearly enough. Removing proposals from the Proposal Pool is not a Rule Change and, when an instrument (as opposed to a person) is doing it, is not subject to any clear specification requirements. That made me look something up, though-- how exactly does ratification of the ruleset work again? The Rule Changes involved are generally not clearly specified, no rule allows Rule 1551 (Ratification) to make Rule Changes specifically, and Rule 105 (Rule Changes) takes precedence over it. I seem to remember there was a CFJ about it though.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Pool Report
comex wrote: > That made me look something up, though-- how exactly does ratification > of the ruleset work again? The Rule Changes involved are generally > not clearly specified, no rule allows Rule 1551 (Ratification) to make > Rule Changes specifically, and Rule 105 (Rule Changes) takes > precedence over it. I seem to remember there was a CFJ about it > though. Why can't R1551 change the rules? It's an instrument with sufficient power (and if it isn't, the ratifying instrument is).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Pool Report
On 5/25/09 5:52 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: [snip] > ps. court cases raised about a document should block ratification, > not just self-ratificatation; generalization of R2201 in order here? I don't think that's a good idea unless CFJs raised about a document can be more clearly/objectively identified. -woggle signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Pool Report
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 6:57 PM, comex wrote: > E could avoid breaching the rules by making a proposal to remove stale > proposals from the pool. I did in fact do just that, assuming that I'd get an objection. However, when I didn't, I figured trying to get an AI-3 proposal passed was a lot harder than resolving my intent. For the record, I'm not claiming EXCUSED or UNAWARE, but UNIMPUGNED; the first NoV (which isn't currently the subject of a CFJ) because the alleged crime was missing the first element or the crime, that I be acting knowingly when I posted my intent to ratify (as I believed the proposal pool to contain only the stated proposals at that time, assuming Zefram had kept things orderly), and for the 2nd NoV because knowingly ratifying an incorrect false report dos not violate R2202 if a 'corrected' report cannot be created with reasonable effort. Note that this assumes 'corrected' means 'made correct' rather than 'made closer to correct'. In any case, if I'm GUILTY I believe 8 rests would be an excessive punishment.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Pool Report
On Mon, 2009-05-25 at 18:57 -0400, comex wrote: > On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 6:45 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Gratuitous: As judge didn't notice the ratification attempt; if I > > had noticed it I would have delayed the judgement to avoid the issue. > > Since the judgement found that, to the best of available evidence, > > there had been no ratifications in a long time and at least one > > longstanding error, means that (if the Promotor had not ratified) > > e would be publishing documents that e knew were likely to contain > > other errors, so e would not be able to avoid breaching the rules > > in a manner at least as serious. -G. > > E could avoid breaching the rules by making a proposal to remove stale > proposals from the pool. Not only that, e /did/ make a proposal to remove stale proposals from the pool... -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Pool Report
On Mon, 2009-05-25 at 23:00 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > In any case, if I'm GUILTY I believe 8 rests would be an excessive > punishment. Agreed, and I would ask people to please stop putting large punishments on things they fear would be scammed when they're far more likely to affect legitimate play and not scamsters (who will probably have an ingenious way to avoid them). -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Pool Report
On Tue, 26 May 2009, Alex Smith wrote: > On Mon, 2009-05-25 at 23:00 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: >> In any case, if I'm GUILTY I believe 8 rests would be an excessive >> punishment. > Agreed, and I would ask people to please stop putting large punishments > on things they fear would be scammed when they're far more likely to > affect legitimate play and not scamsters (who will probably have an > ingenious way to avoid them). This particular high penalty is a legitimate general deterrent in that it's relatively easy for an officer to "slip past" a minor error in a long report as a scam, which should be frowned upon. And there have been many scams of that type. I'd suggest that it be either added to the rule (or set here as precedent) that it's not a crime if, in the intent to ratify, the officer clearly describes the general nature of the error and good of the game argument for ratifying it - letting well-informed players decide whether or not to object. [Naturally e can't lay out the specific error because if e knew its exact nature, there's probably much less reason to ratify]. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Pool Report
On Thu, 28 May 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 7:08 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: >> Gratuitous: Publishing an erroneous report (power-1 Rule) is less >> serious than ratifying one (Class-8 Crime). > > Yes, but if the report is incorrect I'm obligated to publish an > incorrect report weekly, making the cumulative violation potentially > worse. If you do so knowingly, that's appropriate. If there is known uncertainty but unknown state, using a specific and targeted disclaimer has always worked in the past to avoid prosecution. If the error is wholly unknown, it's not a crime. > On the other hand, I could have avoided that breach by > resigning as Promotor. You raise a good point though: if you can avoid a "forced" crime by resigning, are you required to resign rather than choose the lesser crime? That's true in the real world (the "honorable resignation") If interpreted that here way it's a bug; but I would say that a judge shouldn't opine so. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Pool Report
Not to mention that an equivalent proprosal would probably limit it to 1-2 weeks. Sent from my iPhone On May 28, 2009, at 12:10 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Thu, 28 May 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote: On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 7:08 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: Gratuitous: Publishing an erroneous report (power-1 Rule) is less serious than ratifying one (Class-8 Crime). Yes, but if the report is incorrect I'm obligated to publish an incorrect report weekly, making the cumulative violation potentially worse. If you do so knowingly, that's appropriate. If there is known uncertainty but unknown state, using a specific and targeted disclaimer has always worked in the past to avoid prosecution. If the error is wholly unknown, it's not a crime. On the other hand, I could have avoided that breach by resigning as Promotor. You raise a good point though: if you can avoid a "forced" crime by resigning, are you required to resign rather than choose the lesser crime? That's true in the real world (the "honorable resignation") If interpreted that here way it's a bug; but I would say that a judge shouldn't opine so. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Pool Report
On Thu, 2009-05-28 at 09:10 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > You raise a good point though: if you can avoid a "forced" crime by > resigning, are you required to resign rather than choose the lesser > crime? That's true in the real world (the "honorable resignation") > If interpreted that here way it's a bug; but I would say that a judge > shouldn't opine so. I've resigned for that reason in the past, but then I was forced by RL circumstances, rather than by the rules. (I'd been very busy and lost track of what I was meant to recordkeep, so I resigned rather than being late submitting a report.) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Pool Report
Kerim Aydin wrote: > If the error is wholly unknown, it's not a crime. Not necessarily; if it's reasonable for them to know, then it's still a crime. If they miss a proposal made last week, it's probably a crime. A proposal made last year, notsomuch.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Pool Report
On Thu, 28 May 2009, Sean Hunt wrote: > Kerim Aydin wrote: >> If the error is wholly unknown, it's not a crime. > > Not necessarily; if it's reasonable for them to know, then it's still a > crime. If they miss a proposal made last week, it's probably a crime. A > proposal made last year, notsomuch. All cases of "known and unknown" were meant to refer to what "a reasonable player" or more stringently to "what an officer in that position" should reasonably know or be paying attention to. For "wholly unknown" read "hard to find, generally not known or discoverable, and not pointed out by anyone". -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Pool Report
Y-- thr--t-n-d t- w-th th- c-b-l -nd n-t-ry. On 2009-05-28, Alex Smith wrote: > On Thu, 2009-05-28 at 09:10 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> You raise a good point though: if you can avoid a "forced" crime by >> resigning, are you required to resign rather than choose the lesser >> crime? That's true in the real world (the "honorable resignation") >> If interpreted that here way it's a bug; but I would say that a judge >> shouldn't opine so. > > I've resigned for that reason in the past, but then I was forced by RL > circumstances, rather than by the rules. (I'd been very busy and lost > track of what I was meant to recordkeep, so I resigned rather than being > late submitting a report.) > > -- > ais523 > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Pool Report
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 3:04 AM, comex wrote: > On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 12:43 PM, > C-walker wrote: >> This has been reported as undistributable in the past two proposal >> pool reports, when I remember spending D to make it Distributable on >> Fri, Jun 12, at 5:31 PM, to be exact. I CoE that this proposal should >> be listed as distributable. > > You have a precise memory! Or an effective Gmail labeling system, I'm not sure which :P. -- C-walker
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Pool Report
On Fri, 2009-07-10 at 12:44 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
> C-walker wrote:
> > I CFJ {{ The Conductor CAN publish a self-ratifying report. }}
> >
> > Evidence:
> >
> > R2126 states:
> >
> > The Conductor is an office. As soon as possible after this text
> > becomes a part of this rule, the Conductor SHALL publish a
> > self-ratifying report containing the total number of Notes each
> > player held the moment before this text became a part of this
> > rule. After this report has self-ratified, and at least one
> > proposal has been made distributable using a card, any player
> > CAN cause this rule to repeal itself by announcement.
> >
> > Arguments:
> >
> > Nothing in R2126 states that the Conductor CAN publish a
> > self-ratifying report, only that e SHALL.
>
> Gratuitous:
>
> Nowhere in the rules does it say e CANNOT either, and so R101 says that
> e CAN.
e CAN certainly publish a report; but I don't see how R101 makes it a
self-ratifying report.
--
ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Pool Report
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 2:56 PM, ais523 wrote: > e CAN certainly publish a report; but I don't see how R101 makes it a > self-ratifying report. Precedent says that if you SHALL perform an action by some mechanism, you CAN do it by that mechanism. Is being required to "publish" something specifying a clear enough mechanism?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Pool Report
On Fri, 10 Jul 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 2:56 PM, ais523 wrote: >> e CAN certainly publish a report; but I don't see how R101 makes it a >> self-ratifying report. > > Precedent says that if you SHALL perform an action by some mechanism, > you CAN do it by that mechanism. Is being required to "publish" > something specifying a clear enough mechanism? The important point is that the Conductor is not doing the ratifying. That's what the "self-" means. So "SHALL publish a self-ratifying report" can be read as "SHALL publish a report" (which e CAN do, trivially) and that report, after being published, will self-ratify as the rule grants it the property of self-ratification (if not CoEd etc.) -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Pool Report
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: > We decided a while back that "X SHALL Y" implies "X CAN Y". Probably > should be legislated explicitly, though. Only when a mechanism is specified. -- -c.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Pool Report
comex wrote: > On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: >> We decided a while back that "X SHALL Y" implies "X CAN Y". Probably >> should be legislated explicitly, though. > > Only when a mechanism is specified. > Publishing is a mechanism.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Pool Report, 24 September 2010
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 7:23 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > I have no problem with missing a proposal. Announcing that it's > inconsequential because you think the proposal is stupid isn't > something I think we expect from our Promotor, though. Noted. I will be more civil in the future.
